The Instigator
conoscenza
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
burningpuppies101
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Mac computers are better than PC's

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
burningpuppies101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2009 Category: Technology
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,951 times Debate No: 7977
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

conoscenza

Pro

Before starting my argument, let me clarify. By Mac computers, I mean computers with the Leopard or Snow Leopard operating system (10.5, 10.5.5, or 10.5.6). By PC's, I simply mean computers with Windows XP, Windows, Vista, or Windows 7.

Also, I would like to thank my future opponent and wish him good luck.

There are many advantages that Mac users can enjoy over PC users. Listed below are a few of them:

1. Macs are designed with "security in mind". Mac OSX is not affected by the myriad of computer viruses out there, such as Conflicker. Thus, there is no need for security alerts and sweeps, leading to a more productive work or play time.

2. Mac OSX is always up-to-date. This is because OSX comes with an automatic software update. This shows updates to any included Apple software and automatically downloads them. This saves you (the user) the trouble of updating the software. In a sense, Macs get better with age.

3. Mac OSX have email and chat programs automatically built in. The chat program, known as iChat, not only supports text chat, but also video chat, audio chat, and screen sharing (screen sharing only works for other mac users). Keep in mind that this comes out of the box. There is no installation needed for any of this.

4. Moreover, Macs are more reliable than PC's. When using a PC, you are using hardware that is made by one company, and software that is created by another. Thus, crashes are common. However, concerning Macs, the operating system and the hardware is made by the same company, resulting in less crashes. An application may quit, but this does not affect the rest of the system.

Before listing any more, I will give my opponent a chance to oppose.

My sources include:
http://www.apple.com...
http://www.apple.com...
burningpuppies101

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate, and I hope that we have a wonderful debate.

Before I start, I'm going to define terms that my opponent forgot to define. These all come from Merriam Webster

better;more advantageous or effective

Also, there is a problem with one of my opponent's arguments. A PC is also known as a personal computer.
personal computer: a general-purpose computer equipped with a microprocessor and designed to run especially commercial software (as a word processor or Internet browser) for an individual user

So here are first, my arguments.

1. A Mac, by definition is a personal computer. Therefore, it cannot be better than itself. For instance, you cannot say that a book is better than a book. So there is the first problem, and that essentially takes out his entire argument. I've won at this point.

I'll add some more later. but this point alone can win me the debate.

Please note that in this debate, the burdens are this: My opponent must show how a Mac Computer is better than a PC, and I must show otherwise. Since I have shown that a Mac Computer IS a PC, and it cannot be better than itself, I win.

Let's move onto his own points.

1. Security in mind. A virus or malware has nothing to do with the OS. Mac OSX is not affected, but only because there are very few out there. However, a nonMac user getting a virus is only one person's fault; the user. If anything, Mac's are more vulnerable, because they are drawn into a false sense of security that their mac is safe, when the non Mac users have a firewall and anti virus, and are actually safer. For instance, a hacker could just as easily write a virus for Mac than for non Mac. This first issue my opponent brings up is only the user's fault, not the computer. You don't blame the house when it falls down in an earthquake, you blame the builders who forgot the nails. Same thing. You don't blame the computer when it gets a virus, you blame the user who forgot to get an anti-virus. So this point is moot.

2. Microsoft also has auto update. So in a sense, Microsoft also gets better with age. So Macs and non Macs are still equal. I'm still winning.

3. That may be helpful to those who use it, but is only detrimential to those who don't. For instance, my mother has a MacBook, and she never uses these programs:
iChat
iPhoto
iDvd
iLife
iWork
iCal
Mail
PhotoBooth
GarageBand

Yet all these programs come with the computer, and take up valuable space on her hard drive. Keep in mind that this comes out of the box. Also keep in mind that eg. Windows XP does not have all this extra software. That have the OS, and one or 2 trial programs that can be easily deleted. So actually, XP is better that it only gives you what you need, and if you need something else, obtaining it is not a problem.

4. Reliability. Quite frankly, I don't quite buy this argument, given that you haven't quoted any sources...Aside from the incredibly biased Apple site. Can you prove that crashes are quite common? I've been using the computer I am using to type this argument for 3 years now. I've only upgraded the RAM once, up to 2 GB of RAM. I'm running Windows XP Professional, and I have not crashed once due to a software error. Any other time I crashed was due to me messing with my computer, and I did something wrong. That same issue can come up with a Mac. For instance, if I mess with Command Prompt, and need to restore some settings, I can do that. But this screw up of my computer was my fault, not the software. Same thing can be applied to Macs. You can be messing with Terminal, when your computer crashes since you did something wrong. Oops.

About your sources. I like how you have decided to use the Apple site as your source of argumentation.
1. I see where you get it is safe from viruses, but you are horribly mistaken. It is safe from non Mac viruses, but it is just as vulnerable to Mac viruses. The only reason it is safe from non Mac (which the Apple site incorrectly calls a PC) viruses is because the OS foundation is different. It's like trying to edit an English Paper with Math. Doesn't work.

