What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
299 Comments
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -51/+307Wow, that wasn't biased AT ALL, was it ?
In direct comparisons, OS X ($300/$400) is more expensive than Windows XP ($200/$300), that's it, that's all this article should have been.
Also, is it just me or are the most popular anti-virus apps FREE ? I'm talking about Ad-Aware, SpyBot, MS Anti-Spyware and so on.
And, aren't there a lot of FREE anti-virus products out that that are as good, if not better than commercial ones ? Like AVG and so on.
Not to mention, anti-spyware/virus is optional as long as you use your computer intelligently and it's also unfair as [the age old saying goes] Macs simply aren't targets for spyware, at all.. now, that might seem to lame to say, but Macs are touted as being 'easy to use' like XP, so they would have the same computer illiterate users as the XP user base so it's a perfectly valid statement, so that means spyware would be infecting Macs as well.
So, if you're going to compare the cost of the 2 OSs, do so, don't include things like the Geek Squad especially so if popular apps are FREE, and if you do mention things like spyware, use logic/reasoning, please..
- Since when is there a standardised price for anti-virus ?
- And since when is Geek Squad not optional in the use of a PC ? Or why not list the price range of the service they provide by other [popular] companies/groups ?
Inaccurate ? Hahah . . . - scootinger, on 10/12/2007, -18/+107Yeah, how many of those $100 updates has Apple come out with since they released Mac OS X in 2001? Not sure, but at least 3.
And what about Windows XP, released in the same year? NONE. - Nezzari, on 10/12/2007, -13/+90"Total cost of maintaining Windows software: over $250 a year, or more than $1800 since 2000."
I purchased one copy of Windows XP pro and that's it. I'm sorry, but there is no way OS X is cheaper than XP (Even including antivirus software).
Now, I like OS X as much as the next guy but this is just plain stupid. - kalleanka, on 10/12/2007, -13/+86Marked as inaccurate.
I have had Windows XP for 5 years and it has so far costed me exactly 0 dollar and 0 cents to keep it up to date. The only thing I have paid is whatever I paid for XP through the OEM license. - FreakTrap, on 10/12/2007, -10/+72Thumbs-up to you, Innacurate to the story.
- TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -11/+69Holy *****, not this idiot again. Will people stop putting his horrible articles on the front page, I'm so sick of this crap.
Marked as lame, and I'll be blocking anyone who submits any more stories from his site. - usernameistaken, on 10/12/2007, -7/+56Realistic my ass. Sorry, but the guy is a ***** idiot. He's cherry-picking facts in the worst possible light for Windows and the best possible light for the Mac. No suprise there, seeing as to how he's a fanboy. How many people spend $200/year using geeksquad? Heck, how many people stuck with 2000 instead of upgrading to XP? This article is as "truthiness" as it gets.
- Lynn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+51I purchased XP for $99. Avast anti-virus $0. Defender anti-spyware $0. Cost over 5 years $99.
- ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -7/+45Reported as inaccurate.
Title should read:
Windows 5x more expensive as Mac OSX if you're an idiot. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+45I thought he had a pretty good point when he suggested that anti-virus software was a hidden cost of running Windows. But paying $200 a year for spyware removal?? No, that's retarded.
- h2d2, on 10/12/2007, -14/+47Daniel Eran at RoughlyDrafted "Magazine" is the Ann Coulter of OS debates. Another jem from the moron who recently "proved" that Apple has a 30% market share.
- maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+37The $200x7 cleaning by the "geek squad", that's a crack attempt to make this look feasible. As detailed on digg several weeks ago, every tool available and used by the "geek squad" is available totally free for download. All the programs are relatively simple to use, anyone who "pays" for their service deserves to be ripped off.
$200 in AV, i can understand that, but you don't have to buy a new edition every year, you could simply buy one every other year. Subscriptions are much cheaper than new products.
At best this is totally made up. Since MS has released 100+ security updates since SP2.
No research, not accurate, no digg. - usernameistaken, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Mr. Black, how convenient every story you submit comes from roughlydrafted. I guess it's a coincidence, eh Mr. Eran... er, Mr. Black?
