Macs are better than PCs
They're shiny, expensive and have something of a cult following, but are they actually any better than PCs?
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Macs are more intuitive and user-friendly
It only takes a few hours for anyone to get familiar with a Mac. The programs that come pre-installed on a Mac are easy to use, powerful and have well-polished interfaces. "Nice looking graphics" however are only one aspect of the package. The included software is efficient and works better than the included alternatives in Windows, and often outshines even paid alternatives.
One person's opinion on user interface does not reflect the general consensus. Most people who find Macs hard to operate are those who don't want to get used to anything that differs even slightly from what they are used to already. The minimize problem is a great example of this. On windows, the close, minimize and maximize buttons are located on the top right corner of a window and marked with x, a dash and a square respectively. On a Mac, these buttons are located on the top left and are colored red, yellow and green respectively, thus mimicking the more intuitive traffic light pattern. (When a user moves the moves over these buttons, they display an x, -, and + respectively.).
Besides, the Mac's GUI is so popular and loved, that Microsoft have stolen/copied it. Windows Vista and 7 are a proof of that. All the new in their GUI's is a copy of Mac one, but rotten and corrupt, a wrong/bad copy. Two example, in W-Vista the Sidebar Windows is the same thing that Mac Widget, but it use more computer recourses and have a "Bar" even if you display your gadget across all the desktop.
It's true that there is several programs and games only Windows Compatible, but there aren't few for mac users. A Mac user can find anything for his/her needs.
"It only takes a few hours for anyone to get familiar with a Mac. " I must disagree with this statement. As a film student, I have been using Mac for film editing for years, and I still haven't gotten used to browsing files, switching applications and otherwise working with Macs.
I personally feel that the Mac OS X interface is bad. It's just liked mostly, because of the nice looking graphics.
I find switching between applications terribly hard. And then when it comes to switching windows in an application, even worse! And don't even get me started on the button that should be maximise, but isn't!
For an end-user i think Windows Vista is a more powerful OS. There are a lot of programs and games which are only compatible with Windows platform.
The contemporary Windows 7 platform shoots down this arguement for several reasons. With the Start menu search virtually every and anything that is on the end users computer is near instantly advailable. Reemoving the need for directories altogether. The aero glass and refined aero peek give a sense of space and control over the desktop environment. The operating system is able to run fluidly on even the most hardware redundant computers (netbooks), and shines on PC's. The unmatched microsoft office suite is more available in Windows operating systems. While the Windows Live software suite is invaluable when multiple PC's are involved and is perfectly integrated with social networking.
Aero snap in Windows 7 is a priceless feature that greatly increases productivity and workflow. By dragging a window to the edge of the screen it will resize to fit a half section of the screen. The ability to perform tasks on files instantaneously by using right click is invaluable. Even if one where to go with only microsoft software on thier Windows PC they would find the level of intuition to aid in productivity; not just amusing effects, to be of a much higher level than a Operating System 10 computer. This is not adding that nearly all tasks on Windows PC's are automated. Updates, system defrag, disc cleanup, email notifications, internet connection, search, saving of work automatically. All automated processes are predetermined by an elegant MD5 checksum beforehand for malacious code.
" few hours" is a long time to figure something out....
Macs are more secure
Even though the widely held perception of “Mac Invincibility” to malware has been under question recently, Apple’s Mac OS X is still widely regarded to be less vulnerable to security threats since most computer hackers write code that predominantly targets Windows based machines.
F-Secure warns Mac users to take security seriously but admits that the number of attacks on Macs are relatively low. A Google search produces about 120 results for "Mac malware". Norton Antivirus for Mac lists just under 20 viruses that affect Macs.[http://gizmodo.com/337077/us-army-to-instigate-wider-mac-implementation]] The US Army recently initiated a program (under the leadership of Jonathan Browsky) to add more Macs to its Arsenal. Following internet attacks on the Pentagon and members of the army industrial complex such as Boeing and Raytheon, the Army has been working to increase network security and eliminate flaws within the network. The decision to employ a larger percentage of Macs was a penultimate measure to achieve these goals.
Even in spite of the recent exploit in Canada, Macs are less likely to develop problems with malware and viruses because of 4 important facts.
1) Mac OS X users don’t run with administrator privileges. Until Windows Vista, almost every Windows user had all privileges to install and modify their OS at all times. Mac OS X, on the other hand, always has users run without such privileges. That means you have to type a password to install or change any critical system software. That minimizes the damage that Web or email-based malware can do. And unlike Windows, there is no compatibility requirement for ActiveX binary code insertion into the user or kernel environment via the Web in Mac OS X.
2) Mac OS X has less spaghetti code. Ask any security guru and he or she will tell you: a simpler software model is easier to secure than a complex one. Any Unix has only about 200 entry points into the secure kernel environment. And while there are many libraries in the Mac OS X system, most of those don’t have enough privileges to do anything really bad.
3) Mac OS X mail doesn’t automatically run attachments. One of the poorest security decisions that Microsoft made was that back in 2000 or so, it configured its Outlook and Outlook Express mail systems to automatically execute script code on incoming HTML email without any user action required. This was one of the big vectors for virus proliferation earlier this decade. Microsoft has since patched that problem, but it remains a headache for the entire Microsoft ecosystem because unpatched systems still exist. Meanwhile, Apple mail systems have never run attachments or HTML code automatically, so this very common vector for virus transmission just doesn’t exist in the Apple world.
4) Apple can actively manage and verify its hardware Apple doesn’t need to sacrifice security for compatibility with a million different hardware configurations. In fact, as we’ve seen in its latest Leopard launch, Apple actively prunes the number of hardware configurations it supports. And Apple has demonstrated with its iPhone that it is no stranger to locking down its hardware/software products to guarantee a good user experience. As a result, Apple doesn’t have to provide insecure compatibility interfaces for old hardware or software systems—and therefore can minimize its threat exposure.