2. The Apple site is an unreliable source for argumentation. It's like using the Bible to prove that God exists. A source like the Apple site is guaranteed to be biased towards their product. Therefore, your sources are invalid.

My sources:
http://www.m-w.com...
http://www.m-w.com...
http://www.microsoft.com...
Debate Round No. 1
conoscenza

Pro

I want to thank burningpuppies101 for the quick response and I look forward to an interesting debate.

As burningpuppies101 mentioned, I forgot to define "better". I apologize for this silly mistake.

"1. Security in mind. A virus or malware has nothing to do with the OS. Mac OSX is not affected, but only because there are very few out there. However, a nonMac user getting a virus is only one person's fault; the user. If anything, Mac's are more vulnerable, because they are drawn into a false sense of security that their mac is safe, when the non Mac users have a firewall and anti virus, and are actually safer. For instance, a hacker could just as easily write a virus for Mac than for non Mac. This first issue my opponent brings up is only the user's fault, not the computer. You don't blame the house when it falls down in an earthquake, you blame the builders who forgot the nails. Same thing. You don't blame the computer when it gets a virus, you blame the user who forgot to get an anti-virus. So this point is moot."

Lets say we have two people. Person A uses a computer running Windows Vista, and Person B uses a computer running Leopard. Both are equal in stupidity. Person A and Person B go to the same websites. Neither of them download any programs. Now let's say that both Person A and Person B go on a corrupted website. As a result, Person A's computer obtains a virus, while Person B's computer does not. The point I am trying to make is that no matter what the reason (even if the reason is that most computer viruses are designed for Windows computers), it is a fact that Macs do not obtain as many viruses as computers running Windows. Thus, Mac's are safer to use than Windows computers.

"1. A Mac, by definition is a personal computer. Therefore, it cannot be better than itself. For instance, you cannot say that a book is better than a book. So there is the first problem, and that essentially takes out his entire argument. I've won at this point.

I'll add some more later. but this point alone can win me the debate."

This was an argument posted by my opponent. I agree that a Mac is indeed a personal computer. But I clarified at the beginning of the first round that when I said PC, I was indicating a computer in which the built in operating system is Windows XP, Windows Vista, or Windows 7. Thus, you cannot win the debate due to the fact that I clarified this.

"3. That may be helpful to those who use it, but is only detrimential to those who don't. For instance, my mother has a MacBook, and she never uses these programs:
iChat
iPhoto
iDvd
iLife
iWork
iCal
Mail
PhotoBooth
GarageBand

Yet all these programs come with the computer, and take up valuable space on her hard drive. Keep in mind that this comes out of the box. Also keep in mind that eg. Windows XP does not have all this extra software. That have the OS, and one or 2 trial programs that can be easily deleted. So actually, XP is better that it only gives you what you need, and if you need something else, obtaining it is not a problem."

These programs are not detrimental to those who don't use these programs. These programs may take up space on the hard drive, but since they are built into the device, they do not pose any threat to the system. Also, the hard drive is big enough on a Macbook such that these programs do not take up a significant amount of space. And though your mother may not use the programs, they are available to her. On a Windows computer, they are not available out of the box. In order to obtain these features, one would have to download off of a third party site, which could lead to spyware. Moreover, you are only considering the people who don't use these programs. Many people do use these programs. For example, I have programmed my mac to open my email and my calender every time I log in. This allows me to view any important events or emails without having to remember to open the programs. This feature is not available on the Windows operating system.

Just as I used the Apple site, you had used the Microsoft site. Just as the Microsoft Site will be biased to their product, the Microsoft site will be biased to their product. Thus, I can logically say that your source is invalid as well.

To end this round, I would like to post a link to a chart showing all of the aspects of Windows Vista compared to Leopard. Each operating system is given points based on how they perform and their features. In the end, Leopard gets 46 points, while Vista obtains 41 points. The link to the chart is posted below.

http://www.engadget.com...

There were no other sources used in this round.
burningpuppies101

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for this great debate so far, and I hope it continues this way.

So before I start, I just want to go over the burdens of this debate once more.

My opponent must prove to all of the judges (the voters) that a Mac computer is better than a Personal Computer. If he fails to prove beyond a doubt that a Mac is better than a Personal Computer, then he loses. I must prove that a Mac Computer is not better than a Personal Computer.

Let's move on to his arguments.

1. The security in mind issue. My opponent is pointing the finger at the wrong object. He claims that a Mac is safer than Windows, only because fewer viruses are made for Mac than for Windows. However, he forgets the fact that it is not the OS's fault if the user is an idiot. Let me use another example. Bob and Bill are hammering nails. Bob is a human being. Bill is an alien. Bob and Bill both hit themselves with the hammer, and since the hammer was dirty, Bob gets an infection, while Bill is fine. However, Bob recognized that he was at risk, and could have easily put on gloves that were right next to him. He chose not to. Who do we blame? The hammer?


Thank you. This can be taken as a concession from my opponent. Just because he defined a PC as a computer with XP, Vista, or 7 does not mean that we have to accept this definition. As I have shown, your definition for PC is wrong, and I've explained it. Therefore, I actually can win, even if you clarified it, because you clarified it incorrectly.

