tco
Latest
TCO study compares active and passive 3DTV glasses, doesn't really favor one over the other
The debate over active and passive 3DTV glasses has, for the most part, been riddled with biased claims (and more than a little mudslinging) from TV manufacturers on both sides of the aisle. Now, however, an independent study from TCO Development has finally shed some light on how the two glasses can actually affect a user's viewing experience -- and yes, there are some differences. When researchers tilted the passive, film pattern retarder (FPR) above or below a vertical viewing angle of 15-degrees, 3D images tended to bleed into one another at a higher rate. Active glasses, meanwhile, transmitted white images at a luminance that was three times lower than what FPR-equipped shades delivered. But because passive 3D glasses display images at different polarizations for each eye, they don't offer as much vertical resolution as their active counterparts. Unfortunately, TCO didn't look into how each pair of glasses affects a viewer's health and comfort -- which, for most of us, would probably be the deciding factor. But as soon as it does, expect either Panasonic or LG to jump all over the results. Dive into the full PR after the break.
Macs still cheaper when you look at TCO
With all of the iPhone news lately, some of you may have worried that we're forgetting what got us here: Apple computers, not the other gadgets and doohickeys they sell. But worry not -- we're still Mac-crazy, which is why we'll still link to a Grade A smackdown on the old argument that Macs are more expensive than PCs. After a few analysts question whether or not Macs are worth it (as if buying a powerful and easy-to-use computer was ever not worth it), MacsimumNews' Dennis Sellers pulls out the big guns, and shows that report after report will make it clear that when you compare the quality vs. cost that you get with an Apple to what you get with a PC, the Mac will almost always win.Sure, if you compare a new MacBook Pro with the bargain laptops you'll find on the shelves at Best Buy, you'll be seeing a smaller charge on your credit card. But when you compare the total cost of ownership due to what's actually in those laptops (and the experience you'll have with each computer), the Mac is cheaper than ever.[via MacBytes]
Pano Logic's Pano: virtual XP or Vista in a box
Check it CIOs, Pano Logic just announced their new Pano virtualization device which brings XP and Vista to your users without the need of a PC. According to the feisty startup, their new virtualization solution can cut your Total Cost of Ownership by 70% for a promised savings of $3,200 per desktop over three years. While you can ace the desktop PC, you'll still have to make the initial investment of $20 per month per device (one per user) with perpetual licenses available. The Pano device has no CPU, memory, operating system or drivers -- at least not in the way those items are typically perceived by your IT staff. A "Pano Logic chip" manages the virtualization. In other words: no client-side malware or hiccups for fewer deskside visits -- everything is managed centrally from your VMWare Server installation. The device does pack the required jacks for a VGA display (up to 1600 x 1200 pixels supported), USB keyboard and Mouse (3x total USB), 10/100Mbps Ethernet, and a pair of mini-jacks for audio in/out. Of course, the system is entirely dependent upon lickity quick, uncongested pipes so if you're sporting a latency above 5-ms, you can forget about Pano's virtualization. Check out the business minded, ass-end of the Pano after the break.[Via PCMag]
Analyzing Mac TCO
Want an easy way to start a holy war? Aside from putting a major holy city from three major religions together in one convenient location, the easiest thing to do is start talking about the nebulous and nefarious TCO, or Total Cost of Ownership. Let's face it, Apple faithful are going to have their end of the argument (stuff like Macs are made for graphics), and the Windows faithful are going to have theirs (Photoshop starts up faster on a PC). And then there's Linux, where GIF is pronounced JIF (that's a joke, no flames just yet please). Winn Schwartau has made his stand, like it or not. He says Macs are cheaper overall, once you've accounted for all the stuff you have to do with a computer, not just the initial cost of buying one. Because, as we all know, PC's from Dell are always cheaper. You know, I have purchased three different home theater systems lately, and all of them were cheaper than Bose or Sony— and all of them died within one day of the box being opened. So don't go talking to me about purchase price...Anyway, Winn not only makes a compelling case, stating the obvious, "Most enterprises do not want users installing software on their machines - they want a box to run mail client and browser, and a couple of Office applications," and the obscure, "owning a WinTel box for three years costs twice as much as owning a MacTel." Better still, back in September of 2005, Winn posted his TCO analysis spreadsheet and PDF, which wil walk anyone through the same process of calculations he used, and can be applied to virtually any system. Naturally, a holy war erupted on his blog. Read through the comments for a ton of fun, or just work the numbers yourself. Or you can give up and call it a draw, as James Maguire did in 2003. Really he said what we're all thinking: Apple stuff costs more, but makes for less headaches in general and that's the bottom line for small to mid-sized businesses. Apple's low cost pitch can be found here.
