Slashdot Mirror
Most Mac Owners Also Own a Windows PC, But Not Vice Versa
Barence writes "More than eight out of ten Mac owners also own a PC, according to a new piece of research. The NPD survey found that 12% of US computer-owning households have a Mac. However, 85% of those also own a Windows PC, suggesting that the Mac/PC divide is nowhere near as clear cut as both Apple and Microsoft suggest. Mac owners are also far more likely to have multiple computers in the house. Two thirds of Mac owners have three or more computers in the home, while only 29% of PC owners have two or more PCs."
Gee, I could have deduced that most PC users DON'T also have a Mac. How? Maybe the bloody marketshare? Appologies for the US-centric market data, but I'm sure Apple is less than double-digit in the ROTW.
This is really a story in search of a topic, isn't it? :-)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
This is a survey about households, not individual owners, so the fact that most Macs exist in households that also have Windows machines is largely just an expected result of Microsoft's high market share. Even if one person in a household has a Mac, others are statistically like to have Windows machines because, statistically, most people have Windows machines.
This space unintentionally left unblank.
86% of Slashdot readers shown to not care about random statistics. 14% of those said to absolutely not give a shit, with 25% just shrugging and moving on to other topics.
The Long Now Foundation
Just sayin'
-- the opinions stated above aren't those of my employer. in fact, they're probably not even my own. you know what, ju
I prefer to use a Mac, but I make lots of $$$ with Windows based software (which is s staple of my industry)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I never got people who were talking about using a Mac as "switching". Like you would suddenly not use the operating system you have been using for the past 20 years by buying a computer that runs something different.
I don't know a lot of people who are devoted to a single platform. Most people I know use one OS on their desktop, something else on their notebook, something else on their phone etc. So when someone buys a Mac, they just add that platform to the list of systems they were already using. There's no reason to stop using all of your other stuff because a Mac got into the house.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
These findings are pretty un-surprizing. Did anyone really think that computer owners could only own one computer at a time, or would typically own only one platform?
Mac owners tend to have a lot of money. They probably have an older PC or two laying, because they still work. Or, perhaps the Mac is older, and they bought a cheap new PC to run games and Windows applications. Newer Mac owners likely run OS X and Windows on the same hardware, if they run Windows at all. But if they have an older PC sitting around, they probably still have it and use it occasionally, or let other family members use it, etc.
The whole "fanboi only uses $platform" thing is probably overblown, with highly visible zealots who only use one platform being much more vocal and visible than those who work on both platforms.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
the more likely to get fed up with the constant tweaking in Linux and move to a Mac.
There fixed that for you.
Apple sells something called Final Cut Express, which has most of the features of FCP but at a fraction of the price($200), it does non-linear editing, custom transitions etc.
Monstar L
None. It's just by controlling the hardware to a limited set of hardware, they can control the errors that they will have and build their SDK for a specific set of instructions. Windows on the other hand has to support a million different varieties of hardware setups with software and as a result can have stability issues across different setups. Windows could have the same stability of Mac if they built their own boxes too and geared the OS toward that specific hardware configuration.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
that 85% of Mac owners "swing both ways." *runs and hides*
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Actually, no, it doesn't. There is not enough information to come to that conclusion.
One could also conclude that Mac owners need Windows based PCs because the Macs don't do everything the owner needs.
Or, one could conclude that Mac owners own more computers because are more affluent and they can.
Or, one could conclude that Mac owners own Macs because they are more affluent and can.
Also, there is no indication of the number of PCs versus the number of Macs in multi-computer house-holds nor the age of the respective computers. If someone owns two new PCs and one only Mac, what does that say about the owner? What if one has one Mac for one of one's children, but everyone else uses Windows PCs?
There is not enough information provided to come to any conclusion other than what is stated in the write-up.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
there's an app to do most things on Mac, but its often commercial. There is a better scope of freeware on Windows (although OSS apps often exist on both platforms, Closed-source free apps are more numerous on Windows, and often a free app exists on Windows where only a pay-for app will serve on Mac)
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
I have only Mac hardware at home, but I do have VMWare Fusion for the extremely rare occasion I need a Windows machine.
I bootcamp'ed my Intel-based Macs on the thought that I would perhaps need to use the machine as a pure Windows box once in awhile, but that hasn't happened; I've been surprised to find that between what I can do on a website, or what Java can provide, or what developers have been good to provide both a Mac as well as Windows version, there's nothing so exclusive to Windows that I've needed to run Boot Camp. If anything, there's just a couple of programs I use for development written in Delphi of all things that are exclusive to Windows.
