Mac Users May Be Smarter 531
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!
Wait a minute... (Score:2, Insightful)
Didn't you just say that Macs Are Cheaper than PCs [slashdot.org]?
Prestige, Cost, Market: Three explanations (Score:5, Insightful)
Cost: As mentioned in the summary, Macs cost more. I bet if you did a survey that isolated the price of the system instead of the brand, much of the brain gap would disappear. I suspect that those who buy a premium Dell are more intelligent by the usual tests....
Market: Apple has always sold to education and graphic design markets. The education market is, of course, likely to attract a number of well, educated consumers.
Any other "correlation not causation" explanations?
Re:Prestige, Cost, Market: Three explanations (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say that we are rather well paid (If I exclude myself anyway, at only 3 years out of college), and quite well educated. Also, we are well - technically - educated. It's not like we have a useless degree in African art or something. Anyway, most of the people I work with are mac users. It is because that while they can design the latest chips that make you hard drive scream, if they finder can't find it, neither can they. Stereotypically, they are computer illiterate. But another aspect to it is that they don't want to spend the time. It is just like the commercials, they want to open the box, plug in 2 cables and be on the internet without knowing anything about it. They spend too much time with technical subjects at work away from the family, they don't want to deal with it at home.
I'm on the opposite scale, I'm a circuit designer as well, but I also do system admin on the 250 Machine HP-UX network as well. And now that Mac has finally come up with a decent OS, one might not be totally useless to me:)
May be causation, not just correlation (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Prestige, Cost, Market: Three explanations (Score:5, Funny)
OK, I'm a Mac user, and also an graphic artist by trade, and a musician too. So that would make me "artsy."
I do like computers though, and I know about how they work.
A better analogy might be:
Mac users: "I like driving my car, but I don't care to know how to rebuild a carburetor."
Linux users: "I like driving my car, AND rebuilding the carburetor."
Windows users: "My CD player in my car never plays track 5 on any of my CDs. But that's OK because I never liked track 5 anyway."
Simplified Theory (Score:3, Funny)
From lowest to highest intelligence:
Re:Simplified Theory (Score:2)
Re:Simplified Theory (Score:2)
Apple evaluated mouse buttons (Score:4, Informative)
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.
the homepage glut explained (Score:5, Funny)
So that's where all the "Hi-my-name-is-Jenny-and-I-like-cats" homepages are coming from.
Re:the homepage glut explained (Score:5, Funny)
here [tleg.co.nz]
and on the 4th line..
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
I get your point tho
Re:the homepage glut explained (Score:2)
-jfedor
Re:the homepage glut explained (Score:2)
Algerian is a mac font.
True (Score:2)
It dosn't tell us for sure that it was designed on a mac or a PC, but just a little evidence for the mac side.
Re:True (Score:2)
Algerian is not a font on any mac I've used.
Frontpage is NOT a mac product and never has been since Microsoft's owned it (dunno about before.)
Sheesh. Just believe what you want despite the evidence.
We're used to it.
Someone email Jenny and find out (Score:2)
Re:the homepage glut explained (Score:2)
Not Smarter... (Score:3, Insightful)
Todays lesson on what a Troll article looks like.. (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need syrup for them troll flap jacks, fer the syrup is spilln off the plate and
floatin dem grits.
This Article is an example of what has got to be the most unoriginal troll. Maybe it's even an
example of the oldest/first troll ever posted "my system is better than yours".
pudge, the caffinated coffee is in the orange pot, not the green one.
Funny how OSX is now of a Unix flavor....huh? Often genuis lack common sence.
Does no one see the foot? (Score:5, Insightful)
That can be a post next weekend, Ads Make Your Smarter. A study has found that people who are able to ignore online ads have more developed brains than those who need to use software and settings to remove ads from web pages.
Think Difrent! (Score:3, Funny)
Where can i buy a mac around here ?
Re:Think Difrent! (Score:2, Funny)
It's "Think Differently".
Re:Think Difrent! (Score:2)
Clearly you've never actually worked in tech support for a cross platform product.
Your silly, make believe, bigotry is pointless.
Thanks for your
"Ever hear the story about the lazy nigger/spic/cracker/jew/honky/faggot/president who..."
story.
