Mac Users May Be Smarter

micah_lanier writes "Thought I would point out an interesting story from news.com. It seems a NetRatings Study concluded that those owning Macs tend to be more experienced with the internet, as well as educated better in general. However, this simply illustrates the fact that Macs are generally bought by those with little trouble paying higher prices, and therefore those who can more easily gain access to higher education (and so on)." Then how do we explain all the people with less education buying premium computers from Compaq and Dell? I think it's just that people with bigger brains like better computers!

Comments

Re:May be smarter?

[DJPsychoChild]

If Macintosh is so great, why do you need a PC emulator?

Anyway, the whole Windows vs. Mac is an argument that doesn't make sense. Both OS's have things they can do, and limitations as well. It really depends on what tasks you need your computer to do. If you want powerful video/audio use a mac, if you want powerful business apps use windows. If you want your computer to crash every five minutes use Windows 98.

correlation, not cause and effect.

[MarvinMouse]

I love macs, and If I could afford one I would buy one. But apparently the person who wrote this article knows very little about data analysis.

What we are seeing here is a correlation among a small select group. Not a cause and effect.

In psychology this is a common error. You see, a correlation just implies that having one might mean having the other. But it doesn't imply one causes the other, or even the two are related.

For example, you could look at the statistics in poor neighbourhoods and discover that they have lower education. Now, a person could say:\

1. They have lower education because they inherently that way (they are poor).

Another:

2. They are poor because they have lower education

And yet a third could say:

3. In these poor neighbourhoods are contaminates like Mercury, Lead, etc. These have been proved to lower IQ scores. They could have lower education because these affect their ability to learn.

Now just using the statistic that lower education in poor neighbourhoods is common leads to three possible reason.

Applying this to the macintosh and smart people issue also leads to possible explanations:

1. People who buy Apples are inherently smarter then the general populous.

2. Apples are better devices for learnign the web and expanding knowledge, therefore the people who own them would have more opportunity to learn.

3. Since more IBMs are owned then Apples, there is more of a chance of having the mean intelligence lower(or possibly higher) for IBMs then Apples. Therefore, this causes the apparent correlation between intelligence and Apples.

As you can see, all three apply. And there are likely many more explanations. Data Analysis is a confusing field, and this explains why so many myths are perpetrated through the populous. It's easy to believe someones explanation offhand for a correlation. It's hard to find out why the correlation exists.

Some food for thought,

What is the point of studies like this, really?

[Gryphon]

I dislike studies such as these which paint group A as smarter than group B because they use a particular type of appliance (in this case, a computer).

I shudder to think of some Mac fanatics that will use this study to prop up their sense of superiority.

Hey... *I* use a Mac, but I don't lord it over other people like some Badge of Higher Intelligence.

Get a grip, people!

You obviously do not look at computer prices, pudg

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac: 4000
Dell: 1000 (or less)

bit of a difference there. Now why would be more intelligent for buying a Mac?

MACS DO NOT COST MORE.

[BitGeek]

Please, can we put this tired old lie to rest?

Macs do not cost more than other brands for what you get. They actually cost less, and there's good reason for it.

First off, every PC maker, inclduing Apple, uses standardized commodity parts. The only question, or form of differentiation, is quality. You can buy a really cheap power supply and get random BSODs like you get with many PC makers, or you can buy quality power supplies that don't die on you or cause over and under voltage- like you get with IBM (IBM Made) and Apple computers. (And I'm sure *some* dells and compaqs but certainly not the "cheap" PCs that people are always claiming are typical for cost comparisons.

For other parts, such as PCI controller chips, Firewire, USB, memory, etc, they are pretty complicated and you have to buy form only a small number of vendors - you cannot cut cost by buying low quality, but the volumes of them make them not too expensive. Which is why PC motherboards go for $100-$200, while the processor may be more than twice as much. There's a lot of work in the silicon of them otherboard-- it is only volume that makes this disparity possible- the controller chips are commoditized but the processor isn't.

So, other than the Processor, Case and Power Supply Macs use essentially the same components as a PC from a quality vendor.

Now, I addressed the power supplies- lets talk about Cases. Yes, Apple pays probably more on average than most PC vendors for cases. But these cases are plastic. We're talking $5-20 a unit, not $50-$200.

Thirdly, processor. Apple pays FAR LESS for their processors than any PC Vendor for a comperable processor.

First off, lets point out that there are no comperable processors-- a G4 is the fastest processor on the market. Which brings us to another myth- processor clockrate is its speed. The clock rate is not its speed. (I got moderated "1 Overrated +2 insightful -1 flamebait" for pointing this out before.)