Actually, what I took from that article is that the people most likely to gripe about Macs probably don't own one, whereas the Mac users griping about Windows are mostly speaking from personal experience.
what for? it's the same exact hardware. same exact intel laptop CPU's except for the Mac Pro. biggest difference is Mac's use nvidia chipsets instead of Intel due to the fact that nvidia has better integrated graphics. all the other parts are exactly the same and Mac's have used identical PC components like RAM and hard drives for decades
You forgot things little things like machined aluminum case, dual channel wireless cards. Better quality parts add up.
A vanilla Macbook is appropriately priced for what you get. You have to buy Sony or go online to get an equivalent laptop.. if anything the problem is that Apple doesn't make CHEAP computers like $300 netbooks so that cuts out the poor/cheap folks looking only at price. Even the maligned Mac Mini is a pretty good machine for MOST sub $700 machine buyers. The majority of PC users don't open their computers over the life of the machine. The majority don't even add ram or video cards. They pay $600 for Last Year's parts in an empty plastic box that makes them feel good. A Mini has nearly all the same features as a stock Dell, plus bluetooth, two video ports and firewire... all items adding $75 more each to that "budget" PC. Again, the problem is that Apple doesn't sell a "stripped out" model to hit a lower price point like Dell does... then you find out that the Windows PC was TOO stripped out and won't use all the features of your new OS (hint: THAT is why Vista bombed.. Microsoft caving to cheap OEMs)
I'd look at these numbers differently. Most people own a PC because the workplace DEMANDS it. 12% of people that own a Mac in addition to a PC went out of their way to seek it out because they didn't like Windows.... that's a huge and growing dissatisfaction rating.
This sounds like it could be explained by some fairly simple logic and math. If (numbers pulled out of my ass for sake of argument) 10% of people own a Mac, and 95% of people own a PC, and each household has more than one person in it... You'd get something like this kind of distribution.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Well at least you can still "do things" on a ten-year-old PC (with Win98, or upgraded to XP), whereas a ten-year-old Mac is completely unsupported. You can't even find any third party software.
Even a 5-year-old Mac is difficult to keep up-to-date, since Apple is so quickl to obsolete old hardware and thereby force its users to go buy new equipment.
Uh oh... here come the Apple fans with pitchforks.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Is that the only reason? I'd be staggered if the only reason PC owners don't buy Mac is because they can't afford them. How cheap do Macs need to be?
If that's true then most PCs must be of the "low end" type, Celeron rather than Core 2 Duo - right? Is that true?
Spoken like Steve Jobs. Options that we decide you don't need are BAD. /sigh I thought choices were good things.
What I took from it was the people with one single PC find that one single PC can do everything they need it to do so they do not have to buy another computer. I wonder why people with a Mac typically have more than one computer and why is that computer likely a PC? They obviously need or desire the PC functionality for some reason. Don't mod down because you disagree, post a reply instead.
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a Mac Pro with two 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processors and 6GB of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Warcraft will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Safari is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2x 2.26Ghz 8-core machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
I'm reasonably certain it's been shown a number of times that if you build a PC with the exact same hardware as a Mac, you'll end up with a PC that costs about the same.
Actually, it has been shown to be cheaper to build your own Mac.
I'm only addressing your Hardware comparison. In reality, there are more things that go into the value of a "computer solution" than just the hardware components: software availability/quality for your own needs, support, design/appeal, etc.
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
Personally I own PCs as well because I already had them before I switched to Mac. When they die or become too slow to be useful, they will not be replaced. Honestly I haven't booted my "main" PC in about 3 months, and that was just to grab some files. So, I "own" PCs, but I don't "use" them anymore. My ancient Sun E4500 sees more use than any of my PCs these days, and at this point that thing is just a power-hungry toy.
Frag 'em all...
And the simple fact is that now Apple has switched to Intel you can buy the SAME hardware that is in a Macbook or Macbook Pro for $700- $900 or more cheaper from a Dell or HP.
No, quite frankly, the simple fact is you can't.
Whenever I see this argument, I have to wonder - how have you not noticed that Dell and HP (and most others) make both cheap laptops and expensive laptops? The cheap laptops are big, thick, and heavy. The expensive laptops are lighter and thinner. Yet they're all running Windows and have similar processor speeds and RAM amounts. If your argument had any merit, Dell's $2000 laptops should be considered "the SAME hardware" as Dell's $700 laptops. So tell me - how do they get away with this?
Here's the answer: With a laptop you pay more if you want lighter weight, thinner profile and/or better construction. The real difference between Apple and Dell (or HP or whoever) is Apple doesn't offer an equivalent to the low end, thick, heavy laptops that Dell or HP offer.