Re:Think Difrent! (Score:2)
Although it works fine, i would like a new G4 with Mac OS X
Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically... (Score:2, Insightful)
The only reason I always hated them was because they had an OS that was actually more full of eye-candy and dumbed-down than Windows, and it was just irritating. The only good part about them was the graphics capabilities... I'm a programmer, not an artist, so why should I care?
Now that the OS has jumped from lower than Windows to right up there with the Linuxes, (I must say congrats to the Mac people), more geeks are willing to use Macs, and they in turn are teaching the non-geeks how to do "cool stuff" on them.
So why get a Mac and not a Debian box or a RedHat box? Some people have always had a secret desire to own a mac, but no good reason to actually do it. Others are enticed by that display at CompUSA with the G4 Mac and that huge flat-screen cinema display... *drools*
another good example of lying through statistics (Score:2, Interesting)
cheesy macs costs more than whitebox PC
so income of the buyers becomes a factor..
to make a claim like that at least the
source should consider economic factors
that's involved. Heck, using the criteria
they used, obviously workgroup server owners
are much smarter than PC and Mac owners,
and a Cray owner would be the smartest of all..
that's what happens when you have idiot
tech journalists who has more interest in
pushing an agenda rather than report real
news. I'm sure CNut figures they'll get a
whole bunch of pageviews from trolling.
journalistic integrity has hit a new low.
SGI: Cray Users May Be Smarter (Score:2)
Hmm ...
micah_lanier [freemind.com] writes "Thought I would point out an interesting story from news.com [news.com]. It seems a NetRatings Study [com.com] concluded that those owning Crays tend to be more experienced with the internet, as well as educated better in general. However, this simply illustrates the fact that Crays are generally bought by those with little trouble being granted multi-million dollar government contracts, and therefore those who more likely posess multiple post-graduate degrees in technical subjects like physics (and so on)." Then how do we explain all the people with less education building beowulf clusters from cheap Compaqs and Dells? I think it's just that people with bigger budgets like better computers!
Re:SGI: Cray Users May Be Smarter (Score:2)
If it posessed a more qualitative nature, it would no longer posess a mirrored structure to Slashdot's blurb about the article. Since my goal was to mock the article, rather than perform a comparison of parallel vectored processor supercomputing or massively parallel supercomputing (Cray) versus clustered supercomputing (Beowulf), I believe that I chose the right words.
The median family income for the U.S. in 2000 was $62,228 [census.gov], and I am not currently making anywhere near that much.
Of course they will, people blow their money on all sorts of stupid things.
Which of the two sounds more productive and useful, PhotoShop or Neverwinter Nights?
That wasn't all that funny the first time.
Well of course. It's on the Internet, isn't it?
Re:another good example of lying through statistic (Score:5, Interesting)
The Nielsen spokesperson admits that there are other factors which contribute to this effect: "Kelly said the greater affluence and education level of those who surf using a Mac is attributable in part to the company's comparatively pricier machines, as well as to their perception as a status symbol and their greater market share among those in the publishing and design industries."
Now, that doesn't look to me like they're lying through statistics, and in fact they have a pretty solid analysis. However, their goal is a market analysis, not a statistical one. They're not interested in the cause, just the demographic, which appeals to advertisers because high-income, higher educated people tend to buy pricier products (Macs!).
If you want to debate whether or not CNet is justified with its wording on the headline ("Are Mac Users Smarter?"), but honestly, magazines and newspapers use such sensational headlines all the time. For that matter, Slashdot has made it worse, already jumping to a conclusion with "Mac Users May Be Smarter", a statement that is no way supported by the article.
Re:another good example of lying through statistic (Score:5, Insightful)
> justified with its wording on the headline ("Are
> Mac Users Smarter?"), but honestly, magazines
> and newspapers use such sensational headlines
> all the time. For that matter, Slashdot has made
> it worse, already jumping to a conclusion with
> "Mac Users May Be Smarter", a statement that is
> no way supported by the article.
Wow, someone actually read the article. You don't see that very often on Slashdot!
The title is a troll, but the article makes sense. They say that Mac users tend to be more affluent, have higher levels of education, and in general be more attractive marketing targets for premium products/services. This isn't to say Mac users are smarter; as a demographic, they're more attractive if you're trying to sell a premium product.