- ziadoz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+38Windows XP is a one time purchase. Adding on the cost of additional (and unnecessary) things (which can all be got for free) just to make your arguement add up is petty. When will people realise Apple are bending them over and giving them a good screwing with these 'upgrades'?
On a side note, can people stop posting crap from this blog. Its not a magazine, its a blog with the word magazine in the url. - BlueLaser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32Couldn't agree more, Bioshocker. I found myself reading his article, agreeing with many of his points, and silently wondering where in the world the "5x" cost difference was going to exist. Then...BAM!...$200 a year for Geek Squad cleaning.
If you're willing to spend $200 a year on that kind of service, do you really care about the cost of OS?! - DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33FTA: "...New Macs ship with a free copy of iLife apps, which some industry pundits have valued at $350 in comparable PC software..."
Who are these "industry pundits" that he speaks of. If I wanted to, I could pull ***** out of my ass an put it in a mis-informed blog also. - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33@albk
does it bother you how many of your stories from roughlydrafted get marked as inaccurate? - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27XP Pro for $400?!?
Try $139, at best: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832116059
Even XP Pro Retail is only $279, at most: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16837116195 - Celsius032, on 10/12/2007, -12/+33http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832110016
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16837102059
Windows is cheaper - babbling, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29Buying Mac OS X is infinitely more expensive than Ubuntu.
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Marked as Innaccurate....
- valis, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25What a load of *****.
- inkubux, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28and OSX is indefinatly More Expensive than Ubuntu..
I know... I know
digged down in 3.2.1 - Stopher, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Can someone show me all these people paying $300 for their copy of Windows? Everyone I know uses the OEM copy that came with their computer. That may not be you but go to 20 of your friends and I dare you to find the person who even installed windows themselves.
- Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24XP Pro was $400 when I bought a copy in May. Major updates (i.e. 10.4 -> 10.5) of OS X are not free, AFAIK. Since 2000, there have been five such updates to the OS, not counting the beta->10.0 transition, with another coming next year. In that same time frame, Microsoft has released ... two? major operating systems: Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Each has undergone some major updates, but those are provided for free, and upgrade versions are heavily discounted. If you paid full price every step of the way, it's probably in OSX's favor. If you bought an upgrade version of XP but paid full price for 2K, it's probably a wash. If you bought OEM copies of each, it's much less expensive to buy Windows.
- scootinger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19You can find an OEM copy of XP Home for about $100, or XP Professional for about $150.
- V1ncent, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16How the kelp does garbage make it to the front page of Digg anyway?
- theanticrust, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I'm a Mac user and even I think this story was lame. Marked as inaccurate.
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -16/+26Did anyone mention that one copy of OS X can be run on 5 computers in your home?
- absentmindedjwc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16man, dont look at all mac users like they are all stupid.... this guy is a ***** idiot, I know damn well that mac costs more than XP (I know because I spent the money on both of them, needed OS X for music software that doesnt exist on XP... or at least stable versions)...
I use OS X Tiger (and leopard beta) on my mac, Windows XP Professional on my Vaio, and Fedora on my HP (desktop, desktop, laptop respectivly) and I really do not have a favorite, each one has its positives and its negatives... so dont clump all mac users in one group and say they are all darwinian candadates... - akinder, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13MS bashers, they just see something akin to "Another reason why Windoze suxors!!!11" and they digg it up.
- kingace, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Everyone who isn't a Mac lunatic should just stay out of this one... you're going to be outnumbered...
- honer123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Innaccurate. I spent $200 on XP in 2001. I haven't spent a penny since, and I have all of the updates, antivirus, spyware etc..... that I need. Bad article.
- lxcid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Hey, can't you see the trend? You bash Microsoft. You get digg frontpage!
Digg getting so boring nowadays.
If I am going to save money, I use Linux. This article is obviously bias.
I don't know how many anti Microsoft bashing post I have posted. But its totally lame. I wonder what make up of majority digg population.
Burying for good... - titaniumdecoy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8As a long-time mac user, I am truly disgusted by this article. Daniel Eran is a despicable liar.
- SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"if your identity is based on the consumer products you buy than you have a lot more problems than computer viruses."