#DeleteChrome
Apple doesn't make CHEAP computers like $300 netbooks so that cuts out the poor/cheap folks looking only at price.
Don't you think some people buy a sub $300 netbook or PC because it might meet their specific needs? I have an HP Mini that I got for free but they sell for under $250. It does what I need it and expect it to do. What am I missing out on? What am I doing on it that it is failing to perform because it is "cheap"?
I happen to look at the price of EVERYTHING I buy including a bag a frozen vegetables at the grocery store and make a decision if it will meet my needs for that amount of money, I call it maximising the value for my dollar. How do you buy and compare things?
A Mini has nearly all the same features as a stock Dell, plus bluetooth, two video ports and firewire... all items adding $75 more each to that "budget" PC.
You can find PC's that have all of the features of the mini for well under the Mini's price. Sure, I can also find PC's that are the same and even more expensive than the Mini too but if you'd like to only compare to the overpriced PC's, that's your choice. Another note, maybe someone does not need or has zero use for firewire, bluetooth, or two video ports on their specific PC, why should they pay for it?
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
The same? No. There is a markup.
However when Apple releases a new model with a new CPU/GPU/TechonologyX the markup isn't bad at all.
The problem is, the Apple stays around that price for a long time while Dell has reduced its prices and moved onto a slightly faster CPU in the same time frame. Minor speed bump here, better GPU there, price depreciation on their older stuff, etc.
Given enough time the Apple price is then viewed as ridiculous as Apple releases their products at a snail's pace compared to other companies,
There's WAY too many assumptions in your conclusions. Just because the upper-middle class is 15% of the population and Mac ownership is 12% of computers doesn't mean that the two numbers are linked at all. Indeed my guess would be that computer ownership PERIOD (a statistic that wasn't stated) is slightly shifted towards the "upper class" side of the divide already. All in all though, all such guesses would need statistics to back them up rather than just trying to intuitively connect the dots on unrelated pieces of data.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
And if you're spending $10 for a pocket calculator, and $1,000 for a Mac, why, you've spent a hundred times as much for the Mac! Imagine that! Dude, the point here is that Macs and ultra-low-end PCs are different products. Some are right for some people, and others are right for others. If your budget and needs are such that the cheapest possible machine from Tiger Direct is the right choice, then, as you say, more power to you. People who need/want/can afford something better are not going to bother with the cheapo machine no matter how cheap it is.
As has been pointed out (over and over), Mac pricing is quite competitive when you compare (ahem) apples to apples. Which is why Mac market share in the mid-range and high end continues to grow. The concept of competitive pricing at the ultra-low-end is N/A... because Apple has decided not to go there. Which in turn is fine for Apple shareholders, who are making money hand over fist.
Apple has (wisely, in my view) decided that they don't want to and/or can't beat the Dells of the world in making the cheapest computers. And that's ok, because making a higher quality/higher priced product is also a perfectly fine way to make a profit... it's working for Apple.
Yeah, and not only does Mac ownership lead to homelessness, but also asteroid strikes and cannibalism! I mean, come on. If I bought a computer this week and became homeless next week, I doubt the first thought on my mind would be "Alas! If only I had bought a cheap PC!". If people are that nervous about being downsized, they probably shouldn't be buying PCs either. Probably your remark was meant to be funny, but it comes across as overwrought.
I have a Powerbook G4, bought a year or so before the Intel Macs came out, so it's, what, 5 years old? There's nothing wrong with it at all, but it's had its last OS upgrade, because Steve won't release Snow Leopard and followon versions for PowerPC Macs. And even before that, Apple started crippling versions of the iLife products for PowerPC Macs. It really pisses me off that a computer that's otherwise fine is doomed to obsolescence years before it either became too slow to use or physically broke.
10 years, well, that's maybe pushing things as far as I'm concerned. I've got a Windows box of that vintage too (upgraded to XP at some point in its life). It's so behind the times that I just don't find it that useful anymore. I do like to wring as much use from my machines as I can, but at some point I do want to replace them.
Do you want to *support* four customers who have each put a million dollars in your pocket, or do you want to support four million people who have each put a dollar in your pocket?
This is not an issue for Apple, as Macs don't require any support...or so their ads claim.
If that's true then most PCs must be of the "low end" type, Celeron rather than Core 2 Duo - right? Is that true?
Absolutely true, which is why the CPU performance wars have most faded away except for hardcore gamers. Computer chips have been fast enough to do literally everything the vast majority of users want to do now for the last 5 years or more. RAM requirements have gone up in that time (on a newer OS anything under 2gb and it feels slow to me, though I have 4gb on my main machine), but I'd wager than 90% of users can't tell the difference for their tasks between any 1Ghz+ chip and the fastest quad-core on the market.
