Thread

One of my clients is a nonprofit that will be maintaining their Web site—and doing light development with EE, Dreamweaver, and Flash. They have asked me whether I would recommend a desktop PC or an iMac for this limited purpose.

First, a disclosure: My first computer was a Mac in 1986, and I’ve been a fanboy ever since. I also use and own PCs as a work necessity, but admit to a Mac bias that’s occasionally irrational.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that a PC would give my client far more bang-for-the-buck than a comparably priced iMac. I have found that Dreamweaver and Flash are essentially no different on a PC than on a Mac—and EE is browser-based of course.

So with site maintenance and development as the primary mission for this hardware, is there any reason that I am overlooking for them to consider a Mac? A PC with a Quad core processor, 4-6 GB RAM, and a nice NVIDIA graphics card can be acquired and waranteed for considerably less than a 20 or 24 inch iMac with a Core 2 Duo, only 2 GB RAM, and a Radeon card.

Money talks these days.

I’m a Switcher, so I like to think that my bias is rational, though others may disagree with me. 😉

Why Should I Spend More Money on a Mac?

When you compare the cost of a PC and factor in the additional software, memory, and other extras you have to buy to go along with it, the difference in price between a Mac and PC isn’t as great as most people believe. And because the Mac comes with so many built-in applications that you’ll enjoy using for both work and play (rather than useless freebies you’ll want to uninstall), a Mac makes good financial sense. Finally, a Mac is built with the most cutting-edge technology by some of the smartest hardware engineers, software developers, and product designers on the planet. So you’re getting the latest technological advances and a computer that isn’t in danger of becoming obsolete anytime soon.

In addition to Apple’s canned (but basically true) sales pitch, I’d add: no worries with virus, adware, and spyware, better support if needed, lesser depreciation of value over time, and no chance that your client is ever going to run Internet Explorer.  And your goal is a machine that does the job, does it quickly, and problem free, correct?  If so, the extra “bang” in terms of specs you might get with a budgeted Windows-based machine will be unused resources anyway, as the iMacs are incredibly capable machines.

I have enjoyed my Macs immensely, and agree with most of Apple’s canned pitch. My iMac 24” and my Macbook Pro have been trusty companions and a sheer joy to use. Conversely, my XP and Vista boxes occasionally drive me to cursing.

But in the case of a cost-conscious nonprofit that sees every dime spent on overhead as a dime that could be used to help cancer pateints, here are the main reasons that a PC is part of the conversation:

* The “built in applications for work and play” are not a factor. They have other Macs (and PCs) in the office—and can use iPhoto, iMovie, Garage Band and everything else to their heart’s content. This box is just for their Webmaster.

* I personally have found Dell’s support and service to be more than adequate. It was actually better than Apple’s on my last encounter. But to be fair, our Mac support calls were made during their embarrassing MobileMe launch last summer. Even though our woes had nothing to do with MobileMe, we couldn’t get anybody on the phone or get near a “genius bar.” Again, I love Macs, but Apple’s not infallible and Dell is catching up.

* “Lesser depreciation of value” is also not a factor: They are evaluating the purchase strictly on the basis of how effectively and efficiently the box will run Dreamweaver, Flash, and EE. Shortsighted? Maybe. But I think they need a reason other than apps, support, and depreciation. 

Any other thoughts?

If the decision will be based on the initial invoice and the initial invoice alone, you have your answer.  That’s a poor way to choose a hardware purchase, imo.  People donating money to this organization would likely appreciate if management is thinking long term about all decisions instead of the short sheet.  Is $200 saved this week really going to make an impact on the organization’s effectiveness?  If the machine ever gets sold, the resale value will undeniably tilt the scale for an iMac back however many dollars are saved on the initial purchase.

Does the webmaster have a preference?  The person using it daily should be comfortable and happy with the equipment, so their opinion and what they’re accustomed to using should be a factor.  If he/she is a Windows user, they might like to stay on that platform.  If they are a Mac user, they will be upset every time they have to sit down to that machine.  Either would affect performance and job satisfaction.

I only use my PC for gaming, all the rest gets done on my Macs (24” iMac and a Macbook Pro).

If the budget is tight, then why not look for a nice refurb iMac or on ebay?
I recently bought my father-in-law a 20” iMac (Core2Duo, 2 GHZ, 2GB RAM) on eBay for about 500€.

Good points, all.

The invoice difference is a lot more than $200, it’s more like $1,000 when Applecare/Dellcare are thrown in. If it really were $200, I would urge them to buy a Mac for all of the reasons that have been discussed.

The webmaster is a PC user—but says that she is willing to try a Mac. (My guess is that she’ll like it—and will have zero difficulty adjusting to Dreamweaver on a Mac).

As a Mac fanboy myself, I would enjoy hearing a PC devotee’s take on this.

The quality of your workflow has more to do with the software that you use than the hardware. Comparing Macs to PCs in terms of GHZ and dollars is pretty meaningless when it really comes down to getting some work done.

IMO, Mac software is superior. I get more work done on my Mac and enjoy the process more. I have 2 macs and 2 PC’s. One PC is wicked fast - a new Alienware Area51 - quite a bit more powerful than my Imac. I’ll still use the Imac for most of my work though. The PC was purchased for a specific job and that is all I will use it for.

