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..."
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.
While that is true, there's certainly people who like to have a second pc for other purposes too. If you have a mac, you probably get Windows for its apps and especially games. Most people who have Linux PC (either as a server or a desktop) probably have a Windows PC too because you can't really do everything with Linux. I have a Windows pc and a linux server. I would probably have a Windows pc too if I had only a mac.
You have a point with the household's share, but it certainly counts for individuals too, only a bit less.
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.
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.
... because you can't really do everything with Linux.
(voices hush, piano stops playing)
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
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.
Agreed....it's all about the software anyway. You will run the OS that supports the software you need to be productive.
A few people I know have Mac laptops even though they primarily use Windows PCs. I even know a couple of dudes who bought Macbooks and then installed Windows on them, for the shiny case I suppose. Even my friend who is Apple Or Die (tm) and buys everything that ever comes with an Apple logo has a Windows box running. I've been looking at getting a cheap Mac (relatively cheap; we're still talking Apple here) for iPhone development on a supported platform versus a VM or Hackintosh, but I sure as hell wouldn't use a Mac as my primary computer for the same reason.
For a lot of us to do what we use our computers to do, running anything other than Windows is a matter of convenience or personal preference, but running Windows is a requirement. At the same time there are certainly plenty of people who can get by just using a Mac, but most of them could get by on an eMachine just fine and so have no reason other than personal aesthetics to drop the extra coin.
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.
Do I need to have Javascript enabled to hear voices and piano on slashdot?
English is not this
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
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,
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.
Disabling javascript can make the voices go away...?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
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.
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.
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