Furthermore, Safari is based on WebKit, which is open source. Charlie Miller was able to develop an exploit for Safari because he used his access to WebKit’s source code, while had this exploit been in the wild from the get-go, more than likely a third party would have discovered the flaw and disclosed it before it could become a significant threat. That’s the beauty of open source. Miller actually held back the exploit so that he could win some money and fame, which is contrary to what open source is supposed to be about.
And the simple fact remains, no hacker was able to hack into the MacBook Air remotely on the first day of competition. In order to get his exploit to work, Charlie Millier had to use a crossover cable that connected his MacBook directly with the MacBook Air in question. He was also allowed to direct the MacBook Air user directly to the malicious site containing his exploit.
At a recent convention in Canada, three laptops were offered to hackers to try their skills out on. If they could gain control of the computer, they would win it and a cash prize. Out of Vista, Ubuntu and OS X, it was the Mac that succumbed first.
"Macs are secure" comes only from the statistical likelihood of them being attacked. As Macs become more popular, they will be subject to further scrutiny from malicious coders, rendering this myth defunct.
Apple are also worse at patching vulnerabilities in their OS and applications as seen from recent studies. They take longer than Microsoft to patch new vulnerabilities in the wild. You'll also find that a Linux OS, classed under "PC" is even more secure
The Yes side is clearly misrepresenting contemporary Windows based PC's. Windows Live Mail does no such thing and all incomming packets to Windows 7 based PC's are screened for possible injections. Macintoshes do not support the capable technology with their Airport drivers, as this causes internal system instability. This leaves Macintoshes open to Ad-Hoc injections which would be fairly easy to perform over an University network. As an operating system's userbase increases so does the number of "Black Hackers" that go with them, which is the number of hackers who write malacious code. What the Yes side does not understand is that hackers are the same amazing people who develop the software they know and love, and help keep it secure. Both Microsoft and Apple are founded upon hackers. The argument is flawed as well by claiming that Apple lockes down their software for obvious reasons. Only to claim that its their use of open source (non locked down software) and the freedom it encompasses which makes Mac's incredible.
Windows 7 using Microsoft Security Essentials, Windows Defender, and Windows Firewall provide more than enough security. Unfortunately for Mac users their computers are plagued with spam worms that annoy the rest of us facebook, BBM, MSN, and mail users as they cannot be aware of thier local intranet being infected. Which is what black hackers are now leaning towards as computer security has become far to difficult to attack to be worth the effort.
This Malware problem you're shrugging off is 600,000 computers infected with a malware that will steal any information uncluding usernames, passwords, personal information ect. This isn't as much of a brush under the rug situation as you make it seem.
Also, the event that took place was predicted by Macworld .com
The reason Windows has more viruses than Man is the same reason theres more Homicides in the united states per year as compared to Mexico. Theres just simply more victims. Furthermore, put yourself in the shoes of the virus creator. You could infect the large masses buying windows, or the small population using Mac. Whats more beneficial to you?
Macs are hassle-free
Everything on a Mac works out of the box. Since Apple produces their software to work with specific hardware of their designation, consumers don't have to worry about drivers, upgrades and compatibility issues. Everything just works out of the box.
Most Macs now ship with built-in, high-quality microphones and webcam. This reflects on the ease of use and hassle-free experience that Apple strives to provide its customers. No device, be it a computer or a washing machine, is ever 100% reliable, but Apples are much more reliable than most, and having the whole computer hardware and software package come from one supplier reduces problems when trying to work out which company is at fault. Applecare is fast and covers most hardware and software issues, and Mac 'Geniuses' provide a great service to customers on a personal level, that cannot be found in retailers such as PC World.
The Yes side must be speaking of the polar opposite of Apple Care. With AppleCare protection any accidental damage is not covered. The price to repair a damaged LCD screen is 2 weeks at minmum time. The brilliant minds that are mentioned on the Yes side are not even certefied engineers. Apple hires university and highschool students at minimum wage to reapair computers. Not only is this dangerous but it is the main reason why most Macintosh's are replaced, at the full expense of the end user. Typically costing up to 1 grand in repair fee's. For intelligent PC users who do their research prior to the purchase of a PC the level of customer service when compared to Macintosh can far exceed them. For example; Asus has a facility of certified PC repairmen. Will cover your shipping and handling, and covers accidental damage not including spills. Windows 7 uses "sandboxing" for the rare crash. This isolates the process and puts it on hold while the addresses are found. This ensures that no Windows program ever truely crashes. Albeit there is still the option to taskkill the program, made easier by double clicking on the greyed out window. When Macintosh crashes occur (most often due to people foolishly not managing their temp files) they are leathal to the computer. Causing massive instability that is often a cause for replacement. Once again at the expense of the end user.
Windows experience degrades terribly with the purchase of a substandard PC from a substandard company.
look up high qualiity microphone... theyre the same price as a mac pro desktop... and im assuming youre referring to the lap tops which are cheaper than high quality microphones. How does that work out?
Macs are for professionals
It is a well-established fact that Macs are traditionally preferred and used by professionals in creative industries such as photography, design, film, media, publishing, music, etc. The stability and robustness of the OS X operating system gives the Mac an edge over PCs which run the buggy Windows OS.
As the number of business-related applications on Macintosh continues to grow, more businesses are switching to Macs, proven by their increasing market share. There is no evidence that teachers, doctors and lawyers prefer PCs. In fact, Apple's education programme is increasing in uptake, and more and more students are choosing Macs over PCs, facts proven by recent market surveys.
I think you'll find that many professionals such as teachers, doctors and lawyers prefer to use PCs.
