Mac vs PC

This has been a long-standing debate, that recently has been revived with the new purported "Mac revolution". I'm going to be completely honest here, I am a PC user, but I've used Macs and can appreciate the product that Apple puts onto the table. So the debate remains which is better, Macs or PC, which ultimately boils down to whether the Mac OS is better than Windows (though now that Macs can install Windows on them the it's not a huge issue). My longstanding position has been that Macs are inherently more stable (less prone to crash) and overall better for multimedia/artistic endeavors, whereas PC is just simply the more practical. While the proprietary software available with the Mac OS may be far superior to those offered by Windows; iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, and GarageBand to Windows Movie Maker, Windows Picture Editor, Windows Media Player, and some proprietary Windows audio recording device, there are enough available freeware software that are equally if not more powerful than the basic software offered with either OS (Picasa, Winamp, and Audacity for example, leaving only a sufficiently powerful movie maker unavailable via freeware, at least as far as I know).

While it appears that more and more people are using Macs, and with the advent of the ever-popular "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercials, Apple still remains fifth in the US computer market and is a non-factor in the global scheme of things. The problem for Apple? Simply put, they cost too much. What's the difference? Well, let's take a look:

Let's say we look at a standard 13" MacBook Pro, the specs are as follows:

2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor
2GB memory
160GB 5400-rpm hard drive
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor
1280x800 13.3-inch widescreen display
2 USB 2.0 ports
1 firewire 800 port
Mini display port
iSight camera
SD card input

I didn't include a lot of the physical builds of the Mac, but I hardly think that makes a significant difference. The price you pay for this is $1199, at least.

Now let's look at Dell, the number 2 producer, I pick Dell because I can pick specs to match as close as possible the specs the MacBook Pro has:

2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo T6600
2GB shared dual channel DDR2
160GB 5400rpm hard drive
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100
1280x800 13.3-inch widescreen display
2.0 megapixel camera

I'm not sure on the number of ports, if there's a firewire or SD port, but honestly, those are rather tertiary when deciding whether or not to get a laptop. That being said, this model ends up being $599.

So what in the MacBook Pro warrants doubling the price? Hardware-wise the only difference I see is possibly in the video card, where the Apple product has the superior NVIDIA GeForce card to the Intel graphics accelerator. While it's hard to price out laptop video card specs, the most expensive onboard desktop video card runs at $300, and I'm inclined to believe that it performs better than any integrated laptop graphics card, and even if Intel gave away it's integrated graphics card, it doesn't account for $600 price difference overall. So what's the other difference, well, if we consider the difference between the number of USB ports and the like are rather negligible (you can get convertors and hubs and the like for about $20 if you look hard enough), the only major difference then would be the OS.

Windows runs for anywhere between $100 and $200 depending on what you're looking for. Mac OSX runs for $99. Wait, what? So the Mac OS, at least on its own costs less than Windows? Hold on, how does that work? Well, for that we'd have to look a little into the construction of the computers themselves. The chipsets that are built for each computer company (that is, HP, Dell, Acer, Apple, Toshiba, Lenovo, etc...) are designed to be able to support a specific OS design. If you didn't know (don't try this) this is the reason why Mac OS cannot be installed onto any non-Apple computer. The chipset for Apple (now made by Intel) were specifically designed for the Mac OS (and more recently enabled to be Windows compatible) whereas the other PC chipsets are designed more generically with no specific OS in mind, though Windows is the primary use. What the chipset gains with versatility in the ability to work with Linux and Windows it loses out in the stability that an OS specific chipset (like those in Macs) provide. So in short, Mac OSX is completely useless to you except as a coaster unless you already own a Mac, which in turn is more expensive than its PC counterparts.

Now I'm not here to bash Macs, seriously, my point is this, it really depends on what you're trying to do. For the average layman/non-computer person, you're paying a hefty premium, almost double the price on basically everything (let's not even begin to discuss accessories) for a few less blue screens and forced system reboots, let's be honest with ourselves, that's about it. Some might pull out the argument that fewer people try to hack Macs and therefore you're less prone to viruses and worms and the like, but fewer hackers on Macs also entails fewer programmers on Macs, meaning a vastly smaller number of software compatibility. My point is simply this, figure out what you need your computer for. I'll admit that the Mac OS is sleeker and probably has a lower learning curve than that of Windows.

Since a lot of Mac users are PC converts, and if you're reading this, you're probably using a computer of some sort, this is my point, if it's worth it to you, to pay twice the amount of money and relearning a new OS for fewer blue screens and possibly crashes and forced restarts, then by all means, get a Mac. Most gamers probably already know this, but most games probably aren't Mac compatible, and if they are, the patches and updates for Macs are often released much later than the actual release. So who can use a Mac then? Well, as I mentioned earlier, one thing that improved OS stability definitely aids with, is multimedia projects. In my opinion, Macs are artists' computers, they have the graphics capacity and stability to make movie-making and special effects things that make Macs most effective, additionally, Apple also exclusively offers for Macs possibly the most powerful consumer movie-making software in Final Cut Pro (while I think Adobe CS series is good enough, that's another discussion for another time). Additionally, for the more amateur multimedia hobbyist, Mac software is much more friendly and versatile than the Windows equivalents (iMovie vs Windows Movie Maker), having an effective tool without having to look to a confusing third-party product (honestly, I haven't really used anything outside of iMovie or Adobe Premier that I've really liked).

I'm not going to get into the desktop discussion right now, because regardless of how nice a Mac is, people can always buy parts and make a better computer for cheaper if they feel so inclined for the performance. Since Microsoft makes the office software for both Macs and PCs nowadays anyways, the availability and compatibility of general work-related products (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) is fairly universal and doesn't really play into the argument. I'm not going to tell anyone to buy one or the other without hearing any more about his/her specific computer needs, but this is my take on the long over-drawn Mac versus PC discussion.