The chip makers long ago figured out that the "budget" cpu market was much higher volume (though much lower margin).
I'd bet that if Apple put out an honest to goodness budget system: small tower case, cheapo Celeron processor, 3.5" hard drive (lapop drives cost more), a regular old tray loading DVD drive, and that's it. No bluetooth, firewire, other other nonsense that the vast majority of users never use, then they'd sell them like hotcakes. They just don't want to because margins are low on such systems, and they know very well that even among their loyalists that's all most of them need, and people already paying gouged prices would flock to that system, cannibalizing their ridiculous markups.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Most of us are just iCurious.
I spec'ed out the xoticpc as closely as I could to the MBP 17" stock model at $2499. It came to $1218.
However, it has a 1400x900 display (vs 1920x1200), no wireless-n option, no GeForce 9400M/9600M GT graphics, no information about weight and, possibly most importantly, no information about battery life.
While it does come in significantly less expensive, I don't think that you can argue that they are equivalent.
--Coming up with something clever... please wait...
"...along with the belief that apple has that much better reliability..."
Yeah, that's why Apple consistently has the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the industry.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Not quite.
Dell offers a "tiny desktop" that is less than the Mac equivalent while having better specs.
Furthermore, this "tiny desktop" can be upgraded with much more interesting options that simply aren't available from the Apple equivalent.
The problem with the "specs games" that Apple fanboys like to play is the fact that a PC doesn't restrict you to one spec. One PC brand wont even do that.
So I can replace my 09 mini with a $200 ION or get a much more expensive Dell that will blow the doors off the Mac.
I can also get a semi-custom system for the same price as a mini that has most of what you would buy a Mac Pro for.
Macs are more expensive because Apple Corp is confident that the faithful will bend over.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Our house has had Windows, Mac, and linux (ubuntu, knoppix and OLPC right now) systems for a long time now. The interesting case is my wife's machines. She has long worked for several local medical organizations (HMOs), and at work everything is Microsoft (with IBM mainframes). She has also worked part-time from home for several years now, because she gets so much more done there where the schmoozers can't reach her). So she has always had to have a Windows machine at home. She hates it, and loves her Mac(s).
But for the past year, she has no longer had a "Windows machine" at home; she just has "Windows". The reason is that she replaced her creaky old Mac Powerbook with a new iMac (with a huge screen). While talking to the folks at the Apple Store, she learned about that new "virtual" stuff, and along with the iMac, she took home disks for the software that would install a virtual XP. After it had been working for a couple of weeks, fully networked via VPN with her office network, she donated her old Windows box to me, and I reformatted it as a linux machine that's our firewall/gateway/etc.
So, while she has a Mac and a Windows machine, they're the same machine, her iMac. A couple of months ago, she decided that another laptop would be really useful, so she got a Mac Powerbook - and installed a virtual XP on it. A month ago, we were on vacation a couple thousand miles away, and she impressed the folks at work by connecting to the office network from her Mac/XP via VPN, and helped them out with some problems they were having. Actually, it didn't impress everyone, because most of the employees are Mac users at home, and several of them had already followed her lead when they got their new Macs.
There are a couple of interesting possibilities implied by this. One is that, if you like Macs but "need Windows for work", there's no need to pay for any hardware for your Windows machine. You might want to get an extra GB or two of memory, since Windows is a bit of a hog. And you'll have to learn how to get one of the Mac's several virtualization schemes to work. You will have to pay (somebody ;-) for a release of Windows. But you can run it on your Mac., and you're free of the hassle of dealing with the Microsoft-based hardware market. She has also found that the Apple Store people and online Mac forums can answer questions much better than, say, Dell Customer Support can. In a few years this might have an, uh, "interesting" effect on the PC market.
Another thing to think about is the problem of crappy security on Windows. It's hard to get a straight story on this, but there are hints that the "jail" (or "sandbox" if you prefer) that Windows runs in under OS X is significantly more secure than Windows on a bare machine. We'd like to learn more about this, because as I mentioned, my wife does computing work for medical organizations. Here in the US, people are waking up to the serious problems with the (overly slow) computerization and networkization of medical data. Some fairly stringent security requirements are being written into law for medical data. And the medical industry almost everywhere runs on MS Windows, the most insecure system on the market. It doesn't take a genius to see the problem here.
Virtualization has the potential of at least limiting the damage from the latest exploits, since Windows is run under the control of another system that has better security. We know from the history of IBM's VM system that this can be effective, assuming that the low-level system is accessible to knowledgeable developers (which isn't always true in the small-computer market). But imposing security on an insecure system that has "no user serviceable parts inside" isn't easy, so we can't really say how effective this will be.