What this means is, in general, if you're planning on developing a web marketing plan for a product like Mercedes, Krupps, Williams Sonoma, or any other "premium-like product", you are likely to have better success if you target your ads to a web site that has a lot of Mac users. Or, if you work at Nordstrom, it would be a good idea to make sure your web site is friendly to Mac users (take the time to make sure it works for Macintosh browsers). If you're running a web site for Walmart, this might not be as important.
That's all it's saying. It's a sleazy marketing thing, not a Mensa-entry requirement.
Re:another good example of lying through statistic (Score:2)
Linux user intelligence study thingie (Score:3, Interesting)
Dude, how can we afford our Dells? (Score:2)
Payment plans dude! Payment plans...
Didn't we already know this ;) (Score:2)
Now we have damned statistics to prove it, since Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD
More education != high IQ (Score:2)
Silly article and this coming from a longtime Mac user who has been on the web for 7 years and has a college degree.
In my opinion, college can make you smarter but you don't have to be smart to get a degree. Anybody that's gone to college knows this.
The reason Windows may not fare as well in a study like this is because of the crushing massess that run Windows. The intelligent ones in the Windows camp become marginalized.
Before the posts braying about how Linux/Unix is harder to use so it's users must be more intelligent start coming out remember that intelligence isn't limited to the ability to process and understand scientific/mathematic problems. There's artistic genius but how do you quanitfy something like that?
Besides, the grammar and spelling around here is so bad it sometimes makes my eyes water ;o)
Elitist attitudes (Score:2)
I prefer to think that lower income families choose PCs because they are more affordable, and in the long-term, a better choice because more people in the world us PCs with Windows, and if they are betting their $1000 investment on a computer for their children, they'd choose one that more people use. Buying a Mac is more of a luxury for many people.
It's like buying a car. Would you rather buy a Mercedes/Lexus/name your luxury car, or would you rather buy a Honda/Hyudai/name your regular car? (Damn, I'm gonna catch hell for mentioning these makes like that). The answer is, of course, it depends on what you can afford. Of course we'd all like a better made, better looking, and possibly safer, but certainly more luxurious car, but can we afford it? How will we use it? Will we use it as a utility vehicle, doing all our errands, etc., or will we drive it around to show off?
So it is with the PC and Mac debate. If you want to show off, can afford it (I know, some models of the Macs are lower in price, but in general, PCs are more affordable), you can get a Mac. But for many, less educated people, the PC is a no-brainer.
Oh, also take a look at this [penny-arcade.com]
While I'm Mac bashing.... (Score:3, Funny)
An what's with the questions on switching? If you can do things on a Mac that PC users can only dream about, then why are all the questions about things that PC users can already do on their PCs? Maybe these things that PC users can only dream about aren't so important?
I know it's not as simple as I've presented, but it still seems very funny to me.
correlation, not cause and effect. (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:3, Informative)
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!
Re:What is the point of studies like this, really? (Score:2)
Maybe... (Score:2)
PCs have the advantage of being cheap and plentiful. This obviously places them square in the hands of the common (and generally less educated) folk as the poster correctly points out. But because PCs are cheap, configurable, and use commodity parts they are also perfect for the hobbiest geek. And some of these guys are extremely bright.
Just do a survey of how many people on the Linux kernel (or Apache, *BSD, etc.) mailing list use PCs vs. Macs and stick that on your front page.
I dig my Mac. (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to say though, I am a Mac user I enjoy using it quite a bit (there, I admitted my bias
I've made an observation that I think may be relevant since I bought my mac.
- I use my Linux PC when I want to tinker. I've noticed that most PC users I know enjoy "messing" with the computer almost as much as doing things with it. Sort of like that old car in the driveway.
- I use my Mac when I just want to do something, and don't want to tinker. Writing a letter, ripping MP3's, burning CDs, surfing the web, etc.
I've also noticed that ultra-busy people with little free time also seem to enjoy using Macs. Not all of the ultra-busy people I know have them, but those that have tried them enjoy them immensely.I think the argument here of which is "better" really is pointless...it's just a different type of machine geared for a different type of person. Not necessarily smarter or dumber. If you don't want to tinker, and you don't have a lot of time--I'd have to say that most people would want a machine that just works and doesn't make a fuss (which the opposite could be true of Linux or Windows).
