All-in-One PCs

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
Yes, but then you added another value to the mix;
"value-during-use", which is hard to quantify for a computer.

Then you added a third parameter to the mix: "Cost-during-use",
which when it comes to gasoline consumption and repair costs of a
specific car model is quantifiable. The corresponding parameters
for computers (repairs, support, maintenance) are comparable when
it comes to computers as well, and they always seem to favor the
Mac.

Not really. No third parameter. Cost-during-use includes the
decreasing value of the computer as it ages.

No, this is false. Depreciation is not a "cost", it's lost value if *or* when
you sell the item. In fact, depreciation is most of the time money *back*,
not cost.

The initial purchase price is a cost, depreciation determines how much money
you will regain when or if you sell the item.

The only difference is that some costs (like gasoline) are
incremental in occurrence and some costs are determined only when
the product is disposed of whether junked or sold or traded-in.

No, there is no cost for throwing it away. There is no cost for selling it,
and there is no cost for trading it in. If you're lucky, the item can
mitigate a future cost by having a residual value, which means that it is the
opposite of a cost, it's an asset.

We don't normally think of the depreciating value of a computer as
we use it, but it's there. It's the core of the discussion when you
talk about re-sale value.

But the depreciating value is not a cost. The cost was the price you paid for
the value to begin with. If you paid $2,000 for the computer, that's the
cost. That money has been transferred into an asset that you own. It can
depreciate down to $0 and your cost will be what you paid; $2,000.

You can balance that cost by the resale value if it hasn't depreciated down
to $0, in which case its value is again transferred to money that gos into
your pocket.

Tony Cooper:
Value-during-use is a very viable point in a discussion about
re-sale value because it may be a consideration when choosing
what to purchase.

Sandman:
It's the impossible quantifiability of the point that makes it
irrelevant.

What? Just because you can't put a dollar figure on the
value-during-use does not make it an irrelevant consideration.

Yes, it does - when performing a comparison. One can not compare something
that cannot be quantified.

You are giving consideration to it when you buy a PC for gaming.

Coincidentally, I have explicitly agreed that one "value-during-use" for a PC
is specifically for gaming. Gaming is something that can be done better on a
PC, and if my purpose of getting a computer is to play games, my value-
during-use will undeniably be better if I buy a PC. This is quantifiable.

I've also said that apart from some niche applications in certain business
fields - there are no other quantifiable values *other* than gaming that
would favor the PC. I can, subjectively, find many that would favor the Mac
(obviously) but not ones that I can quantify and thus I leave them out of the
equation, as it should be.

Sandman:
I.e. year 2010, one photographer buys a computer and uses it for
five years

Purchase iMac: -$2,000
Costs-during-use -$1,000
Value-during-use +$?
Money earned for five years: +$125,000
Sale price: +$1,000

Purchase PC: -$1,200
Costs-during-use: -$2,500
Value-during-use: +$?
Money earned for five years: +$125,000
Sale price: +$0

Now, as you can see - the amount of money he earned as a
photographer is the same. It's not like either platform makes him
a more successful photographer. Sure, the computer can be more
prone to problems causing downtime that may end up affecting
deadlines, but probably rarely so, not to make a dent in the scope
of five years.

Yet, you've assigned 2.5 times the costs-during-use. That's called
"stacking the deck". I don't sell my photographs, but my (Windows)
computer has never been down.

Yes, I did. But not due to bias, and it really doesn't matter. It wasn't
meant as a definitive comparison with a conclusion. Windows PC's costs more
to own, generally, with more repair, more maintenance. There are numerous
studies that shows this, but that's beside the point.

Sandman:
Now we have value-during-use. This is the value that option A *or*
option B bestowed upon the photographer due to that specific
choice. I.e. value above what he is already paid for his normal
work which he can do on either platform.

So what could this value be? Well, it could be time. computer
malware, repairs, downtime and such may cause deadlines to be
pushed, spare time suffering or things like that. But it's "only"
time, and it's hard to quantify. Even if he did have to spend +X
hours due to one of the options how do we determine the actual
dollar value of that time? Again, it could be time he'd otherwise
sit and binge-watch Game of Thrones while eating pizza, so no
harm, right?

