Mac vs. PC: Which Is

Mac vs. PC: Which is better for the average consumer? Comparing Apple Macintosh vs. PC-Compatibles: Which Is Best for the Consumer? Operating System Price/Performance Comparisons Ergonomics and Usability Developer Communities and New Application Development Feature Comparison The debate of which specific category of personal computer, the Apple Macintosh desktops and laptops or IBM PC-compatible desktops and laptops are superior for the average consumer is the subject of this paper.

This is a long-standing debate that has been going on for literally decades, since the first Apple Macintosh PCs were introduced in the early 1980s, complete with its own operating system, systems architecture featuring Motorola instead of Intel processors, and intensive use of graphics instead of a textual interface. In addition, the first Macintosh systems had a closed architecture, that significantly increased aftermarket shares for Apple of accessories, yet made partnering with Apple from a 3rd party company standpoint difficult if not impossible.

During these first several product generations of the Apple Macintosh systems that eventually led to the development of the first Apple laptop in 1999, IBM PC-compatible systems manufacturers aggressively built out entire sub-industries of accessories, applications, networks, and storage products to support the PC-compatibles industry. This resulted in the majority of developers concentrating on the PC-compatible platform during these years, yet conversely gave Apple valuable expertise in managing the supply chain, logistics and sourcing for their unique line of laptops including the MacBook Series today.

Apple's customer base is one of the most passionate and known for their unwavering support of new products and services from the company (Heron, 2007) including rapid adoption of the first generation of Apple Macintosh laptop systems starting with the G3 Series in 1998, followed by the iBook Series in late 1999, culminating with the MacBook Series in mid-2006. As the majority of systems Apple sells today are laptops, this paper concentrates on the comparison of this product category with comparable PC-compatible systems in this form factor.

Operating System Price/Performance Comparisons The largest value-added cost component of any laptop is the software royalties paid to 3rd party companies for the use of their operating systems and applications. It is common for $75 or more per IBM PC-compatible laptop to be paid to Microsoft for use of their operating system alone (Frakes, 2006). In fact Microsoft is known for having an expensive enterprise licensing model (Hedgebeth, 2007) which has forced many laptop manufacturers to consider open source operating systems including Linux.

The cost for Microsoft Office on an IBM PC-compatible laptop can also add an additional $150 or more to the cost of manufacturing the laptop was well. It is common to find laptop companies struggling with how to profitably cover their cost of production when software royalties around can average $225 or more. These costs are always passed on to the consumer, often inflating the costs of IBM PC-compatible laptops over the price of comparably equipped Apple laptops of comparable power and speed.

Apple is today delivering their MacOS X 10.4, and many IBM PC-compatible laptop manufacturers are providing Microsoft Windows Vista Premium Edition in competitive systems. For the typical consumer users, the stability and usability of the operating system is going to be critical if the laptop is going to be adopted for everyday tasks or not.

The beta test period of the Apple MacOS X 10.4 is over a year longer than that of Windows Vista; in addition 3rd party testing has shown the Apple operating system to be consistently more stable than its Microsoft counterpart (Strategic Direction, 2008). There is also the added benefit to consumers of having the cost of the operating system included in the baseline costing figures of the laptops Apple sells; this can account for a $100 or more difference in the price of a laptop (Prince, 2008).

Apple has also spent considerable R&D resources to ensure that its legacy applications, written to the Motorola microprocessors its previous generation Macintosh systems and laptops were based on, can be transported into the MacOS X 10.4 operating system.

While byte ordering is significantly different between Motorola processors used in the past and today, Apple continues to pursue a strategy of including hybrid microprocessors including the PowerPC which can emulate Intel commands, in addition to use of mainstream Motorola processors, and as was announced less than thirty six months ago, use of the Intel microprocessors in selected systems and laptops. IBM PC-compatible laptops on the other hand are completely dependent on the Intel product roadmap.

The implications on operating systems for the average consumer of these decisions on the use of microprocessors are critical. First, there is the issue of backward compatibility of applications based on the byte ordering of the processors themselves (Mossberg, 2007). This is an area that many analysts called a weakness for Apple since the introduction of their closed-architecture Apple Macintoshes during the 1980s and throughout the 90s.

Apple has since gone to a more open architectural strategy and this is reflected in their defining an operating system platform that can take into account Motorola, Intel and hybrid microprocessors. Evidence of the effectiveness of this dual processor strategy is illustrated in how the MacOS X 10.4 operating system is designed to meet a variety of unmet needs of mainstream consumers without having to concentrate on the lowest common denominator of performance. Second, the variations in operating system structure and definition have major implications for system performance overall (Predd, Cass, 2005).

Microsoft's operating system strategy in the past concentrated on the development of pre-emptive multi-task threading, or the ability of a given thread in an application to sizes the necessary memory and pre-emptively multi-task a process from a lower priority application. This was first introduced in the Windows NT and later Windows XP operating systems, where multithreaded applications were based on dedicated memory partitions in these operating systems. Microsoft moved away from pre-emptive multi-task threading to dedicated memory partitions in Windows XP and continues this on with Windows Vista.

This was done to alleviate system lock-ups and system crashes due to memory conflicts. Despite all these improvements however, Windows Vista has been plagued with problems and a lack performance improvements in key application areas that the average consumer relies on (Lahart, 2007). Third, the variation in microprocessor strategies is also influencing the ability of these two systems to complete graphics-intensive tasks.