In summary though, I think people who use desktop computers long enough may come full-circle. Generally, beginners would want a Mac because its easy to learn, and doesn't mess things up as often as a PC. Intermediately, PC is are more appealing because on the surface, it seems it can do more.
But after a long time of using computers, I can personally argue that the simpliest way is usually the better way and I'm back to using a Mac once again. The software argument that a PC has more software is only really true of games. There's a Mac equivalent for almost any PC application out there. I'm not a big gamer, and those which I do play are available on the Mac (which right now is WarCraft III).
Re:I dig my Mac. (Score:3, Interesting)
Recently I discovered the joy that is Gentoo PPC and Mac-on-Linux, and can have the best of both worlds just by switching between virtual terminal 7 & 8. (8 runs Mac OS, 7 is the X-windows)
The hardware is top notch, the performance of an entire Linux system compiled natively for my own processor is excellent.
Makes the choice an easy one, have your cake and eat it too. Without a reboot for most stuff =)
Re:I dig my Mac. (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple has (used to have?) the AppleMasters program, a group of noted international leaders in various fields who use Apple technology in the performance of their work. Apple used to have a list of their names and bios on the site, but it appears to have been taken down. Some of the names of AppleMasters that I remember are...
* Douglas Adams (Yes, *that* Douglas Adams)
* Donald Glaser - Nobel physicist
* Arthur C. Clarke
* Murray Gell-Mann - Nobel physicist, namer of the "quark"
* Herbie Hancock - composer/musician
* Gregory Hines - dancer/actor/singers
* Tom Clancy
* Richard Dreyfuss
* Richard Dawkins - zoologist, evolutionist
* Michael Crichton
* Sydney Pollock - film producer/director
* Richard Leakey - noted paleoanthropologist
No doubt one can create a comparable, or even more distinguised, list of notable notables who use Windows/Linux/Intel/AMD technology (as well as Sun, IBM, HP, SGI, etc.), but to paraphrase Steve Jobs, can you imagine an IntelMasters, CompaqMasters or DellMasters program?
"Applets" are passionate about their Macs, and feel an allegiance to the company. Why? The fact that Macs can be viewed as "status symbols" might be part of it, but more to the point, Macs just work. Everyone else treats their computers as commodities because, well, they are.
The only other comparable attitude by a consumer population that I can think of exists in the motorcyle world. Harley Davidson riders are passionate about their bikes and The Motor Company, even if they own bikes by other manufacturers. *Most* other bikers really couldn't care if their bikes were Hondas/Suzuki/Yamahas/Triumphs/BMW.
BTW, I own Toshiba (four towers & 2 laptops running Win2K & Linux), IBM (1 Linux laptop), Sony (1 Win2K laptop), and Apple (G4/OSX) systems. If everything were going up in flames, I'd make sure I had a firm grip on the Mac and my backups, I'd try to save the Sony (wouldn't be difficult, it so d*mn small!), but everything else is so replacable (probably with BrandX(tm) computers), that I wouldn't even care.
My personal preferrences.
And I have owned Harleys [harley-davidson.com] and Buells [buell.com].
where's Hitler? (Score:3, Flamebait)
Since when more education = smarter? I don't think that Einstein had much of an education. Actually most people who changed the world never even went to college.
Re:where's Hitler? (Score:2)
Re:where's Hitler? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm talking about the guy who wants people to believe that Apple users are a superior bunch. Sure he's not gonna commit a mass genocide, but his idea about superiority is similar to that of Hitler.
Not When Looking at Overall US Population (Score:5, Insightful)
The average Mac user appears to be better educated and wealthier than their PC counterparts, judging by this survey. However, by the report's own figures, Mac users constitute less than 5 percent of the overall market. That means the total number of well-educated and well-to-do Mac users, when compared with the size of the US market, is extremely small.
Stated another way -- there are many more wealthy and well-educated users currently using PCs than there are Mac users. Let's assume the US has 200 million people who use computers. 5% of 200 million people is 10m, which means there's a maximum of 10m Mac users in the US. Even if 50% of them are well-educated and affluent, that's a max of 5m people. 90% of 200 million is 160m, which means that if only 8% of PC users fit the same criteria for education / $$, you'll have the same number of smart, rich peeps using each type of computer. And if that number's higher, it means that more intelligent, affluent people use PCs than Macs.