While Mac does have certain professional-level programs, similar programs are available for PC as well. For example, Final Cut Pro for Mac is matched by Adobe Premiere Pro for PC. At the high-end professional level, most of the programs for Mac and PC are very similar in function and performance. At the recreational level, certain programs in Mac may appear to be better than their PC counterparts. However, The distinction is not so great that it would seriously affect the quality of work produced in such programs.
Additionally, much of the creative industry's preference for macs stems back to the fact that programs such as Photoshop were originally only on the Mac; professionals are just sticking to what they are used to, not necessarily what is superior.
The PC is more difficult to fully master and that is why the Mac is more popular, but the only reason a PC is more difficult to master is because of the depth and ability of its programs. Macs skim the surface of what a computer can really do, PCs offer everything.
Professionals rely on cutting edge software with large quantities of threads and high intensity algorithms. All in all they would much rather have no operating system however the C runtime libraries are crucial for most of their programs to work. Not to mention but Professionals do not use 'dinky' mackbook pro's. Those who use them and claim to be professionals are perhaps amateurs at best or university students. Dedidcated $10 000 workstations are needed to do most photoshop rendering at productive speeds. It is fairly clear that the Yes side is not a professional.
its true that at one point in time Mac computers were best for media, but since, Windows has the same exact media software or software very similar to Mac. And it is not always buggy. I have a windows which can run Adobe Suite better than a mac could ever wish to run. Yes i have a very powerful PC which brings me to my next point that when your macs power is outdated (technology is moving very fast and the power of last years computers are pathetic compared to todays) you need to purchase a whole new computer to advance. A PC howerever can always just get a new video car or audio card, processor, ssd, ect. In fact, you can get these computer parts from companies that specialize in these parts alone. The price you pay for a mac is of the same quality as any other pc for the same price.
<<Depends on the profession. For example, design engineers rely on 3D Cad programs to accurately make parts for his or her place of business. Windows 3D Rendering is far superior to the 3D rendering on a Mac. That is why Professional design engineers use Windows
Macs continue to gain Market share in all sectors
Apple’s market share in the PC industry has shot up ever since the introduction of Intel-based Macs. Before that, Macs were used primarily in advertising, media and other creative industries such as art, photography and music. But now Macs are rising in popularity amongst home and business users.
The market share of Macs in now rising across all demographics, be it students, home makers, professionals or businessmen.
Although the popularity of the iPod has attracted many customers towards Mac computers, most people won't buy a Mac simply because they like an iPod because of the obvious cost factor. They will buy a Mac for a multitude of reasons: because it suits their needs; because it looks stylish; because it all works out of the box; because it is better.
Just because something is popular (or growing in popularity) doesn't mean it is better. By this logic, Windows should be "better" because it has over 90% market share on the desktop. Numbers mean nothing. Apple are growing in popularity not because Macs are better, but as a result of brilliant marketing and on the back of the iPod.
Macs are beautiful
Compared to most PC's (Desktops and Laptops) that are covered in stickers and labels, Macs are simple and strikingly beautiful. And when it comes to choosing a "better" car or a "better" house, one of the first things anyone does is choose what is aesthetically pleasing. No-one ever says, "I bought a car that looks as ugly as sin in my opinion".
iMacs, Macbooks, Macbook Pro's and the new Macbook Air all subscribe to Apple's design policy which states: "Simple is good!"
There is a very good reason why people are flocking to buy Macs with better design. Computers are more than simple commodities these days. Everybody has one, so naturally people are more inclined to pick computers that stand out from the beige boxes we've come accustomed to. There's this great analogy in this 3 year old article by Nicholos G. Carr, a writer for BusinessWeek. Carr pretty much predicted the resurgence of Apple after writing an article comparing Dell to Apple. Dell was dismissing the iPod at the time as a fad, but Carr used this analogy about Ford to explain why Apple was going to start dominating the computer market:
"It's the classic Model T strategy. Like Dell with PCs, Ford Motor came to dominate the car market a century ago by turning the automobile into a cheap, mass-market product. Other manufacturers couldn't compete with Ford's extraordinarily efficient operations. By the early '20s, sales of Ford's drab but well-built Model T surpassed those of all other U.S. auto makers combined.
Then the market changed. As consumers began to take cars' basic functions for granted, they started seeking a little pizzazz in their vehicles. An unadorned black roadster was no longer enough -- everyone suddenly wanted a stylish set of wheels. Niches proliferated. Fashion mattered... While Ford continued to churn out one-size-fits-all Model Ts, GM introduced a string of attention-grabbing Chevrolet models with smart new features. It also began tweaking its models every year, following the lead of clothes designers. By 1926, Chevrolet was stealing market share from Ford. By 1927, Chevys were actually outselling Model Ts. The market had gone, to use Sloan's terms, from "mass" to "mass class."
Okay, so if you don't understand that simple analogy, you're never going to get why people love Apple. Many people think that Steve Jobs just throws a fresh coat of paint on Apple products and makes a nice commercial to sucker everyone in, but unless you've owned a Mac, you'll never understand how the power of Macs are more than skin deep.
Steve Jobs once said, "Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. People think it's this veneer— that the designers are handed this box and told, 'Make it look good!' That's not what we think design is. It's not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
I've found that many people who are mac owners, buy macs because of the "simple and strikingly beautiful" look.
I think Apple have a very good marketing department and that's their success.
Beauty is a very subjective concept. While many people like the look of Macs, some may prefer different, perhaps sleeker styles. The exterior design of a Macbook is very similar to that of the Vaio CR series, which has also proven to be very popular. The design of the Mac OS, while undeniably aesthetically pleasing, is no more "beautiful" than the appearance of Windows 7.
