Mac vs PC: Flawed Arguments
Touchy subject, I know. I’ll go ahead and tackle some “classic” arguments thrown at PC users, as well as some aspects of the Mac vs PC discussion:
“Macs don’t get viruses”
It’s unacceptable to say that. It’s possible to say that it’s safer to use Mac OS X than it is to run Windows, for instance, but that’s because viruses, worms and the like are coded aiming for broader target ranges, and that comprehends PC-compatibility. So the fact that the most popular system out there is Windows makes PCs a far more valuable target for malware than Macs, and that’s why these bad boys are engineered to work on machines operating under Windows.
“In Macs, you don’t have stuff running in the background”
This contradicts the most fundamental theory behind the working of an operating system. An OS is designed to, amongst other things, coordinate the execution of a bunch of programs. Each program can be called while the execution of another process is still not finished. In fact, this is very natural and frequent, and is actually the motivation behind the construction of an OS. Such a system needs to have features, like say, a GUI, a file managing system, device drivers and other services, etc etc etc. All of that necessarily requires stuff to run in the background, so ANY operating system includes that. Period.
“Microsoft doesn’t innovate, only Apple does”
I can see where this comes from. Apple does have a very creative crew when it comes to looks and feel of their devices and systems. Also, Microsoft has implemented stuff that wasn’t their idea to begin with (i.e. tabbed browsing, if I’m not mistaken). However, this happens a lot in the industry, and if a functionality that enhaces usability can be added, I think it should be (so long as the ones who implement it later don’t pretend to be the creators of the idea). However, people tend to forget that Microsoft has brought perhaps the most significant innovation to computing ever seen: the GUI-based OS concept. Hell yeah.
Now, just as people say Microsoft copies stuff off other companies, people could say Apple copied Microsoft when they decided to make their system present itself through graphical windows other than just a terminal ;)
“Apple software is less flawed”
Another misconception. Just because crackers don’t target Macs and other Apple products, it doesn’t mean they can’t get in if they try. Windows systems are actually a lot stronger in this aspect than MacOS versions, for example, but since there’s not nearly as many people interested in hacking Macs, most people just assume the system is “safer”. Don’t believe me? Here you go:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Mac-OS-X-hacked-under-30-minutes/0,130061744,139241748,00.htm
You might also wanna check this out: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/hack-windows-security-snow-leopard,8704.html
Oh, and why not look into this one? http://www.net-security.org/article.php?id=1322&p=1
Teh RehvolushonZ
Apple uses the term “revolutionize” a bit too often. One of their most recent products, the “Magic Mouse”, is supposed to “revolutionize” the concept of mice. Right. The thing is, the mouse not only has limited features (the two-finger swipe can’t be set to perform other actions than flicking through pages/pictures/whatever, while extra buttons can be set to do anything at all), it also lacks ergonometry. The iPod did give mp3 players a big twist though, so props to them. The iPhone? Arguable.
Stability
I don’t know much about this one, since I’ve never spent relevant time using a Mac, so I usually just believe it when they say Macs run “smoother” than Windows. That’s fine by me. If anyone has actual facts, they’re welcome to comment informing me.
Just to make it clear that I don’t have Gates’ picture tattooed across my chest, I’m gonna say “shame on MS for releasing Vista and Longhorn before they were completely done”.Then again, they might have had a good reason for that (XP had been around for a long time, and they might just have “had to do something”). Oh yeah, and I don’t use IE, I think it’s slow, too square-ish and the work-arounds aren’t very intuitive for me. Also, more flaws have been found for it, etc etc etc.
If you think about it though, there doesn’t seem to be a great number of PC diehard fans like the ones Apple has converted. PC users aren’t ashamed (that’s right, the word is “ashamed”) when someone says something bad about PCs. Try that out on an Apple fanboy. You’ll get the classic arguments (read above) thrown at you before you can blink twice.
But let’s forget about that. Everyone should use what they think works best for them, and you know, if prettier design along with stability are features you MUST have, and you’re willing to pay for, then by all means go with that. If you choose to go with compatibility and are ok with dealing with crashes more oftenly, then that’s ok too. Just don’t come up to me or anyone else with lines from the company’s advertisement campaign and an arrogant look, because just eventually you might get a lecture and end up with a dumb look on your face.
Anyways, if you guys have any relevant comments and/or views on this, please speak up. If you’re a Mac user who’s up to pointing out a few relistic and measurable advantages you think are important or if you noticed I said something that’s untrue about your system, do say so.
guipn
guidj0s
3ld3r
gbpc89
morsolvit
Friggin’ tr00.
But like, I don’t really blame Mac-users when they throw that stuff at me. I mean, have you seen their ads? They’re all like “M4C5 R 1337, PCs R L4M3″.
It’s like Apple wants their customers to act all stuck up. =/
One thing: regardless of whether _you_ like the iPhone or not, it’s definitely revolutionized phones. I mean, when was the last time that one single phone was owned by that large of a percentage of people? And then you look at it’s features–”apps” and the app store in particular–and you see it influencing almost every other smart phone coming out.
I’m no Apple Fanboi — I’m a Google Fanboi. And I can’t wait for Chrome OS to come out :D
I beg to differ, but in order to argue, we’d have to first settle on a definition of “revolution”. I don’t think the fact of a large number of people owning a device crowns it as the causer of a “revolution”. If it did, then the MacOS could be classified as “revolutionary”, because look at how many people use it today. However, we both know that Windows was the first one to introduce the graphical user interface to an operating system.
I believe a “revolution” is a big change in an aspect of great importance on the lives of everyone within a context. Linux was a revolution. The iPhone, IMO, wasn’t.
By the way, the iPhone isn’t even very popular where I live (i mean the country). This might come as a surprise to you, but outside of the US and maybe a few other nations, it’s really not that big a deal.
Fair point, but I didn’t mean to stress the word revolutionary, but moreso to use it in a literary sense to symbolize how much the iPhone has changed other phones by helping to popularize the “touch screen” fad and the paradigm of a phone being able to do anything with apps.
And of course, the large number of people using the device doesn’t necessarily make it a “revolution,” but it helps. I believe the phone set the bar for quality on every subsequent phone, but I don’t think it would’ve have had the chance if it were only used by 2 or 3 people.
But then again, I was surprised to learn that it wasn’t popular outside of the US and a few other nations. Perhaps my eyes have just hazed over from at least a third of the people I know having either an iPhone or blackberry. Dunno.