A G4 Processor, being a risc chip, has far less complicated instructions to break down. The pentium, which is a combination RISC and CISC processor is extremely complicated in its design.

Instructiosn go to one of two processors on the same die-- a 386 compatibility, and a RISC one. The problem occurs in that this parallelization causes out of order instruction execution... because some instructions take longer to execute than others. CISC instructions take many stages (And thus, many clock cycles) to execute. That's why a 2GHz pentium has, maybe, 250MIPS, while a G4 running at 1GHz (a pure risc processor) will have 1000 mips- an instruction finishes every clock cyle.

Also these processors are super scalar- meaning that they have many execution units. This means that a G4 may well actually produce 4000 MIPS at 1GHz because on average, every clock cycle, 4 instructions are finished. The pentium, may well produce 1000 MIPS in this same way.

But notice that the pentium has to have 8 pipelines for that 4 times increase because its got both the RISC procesor and hte 386 compatibility processor to deal with. The simpler PowerPC just duplicates its execution units.

Then there's the branch prediction issue. Since there are mutliple execution units they may well execute code out of order-- while a slower instruction is being processed, other instructions are executed to keep the processor busy, and when some of those instructions are on the other side of a conditional jump, the processors speculativly executes them. If it turns out that jump wasn't to be made, it has to flush the pipeline and start over.

The G4 has a much shorter pipeline than the Pentium, and thus when this happens it incurs much less overhead and hassle having to refil the pipeline.

So, in the end all these issues (and it really boils down to backwards compatibility for intel keeping it down) mean that the PowerPC is a much simpler, yet much faster processor.

And this means costs-- first in the size of the processors die. If you have a processor with a smaller die you get far more dies to a wafer and exponentially better pricing.

Secondly this addresses cost when comparing computer's prices you have to take performance into a ccount, toherwise, a 286 for $100 is a "Better deal" than a new computer for $1000. And I didn't even go into the vastly superior floating point unit on the PowerPC-- which makes the disparity even worse.

So, Apple gets its processors from Motorola or IBM for a lot less money, its parts from the same suppliers Dell, et. al. do and spends more on cases, but in the end is able to sell computers for LESS MONEY and make MORE PROFIT.

The problem is that its hard to quantify the performance of a computer. So people invariably lie when they compare Apples to Oranges. They pick a really cheap PC from a fly by night company (such as a low end dell) with a crappy power supply, and compare it to a high quality Macintosh with a much faster processor and point out that the mac is overpriced. And to add insult to insult, they claim that the Mac is even a slower computer becuase its clockrate is lower!

If you still buy that myth, look at this quote from: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,,361877,00.asp

"Intel claims its 1GHz Itanium 2 offers up to twice the performance of its 800MHz predecessor, which has suffered from poor sales since its release in May 2001."

Do you really think an Itanium is slower than a Pentium??? After all , the Itanium runs at 1GHz and the pentium runs at 2!

Or how about this-- how could a 1Ghz processor be twice as fast as a 800MHz one? Think intel is lying, that this is impossible?

This basic myth (and the bogus comparisons of price that come from it) is at the root of the "Macs are more expensive" myth.

At first I addressed this issue by grabbing comparisons fro mthe most recent dell flyer and the apple vendors, but those were ignored. Here's a quicky, the IBM intellistation ProE with 2GHz P4 is $1639, compare that to a PowerMac at $1599 and you see that you get a better video card (3d vs 2d), the same Hard drive (literally, I bet) same memory, CDRW instead of CD, and a MUCH better case with the Mac for $100 less.

But that's pointless to tell people- they will ignore it, as the PC comes with Windows, for instnace. Is that worth $100? not when the alternative is OS X. Etc. etc. and people will quibble over the tiniest spec differences, such as a faster bus (that is half as wide) and stuff like that. The PC world is clearly optimized for numbers that give the sheen of performance insteaf of actual perfomance-- like Intel processors with twice the clock rate but half the bus size (meaning zero performance improvement but doubled perception.) A great example of this is the fact that Apple uses slower Ram, but has a wider RAM path. People ignore that all the time.

But my point is not to quibble on these things but to make the broader point: MACS ARE NOT MORE EXPENSIVE.

When you have th choice of a much better looking computer, more ergonomic, uses OS X uses a REAL Gui, uses better peripherals, and is more expandible, not to mention better performance, it isn't really a choice at all. If you value those things, the Mac is worth twice the price-- but that doesn't mean it IS twice the price. IF you don't value those things, or detest some of them, the mac isn't worth half the price-- but that doesn't mean you can compare it at half the value with some other machine and call it twice as expensive.