Her management never allowed upgrading to Vista, in part because they learned about the network-update (discussed here on /. several times) that can't be disabled for some portions of the system software. They und
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Even the maligned Mac Mini is a pretty good machine for MOST sub $700 machine buyers.
Ridiculous. For less than $800, I just built a Core i5 machine with 4GB of RAM, 1.2TB of hard disk, and a Radeon HD4850 video card (which can drive 2 monitors).
With some cost cutting (less RAM, fewer hard drives, cheaper video card), I could add a bluetooth dongle and match the Mac Mini on all regards...except nothing I could do would make the Core i5 as crappy as the processor in the Mac Mini.
The only thing the Mac Mini has going for it is the form factor, but if that small size isn't important, it's worth less than nothing, since the easy upgrades on even a mini-tower case are a huge advantage.
12% of the letters in your post were the letter 'a'.
Mind = blown.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Actually, this discussion has happened millions of times, always to show that if your comparison starts with "I'll configure a PC to be comparable with a Mac", the Mac is a great deal; whereas if you start with "I'll pick a sane PC configuration and find a Mac that is comparable" you would have to be quite eccentric not to buy a PC.
The iMac uses "desktop" parts - desktop cpu, ram, hd, optical drive, screen, psu etc etc.
I think only the base iMac uses what could be called "laptop" parts - the GPU. The higher power iMacs use desktop GPUs (modest models though they may be compared to bleeding edge, 9.4kW 8-slot, LN2 cooled cards in PCs).
No, the reason a Mac costs more is that it is pitched at a different market - Apple don't sell a budget, it's part of the brand. So most of the consumer level gear is similarly priced to a budget PC+extras to match the specs - but this doesn't just mean "same RAM size, same CPU, same HD space", but includes things like "machined aluminium case" instead of "plastic case" and "firewire and camera as standard" compared to "sometimes has firewire [varies so wildly by model] and camera optional".
As with any consumer gadget, you have to decide on a personal level whether buying a Mac is worth the price of it - as many people on slashdot will tell you, for them they are overpriced and they can do better with a whitebox store and an afternoon building something to slap Ubuntu on.
It's no different to the guy who buys a slightly more expensive car than the next guy because he likes it better. Sure you have your guy who buys a car to lord it over people with cheaper cars, but most people who buy the more expensive one just happened to like it and felt the cost was worth it.
No. Macs cost more because it's not the same market as Dell or [insert OEM here]. It's the same reason they don't feverishly update the processors or specs. They don't sell PCs. They sell a platform and they sell complete devices. Period. They also have a much nicer profit margin per unit than Dell.
I'm not here to defend or attack that. The financials speak for themselves. There are hundreds of morons on this site who think that Apple would just "take over" if it took the advice of said morons and did things like offer budget machines or a customizable desktop that it would be king, etc.
Mind you, I would LOVE a Mac desktop that was a real desktop and NOT an iMac and not a Mac Pro. I don't hate Apple for not releasing it though because I'm certainly not their bread and butter. (Neither are gamers and neither are people who, for the most part, really care about Hz, Bytes or tech specs.) My dad doesn't care what processor is in his MacBook Pro. My mom doesn't care about how much RAM is in her Mac Mini. All they care about is that it does what they want at a pace that's reasonable for them. I like it because, as I'm the "family IT guy" I almost never have to touch these machines.
Just because Apple doesn't meet your needs, doesn't mean their execs are stupid. Getting annoyed at Apple for what they charge and what the sell is like getting pissed off when BMW doesn't my a 4x4 pickup work truck. It's not their market. They don't care about getting into it.
If Apple doesn't meet your needs then don't buy their stuff. I have GOT to stop reading any article that's Apple related on Slashdot. It just turns in to mountains of faulty comparisons and complaints and crap on both sides.
I'm just curious how the Mac brand would be affected if Apple added a low-end computer to their lineup. Apple currently seems to target the groups that want proof that they they are "cooler" or "more hip" than everyone else, although they surely wouldn't use those phrases. Would low end Macs completely eliminate the "cool" factor of the Apple brand, thus eliminating much of the fickle pretentious college student market, or would they be able to rely on their superior usability to keep their current markets and add new ones?
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
And last I heard Dell was struggling to stay alive and Apple was growing. So if you sell discount PC hardware you have to struggle and cut costs everywhere you can even on components just to stay in business. But on the other hand if you have consistent quality, good customer service and keep your prices high enough to support the service costs you make a ton of money? Looks to me like the business model of PC makers could use a boot to the head.
Why bother