The Yes side represents the epitome of stereotype. beautiful is intended to be a highly subjective term. Minimalistic design is similar to the model T, whereas a chevy would be more representing alienware or stylistic. Customization is a better representation of beauty as any human can then make their computer 'beautiful' in thier own way. Most Mac's I see have clone copies of their desktops. However with Windows based PC's theres much more diversity, not just the exterior, but the operating system itself, from custom sounds, colors, themes, animated backgrounds, cursors, even the very internet browsers can be customised to such an extreme. The defualt Aeroglass however is to par with Apples default. That is if Apple has something that isnt the defualt?
Ive never heard anyone say "I bought a beautiful vacuum. It doesnt work, but who cares, its beautiful"
Macs can now do Windows and gaming
Many people hesitated from buying Macs in the past because Macs couldn't run windows and some applications are available only on the Windows platform. But since the introduction of Intel-based Macs, Mac users can now run Windows side-by-side with OS X on a Mac and take advantage of both the operating systems, together with the powerful hardware features of the Mac. Dual-booting is made excessively simple through Boot Camp, and virtualisation is easier in Mac's Parallels Desktop than with programs available for Linux. As someone who has tried to grapple with WINE, I can speak from experience. This makes the Mac the only platform which can enable you to run Mac OS X, Windows and Linux distributions on the same computer!
Gamers can now run all their games on a Mac after installing windows on it. High end Macs have powerful graphic processors that will satisfy even the fussiest of gamers.
Alternatively, with a greater uptake of Macs, a wide variety of games are now available on the OS X platform.
One of the many reasons that game developers are flocking to consoles is due to the unpredictability of the hardware on PCs. It becomes harder to design a game when you must support an endless variety of video cards and processors.
Macs are easier to develop games for due to the fact that the hardware environment is better controlled, much like consoles. It's not that OS X can't run games, it's that Windows has a bigger market share and therefore, it makes more economic sense for the game developers to create games for the PC market.
As the Mac gains more market share, that reality will change.
It's not only Macs that are capable of virtualisation. Linux-based OSs can run Windows in VirtualBox or VMWare, and equally can be set up to dual-boot easily.
Just because Macs 'can do' something doesn't mean they are better at it. Virtualisation is not 'easier in Mac's VMWare' because it is the same software. This point is ridiculous, trolling and fanboyish. WINE is a completely different kettle of fish, as it attempts something else than virtualisation. Yes, it is a pain. So dual-boot instead. Something Macs and Linux are equally - that is, neither one better than the other - capable of.
High end Windows machines allow you to put in new components as you see fit, including dedicated physics cards, dual, triple or even quad graphics cards - something you physically cannot do on an iMac - to give the best performance possible, better than on a Mac. The fussiest of gamers wants complete control over his system, and so will opt for hardware he can choose, not hardware Steve Jobs chooses for him.
The Yes arguement is hilarious. Being one of the many dedicated computer gamers I have looked at purchasing a Macintosh time and time again for their battery life only to be dissapointed by their hardware. The latest ones finaly have dedicated graphics ram, however its a meager 1 gigabyte for 2 thousand 5 hundred. not including tax. Between choosing to go to Disney World and purchase a laptop with the same specs (albeit 3 hour battery life), I would choose the laptop. Unfortunately for me quad Sli 590's are the only satisfaction for my triple monitor setup. Something that Mac's, even with thunderbolt port lack. It's hilarious to see gamers with Macintoshes playing with their pitiful touchpad. Free kills though so I wont be complaining ever.
Windows gaming is a subject that should be invalidated as I have not seen any MLG or GSL players even touch a Macintosh. Microsoft will allways dominate the hardcore PC gaming market. The reason being that Direct X is ridicoulously superior to Open GL. It's the main reason DW and Pixar are migrating (albeit slowly) to PC's. Quad SLI's increase work thoughtput tenfold for the same cost.
Macs can right click
note: this is really the opposite of a "negative point", so it's duplicated below as "Macs can't right click". dont seem to be able to delete points though.
ok I dont think the point is that pcs were invented first I think the point is that macs do have a easy right click despite having one mouse button. furthermore it is easy to right click heres how put 2 fingers on the trackpad and click or control click both of these will induce a right click command. So guess what mac users do know how to right click oh pc loving one
Dude, the PC's CREATED the right click. they CREATED the 2 button mouse. HEllO!!!! Do you have any room up there? PC's had right clicks before Macs freakin' EXISTED!!!! HELLO!!!! Any way, it takes so much time and effort to right click. More than half of all MAC users don't even know how to do it. WIERDO!!
"Right Clicking" is done by clicking the right button... hence the name...
Mac users are way cool!!
I have recently returned to using a Mac a year ago after living in exile in the Windows world for several years. I can say that my return to the Mac as a platform has been more exhilarating than a trip to Narnia, often because of the extremely tasty color palette. During my brief exile in the windows world (I was in rehab) I have made some observations. Windows users just seem to be… boring and hyper technical at times. They tend to focus on the trees while missing the forest. I realize some Windows users will take offense at this comment, but it serves to capture the different ethos between the two users.
The Mac platform for me is an intuitive and creative operating system. It not only helps me with basic tasks, but it lets me transcend them as a powerful creative tool. When I am using a Windows machine I feel like I am in a narrow box; however, when I use a Mac I feel like I am leaving the ground for an unknown adventure, as I like to take a hit of LSD right before. When I leave the ground, my creative juices flow like the waters of the Amazon, and a positive torrent of wild thoughts and creations spring forth into the world in which I live. This perhaps explains the extreme emotional attachment people have for their Macs. A Mac is more like a piece of furniture or art as opposed to a cold pale beige business tool.