Sorry another Mac user here and have been ever since they first debuted. Even though Macs are in the first place more expensive than PCs I don’t care as I totally offset this because Apple makes both the hardware and the software so I know that everything is just going to work first time, every time.

With PCs however you have literally hundreds if not thousands of computer manufacturers so you can never be sure that everything is going to work together. I have in the past been forced to use Macs when I was working in a college but thankfully that didn’t last very long. Even though I could find my way around the system really easily, something which I believe the Mac helped with, the computer would still slow me down. Forgetting the constant crashing but it was the fact that different programmes would have different key commands, window layouts etc… which just doesn’t help at all.

Thankfully with the Mac and the majority of programmes you get for it developers already have a lot that they can work with due to Apple giving developers access to many window layouts and code snippets that they can just use out of the box meaning that the overall experience for a user whether old or new to the platform is generally pretty much the same no matter what programme they are working in.

Add to this fact that Macs last a lot lot longer than PCs in general (we still have a Mac upstairs that we use for Audio recording that is probably about 7 years old and still knocks a lot of PCs out of the water) then you definitely make back the extra money you spent on it in the first place.

Tight integration between all programmes as well especially for graphics, video, general design and coding and this just makes for a really happy place as far as I’m concerned. If Apple went bust tomorrow (please don’t!! 😉 ) then I would stick with whatever Mac I have now for ever.

Best wishes,

Mark

The invoice difference is a lot more than $200, it’s more like $1,000 when Applecare/Dellcare are thrown in. If it really were $200, I would urge them to buy a Mac for all of the reasons that have been discussed.

Your mistake might be trying to go apples for apples on the hardware specs. Don’t be afraid to buy a lesser Mac to bring the price inline (just get plenty of ram). The value of a computer has many more variables than the hardware specs.

Another vote for the macs here. I switched to an eMac when I bought a computer with my own money for the first time, and this was the one I could afford, I’ll never go back. My rationale at the time was that macs last a lot longer than pcs and therefore I was making a good investment, I’ve used that computer for five years for many hours a day and it was still working perfectly when I decided to upgrade. I can’t say the same about my laptop pc that only lasted three years and by the end was risking being thrown out the window. PCs apparently give more bang for the buck, but macs last longer anyway so in the long run they save you money.

For what they want to do either would be adequate, it’s not like they’re going to be processing huge .tiff files or running a video editing studio 😊

I suppose the best course of action would be to explain the advantages/disadvantages of each and let them decide?

The invoice difference is a lot more than $200, it’s more like $1,000 when Applecare/Dellcare are thrown in. If it really were $200, I would urge them to buy a Mac for all of the reasons that have been discussed.

I’d really like to see to see the breakdown of what you’re comparing from Dell that’s leaving a disparity of $1000.

Mac.

Why? Productivity, efficiency, lower total cost of ownership, higher resale value, the list goes on. Many of the web development tools will be similar (CS4, editors, browsers, etc.), but pound for pound, dollar for dollar, the Mac tends to cause less grief (better security, no viruses, fewer maintenance issues), and more ease of use than Windows PCs.

Yes, you can always buy a cheaper PC box, but when comparing exact (or, as close as you can get) hardware features, Macs tend to be very competitive in price. Hardware is only a part of the equation. Vista is nowhere near as elegant and useful as OS X. I just gave up a 17-inch PowerBook after five and a half years, most of which the machine had never been turned off. Never crashed. Swapped out to a larger hard drive after three years. Best machine I’d ever had. Sold it for half what I paid. Try that, Dell notebook owners.

For web developers, setup of MAMP could not be easier and you get a full fledged development environment ready to go with a click (installation was drag and drop). Sweet.

And, BTW—

A PC with a Quad core processor, 4-6 GB RAM…

I have to laugh at all those PCs with Vista that come with 4 gigs or 6 gigs of RAM. Anybody ever check to see how much of that RAM is used by Vista?

Thanks for some great insights. One of the many reasons that I enjoy these forums is that the folks who love EE as much as I do tend to base their opinions on real-world experience and reason.

My own love of the Mac began in 1986 when I bought a 512 (that’s K) Enhanced. For me, MacWrite, MacDraw, and a whopping 512k of RAM provided endless productivity and amusement. The same “wow” experience has followed with owning an SE 30, an LC, a IIVX, a G4, a MacBook Pro, and an iMac (24”). The last three are still blazing along—and I have never had fewer than seven years of consistent work or play from all of them.

During that same timeframe, work has forced me to endure DOS, Windows 3.0, 95, 98, NT, ME, 2000, XP, and Vista on a variety of boxes ranging from build-it-yourself to overpriced Vaio.

For me, it’s no contest. But I can certainly understand why a cost-conscious organization would compare a 20” iMac (with the 2.66GB processor, 4GB RAM, and Applecare) with a Dell Vostro (Core 2 Quad, 4GB RAM, “free” monitor etc). On paper, the iMac doesn’t look so good in this comparison. Day-to-day reality, however, is a different story.

I posted expecting to hear some opposing viewpoints that might challenge my admitted bias: Instead, I got validation—which probably will help my client even more!