Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomkarlo | Hacker News Reader

This... the cost of my computer hardware is basically inconsequential given that these days I'll often get 3-4 years out of it. If I'm using it for work, that's like $2 a day total cost over its lifetime. I'll happily pay an incremental $1 a day for a system that saves me 10 minutes of dicking around and forgo starbucks if that's what it takes.

Justifying choice of your primary work system on the basis of even a $1,000 price difference is generally penny wise - pound foolish. I don't think that's a Mac/Win/Linux issue, just common sense when it comes to work tools.

View on HN

That assumes you save any time at all. I use a ThinkPad with Win7 and I think honestly say that I lose no additional time vs using a MBP. In fact I'd argue it saves me time as I generally like the keyboard more and I can't stand trackpads (I turn mine off and use the stickpoint -- which I actually even prefer over a mouse).

My point... the $1000 savings for many comes with no penalty at all. With that said, I don't have a Unix environnemnt requirements, which would change the equation in a big way.

I think if you find the Thinkpad / W7 more powerful, you should go that route.

All I'm saying is that if you're planning to make on the order of $250-$300K off using a piece of equipment, $1,000 (or even $10,000, arguably) probably shouldn't be material to which one you choose.

But any dollar not spent on one part of a work setup can be spent on some other part of the work setup, so that kind of thinking can easily come out in the wash.

Day to day tasks, I'm pretty equally efficient in any OS, but OSX's significant "lifetime of ownership" time savings for me has been system maintenance. I've never needed to reformat and reinstall a Mac, and when I've voluntarily done it (hackintoshing), restoring a complete system from Time Machine backups has been absolutely painless.

Major OSX updates have never been a problem either (although I've read accounts of errors happening), I've carried one Macbook from 10.4 to 10.6 without ever reinstalling. I've been burned a couple times trying to do distribution upgrades with Ubuntu, I've never had a Windows install that didn't need an occasional refresh for some reason, and I wouldn't dare upgrade from XP->Vista->7. I've not owned Win 7 long enough yet to determine if that will still be the case, but Windows' history has me skeptical.

Just my experience. The Mac price difference has paid for itself many times over for systems I depend on and family I support.

Depends what kind of developer you are. If you're a developer that requires a posix environment, you're definitely better off in the mac world. Thinkpad with Linux is sometimes an option if you're confident that everything is supported, but very often you'll be wasting time dicking around in the xorg.conf file to get the external display to work properly with certain monitors/configurations.

I'm also a bit surprised that you hate the trackpad -- that's the one thing I love about the mac. It supports many kinds of gestures that just wouldn't be possible on a single stickpoint. For example, I use the 3-finger swipe for navigation in chrome every day, and a 4 finger swipe for jumping to specific apps.

I'm a recent OS X convert and I absolutely loathe using trackpads. So I use a mouse. Big whoop.

Well said. Though a cynical contractor could counter that having less productive tools means you get to bill more hours for a given task. Sort of a flip side of the old job creation parable:

"Why are those men digging that ditch with shovels? Wouldn't it be more efficient to use a backhoe?"

"Yes, but this way we create more jobs."

"OK, but if that's the case, why not give them spoons instead?"

Ha. There is always paralells and win xp if you want to be slow. But for the rest of the time i am so fast on os x. I had to do some automation programming and that was the only way to do it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com