Couldn't have said it better myself. You are not your ***** khakis. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Why? As has been pointed out countless times, the article is *****.
- Pic0, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8So if you run Max OS with boot camp its like $50,000 a year
- LouisC, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Celsius032: Well, if you want to be fair, consider that Windows XP Home is crippled. To really get a comparitive look at the price, you have to do this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832110016
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16837102062
In which case, even with the OEM Windows XP Professional, Windows is still more expensive than Mac OS - ClassicJBC, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10For all those who are claiming that only computer experts can run XP virus and spyware free, I'd like to disagree. There are exactly two tech savvy things I do (if you even want to call it that) to keep XP Home (yes, Home) running smoothly. 1) Upgrade to SP2, which is automatic anyway. 2) Download and use FireFox. That's it. No anti-spyware. No anti-virus. No cleaning the registry, deleting files, downloading firewalls, etc. XP just works, and for me it works well.
I have no problem at all with Apple or the Mac OS. I just don't like people evangelizing about it like it's the solution to the world's problems, and I certainly don't like it when articles like this come out and try to make Windows users look like idiots. "ZOMG! You guys are spending 5x more!" Riiiight. - whackaxe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7didn't your mother ever tell you to not to abuse the caps lock?
- pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7PowerToys: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/default.mspx
A huge number of the features in OS X are coming in Vista. Yes, OS X beat them out the door, but they have been long announced. - reedsr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10I purchased my XP Pro for 5$, paid 0$ for anti-virus and I am my own geek.
This might be the worst digg article ever - databyss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6If you call the microsoft support number, it's an automated process to get the license transferred to new hardware. You don't even have to talk to a person. You enter in the code XP shows you, they give you a new one. I've done it twice.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I'm getting tiered of this Mac vs Windows BS. Soon their will be article saying Mac users get more Chicks than Windows users. You will never see mindless ***** like this on Newsvine or /.
- commiecat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Well XP is based on NT and developed by Microsoft. OSX is based on BSD/Mach kernel, developed by not-Apple.
Article adds $230 for a/v on XP but none on OSX. That's like saying, "Our competitor sells beans for $1.06 after tax whereas you'll only pay $.99 for our beans before tax. We are cheaper!". Chalk up the same amount of money for Norton on OSX.
Article also adds $1400(!) for Geek Squad spyware cleaning and (falsely) notes that OSX doesn't need to be cleaned because it's miraculously impervious to malicious software. This should nullify the article in itself.
FTA: "These numbers aren’t hypothetical, but rather are based on my own experience, and those of my clients." - well if either you or your clients are using Geek Squad you have issues well beyond the scope of total cost of ownership.
A completely biased blog with unequal comparisons based on subjective numbers. How does this crap even make Digg? - GeneralFailure, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Dear Mac-hating windows users:
If you don't like macs, please don't buy one. Complaining is not going to make us sell our macs and buy dells.
Thanks,
Mac users. - danieleran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Because your reading comprehension is very low. Try again.
- danieleran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Please stop comparing one copy of XP with several copies of Mac OS X. Just because Thurrott does this, it doesn't make it valid.
If (speaking hypothetically) Microsoft released six versions of Office in the same time that, say Apple only managed to crank out one release of AppleWorks, it wouldn't be fair to say that Apple's solution cost less than buying every version of Office ever sold.
It would, however, be valid to say that Microsoft shipped more versions, updated them more frequently, and that they were more functional. If Office also cost less than AppleWorks, it would even ice the cake. And if AppleWorks required users to buy extra addon software to simply use the product as intended, that would also be a valid criticism.
That is exactly the point my article makes: Apple delivered more major revisions of Mac OS X, updated them more frequently, sells their product for considerably less, and it isn't crippled by poor security that demands outside diapers to keep it up and running.
There is a wildly profitable subindustry for diapering Windows' security problems. - Popdmb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11How will Microsoft's expensive platform affect sales of PCs next year under Leopard & Vista?
The same way they do every year -- Windows familiarity and huge marketshare. I don't understand how people still can't seem to understand that. -
Show 51 - 100 of 300 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is