Five reasons Macs are better than PCs

Comments

• Horses for courses must come into this somewhere too perhaps Stuart? I work in Geography Information Systems where just about all of the big software apps are Windows only. I guess you could argue that with virtualisation you can Windows apps on a Mac but then isn't that a bit like running your Ferrari on diesel?
  
  If the GIS software vendors DID produce Mac software IT support people like me would be out of a job as there would nothing to fix anymore.
  
  I may be a Mac fanboy at home but I need Windows and all it's quirks to keep me gainfully employed, thanks Microsoft, you're paying my mortgage! Posted by philbridges, United Kingdom
• Mac's are good (I have one), but apple have released a statement that Macs can catch viruses, so I guess that knocks out one of the arguments.
  
  Also the digital rights management is beyond a joke! Sorry only have 5 times I can choose the DVD region before it sticks in that region. Paghhhhh! Posted by Bri, UK
• Any computer can catch a virus if the owner loads and runs it as requested by the blackhats. Which is where Apple viruses (if any) stand at the moment.
  I've been caught by the Regional DVD problem too. Siiiigh! no choice but to bootleg the offending DVD onto the hard drive and back onto another region-free DVD. I'm still puzzled as to why the computer industry pays attention to the Regional DRM when none of the DVD player manufacturers ever have. Posted by Snufkin, New Zealand
• People who have a strong bias against Apple and it's products invariably give incorrect or misleading statements as their reasons for hating Apple and loving Windows PCs.
  
  @ philbridges:
  You may be correct that there are more GIS applications for Windows than for Mac OS X (I have no background in GIS), just as it's true that there are more Mac OS X applications than Windows applications for the graphics, publishing, video editing businesses, etc. But to say that "you can Windows apps on a Mac but then isn't that a bit like running your Ferrari on diesel?" is not quite correct. Since PC Magazine had tested the MacBook Pro and proclaimed it the fastest Windows computer in it's category, a more appropriate analogy would be: Running Windows apps on a Mac is like having 2 Ferraris instead of 1.
  
  @ Bri:
  You are totally incorrect when you say "apple have released a statement that Macs can catch viruses, so I guess that knocks out one of the arguments.". By now (almost) everyone in the world knows that the article that started this tempest in a teapot was quickly corrected with information that this Apple support article was a few years old, and that Apple quickly pulled the article from it's database and released a statement that included: "We have removed the KnowledgeBase article because it was old and inaccurate," Apple spokesperson Bill Evans said. "The Mac is designed with built-in technologies that provide protection against malicious software and security threats right out of the box." . Mac OS X has been in existence for 9 years, and to date there has not been a single viable virus for this operating system (as opposed to the well over 100,000 forms of malware for Windows during the same period).
  
  
  Posted by Harvey, Canada
• The ability to also run Windows and Linux applications through Virtualization is a great selling point. You can run any software, then, on a Mac. You are not limited to the poorly designed Windows or Linux versions of the software. Posted by james Katt, usa
• Pah, Mac users don't live in the real world nor do they run real programs. Their 'builtin apps' are like Wordpad - OK for simple things but you can't do proper work (if you could Adobe etc would be out of work).
  AV programs have been around for ages on the Mac - I know because I had to install and maintain them. Like all Mac software it expects the user to be technically illiterate and, to put it bluntly, a friggin retard.
  And for a laugh - at the Nikon Expo (on Tuesday/Wed), all the presenters used Mac's, slagged off PC/Windows and (in the seminars I attended), all had issues, including having to do multiple reboots, calling in tech support etc. Boy did they egg on their faces !!!!
  And at the end of the day, even Apple didn't like their software so much that they moved to Unix. Out of the pan into the fire and so on.
  As for style - all shiney but no substance. And even the shiney bits crack because of poor design and materials - says it all about the Mac !!! Posted by Adrian, UK
• Keep up Bri ;) That virus claim was discounted as old worthless news almost as quickly as it was spread in the first place.
  
  I'm not a Mac fanboy, but I do recognise a good looking, well spec'd and easy to use computer when I see one. I've been using Mac's for years now, at work and at home and the ONLY time I have ever had any trouble with a computer is when I had a PC running Windows at home. Coincidence? Maybe, but I used to work in IT so I know my way around a computer – you can't blame 'user error' for my troubles.
  
  All this PC vs. Mac arguing is getting tiresome. Buy what you like, buy want you can afford, buy what you want... if you are lucky you might end up with a Mac. Posted by Steve, UK
• I don't think Macs could work as public computers. I unfortunately have to use them at school and usually spend about 10 minutes in the system preferences changing things around to suit what I am doing. Expose, the dock, the mouse buttons... I still don't understand why there are three different "ctrl" buttons... The screens are pretty nice and shiny the day you buy them - but within a week there are fingerprints all over it. The difference between running Windows on a Mac and Windows on a PC is about $2000, and as a student who needs to pay off loans, I couldn't afford it. Sure, Macs are good for the Apple fanboys and collectors, but they are still very much a niche product.
  Three things a PC can do, but not a Mac:
  Print Screen (technically they can, but you'd have to look for the obscure keyboard shortcut on Google and it doesn't copy to the clipboard)
  Alt-Tab to switch between windows (It switches between programs, which is useless when working on multiple projects in Photoshop, or switching between conversations on msn)
  Right Click (again - you CAN, but you need to go to the system preferences first)
  I can add a fourth: PLAY (decent) GAMES
  A side note - Steve Jobs went out and bashed Adobe saying that Flash wasn't good enough for the iPhone. Now I'm starting to get concerned that Macs will be too good for other Adobe products, which happens to be the only thing I use them for. Posted by Chris, Canada
• 5 reasons that Macs are inferior to PCs:
  
  1- Service packs don’t cost $199 Since Mac OS X was launched in 2001, there have been several “new versions” of the operating system – Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard. Each costing a princely $199 – racking up a total bill of close to $1000 for anyone who’s bought every version. And they say Windows is expensive.
  
  2- There isn’t a PC maker on the planet that exceeds Apple when it comes to product design. But not everyone needs a computer that looks like an ice cube. The cheapest Mac you can buy, the Mac mini, costs $949 and comes with a tiny 60GB hard drive, a meager 512MB of RAM and no screen. Pop over to Dell, and you can fin...d an Inspiron with a 320gb hard drive, 2 gb RAM, and a 19in flat panel display.
  
  3- Yes, we know Macs are meant to be so simple your Grandma could partition the hard disk while solving the Countdown conundrum, but do they really need to be dumbed down to use only one mouse button? A monkey with Attention Deficit Disorder could master two buttons, but Apple’s mouse resorts to a single mouse click by default. How idiotic do they think we are?
  
  4- While having one company controlling both the hardware and operating system undoubtedly has its advantages, it also leaves Mac fans with all their eggs in one basket. Apple could, for example, decide to drop Mac OS X at any time. What would happen to Mac OS devotees and developers then? It also leaves Apple remarkably vulnerable when innovations go wrong.
  
  5- You could pay $5,000 for an absolute top-of-the-range Mac Pro or $950 for a Mac mini, and you’re still lumbered with Apple’s standard warranty, which lasts a pitiful 90 days. You can, naturally, pay extra for Apple’s three-year protection plan, which costs $230 for Mac minis, right through to a ridiculous $420 for t...he MacBook Pro. By comparison, a Dell Latitude laptop includes a three-year warranty as standard. Posted by Max, USA