Then we have costs-during-use. Perhaps one option led to him only
feeling safe by having an annual $25 anti-malware suite? Maybe one
option is more energy conservative than the other, perhaps one
option spends less time in for repairs? Some of these are
quantifiable, and many studies have been done that can give a hint
about which of the two options that have the best TCO (total cost
of ownership) figures.

But the entire "value-during-use" remains a big fat question mark,
unless it's just the inverse of "cost-during-use", i.e. the less
costs it infers, the better value it has - in which case the Mac
would win there as well.

That last part is not "real world". If the person who doesn't know
the value expected, the Windows unit would win out because the
person who can't be bothered to determine the value expected is most
likely to go with the unit with the lowest initial cost.

And would "lose out" due to it, without even knowing it, of course.

He's not thinking a few years down the road when he might want to
sell the unit. And (and I add this to fend off the usual charge)
he's not the type to compare spec-to-spec.

Also, he's not aware that the TCO is a lot higher than the initial purchase
price, and the TCO could have been a lot lower with a different platform. But
that's what we're talking about here, not what people "know" or even care
about.

What's the point of this involved exercise? No, we can't assign a
dollar figure to value-during-use but our inability to do so does
not mean the value isn't there or considered.

It isn't considered, that's the point. Since no one can determine it. If it
can not be determined then it can not be considered.

You can't accurately assign a cost-during-use figure, either. You
can only estimate then in a projection (as you have above), and a
v-d-u figure can be assigned if you want to go the route you've used
above.

No, the numbers above was meant to reflect the sum of those numbers after the
five years, not meant as an "estimate" or a general case.

If the person doesn't know what value he expects, then which machine
he buys is likely to be based on cost-out-of-pocket or some other
input like a recommendation from someone.

Of course, that's a given. If a computer that is seemingly similar costs
less, the customer is more likely to buy that one. But this subthread started
to talk about resale value and correctly identified that few people are aware
of it or even consider it (or don't care). You're the one that apart from
initial cost and resale value, added two more parameters that one may
consider.

--
Sandman

On 2016-02-01 20:44:57 +0000, dorayme said:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

On 1/31/2016 10:16 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Our main TV is a Sony XBR. It was a floor model I bought, I think in
1989. The CRT is starting to degrade, but is still usable.

where 'usable' means 'can't be used as a tv anymore because it can't
receive digital tv signals'.

Wrong again. It works just fine with the cable box. But there you go,
just being a jerk again, while ignoring the point.

What's a cable box when it's at home?

It's a TV tuner that is in a separate box and connects to your TV. Had
a cheap one (talking $30 or so nothing bucks here!) for years, work
well. In my case eventually did not actually need it for a new digital
TV. But a similar one had a PVR function (you can record live TV via
it) and it proved useful addition to the inbuilt tuner to the digital
TV. It also gives the ability to watch one program and record another.
Some such boxes can record more than one program at a time.

Nowadays, there are excellent and much dearer boxes which market
mainly as TV recorders with internal HDs. Mine is pretty classy and I
should have let the moths fly out of where I keep my dough earlier. It
not only records reliably more than one station but is on my WIFI
network and can see all the catchup free to air TV programs available
as well as get onto such as Netflix and other providers.

Now, quite a few TVs have PVR recording built in, but a quality
dedicated HD recorder has many advantages (the least of which is the
actual internal HD).

Too much information? I'm sorry Tim. I just can't help typing
uncontrollably before breakfast.

The cable boxes provided by the Cable TV companies, or owned outright
by the cable service subscriber are a little more than "just a digital
tuner". In the US, generally, they are the gateway to your premium
channels, OnDemand, & Pay-per-view. To get those services you have to
have a cable box (I have a Scientific Atlanta), or for digital TVs
which have a slot, a CableCARD, or a combo DVR/digital tuner.
To get basic cable programing on a contempory TV a cable box/card is
not required. Then if you are in an area where you can recieve
broadcast TV a digital TV antenna is needed. Where I live I cannot get
broadcast TV so I have the choice of cable, or satellite.
Charter.net has a fiber cable out to my neighborhood which provides me
with good fast broadband and decent programing beyond basic cable.

My old 27" non-digital Samsung CRT I gave to my neighbor and he has it
hooked up to a DVD player for his young kids.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2/1/2016 1:55 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

We still have a CRT TV in a spare bedroom that works just fine with
the box. Why nospam says "can't be used as a tv anymore" is just a
an
example of ignorance.