It has been reported by industry analysts including Wall Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal (Mossberg, 2007) and (Lahart, 2007) that the tight integration of graphics applications to the Motorola microprocessor including the PowerPC yield significantly greater performance from their anecdotal tests reviewing the PowerBook G4 relative to the Dell Studio 15 for example. This is due to the Intel-based IBM PC-compatible laptops requiring applications to be mapped to a common set of commands for the processors that text, graphics and Web-based applications use.

Apple's strategy has been to work with microprocessor vendors and create a specific set of commands for each microprocessor they support to optimize system performance on specific tasks. This translates into significant performance results for Apple on key graphical and indexing tasks relative to IBM PC-compatible laptops. It can be seen from this comparison that the Apple microprocessor and operating system strategy is highly synergistic in that they company has worked diligently to make sure each is complimentary of the other.

This has led to the Apple MacOS X 10.4 becoming the foundation for high performance graphics, editing, audio-visual and digital content related performance relative to IBM PC-compatible laptops. In many respects the strategy of Intel-based laptops is to seek out processor efficiency and cost reduction to ensure the cost of laptops will continue to fall. The proliferation of IBM PC-compatible laptops is evidence of this strategy.

Apple has taken a much more targeted, differentiated approach to defining the strategies between microprocessors and operating systems, and has been able to in turn differentiate at the application level of their systems as well. When all these factors are taken into account, the Apple operating systems' designed-in integration to both Intel and Motorola microprocessors and the development of highly specialized applications, in addition to the testing completed of the MacOS X 10.4 operating system makes the Apple more attuned to the needs of the average consumer.

It is also important to note that the costs of this integration between microprocessors and operating systems is a sunk cost; the consumers of these systems are not required to pay them to cover royalties as is the case with Microsoft. Ergonomics and Usability The development of the Apple interface has continually refined through the use of Advisory Councils and a variety of Voice of the Customer programs within Apple (Holt, 2003), as has the Windows interface of Microsoft's operating system.

The difference however has been the speed of innovation that Microsoft has been able to initiate and maintain, fueled by the highly loyal customer base they have that suggests many of the navigational improvements to their applications and operating systems. Ergonomics and usability is also enhanced when there is a consistency of design criteria and interface standards across generations of an operating system.

On this specific aspect of design guidelines, Apple pioneered the development of graphical interface guidelines with the launch of the Macintosh in the 1980s which was promptly followed by Microsoft's Windows development team. While both operating system development teams have taken their own approaches to interpreting and fine-tuning the graphical standards as first defined by Apple, the depth of ergonomics and usability test to the application level is more pervasive in Apple's R&D spending.

Microsoft has one of the largest research centers in the personal computer and software industry and has invested more heavily in Internet-based interfaces over operating systems to date (Hedgebeth, 2007). Apple's reliance on their loyal customer base and the development of online Internet panels to test new operating systems as was done thoroughly with the MacOS X 10.4 for example pays dividends as it also infuses a sense of ownership in the customer base for the new operating system, enhancements to graphical interface and new applications.

This level of interaction is not possible for Microsoft as their customer base is so wide, distributed and often cut off from providing feedback as they are the primary customer to PC manufacturers. Developer Communities and New Application Development With less than or near 10% of the total PC marketplace, Apple is considered to be a unique and highly differentiated brand, so much so that founder CEO Steve Jobs likens the company's brand to BMW (Strategic Direction, 2008).

This is not elitist; it is speaking of its unique niche and commitment to exceptional ergonomics, usability and delivering of value to consumers. Microsoft's Steve Ballmer concentrates his messaging on the scalability of Windows XP and Vista for enterprise companies, and also underscores the large installed base of Windows users globally. Both Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer's primary responsibility apart from running their companies is to encourage 3rd party developers to continually add new applications and products for their respective PC operating systems.

Both of these leaders know that to the extent there are new application is the extent to which their operating systems, and therefore IBM PC-compatible laptops in this instance, become more attractive to consumers. In assessing this from the standpoint of the average consumer, who is doing the better job of attracting developers to their platform? Steve Ballmer reports that Microsoft has over 23,000 certified partner professionals working on its application framework alone. Conversely there are 2,500 developers generating 3,100 applications, according to Apple's Public Relations Department as of this year.

The breadth and depth of applications generated for IBM PC-compatible laptops are far greater than those generated for the Apple Macintosh as can be seen from the developer numbers alone. Microsoft also has extensive development programs going in the Internet and Web Services arenas as well, aimed at enterprise integration and connectivity for their operating systems. When considering a Macintosh vs. An IBM PC-compatible laptop, Microsoft's operating system has the definite advantage in terms of support for 3rd party applications and the breadth of applications available.

Feature Comparison Comparing the Apple PowerBook G4 with a 17" monitor vs. The Dell Studio 15 illustrates how Apple has been able to successfully capitalize on its tight integration of microprocessor-to-operating system integration and deliver value, while also showing how Dell's supply chain and direct selling model has been able to significantly trim the cost of production for a mid-range laptop. The Apple PowerBook G4 sells for $999 while the Dell Studio 15 begins at $1,074. The PowerBook is based on the Motorola PowerPC microprocessor, allowing it to run both Apple Macintosh and Intel-based applications.

The Dell Studio 15 relies on an Intel Core 2 Duo processor running at 2.1 GHz. The Dell system has a 250GB hard drive, the Apple PowerBook G4, 120GB. The PowerBook also has a 17" TFT display while the Dell has a 14" active matrix screen. The Apple PowerBook G4 also has an advanced graphics chipset based on AGP 4x performance, had has 5.5 hours of battery life. The Dell Studio 15 relies on baseline XGA graphics on the motherboard and has 4 hours of estimated battery life. In addition, Apple includes a full one year warranty as.