I agree with Dave's point. I have gone to mac from pc and find that I am far more productive in the mac environment than the pc. Instead of figuring out how to make pc do what I want, I just do it. The mac environment is far more intuitive. No longer do I have to mess about with software and hardware that isnt working. On the back of using the mac I have changed my my mobile to an iphone and I am now enjoying the world of mobileme and everything that brings.Yes, there is a premium to pay on the design and the mac equivalent of excel is terrible to use, but other than that, there is no way I would ever revert back to a PC. Full marks to Apple, they have got it right.
Perhaps the difference in perception is because PC users tend to be employed, and not drug addicts.
Not to mention more self reserved.
Macs maintain value
While PC's quickly lose value, macs have a steady value.
That's because a Mac is designed to be "synchroized" and optimized for its hardware and software combination. That's why a Mac can run more quickly than a PC, even if the Mac have minor technical specification.
For that reason, a Mac can last running newer aplication over the time, longer than PC.
In the other hand, due to Windows and Linux have to be "compatible" with every PC, and they are a lot of PC model a pieces of hardware, its to difficult for the developers to achieve the best performance of the hardware and the software.
For that reason you have to buy pieces of hardware in order to keep working your PC with the last software in the market.
You can add parts to increase the value of a PC. They adapt to the way the world of computers advance. So you could have an old computer and then buy parts for way less than a New Mac book… AND it will be WAY more powerful. I just upgraded my home PC to have a 3.0 dual core processor, 4 gigs of ram and a 9600 Nvidia graphics card, all for under 500 bucks… a Mac book costs $1000 or more and usually has way less power. Talking about "maintaining" their value… I agree with the idea that people only buy Mac books because they are "pretty". Look at the majority of people owning Macs; either girls (who usually don’t know anything about computers anyway) or very clean guys who commonly get mistaken for being homosexual because of how girly they are.
The Yes side is once again inverting the case. Developers HATE having limited hardware to work with, less processing power and less graphical power and less ram means less creativity. This is comming first hand from a developer. On mobile operating systems it is different as they are genuinely intuitive.
Macs are more performance than pc's
Macs have a better performance than a pc.
That's thanks to synchrony and harmony that they have. Apple creates the operating system, Mac OS X, for the computers that they design themselves. That's why there is only one company which makes Macs: Apple.
In the other hand, Windows and Linux have to be compatible with all the alternatives that the PC market offers to users. Their developers can't exploit all the potencial of each pieace of hardware.
For that reason a Mac can run faster than a PC, even with less technical specifications. You can compare the initial specifications for Mac and PC, and you will see that Mac offers less ones (in the same commercial segment, coz we have to take in mind, that in PC exists several segments, the cheapest ones don't exist in Mac), and that's because the software for mac can run smooth and great with that, on the contrary, Windows and Linux need a better specifications for running well.
Better performance is created by the mainly by the hardware, not the software. PCs and Macs both use the same parts, but when Apple sells the same parts in their computers, they charge a lot more for them.
In terms of Desktop performance, Apple does not have "startup" programs, thus it outspeeds windows 7 by 13% startup, 2% runtime, and 20% shutdown.
Strap a windows with a solid state drive (PC + Solid State $1500) and it outspeeds a 2011 Macbook Pro startup by 120%, 100% runtime and 190% shutdown.
Mac users do not understand the concept of Price:Performance ratio. This ratio is used by all computer hardware enthusiasts to gauge the value of thier computer. Currently Hewlett Packard has the worst, Gateway the best. Apple is 3rd last in Price:Performance. Reliability % apple is midway, Hp last, Gateway second last, Sony third and Asus first.
My last PC died (i blame it on PC because i believe that HP has lost its quality department) and i spent $600 on a new desktop and my computer has the looks and the performance to put any mac to shame. (And my computer doesnt have malware! :P)
Macs come with all the applications, unlike PCs
Macs are definetly more easy to use, especially when it comes to applications. I used to use Word for all of my projects, but now I turn to Pages, the Apple version. Pages has all of the options right there for you. Also, the Apple film editing application, iMovie, is a lot better than the Windows one that you have to pay extra for, which goes along with the "ready out of the box" thing. I use Macs instead of Windows for all of my school projects. iTunes is also great. No, you do not need an iPod to use iTunes. With a PC, you have to buy an mp3 or an iPod to get iTunes or a similar app. MACS RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Something interesting to think about is your point about how you say the Microsoft Office suite was "taken" and eventually "developed without Microsoft's copyright." Is that really true? Microsoft fully owns their office suite. There is no possible situation in which Apple would be allowed to "steal" Microsoft Office. Also, why would Apple have to develop all the applications for their own operating system? Microsoft sees a need to develop for Mac OS X, and so they did. That's their own choice. Just because a competing software company is developing applications for a platform that is not their own means nothing.
Also, what is the problem with using iMovie? It is an intuitive application that, yes, does make making movies "fun". Is there a problem with fun? iMovie makes polished productions that will look far better than anything Windows Movie Maker was ever designed to make, and integrates with the operating system quite well. The reason that some people like to have "fun" with iMovie is because it is so easy to use. There is little learning curve, and makes it very easy to do what you want.
Macintosh iLife is fare more intuitive than Windows Live.
Yes, Macs do come with a lot of applications that you have to buy on PC's. In the defense of the PC, however, some of the Macs most popular things got their start from a branch of Windows computers (which are the biggest competitors to Macs, whose company is headed by the multi-millionaire, Bill Gates). I know this as a fact because my father and I both have Microsoft Windows computers made in 1996, before Mac computers were really in the picture. If you notice, some of the Mac applications such as Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Excel, and Microsoft Entourage all have the word MICROSOFT in them. This means that these programs were either created by Windows and then sold to the Apple company for a large sum of money or were taken by Apple and improved without the copyright of Windows. What's the point of that? Also, what dork would spend more than 1 day of his life goofing around while editing a movie on iMovie just because it is fun (other than Mac's paid testers if they have them). And what is the point of iTunes with no iPod?