What it really comes down to is what the value is to you. If you enjoy fscking with your hardware, tracking down faulty power supplies, then you get lot more enjoyment out of a machine that you can obsess over for 3 months which motherboard to upgrade it with.

If you'd prefer to go 3 years with a fast machine performing well and not having to mess with the hardware, then you'll value a machine that lets you do that.

But the economics of the situation dictate that there is NO price premium between the two-- and in fact, given the illegal stranglehold over the industry that Microsoft has, Apple has to be better AND cheaper in order to compete. And they are.

You don't value the MAc OS, fine, don't buy it. But STOP telling other people that it is overpriced. Stop spreading your preferences as a bigotry and driving people who would rather have a computer that "just works" away from the platform.

There is such a history of this kind of bullshit bigotry that many first time users get a Windows box and are screwed from then on because tehy got talked out of a mac. If you want Microsoft to go away, talk them into a mac. When they are technically proficient, then maybe talk them into a harder to use but infinitely configurable alternative like Linux on the x86.,

Look at it this way-- every Mac sold is a lost windows sale and another person using open source Unix.

But every one of you who tells a relative or someone who believes you that Macs are more expensive is doing them a disservice, and yourself as well. They are not, they cannot be, and they never will be... After all, when you're fighting a market share battle and you have a magic weapon that lets you sell a better computer for less money and make more money doing so per unit, wouldn't you do it? Apple isn't stupid.

OSX, the PowerPC and good designers are that magic weapon for apple.

Re:MACS DO NOT COST MORE.

[GlassHeart]

I don't disagree with your overall point, but there are some mitigating facts that should be pointed out.

A CISC instruction ran at 250 MIPS may do the same work as 4 RISC instructions running at 1000 MIPS. This is why MIPS are meaningless.

The conventional RISC system has fixed width, and generally long, instructions. This enables easy pipelining, because you don't have to parse the current instruction to figure out where the next one starts. This directly causes the RISC system to require a bigger cache to keep the CPU fed with the same amount of work. This means that some of the CPU die savings have to be reinvested in cache.

Similarly, the RISC system would need more RAM to avoid swapping.

These factors even out the game somewhat. In fact, I'd go out on a limb to say that there's no such thing as a faster processor independent of a memory subsystem. Intel's crippling of the original Celeron with a tiny cache is a case in point.

In summary, system performance is not about maximizing each attribute (CPU clock, cache size, disk RPM, etc), but in putting together a system that is balanced. In fact, "stream" performance may not even be a great deal. I would not mind a CPU that switches down to maybe 300 MHz when I'm typing, and surges to its top speed when I'm compiling.

Apple evaluated mouse buttons

[BitGeek]

This is another common myth. People seem to think Apple had never heard of a second button mouse when they invented the macintosh.

IIRC the original Engerbert mouse had two buttons, but certainly the idea of putting mutple buttons on the mouse was evaluated by apple.

What they found in usability testing is that it slows people down-- significantly. It slows everyone down, power user and newbie alike.

But, like the command line, you don't think its slowing you down becuse you're working with subjective time and hte apple tests were using objective time.

Its subjectively faster to right mouse on something and get a popup than go to the menu and select what you wanted. but having to remember which button to use (which you're certain you don't but you actually do) slows you down *all* the time.

I use a three button trackball, but the I only use the second and third buttons in quake. The wheel works great and doesn't break the interface.. but the second button does and while I'll sometimes use it, I recognize that it is a convenience....so conciously its a one button mouse to me.

May be causation, not just correlation

[0x0d0a]

As for being familiar with tech, there's a profound difference between the MS and Apple help systems.

Apple's help systems are exemplified by Apple Help. You want to do foo? The system will show you how to do bar.1, bar.2, bar.3, and the other steps to accomplish foo. After finishing, you understand what happened and how in the future to accomplish foo, perhaps with custom changes.

OTOH, MS's help systems are based around wizards. You want to do foo? You can have a wizard do foo for you, but you have no idea about how to do bar.1, bar.2, bar.3, etc. You just know how to choose from a list of preselected tasks. If you had to perform a variant of one of these tasks after years of using the wizard, you'd still have no idea what to do.

The Apple/MS dichotomy is something like the "give a man a fish" truism. If you perform a computing task for a user, you help him for the minute. If you *teach* a user how to perform a computing task, you help him for the rest of his life.