If the study really wanted to back up the conclusions they stated in the article, they'd survey users whose educational background and yearly earnings were comparable. Given a large enough survey sampling group, I'm sure they would reach the same conclusion.
I screwed up the math........ (Score:2)
Can you tell I haven't had to do much more than basic algebra since I started programming?
Re:I screwed up the math........ (Score:2)
Sometimes correlation is enough (Score:2)
Stated another way -- there are many more wealthy and well-educated users currently using PCs than there are Mac users
So what? More email message I get these days come from spammers than friends, but you don't see me associating with those assholes either.
Troll or Funny? You make the call. :-)
I need two walls and a gun. (Score:2, Funny)
Everyone else who pointed to that article and said "See? I told you Mac users were all elitist assholes", please line up against the wall to my right.
And someone get me that gun.
Re:I need two walls and a gun. (Score:2)
A matter of statistics, mostly (Score:2)
Any population that is signified by having done somthing that requires a conscious desicsion comes out with a higher IQ than average. This is mostly a matter of statistics, though the effect may be real it doesn't have to.
As a Mac-user of course I hope it does.
Huh? (Score:2, Funny)
Why should they have to explain something you just made up?
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Unfortunately working tech support for Compaq, I know first hand that as a general rule the higher the price the lower the edumacation.
Most of the calls I get on the highend systems, the P4s with DVD+RWs and 100+GB hard drives, are 0wned by some of the least "computer literate" people that I deal with.
I guess they figure that they don't know anything about the computer so the most expencive "flagship" models are the best to learn on because they have all the cool features.
What drove down the average... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:What drove down the average... (Score:2)
"Dude, like, something went wrong!"
Who knew! (Score:2)
Well at least I'm not smart enough to realize what I'm missing!
hmm... (Score:2)
It's just a study, guys.
MACS DO NOT COST MORE. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:MACS DO NOT COST MORE. (Score:2)
There can be no denying that Macs ARE more expensive, however. Take a look at the box (no monitor) you get from Apple for $1700 and compare it to what you get from Dell or Gateway for the same amount. If you're willing to use a local white box vendor or build your own, the difference can be even more exagerated.
Even the Mac USERS I know these days admit that the systems cost more than Wintel. They just think it's worth it. But even the biggest Apple fans don't deny that they cost more.
Re:MACS DO NOT COST MORE. (Score:2)
Re:MACS DO NOT COST MORE. (Score:2)
My fiance's PowerMac G3 that she purchased in the mid 90's for $2500 is still usable for everyday things (with the exception of high-end games).
My PC which I bought at approximately the same time for less is almost useless now (P-II), and I've needed to buy enough PC parts to "keep up".
The way I do the math, the Mac was actually the better buy. I've easily spent more money keeping PC's up to date with usable hardware, while my fiance's Mac--though outdated now--can still do everything that she needs it to do.
This argument could be considered unfair in a few ways, but I think that with the Intel/Microsoft marketing engine whirring away (Buy a P4! Now!) its valid enough to make a point.
Re:We are talking about purchace cost,not manufact (Score:2)
Ok, for one, that 800 mhz would blow the pants off that 2 Ghz any day of the week. You obviously A) do not know your RISC vs CISC, and 2) Didn't read the above post, at all, where he explains it quite well. If you wanted a machine that could match a 800Mhz G4, you are looking more at 2.5 or even 3 Ghz on an intel. Then add in a firewire card and try comparing your prices.
Re:We are talking about purchace cost,not manufact (Score:2, Interesting)
Cost of the Mac over three years: $750. Cost of the PC: $999. $750 is less money then $999.
Re:We are talking about purchace cost,not manufact (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and ten-plus days a year of frustration and lost productivity dealing with a poorly integrated system is more than no days of lost productivity. How much is your time and peace-of-mind worth?
Proof this is true: (Score:2)
an alternative explanation (Score:3, Insightful)
Computers make most people feel stupid. Most of the advertising that is created for Macintosh says that Macs are easier to use, more powerful, etc. Highly educated people have a particular aversion to feeling (or seeming) dumb. Therefore, when the highly educated person needs a computer, he/she minimizes his/her risk of feeling/seeming dumb by purchasing a mac for its supposed power and ease of use.
