Over the past year I've faced so many people asking the question of which computer they should buy, it's been dizzying. A lot of people have been asking as they measure whether to jump over to the Mac platform, and others just need to pick up some sort of replacement.
Also this weekend I faced explaining to Mom that her beloved (and 10 year old) IBM Aptiva probably needed to get thrown away. It broke her heart to see it go and wanted me to see if there was any way to fix it up so that it could be inherited by some disadvantaged person or maybe someone's toddlers.
I spent a few hours reformatting the hard drive and reinstalling OS/2 (the Operating System that had originally come with it) and I too felt pangs of nostalgia and wished more live could be breathed into the machine. But alas, it didn't even have an ethernet port, it was filled with the maximum amount of supported RAM (24 Megs) and the most modern version of Windows that could fit on it was maybe Windows 98.
Mom ended up on the phone for about an hour seeing if there was any place she could donate the computer, or failing that any way to get the garbage men to pick it up. (Turns out they'll do it for a $5 fee.)
So I've decided to write a short mini-article and—who knows—someone surfing the blogosphere may come to this entry pondering these issues. I think I've got a pretty easy-to-understand and concise couple of answers.
A large "Fortune 50" corporation I once worked for had a general policy: plan for a computer's lifespan to be X years and budget to replace all computers as they exceed that age of X years. In the late nineties that corporation felt some real pains and regret for setting a lifespan of 5 years, and decided to move it to 3. That means that they would identify all computers that hit the age of 3 and target replacing them with new machines.
I'm not going to go into all the details behind this policy. A lot of it has to do with the increasing difficulty and cost of supporting computers with too much variation in horsepower, and consequently a variety of different Operating Systems and software that run fine on the new machines, but can't run on the older ones. An individual isn't going to be hit quite so hard by these same issues on a home computer, but to a degree the same specter will rear its ugly head.
Therefore, I'm going to set my simple rule of thumb: plan to replace your computer at least every five years. Period. If that makes your wallet quake, take a moment to think of the cost spread over the lifespan. If you were to buy a $2,000 computer every five years, that would mean your computing (hardware) costs ended up $400 per year or roughly $1 per day. That cost is real, but if you use your computer several hours a week, it's probably justifiable. Also notice that many new computers cost far less than $2,000.
I don't know about you, but I've found the idea of throwing away a computer I've used for ages—a machine that has shared good times and bad—to be depressing. I imagine some under-educated children in Bolivia who could probably still get some good use out of it, if only they could get it, have the electricity to use it, maybe some good IT support, add an ethernet card... Okay, maybe even they couldn't use it. *SIGH*
Charities set minimal requirements for old computers they accept. The simple fact is that supporting the machines and finding legal copies of equally old software to run on the machines becomes prohibitive. Right now it seems that most charities are setting a minimal standard of a "Pentium II Processor" on their accepted donations. And just so you know, the Pentium II came out in the Spring of 1997, seven years ago.
What I want you to understand is that my Five-Year Rule helps you with disposing your computer. After five years you'll still have an easy enough time finding a new home for your computer (and getting that prized tax write-off) thus passing the task of disposal to someone else.
So you've decided it's time for a new computer. But which one? There's a dizzying selection of machines out there. Laptop or Desktop? PC or Mac? Cutting Edge or "Value" Line? Here are a few notes.
For a very short period of time the question of Desktop or Laptop was easy: you were an idiot not to buy a laptop. During that period both shared almost identical processors, the laptop's 15" LCD (flat screen) screens had about the same visible viewing area as most desktop's 17" inch CRT (picture tube) monitors. And on top of that, the laptops were portable.
These advantages have recently shrunk away. A real limiting factor of processors these days is the sheer amount of heat they generate. Apple's top-of-the-line PC's are now water cooled, and they are completely unable to put their newest generation of chips (the 64-bit G5 processor) in their laptops because they simple cannot vent the generated heat. And now that PC displays are frequently flat-panel displays, the laptops' displays aren't enjoying their former advantage as much. And laptops are still considerably more expensive then their bulkier desktop peers.
So should you get a laptop or a desktop? It depends completely on how you use your computer. At least once every three days I find myself packing my laptop into my backpack and taking it somewhere. (The last laptop looked like it had endured several wars.) I have no hesitation about going to the local coffee shop and using the free Wi-Fi hotspot to access the net. In short: I am the ideal laptop owner.