Mac OS X restart less
Macs do not ask for a restart on every single app installation. They ask only for critical core updates and therefore allow a user to save time and effort.
Windows 7 based applications do not require a system restart, this argument holds no ground.
Mac have perfect graphic
Mac have prefect graphic compare to other operation system, that most of graphic designer in the world use Mac.
This arguement holds no ground, it makes no sense to anyone who knows anything about graphics. Please go to amd.com for ati graphics cards or Nvidia for nvidia graphics cards to learn what its all about.
Macs can never be optimized
'Better' means nothing
This is a non-debate. Sure, Apple hardware looks quite slick, and they may well look pretty on-screen too. But that does not make them inherently better at everything.
Macs and PCs (by which I assume the original poster means any other operating system on any other hardware, since Windows itself wasn't specified) are both better at each other at different tasks. A high-load server is probably best off running on Unix, Solaris or Linux rather than an Xserve. Video editing is better on Macs, and business productivity on Windows currently, whereas many 3d animation studios make use of Linux render farms, and several airlines used pared down Linux kernels to run in-flight entertainment systems.
A broad, sweeping X is better than Y means nothing when they are targeted at different markets.
Macs come packaged as a single unit, one catch-all operating system. While this may well be fine for home users, in other environments it is not particularly apt. Why run a Mac as a firewall box when a stripped-down, specialized Linux distribution (ipcop) can do the job more efficiently? Macs are very good, yes, but they are not the panacea the proposition side believe they are.
"...In the office, Mac technologies make networking and data sharing excessively easy..."
This is simply untrue. Put your Mac on a domain... Oops, you can't. Set up a group policy... dang, not there either. Startup scripts? Nope. Surely you can image the Mac and restore a dozen of them to their original state! Sadly, no you cannot. In the office, Mac's are simply inferior, and that is why you rarely see a Mac lab, Mac office, or Mac anything.
Macs and Windows PCs are not aimed at the same market, as the poster of the argument claims. PCs and Macs both aim at the wide variety of computer markets. At home, Macs are more user-friendly and more "fun" than their PC equivalents. In the office, Mac technologies make networking and data sharing excessively easy, and their general immunity to viruses makes them safer workstations. As a server, Xserve has a dedicated support team that knows the hardware inside out, and is much easier to use than a Linux alternative.
The reason why this debate exists is that we believe that in all the markets, Macs are more capable than PCs.
Macs are more expensive
You have to pay a very high premium for the stylish looks and ease-of-use of a Mac. Comparable PCs can be bought much cheaper, a natural consequence of there being so many different suppliers all competing for market share. Which means you get more for your money by buying a PC.
The fact that the PC-component market is crowded is only good for consumers, as it increases competition and drives prices down. A quick Google will throw up any major problems with a brand, and, of course, the cheaper you go the less quality there will be, but for a basic home computer that's needed for e-mail, internet and word-processing, a Mac designed to edit HD video and mix high-def 7.1 surround sound is just overkill.
The lack of competition in the Mac market allows Apple to price their computers as high as they dare before custom tails off - effectively creating a monopoly around the operating system and the hardware it's designed to run on. This cannot be good for consumers; monopolies never are.
Let the Mac users wail in denail. I will hold on to my PC until the end of Microsoft.
People pay for looks and style. This is an undeniable fact. Why else do we have catwalks and fashion houses? Mac computers are more expensive, but that is because they are better computers in terms of style and ease of use. A Skoda costs less than a Mercedes that does the same job, but if you gave people the option, more people would choose the Merc any day. Probably because it's more stylish and easier to use.
The argument that the premium is excessively high is also a non-starter. PC World offers laptops for £300, but for the same tasks that a Macbook can handle, you would not want the £300 laptop. For equivalent laptops, you must look at computers such as the Sony VAIO series, which start from £500 for a very basic model - not far from the £700 of the Macbook (£600 with educational discount), and do not come with nearly as much useful software.
Furthermore, is the fact that there are many PC and PC component suppliers a good thing? If your PC spontaneously breaks down, you have to work out which component is at fault and then fight with that company's tech support team who will tell you that it must be the fault of someone else's component. With a Mac, all you need do is take it to Apple and they'll fix it.
One more thing: although consumers and investors tend to believe Macs cost 20% to 30% more than comparable PCs, according to Gene Munster, an analyst at Piper Jaffray, an investment banking firm, Macs are only on average priced 16% higher than PCs with comparable hardware. With laptops, that percentage goes down to 9%.
in the long run macs are actually cheaper than pcs because of all the anti virus and software updates that pc users have to deal with over the years and macs never have to worry about all of that nonsense
It is easier to get a greater range of spare parts for a PC than a Mac. For Macs, you often only have one choice at one price (like a command economy), for PCs, there is a greater range of choices and a range of prices and qualities.
"...A video card not recognized in OS X will however be recognized when using Windows in Boot Camp..."
Why not then just buy a pc for 1/3 the price and never have to deal with losing your main OS because of a dead piece of video equipment that is no longer available?
Mac OS X is not optimized, this is a misconception spread by Apple, they use the same Kext based drivers as linux, which are less reliable than the Shell based drivers of Windows.
This is a common misperception about Macs. Macs use the same hard drives that go into PCs, which means you can easily buy any SATA hard drive from the same sites you order your PC hard drive and replace the one that comes by default with your Mac.
This is also true for RAM and video cards, although with video cards, Apple only creates drivers for a certain selection of cards from both nVIDIA and ATI. A video card not recognized in OS X will however be recognized when using Windows in Boot Camp. However, the argument that "spare parts" are unavailable outside Apple does not stand up.
And we have to take in mind, that indeed they are pieces of hardware as Ram, videocards, ans other which are no Mac compatible. But that's because Mac oS X is optimized, as we said before in the point about the Mac performance, for certain hardware, and Windows and Linux no.