Not really. A TV is a device that can receive broadcast television. A
CRT TV could do that in the past, but can no longer do that. It becomes
just a low-quality monitor for a device that gives it low-quality
video.
Technically it is no longer a TV at that point.

However, in general terms, most people would continue to call it a TV.

"can't be used as" is the ignorant term. With the adapting thing, it
is simply a usable TV with some of the electronics in a separate box.

there's nothing ignorant about it. the fact that it needs an external
adapter means it "can't be used as". that's *why* it needs an external
box.

If you can't articulate your point correctly, by adding "...without an
external device", then don't blame others for thinking you ignorant.

there's no need to add anything. the meaning is clear, which makes you
the ignorant one.

No, the meaning is not only unclear but wrong. The TV in question is
in use as a TV, so "can't be used" is incorrect.

nope. you are once again, wrong. no surprise there.

it's being used as a *monitor*, not a tv.

the term tv means it has a tuner, so if it's being used as a tv, it
means it's using the tuner built into the tv.

since the tuner in a 30 year old sony xbr cannot receive digital
broadcasts, it *cannot* be used as a tv. it can *only* be used as a
monitor. period.

Most modern TVs can only be used with something external to the set.
Very few have built-in antennas.

the days of rabbit ears are *long* gone and attaching an antenna
doesn't change anything either. more of your ignorance.

Of course it does. It allows the user to receive a signal. The
antenna may be on a mast, a device on the window, in the form of a
dish, or by cable. Without something, the TV will not receive a
signal.

wrong. it will still receive signals without an antenna, they just have
to be fairly strong.

you really haven't a clue.


You could get a job with Best Buy marketing. They don't seem to know
they are not selling TVs.
http://deals.bestbuy.com/?category=tv+amp+home+theater&filter=&sub_cat=TVs& cat=TV%20%26%20Home%20Theater&ref=30&loc=KW-4327&ksid=587577dd-a507-4e71-878b-b9150e3af21c&ksprof_id=3&ksaffcode=301114&ksdevice =c

--
PeterN

On 2/1/2016 2:58 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


No, it doesn't prove that the TV "can't" be used. It merely states
that the TV must be used with extra device. The TV is still usable to
receive television broadcast.

a tv is a combination tuner/monitor, by definition. a monitor lacks a
tuner and can only display video signals. a tv tuner is just the tuner,
no display, which is also sold separately.

My modern TV must be used with a external device. There is no
built-in ability to receive signals without some sort of antenna or
cable box.

You're still being a twerp. A connection from the telly to the aerial
on my roof or the satellite dish does not, within the meaning of the
act, constitute an external device. Some sort of tuner does.

You can define "external device" any way you choose to, but if
something outside-the-set is needed, it's as good a term as any.

you still don't get it.


You certainly don't.

--
PeterN

On 2/1/2016 3:17 PM, Lewis wrote:
In message
PeterN wrote:
On 2/1/2016 10:57 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Lewis
wrote:

We still have a CRT TV in a spare bedroom that works just fine with
the box. Why nospam says "can't be used as a tv anymore" is just a an
example of ignorance.

Not really. A TV is a device that can receive broadcast television. A
CRT TV could do that in the past, but can no longer do that. It becomes
just a low-quality monitor for a device that gives it low-quality video.
Technically it is no longer a TV at that point.

exactly the point.

However, in general terms, most people would continue to call it a TV.

people use the wrong terms for a lot of things. that doesn't make it
correct.


Jackass. Go look at any store, and see what they are called.

Stores do not sell CRT televisions anymore.


They sell devices they call TVs, nearly all of which require a cable
tuner of some sort. Therefore, according to the phony logic given, they
are not selling TVs.

--
PeterN

On 2/1/2016 4:35 PM, nospam wrote:
In article
, dorayme
wrote:

then it's a monitor, not a tv.