This brings another issue to light: the popularity of wireless Internet access (WiFi) has become a new fantastic advantage to the laptop. I also use my laptop at home when I want to find a nice sunny part of the house (invariable the kitchen) and when my computing tasks are fairly simple and straightforward like e-mail, writing, surfing the net, etc.
I would warn most people, however, to only get a laptop if they know they are going to make use of its portability. A laptop is expensive, breakable (get that extended coverage and check to see if it covers accidental droppage), its less-than-modern CPU suggests we'll see shorter life-spans (that 5-year rule might become a 3-year rule!) Don't get a laptop if it just sounds like a "good idea".
The Mac is a fantastic computer, easy to use, virtually virus-free, far-better designed, easy to maintain. A vast, vast, vast majority of people will be able to do anything on a Mac that used to be restricted to PC's. Word and Excel files, graphics files, multimedia files—they all work on both platforms. Microsoft makes their Office Suite for Mac (arguably a better version in fact!) as does giants like Adobe, Corel, Macromedia and many others. And while PC owners still enjoy a number of PC-only applications, Mac owners are increasingly able to find some superior Mac-only products.
The false illusion of yesteryear was that a Mac owner would be faced with not being able to share files with their PC owning friends. That is a complete fallocy. The only time you'll really face this issue is if your business uses some small, specialized, proprietary software designed by a small software company that can't afford to maintain versions for both platforms. Even in this case, one can buy a remarkable Windows PC emulator called Virtual PC and then run your PC app on your Mac. Virtual PC is a bit sluggish because it is emulation software, but you can still run a vast majority of those specialized PC apps with it.
That said and done, the grim reality is that Macs are significantly more expensive than PCs. I can find an incredible "value line" PC for about $400-500 dollars (the occasional $300 computer can be found if you are good at mailing in rebate forms) that is plenty powerful. To be fair, there's also a $800 value line "eMac" which might fit the bill if you really want a Mac and really can't afford a few hundred more.
So the balance is yours to determine. Do you want vast ease-of-use and protection from viruses or are you PC-savvy enough to provide your own technical support when problems crop up? If time is money then the Mac may become cost-effective. If your budget is crippling then by all means stick with a PC.
The difference in PC costs are bizarre. I recently went through some local superstore (maybe Best Buy) and marveled at the crap they offered for far-too-much money. Similarly I've seen some KILLER computers for almost no money. Since the computer field changes rapidly, anything solid I write here will be obsolete before you read it.
(Hint: if you are reading this between November 2004 and maybe February 2005 and want a Windows Laptop, find one of the eMachines laptops running the Athlon64 chip. Gateway bought eMachines and promptly killed the line, so you'll have to find machines that are sitting in some inventory. TigerDirect.com is a good place. And DAMN Gateway for nuking such an incredible line!)
(Hint #2: Get an AMD over an Intel system. At least during 2004 and probably through 2005 AMD has kicked Intel in performance while constantly delivering lower prices, less heat generation, etc. The "Intel Inside" logo is for people who cater to fear of the unknown and doesn't mean a lick in terms of value!)
The Mac line is far better priced, in that I would argue the more expensive computers have proportionately more "juice" in them than the cheaper models. You wont find anything that's a horrible waste of money and your Macs will hold their value far longer than PCs. (As proof, check out eBay for used Macs. You will NOT find any screaming deals. They remain expensive!) Your best-fit Mac line is easier to choose as well because the iMac always has a built-in display, so if you don't already have a high-quality display, the iMac quickly becomes a no-brainer.
(Hint #3: NEVER AGAIN should you buy a CRT—you know, a T.V. style picture tube. NEVER! Computers come and go but monitors stay around for years and years and years. The CRT is dead technology: heavy, bulky, fuzzy. If you can donate yours or turn it into a hand-me-down for a relative, do so and get yourself a flat panel, or an iMac with the built-in display. I've been quietly hoping I might accidentally drop my last CRT so I could finally replace it with something that doesn't take up half of my desk-space!)
But not taking any of this into consideration, there's still the question of whether to get the more expensive or less expensive computer. Here's another simple rule of thumb: the five year rule applies to a higher-end system. If you buy the cheapest computer you can find, you might be dropping yourself to the 3-year replacement cycle. Let's go through a math exercise to see if this value makes sense.