As a poster above noted, owning a mac has a certain prestige. It's the same kind of prestige that drives people to brag that they can't program their VCR. It embodies all that is hip and sexy about computers without the nerdy, confusing aspects that so many people (slashdot readers excluded) strive to avoid.
Re:an alternative explanation (Score:2)
Your argument is foolishly complicated. Ease-of-use is important in its own right. It leads to better work, less frustration, and a better mood at the end of the day. It could be said that those who buy Macs are able to more fully cognizant of the real personal consequences of their decisions, while PC users can only see as far as their wallets or their membership in a large safe majority. Maybe PC-buyers are so elated by their saving of a few dollars that they are able to convince themselves that endless frustration is no big deal.
duuh (Score:3, Funny)
Some of thems guys, they reads real good too.
This whole debate is pointless (Score:2)
smart people.. (Score:2)
Guess there are not that many smart people..
Truth is that if you are better educated then you hsould have a better paying job and thus you can afford to buy a mac, where as people who buy pc generally do so cause they are often cheaper than the average Mac. Or in other words I can get a cheap pc for about 800 with a 17" monitor, but I can't pay that little for an imac. I belive that 17" imacs are about 1000, and 15" are about 800. So if I make less than I can buy cheaper.
Oh and people who buy dell and compac and gateway usually do so for the support that comes with the machine. gateway support is really good so my sister tell me.
Personally.. I prefer *NIX.. and if I could afford an mac at this point, I'd buy one too.. but I cannot for fear that I may be unemployeed soon as my company may close doors.....
Most recent PA comic (Score:2)
http://www.penny-arcade.com
Just look at the latest comic.Macs are not more expensive (Score:2)
The future of programming [sf.net]
I'm sure you're all aware of this already but (Score:2)
It's not that we're smarter... (Score:3, Funny)
--Rick
Re:May be smarter? (Score:3, Troll)
With an ability to run Mac and Windows software under Virtual PC, I'd have to argue that Mac's are capable of running more software (even if using an emulated OS) than any other platform. Hell, on my Mac I rountinely run Win2K on one monitor, and OS X on the other... simultaneously.
Re:May be smarter? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:May be smarter? (Score:2)
Figure that a Mac can run Unix, Windows, and native Mac programs...quite a feat since to run x86 stuff it needs to emulate the processor real-time, and it does without a sweat.
The point he was trying to make is that the Mac has the *capability* to do so, but not that you necessarily have to.
Re:May be smarter? - like hell (Score:2)
I will comment however, that it seems a PPC processer handles x86 emulation smoother than the reverse. My old G3-500 iMac ran Windows 2000 well--not great--but well. On the other hand, using Mac-On-Linux [maconlinux.org] hardly performed the same on my old Athlon 700.
Granted this could be because infinite reasons (better emulation code, etc.) but it seems that PPC--having the more effecient design of the two would do this better, unsurprisingly.
Re:Old Joke... (Score:2)
Re:The dumbest report ever (Score:2, Interesting)
> Mac users are smarter, but what about Linux users.
I think the report was only looking at Mac and Windows PC users. I don't think they even thought to include Linux or the other *BSDs (or Amiga, OS/2, and others that are still going but with tiny marketshare).
> They are far more smarter than an average Mac
> user of course.
For OS 9 and before, I think I might have agreed with that. Not anymore. When OS X first introduced a Unix command line terminal to the Mac, your average Mac users were having great fun trading commands like game cheats or easter eggs. With the development tools included for free, any Mac user can become a programmer that is willing to learn, and many have. Thanks to Unix based OS X, Mac users are rapidly playing catchup to Linux, and some Linux users have switched over.
> This report is given credit by News.com which is
> totally biased against Microsoft, but why is it
> here?
Perhaps Slashdot has joined News.com, and Mac loving Godzilla, in hating Microsoft? Gee, like they are so hard to hate?
Windows: "Go talk to my friend, an 800 pound monopoly-abusing gorilla!"
Mac: "And here's my good buddy, the 66,000 ton Godzilla!"
Godzilla: Stomp!