Using a Mac can cause arrogance and stubbornness in users
Mac users think that they are better than anyone else. Subconsciously, they look down on anyone who doesn't use a Mac. They are also full of themselves and think they are cooler than the rest.
Such an attitude can lead to anti-social behavior. It can also lead to Mac users losing their friends as people will tend to ignore them.
This debate was started by a mac user. Every debate of this kind is started by a mac user. It isn't a complete generalisation.
Many people stand up for their PC's, the PC gaming community (over 10 million) which is diehard PC supports PC. We just like taunting you Mac owners and laugh when you claim stupid reasons for why your Mac is worth the 2 grand you forked over, yet all you can really do is tumblr and facebook on it, sometimes get lucky and overexcited when using garage band for something 1/4 useful.
This is a complete generalisation. Not every person who owns a Mac believes they have bought a lifestyle, just as not every person who owns a PC enjoys making sweeping statements about those who don't.
Every debate of this kind is started by a Mac user. That is in no way true. Some Mac users do like to think that their computers are better than most other Windows or Linux computers on the market. Isn't that truly natural? What's the problem with having self esteem? Something interesting to think about is that if every debate made in this way was started by a Mac user, how many PC users even want to stand up? How many truly think that they are able to back up their points if every debate of this kind is started by a Mac user?
Macs are plagued with hardware issues
Mac users often flaunt the superiority of their Operating system but they don't mention how buggy their hardware is. It is a well established fact that no Mac gan go a year or two without experiencing some kind of a hardware defect. Repairs are expensive unless they have chipped out £250 for AppleCare.
With the old machines (iBook, Powerbook, etc), it was usually the hard-drives and logic boards that drove users crazy. But with the advent of the new Intel based machines, problems have started popping up everywhere. Macbooks have faced random shutdowns (which almost led to a class action lawsuit against Apple), discoloration, chipping, display dimming and other such problems. The life expectancy of Mac hardware is still horribly low. And since its almost impossible to replace many critical (and defective) parts within Macs, a defect can cause you to throw away your machine unless, as mentioned above, you had the oversight to purchase applecare well in advance.
15% of all laptops fail in the first year. This is not a problem with Apple, this is a problem with all laptops, which contain hard drives that were not created to be portable. While flash drives will make this problem a thing of the past, Mac users who buy real computers like Mac Pros, experience a level of satisfaction unprecedented in the computer industry.
Mac Pro users have been known to have earlier models like G3 PowerMacs for up to 10 years after buying them and can easily sell their machines when they get ready to upgrade because Macs have the highest resale values in the industry.
There are fewer options when choosing a Mac
When choosing a PC, the options are endless. With the huge variety of brand names and styles, its possible to find a PC in just about any colour, size, weight, and design. Different price ranges cater to different consumers, often with optional features so that you don't pay for more than you need.
Macs provide fewer options when selecting a particular style. Both the Macbook and Macbook Air are 13.3", which does not satisfy consumers who prefer a different size. The Macbook, although claimed to be portable, is not designed to be lightweight and is rather heavy at 5lbs. Much lighter, ultraportable laptops for PC can be found within the same price range or less.
Also, we must remember that all OEM (company pre-built i.e. Dell, HP, Apple, etc) computers are made with GENERIC PARTS. Just like the generic and prescription medications, the generic ones are cheaper and lower quality. The build quality is the exact same; the only difference is the Apple charges you 2x the cost.
The build quality of macintosh laptops is much stronger than
that of the average laptop. Macs can be customized with RAM and hard drive space, just as any other laptop. and who uses ultraportables anyway, those are a big gimmick if you ask me.
And finally, we can't forget, that Mac are optimized and armonizad for certain hardware-software combination.
Macs can't right click
Macs can’t right click and that’s a huge problem for developers who want to make applications where right clicking is absolutely essential. The ability to right click is also vital for playing video games and general ease of use.
Macs have always had the ability to right click. That they don't is the biggest myth in the history of Mac computing. Before the introduction of the multi-touch Mighty Mouse in 2005, you could right click on a Mac by holding down the CONTROL key and clicking. Macs were always capable of using any HID compliant mouse. The right click on those third party mice would work exactly like the right click on a comparable Windows machine.
The important thing is that on a Mac, you don't need to right click. It makes things a lot easier of course, but you can live without it because Our Holy Lord Steve Jobs decided it was cheaper.
Users of Macbooks and Macbook Pro's can enable the two finger right-click in System Preferences. The right click then works by tapping two fingers simultaneously on the touchpad
Only among 'dudes' that use phrases like "way cool"!
There’s no denying that Macs currently enjoy a cult status among ‘certain’ sections of society – probably because there are ‘way less’ of them, meaning they retain of kind of exclusivity that ‘the common’ PCs doesn’t enjoy. But this in no way means that they are ‘better’ than PCs. Surely a ‘better’ computer would be one with superior hardware, ease of use, cheaper than its rivals etc, not one that ‘looks better’, is a computer to be seen with among those desperate to look ‘way cool’. Indeed, if Macs DID become more popular and sold more, we could be assured that their current exclusivity and cult status would disappear accordingly. Would it then be a ‘worse’ computer because more people had one?
Yes could not hold reference to the current Windows 7 operating system
The higher quality of Macs has nothing to do with their exclusivity. It also isn't about having better hardware: it is about how you *use* that hardware.
The Mac OS X operating system can use the same hardware more efficiently than Windows XP and Vista. In order to run Vista with Aero, you will need a *minimum* of: a processor at 1 GHz (I'm thinking you will need higher to make it smooth) with 2 GB of RAM and a 128 MB video card.
In contrast, you can run Leopard with all the bells and whistles on a 768 MHz Powerbook running 1.25 GB of RAM and a *32* MB video card.