Consider two different computer systems: a "value" line at $500 and a "power" line at $900. And for simplicity, let's say that the value line will last 3 years and the power line will last for 5 years. (These are gross simplifications, but they may turn out to be decent rules-of-thumb.)
The value line's cost averaged over its life-span will be $500 ÷ 3 = $166 per year. The power line's cost will be $900 ÷ 5 = $180 per year. Those values are pretty similar, but they'll give you a better gut-feeling over whether to spend the extra money for the extra power. You might enjoy the first few years of stronger machine. On the other hand, if you find a power line priced at $1200 then $1200 ÷ 5 = $240 and you might guess someone is ripping you off. (Wise guess.)
Use this simple formula if you go into a store and want to make sure the sales-guy isn't trying to dupe you. Take the 2nd-cheapest machine and call that your value line. Then you might multiply that amount by 5/3 (1.7) to see what a "reasonable" power-line cost would be.
(By the way, I'm looking at a TigerDirect catalog and seeing an eMachines Athlon64 3200+ for $700. THAT is a nice power system for a good price! If you can get a cheap Athlon 64 system, do so.)
Well, that's about all the wisdom I have to dispense. Hopefully I've created some good general rules-of-thumb. In summary: it might be a good plan to find something in the middle price range and mark on your one-range calendar to look into a charitable donation around the computer's 4th birthday. If you are good budgeting planner, know that you'll be spending an average of $150-500 per year on computer hardware and adjust to that fact. Give yourself a feel for how valuable your time and energy is and use that to determine if a Mac's exceptional cost matches its value. (My opinion: a resounding YES!) And if you want a PC, look at my math examples and USE THEM. And by God, get an Athlon 64 system if you want a Windows PC or laptop. It's truly the sweetest processor around for the foreseeable future.
Posted by Murray Todd Williams at November 13, 2004 08:24 AMYou said:
"A laptop is expensive, breakable (get that extended coverage and check to see if it covers accidental droppage), its less-than-modern CPU suggests we'll see shorter life-spans (that 5-year rule might become a 3-year rule!)..."
I cannot applaud this statement enough. I know that is seems expensive to spend an extra $500 on the extended 3-year CompUSA version of AppleCare, but it is well, well worth it. It covers everything, including accidental droppage (unlike the regular AppleCare through Apple). And if there is a problem with the computer, and they aren't able to fix it (especially after they've poored money down the drain, themselves, by expending several hundred dollars of their own labor-hours on trying to fix it), they will give you a new one for free. Obviously this new replacement one isn't actually "free", but it essentially cost you only $500 (the cost of the extended 3-year warranty).
I got a brand new 17" G4 Powerbook for $500!
They couldn't fix my old original model top-of-the-line Titanium Powerbook (which itself was cheaper than normal because it was the last in-store demo model and was already a bit beat up when I bought it several years ago), so they had to replace it for me with a modern equivalent -- which actually turns out to be an even better machine.
Even if you don't have that catastrophic a failure on your machine, within the three-year period (and yes, I was near the end of my three-year period, so I got lots of use out of it before it died), you will still save yourself a ton of money with that $500 extended three-year warranty through CompUSA. I know this from experience because during the first 12 months of the warranty, I was under the mis-impression that I had to take the computer to the Apple store in Cambridge to be serviced. The regular Apple care is not as extensive as the CompUSA one, and so when I accidentally dropped the machine, I had to pay $500 out of my own pocket to have the monitor replaced. Those LCD screens are expensive. If I had only known, I could have saved myself a long, cold commuter rail and T ride, and lots of money, if I'd only taken to where I bought it, CompUSA.
Now I know I sound like shill for CompUSA. Far from it. They have major problems of their own -- for example, they will typically take a much longer turnaround time on your computer, because their shipping speeds to Texas are much slower than directly from the Apple stores, and their in-house initial diagnostic techs aren't as savvy about Apple equipment as they could be. And sometimes they can be hostile to Mac people. But they have improved so much in these areas during the last year or two. Now they even drop by your house or workplace to pick up the dead computer, and if you will be without it for more than a week, sometimes they even give you a loaner!
Plus, if you don't end up needing that $500 extended warranty, and your Mac works and lasts past the three-year mark without a problem, then you are actually in an even better and less money-wasting position than ever, because you've essentially lucked into a 4- or 5-year lifespan for that supposed 3-year lifespan computer, all for only another $500. It really isn't a bad deal at all.
Posted by: Carole at November 16, 2004 07:23 AM