I thought we already had April Fool’s Day, but apparently it’s come late this year. AOL Shopping has a Mac v. PC comparison titled, “Mac vs. PC: Which is better?” that seems to have been written by someone with an only passing familiarity with computers.
The article is brief, inaccurate, and unsigned. If I’d written it I wouldn’t want to put my name on it either. Starting with the assumption that there are only two factors to consider in purchasing a computer, reliability and marketshare, the author moves on, comparing hardware, software, style, user base, longevity, and cost before declaring a winner.
The Mac gets the nod for having hardware that is easier to upgrade, but only because the author lumps all PCs together. Obviously while Macs are quite easy to upgrade, that doesn’t mean that all PCs are equally difficult to upgrade.
The discussion about software is hilarious. The author declares that although Mac OS X is “simpler to use than Vista,” then hauls out tired old refrain that there is more software available for Windows, going so far as to state that “most of the programs you already know are probably only available on the PC.” Riiiight. Like Microsoft Office, the Adobe CS suite, Firefox, AOL Instant Messenger, Skype, and so on. There was no mention of the Mac-only iApps from Apple, or of the host of excellent Mac-only apps like Safari, OmniOutliner, OmniFocus, Yojimbo, Circus Ponies Notebook, Scrivener, et. al.
Any discussion of “style” as it relates to computers is inherently subjective, and the author declares a draw.
Market share is double-counted, because it was the author’s primary reason for giving PCs the nod for software. The author then goes on to state that while Windows software is dominant, “Mac specializes in professional graphic software.” Graphic software? Is that like graphic porn? What is this, 1995? Apples are for graphics, and PCs are for business? Step out of the time warp, author. It’s 2008 now.
My favorite category is longevity. See if you can follow the logic here. Longevity is not actually about how long your hardware is useful. It’s about how frequently the operating system gets upgraded. Because Apple comes out with upgrades to Mac OS X more rapidly than Microsoft, the author considers PCs to have better longevity! Therefore, if you upgrade every four or five years, “PCs will cost you less to maintain.” Don’t bother looking into malware or security issues. Don’t worry about actual hardware longevity.
You won’t be surprised when I tell you about the cost analysis. Because the cheapest PCs cost less than the cheapest Macs, the author surmises that “Macs are clearly more expensive than PCs.” This is a typical error in which the price of something is confused with its value. The author actually states that PCs use “cheaper materials,” but still fails to recognize that perhaps the cheapest PCs are so cheap because (insert drumroll) they’re not as well made. I won’t even go into the software bundling aspect of costs. The software bundled with even the least expensive MacBook is worth far more than that bundled with cheap PCs.
The final result of the author’s tour de force is a done deal. But if you want to “do artistic work on your computer” Macs are better. Talk about damning with faint praise. That’s like saying Lance Armstrong was great at time trials. But I get the feeling this wasn’t really designed to be a serious comparison. Someone at AOL Shopping figured it would be a great way to gain traffic. Write some obviously misguided nonsense about Macs and watch the traffic roll in. Guess I fell for it.
