JesseM
Posts: 237 +10
Ok, so I know this is a hotly debated subject but I was really bored and was thinking about it and I came up with this after reading an ad for Apple computers. I probably got half of the information wrong (even though it's the overall effect that really matters), so sorry in advance.
The way I see it, Apples and PCs can be compared by using an analogy of the comparison between automatic transmissions in cars, which would be Apple computers, and manual transmissions, which would be PCs.
First of all, the most obvious comparison is the ease of use. Macs are overall easier to use. Automatic transmission is easier to use.
Secondly, the cost fits the analogy. Macs are much more expensive, including repairing and buying software and hardware. Automatic transmission is much more expensive, including repairing and buying parts.
Here's where it really matters to me: the performance. With manual transmission, the driver has more control over their vehicle and enables more performance and control over the vehicle than with an automatic transmission. This is the same with computers, for the most part. For the money you put into it, a PC will outperform an Apple. For $999, an Apple (17-inch iMac) will come with 512MB of RAM and a weak 64MB Intel graphics card. For the exact same price, the PC (Dell XPS 410) comes with 2GB of RAM and a 256MB nVidia graphics card.
Yet another comparison is the reliability. If you know what you are doing, a manual transmission will last longer than an automatic transmission. This is the exact same with computers. If you know what you are doing, a PC will outlast an Apple. Many people like to point out that viruses and spyware are what makes PCs so much worse, but if you know what you are doing you don't get viruses or spyware. If you do get them they are easy to remove. Because you can easily and cheaply replace parts on PCs, just like manual transmissions, they will physically last longer.
Also, with less time spent shifting in an automatic you can brush your teeth, comb your hair... make yourself look better. Apple OS "looks better" and the computers physically look better only because they are not capable of the things that PCs are. The reason I put quotes around "looks better" is because if you are impressed by simple user-friendly graphics enough that this is the reason you bought an Apple, then stop reading this.
Lastly, with a manual transmission you have more fun than with an automatic transmission. With a PC you have more fun. Besides all that hacking stuff (I've heard that Apples are better for that), if you can name one practical thing that an Apple can do that a PC can't, I will be surprised. You can make movies with PCs just like you can with Apples, if not better. You have the exact same music capabilities with PCs that you do with Apples, if not better. You cannot play games with Apples like you can with PCs. When using an Apple you always have to ask yourself, "Is this program compatible with my Apple?" but with PCs you are more than safe to assume that any program will run. Do you know why this is so? Well, I'll answer that with another question: Why would someone who makes programs want to develop that program to run on an OS that has far fewer customers than the other OS? They wouldn't get as much business.
The way I see it, Apples and PCs can be compared by using an analogy of the comparison between automatic transmissions in cars, which would be Apple computers, and manual transmissions, which would be PCs.
First of all, the most obvious comparison is the ease of use. Macs are overall easier to use. Automatic transmission is easier to use.
Secondly, the cost fits the analogy. Macs are much more expensive, including repairing and buying software and hardware. Automatic transmission is much more expensive, including repairing and buying parts.
Here's where it really matters to me: the performance. With manual transmission, the driver has more control over their vehicle and enables more performance and control over the vehicle than with an automatic transmission. This is the same with computers, for the most part. For the money you put into it, a PC will outperform an Apple. For $999, an Apple (17-inch iMac) will come with 512MB of RAM and a weak 64MB Intel graphics card. For the exact same price, the PC (Dell XPS 410) comes with 2GB of RAM and a 256MB nVidia graphics card.
Yet another comparison is the reliability. If you know what you are doing, a manual transmission will last longer than an automatic transmission. This is the exact same with computers. If you know what you are doing, a PC will outlast an Apple. Many people like to point out that viruses and spyware are what makes PCs so much worse, but if you know what you are doing you don't get viruses or spyware. If you do get them they are easy to remove. Because you can easily and cheaply replace parts on PCs, just like manual transmissions, they will physically last longer.
Also, with less time spent shifting in an automatic you can brush your teeth, comb your hair... make yourself look better. Apple OS "looks better" and the computers physically look better only because they are not capable of the things that PCs are. The reason I put quotes around "looks better" is because if you are impressed by simple user-friendly graphics enough that this is the reason you bought an Apple, then stop reading this.
Lastly, with a manual transmission you have more fun than with an automatic transmission. With a PC you have more fun. Besides all that hacking stuff (I've heard that Apples are better for that), if you can name one practical thing that an Apple can do that a PC can't, I will be surprised. You can make movies with PCs just like you can with Apples, if not better. You have the exact same music capabilities with PCs that you do with Apples, if not better. You cannot play games with Apples like you can with PCs. When using an Apple you always have to ask yourself, "Is this program compatible with my Apple?" but with PCs you are more than safe to assume that any program will run. Do you know why this is so? Well, I'll answer that with another question: Why would someone who makes programs want to develop that program to run on an OS that has far fewer customers than the other OS? They wouldn't get as much business.