Why is it in *your* interest to be a dickhead? Or is it that you just
can't help yourself.

you're unaware of the bull**** tony and peter spew in rpd.

they *love* to argue irrelevant details and get all bent out of shape
when it's done to them.


https://www.google.com/search?q=crying+towel&biw=1280&bih=662&tbm=isch&im gil=eG3QaFhSAQzwWM%253A%253BvWP4RqZvS8CpiM%253Bhtt p%25253A%25252F%25252Fsaintsreport.com%25252Fforum s%25252Ff63%25252Fsf-will-handing-out-these-rally-towels-saturday-221094%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=eG3QaFhSAQzwWM%25 3A%252CvWP4RqZvS8CpiM%252C_&usg=__H6Th0XvOOa_bYeK_ viV6LMY57OU%3D&ved=0ahUKEwiN8IbIzdfKAhUFKyYKHfuRAM oQyjcIUQ&ei=GtuvVo37IIXWmAH7o4LQDA#imgrc=eG3QaFhSA QzwWM%3A&usg=__H6Th0XvOOa_bYeK_viV6LMY57OU%3D

--
PeterN

On 2/1/2016 5:07 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
Yes, but then you added another value to the mix;
"value-during-use", which is hard to quantify for a computer.

Then you added a third parameter to the mix: "Cost-during-use",
which when it comes to gasoline consumption and repair costs of a
specific car model is quantifiable. The corresponding parameters
for computers (repairs, support, maintenance) are comparable when
it comes to computers as well, and they always seem to favor the
Mac.

Not really. No third parameter. Cost-during-use includes the
decreasing value of the computer as it ages.

No, this is false. Depreciation is not a "cost", it's lost value if *or* when
you sell the item. In fact, depreciation is most of the time money *back*,
not cost.

The initial purchase price is a cost, depreciation determines how much money
you will regain when or if you sell the item.

The only difference is that some costs (like gasoline) are
incremental in occurrence and some costs are determined only when
the product is disposed of whether junked or sold or traded-in.

No, there is no cost for throwing it away. There is no cost for selling it,
and there is no cost for trading it in. If you're lucky, the item can
mitigate a future cost by having a residual value, which means that it is the
opposite of a cost, it's an asset.

We don't normally think of the depreciating value of a computer as
we use it, but it's there. It's the core of the discussion when you
talk about re-sale value.

But the depreciating value is not a cost. The cost was the price you paid for
the value to begin with. If you paid $2,000 for the computer, that's the
cost. That money has been transferred into an asset that you own. It can
depreciate down to $0 and your cost will be what you paid; $2,000.

You can balance that cost by the resale value if it hasn't depreciated down
to $0, in which case its value is again transferred to money that gos into
your pocket.

Tony Cooper:
Value-during-use is a very viable point in a discussion about
re-sale value because it may be a consideration when choosing
what to purchase.

Sandman:
It's the impossible quantifiability of the point that makes it
irrelevant.

What? Just because you can't put a dollar figure on the
value-during-use does not make it an irrelevant consideration.

Yes, it does - when performing a comparison. One can not compare something
that cannot be quantified.

You are giving consideration to it when you buy a PC for gaming.

Coincidentally, I have explicitly agreed that one "value-during-use" for a PC
is specifically for gaming. Gaming is something that can be done better on a
PC, and if my purpose of getting a computer is to play games, my value-
during-use will undeniably be better if I buy a PC. This is quantifiable.

I've also said that apart from some niche applications in certain business
fields - there are no other quantifiable values *other* than gaming that
would favor the PC. I can, subjectively, find many that would favor the Mac
(obviously) but not ones that I can quantify and thus I leave them out of the
equation, as it should be.

Sandman:
I.e. year 2010, one photographer buys a computer and uses it for
five years

Purchase iMac: -$2,000
Costs-during-use -$1,000
Value-during-use +$?
Money earned for five years: +$125,000
Sale price: +$1,000

Purchase PC: -$1,200
Costs-during-use: -$2,500
Value-during-use: +$?
Money earned for five years: +$125,000
Sale price: +$0

Now, as you can see - the amount of money he earned as a
photographer is the same. It's not like either platform makes him
a more successful photographer. Sure, the computer can be more
prone to problems causing downtime that may end up affecting
deadlines, but probably rarely so, not to make a dent in the scope
of five years.

Yet, you've assigned 2.5 times the costs-during-use. That's called
"stacking the deck". I don't sell my photographs, but my (Windows)
computer has never been down.

Yes, I did. But not due to bias, and it really doesn't matter. It wasn't
meant as a definitive comparison with a conclusion. Windows PC's costs more
to own, generally, with more repair, more maintenance. There are numerous
studies that shows this, but that's beside the point.