Re:The dumbest report ever (Score:3, Insightful)
2- Linux comes with developers tools. Not all Linux users use developers tools. Not all Mac users are going to use developers tools, in fact I'd say that a significant minority will. In fact, I've had a number of OS X users say "You type stuff into the command line? That's *so* DOS." Pheh. Besides which, there have always been ways to jump into programing on the Mac. Codewarrior is inexpensive, and scripting is free. How many applescripters were there? Not many, I tell you. Most PEOPLE say they can't wrap their head around something like that.We'll get a few more script-kiddies, granted. (That's what the "trading of commands like easter eggs" is called.)
3- We've got Mac users switching over to Windows and to Linux, Windows users switching over to the Mac and Linux, and Linux users fleeing for the land of the Apples and Oranges. Switching, unlike Apple seems to like to believe, is not all that uncommon. It is also not moving in a linear fashion towards OS X. It's more akin to the panic of rats fleeing a sinking ship.
I could say more, but I already have a feeling I'm going to be modded down as flamebait. Although I don't know why. I'm NOT saying Mac users are stupid. I'm saying your "proof of the intelligence of the average Mac user" is unfounded and your reasons are silly.
-Sara
Re:The dumbest report ever (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The dumbest report ever (Score:2, Funny)
Sure, and *BSD users are smarter than Linux users, but don't forget that FreeBSD users are smarter than OpenBSD users who are smarter than NetBSD users. Oh wait, what about RedHat vs Slackware vs Mandrake vs SuSE vs Debian...
That statement is as dumb as the article.
try a little logic will you? (Score:2, Insightful)
Mac users are smarter, but what about Linux users. They are far more smarter than an average Mac user of course.
[/quote]
i am a biologist, and many researchers in my group use macs. they are all very smart people. most of them would be perfectly capable of running a linux system. but: they are just not interested.
you are confusing motivation with intelligence.
Re:try a little logic will you? (Score:2, Funny)
Yep, he is. Of course, the original article is confusing education with intelligence.
I think most of us who are in academia would be the first to admit that having a degree (even an advanced degree) is no guarantee that the holder doesn't have his head several feet up his ass.
Re:The dumbest report ever (Score:2)
This completely ignores the arguements about more money/more education and who published the report. Take it with a grain of salt.
RonB
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Demographic breakdown. (Score:2)
Give me the ratios you find there. Somehow, I don't think that the numbers are going to favor Macs. The people who most intimately use computers use PCs. What's that tell you?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More Educated != Computer Savvy (Score:2)
If you must make stereotypes, make sure you don't make them globally applicable.
Re:More Educated != Computer Savvy (Score:2)
Performing a survey and observing the results mathmatically cannot be considered "generalizing".
Issuing a statement with no researched information can.
Re:Didn't see this mentioned yet: (Score:2)
Uh, I dunno, because you don't know where to look, perhaps?
Why do I have to use parts only from Apple?
Maybe because you're unaware that the only truly
proprietary pieces of Mac hardware left are the
cases and the Mobos?
Unfortunately, there was a time that this was supposed to be possible: Jobs was approached with an offer from Intel to start producing parts for the Mac:
So Intel was going to make hard drives, video
cards, sound cards and RAM for macs too? Sure...
He turned them down, deciding that people could only use his parts. How's that for a monopoly?
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I've got a PowerMac G4 sitting across from me with
three Maxtor hard drives in it, A GeForce 4 Ti, a
Soundblaster card and RAM from about three
different vendors. How's that a monopoly?
I'd also like to mention something people always seem to forget: Bill Gates stole the windows idea from Apple, but Apple stole the idea from Xerox, who had developed a fully functioning GUI back in the 70's
And I'd like to mention something you seem to have
forgotten in that lovely story. Apple licensed
the GUI technology from PARC with their full
blessing, as it was languishing unused somewhere.
Gates and Co. Decided to come up with 'doze after
they saw someone else could make it viable. See
the difference?
WOW! (Score:2)
Go to any internet site, and 90% of the statistics spouted are idiotic fantasies based on nothing.
Re:Then why is Apple targeting newbies? (Score:2)
Thus, it is not some overall brilliance, but a symptom of lack of Apple's growth. That survey is simply finding more "old hats".
At least that is one theory.
Re:Then why is Apple targeting newbies? (Score:2, Funny)