The operating system starts up faster, runs faster, and gets the same tasks done with less hassle, all with less hardware. *That's* why they are better.
To argue the point about PCs currently being more popular than Macs in the current market, the share of the Mac has grown quickly year-over-year, while the market share of the Windows operating system has dropped quickly, and a slowdown in the growth of that operating system is evident. More and more are turning to Macs, and that is fact.
Incompatible with PCs
Macs are so incompatible with PC’s; the amount of time I've had to spend re-formatting videos and pictures for my media degree is unreal. Why does apple do this? – So everyone has to buy a Mac!
Also, Apple is so motivated by profit that you can bet your Mac will break almost as soon as the warranty runs out or that a couple weeks after their sales peak they will release the ‘next best thing’!
As someone who works with Macs and PCs, this argument does not stand up. The only reason why I can conceive that you would have to convert file formats is because you are using an obscure piece of software that hasn’t been released either on the other format.
As regards the argument that Macs break down after the warranty period is over, this is also false. I use, and other people also use, Macs that have had no need of repairs or even memory upgrades for seven years. Try using a seven year old PC now.
Apple is a business like any other – the tactic of releasing a new product soon after another is not unique. Look at Microsoft – the next version of Windows is scheduled for a 2009 release, only two years after Vista ‘launched’.
There is very little difference between the two
An Intel Mac has virtually the same architecture as a Windows PC. The two machines running the same Linux distribution are even more difficult to tell apart. On the software side, most Windows software such as Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer now has a Mac version. There is iTunes and QuickTime for Windows and iPods are compatible with both machines. More and more third party developers make both Windows and Mac versions of their software and most storage media can handle both. This very fact that Microsoft and Apple now work so closely together and release such similar products, to me, severely diminishes another distinguishing factor between the two – the corporate image. Apple are no longer the quirky independent producers rooting for the underdog. By working closely with Microsoft, they indirectly support Microsoft's policies and are ethically no different. Apple and Microsoft just aren't at war any more.
First at all, we have to clarify Microsoft, Windows and Office terms. Microsoft is a enterprise, they create Windows, an operating system, Office, a office suite, and other software. It's like Tommy Hilfiger, which make t-shirts, bags, etc.
Microsoft sell software, so they are not going to lost Mac users pontencial consumers. For that reason they create Office for Mac, and Internet Explorer, etc.
Apple sell software, too. And they are not going to lost PC users potencial consumers. For that reason they create Quicktime and iTunes for Windows.
They are no working together, they're just doing their bussines: sell. It's like if Tommy Hilfiger decides don't to sell clothes whom use Addidas, or to think that they sell clothes to everybody just because they are working together.
Furthermore, Apple can't ban Microsoft to develop to ther platform, that's a monopolizing behaviour that is forbidden around the world. Indeed, Microsoft was accused of obstruct the third party developer to create software for their Windows operating system. And, at the end, a court condemned Microsoft.
Finally, Mac and PC have differents architectures in design and software. As We have said before, Mac have a optimized, synchronized and harmonizaed software-hardware combination, and Mac OSX is building in a modular way. Two features that a PC doesn't have. In the linux hand, a Mac with Linux is not a Mac, Mac is a computer designed by Apple with a operating system designed by Apple, that the Mac magic.
An Intel Mac does not run off of the same base as an Intel Windows computer. Linux is a different story. Windows runs off of the MS-DOS base, a base criticized for its lack of built-in security and inefficient development. Macs instead run off of UNIX, a stable, secure operating system base that runs in an entirely different way. PCs and Macs do have the same x86 architecture, but that is for CPUs, not operating systems, which I believe is the point being brought up.
Macs are very much over priced
With the same amount of money, I can buy a much more powerful pc with lots of brand to choose from.
Mac are just the best thing you can have this start from the design and the quality of it. I am a media student and all along i have been using mac and their have got good graphics and fast as well. however their very expensive but the money is worth it!
Macs are only gaining market shares because people think Macs are "cool."
Most people don't really learn about a product before they buy it; if their friends have it, then they want it as well. The only reason Macs keep gaining market shares is because people believe they look cool with their snow white apple laptops at a coffee shop.
Is that really a problem? Is there really a problem that Macs are gaining market share for this reason? People are recognizing the aggressive marketing and appeal of Apple's products. A great way for people to want to buy something is because of friends. Friends sometimes do just give false arguments to do something but when people actually look at something and still see that it works well and looks cool, what's the problem there?
A quick and simple comparison
The market share and units sold obviously favor the PC, The Speed Test is bias since Mac only makes good product, where as Windows can be found on lower end computers, my desktop would put the Macs speed test to shame. ColorSync is a nifty tool, but professionals do not need that nonsense and does not help one who is colorblind. The bottleneck of 3D rendering keeps Mac from being a design engineers choice of computer. Rendering a type style as well as a Mac is only needed by professionals, in which, should be using the appropriate software which does not require this render transfer. It is true more software IS compatible with windows, Windows holds a larger popularity. Window PCs generally come equipped ready to be plugged into a TV. Gaming is obviously a win for PCs due to their ability for higher gaming performance and compatiblity. Mac may be able to run Windows, but while running windows one would find it rather useless to run Mac OS. As stated before, Windows come in all sorts of choices and are available cheaper for lower end computers. The site claims for Apple to be more advanced with applications and tools for photo, video and music editing, however, as a recording musician that went to college for graphic design, i must say that Windows is up to par with Mac in the sense of having their own programs capable of delivering the same outcome. Reliability and Security are currently better on Mac, however, like i said, Security is and will continue to slip more and more as more people buy into Mac. And Finally, the stability of the computer is most dependent on how good your computer is. Like earlier stated, PCs have low end computer, Macs do not.
What do you think?