Sandman:
Now we have value-during-use. This is the value that option A *or*
option B bestowed upon the photographer due to that specific
choice. I.e. value above what he is already paid for his normal
work which he can do on either platform.

So what could this value be? Well, it could be time. computer
malware, repairs, downtime and such may cause deadlines to be
pushed, spare time suffering or things like that. But it's "only"
time, and it's hard to quantify. Even if he did have to spend +X
hours due to one of the options how do we determine the actual
dollar value of that time? Again, it could be time he'd otherwise
sit and binge-watch Game of Thrones while eating pizza, so no
harm, right?

Then we have costs-during-use. Perhaps one option led to him only
feeling safe by having an annual $25 anti-malware suite? Maybe one
option is more energy conservative than the other, perhaps one
option spends less time in for repairs? Some of these are
quantifiable, and many studies have been done that can give a hint
about which of the two options that have the best TCO (total cost
of ownership) figures.

But the entire "value-during-use" remains a big fat question mark,
unless it's just the inverse of "cost-during-use", i.e. the less
costs it infers, the better value it has - in which case the Mac
would win there as well.

That last part is not "real world". If the person who doesn't know
the value expected, the Windows unit would win out because the
person who can't be bothered to determine the value expected is most
likely to go with the unit with the lowest initial cost.

And would "lose out" due to it, without even knowing it, of course.

He's not thinking a few years down the road when he might want to
sell the unit. And (and I add this to fend off the usual charge)
he's not the type to compare spec-to-spec.

Also, he's not aware that the TCO is a lot higher than the initial purchase
price, and the TCO could have been a lot lower with a different platform. But
that's what we're talking about here, not what people "know" or even care
about.

What's the point of this involved exercise? No, we can't assign a
dollar figure to value-during-use but our inability to do so does
not mean the value isn't there or considered.

It isn't considered, that's the point. Since no one can determine it. If it
can not be determined then it can not be considered.

You can't accurately assign a cost-during-use figure, either. You
can only estimate then in a projection (as you have above), and a
v-d-u figure can be assigned if you want to go the route you've used
above.

No, the numbers above was meant to reflect the sum of those numbers after the
five years, not meant as an "estimate" or a general case.

If the person doesn't know what value he expects, then which machine
he buys is likely to be based on cost-out-of-pocket or some other
input like a recommendation from someone.

Of course, that's a given. If a computer that is seemingly similar costs
less, the customer is more likely to buy that one. But this subthread started
to talk about resale value and correctly identified that few people are aware
of it or even consider it (or don't care). You're the one that apart from
initial cost and resale value, added two more parameters that one may
consider.


It is an allocation of cost over several accounting periods. You can
accept this definition, or not.
http://farmaster.com/farmaster/data/idx/FAR84/3102050011.htm

--
PeterN

In article ,
nospam wrote:

one more time, not that it will make any difference:

...

And, of course, making out like you are the computer program called
Eliza, you follow strict and rigid definitions. Is there something in
your programming that would mean you would collapse like the witch in
the Wizard of Oz when water struck her, if you acted like a human
being?

--
dorayme

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article
, dorayme
wrote:

then it's a monitor, not a tv.

Why is it in *your* interest to be a dickhead? Or is it that you just
can't help yourself.

you're unaware of the bull**** tony and peter spew in rpd.

they *love* to argue irrelevant details and get all bent out of shape
when it's done to them.

But you are supposed to try to be bigger? Aren't you? Go on, be a
sport, try it.

--
dorayme

In article , PeterN wrote:

Lewis:
Stores do not sell CRT televisions anymore.

They sell devices they call TVs, nearly all of which require a cable
tuner of some sort. Therefore, according to the phony logic given,
they are not selling TVs.

While I agree with you on that tangent (i.e. a "TV" doesn't magically become a
"monitor" just because the tuner it was sold with is incompatible with the
transmission in the specific part of the world it currently resides in),
doesn't most/all TV's in the states come with built-in tuners?

Pretty much all TV's we have here have both DVB-C, DVB-S and DVB-T tuners and
instead of buying a cable box you get a cable card that you put in a card slot
in the TV, which decodes the TV signal (cable, terrestrial or satellite) and
that's it.

Maybe it's a european thing?

--
Sandman