3. The Default Programs.
Just because those programs don't pose a threat does not mean that they are not detrimental. Like you said yourself, they take up space. The hard drive is only limited space, not infinite(that would be very nice). It's like owning real estate, and coming with the real estate are a bunch of people living on the land. You never talk to them, never interact with them, until the day when you use all your other real estate and you have a problem. You're out of space. In this case, non Macs are better than Macs, because non Macs don't all these unused programs on the computer from start up, and it becomes a hassle to get rid of them (if you can, which I don't think you can.)

My opponent then goes on to talk about how they are available, even if you don't use them. He claims that if you want the features, you will have to download them off a third party site, which leads to spyware. Problems:
1. He doesn't cite any examples, so we don't even know that what he is saying exists.
2. Again, is it the computer's fault that the user doesn't have any anti-spyware?
3. For those that do use the program: If they truly wanted the program, would it be incredibly difficult for them to go out and get it? Why do we have to force programs upon people, many of which will not use those programs?
4. Also, you can program an XP computer to run programs on start up. How do I know? Because i also have programs that automatically start up when I turn on my computer. So in this aspect, Mac is still equal to a non Mac.


The main difference being: I used it for facts about the OS. You used it for argumentation. I was using the site to draw facts for my arguments. You were using the sites to find those arguments. So my sites are fine. Yours are not.

Ok, so now we get to your chart. I like for one, how you forget to mention that it is a review of the 2 operating systems, and is by no means a fact giver. Secondly, you forget that Vista is by no means the best of Microsoft. This review lacks anything about Windows XP, Windows 7, not to mention all the other operating systems out there like all the Linux based OS. Also, you forget to mention all the custom OS made by people. So in reality, you are only sawing off the tip of it iceberg, but by no means is the tip the best part.

Also, engadget does not seem very much a unbiased opinion than just a blog run by some person. So your sources are bad.

I leave you with that.
Debate Round No. 2
conoscenza

Pro

I want to thank burningpuppies101 for a great debate. I look forward to debating with him again.

Before I start, I want to establish the burdens of my opponents debate.

1. I want to start with the security issue. It is not the OS's fault if the user is an idiot. However, there is a reason Macs have fewer viruses than Windows. Some people argue that there is a low market share of Macs, and thus, there is not use creating a virus. On the other hand, there is a large market share of Windows computers, and thus, it is more sensible to create a virus that affects Windows. However, this is grossly untrue. Most virus authors and hackers are in it for the ego. Don't you think that there would be a huge incentive to be the first one to write a widespread OS X, Linux, or FreeBSD virus? Mac OS X has been a big target for a long time. However, the foundation of OS X that obstructs viruses. This is because OS X is based off of Unix BSD, which is very stable. Unix has existed since 1969 in open source form. Unix has been out for nearly two decades. If there isn't a virus that infects Unix after two decades, it is most likely because Unix is very stable.

http://www.macobserver.com...

3. The Default Programs
If the programs do not pose a threat to the system, how does that not make them detrimental? Detrimental, by definition, means obviously harmful (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). If the programs do not pose a threat to the system, then that means that they are not obviously harmful. Thus, they are not detrimental. This is simple logic. Also, the hard drive of Macs are big enough (160 GB - 250 GB --> http://www.apple.com...) such that these programs do not take up a significant amount of space. However, if you are tight on space, and you need to get rid of these programs, it is possible to delete them. To delete them, all you do is go to the applications folder and drag the unwanted applications to the trash (http://forums.macosxhints.com...).

Now, I want to list some of the benefits of Macs and some of the negative points of Non-macs.

1. OS X offers Spaces
Spaces is a default application offered with OS X that offers different virtual desktops. Imagine Bill is working on a mac. He has 20 windows open on one desktop. To reduce this clutter, Bill can use the Spaces application. Spaces allows you to drag some of those windows into other virtual desktops. This results in less clutter. Spaces can also be used to organize windows. One space can contain windows concerning work, while another space contains windows concerning play. It is very simple to switch between spaces as well. One can easily press the control button and then the corresponding arrow key to move through the spaces. You can also click the spaces icon to show the different spaces being utilized.

http://www.apple.com...

2. OS X allows users to partition the hard drive

Bootcamp is another utility that Apple offers. Bootcamp allows the user to partition they're hard drive, allowing the user to run Windows on a Mac. Bootcamp supports the 32-bit versions of Windows XP and Windows Vista. Also, Windows applications run at native speed. Thus, if there is a Windows application that you need, simply use bootcamp to access Windows XP and Windows Vista. One could also use Parallels Desktop or VMWare Fusion. However, those cost money, whereas Bootcamp is free.

http://www.apple.com...

I now want to establish some of the negative points of Windows XP

1. CD-R Drive or CD-RW Drive Is Not Recognized As a Recordable Device
2. Bandwidth : XP needlessly consumes 20% of available bandwidth.
3. Random crashes
* USB hub does not work well under XP, causing XP to crash
* Memory sometimes needs to be reset. Vibrations can cause the memory to become loose.
* Drivers or Bios may not be compatible
* Power supply - not as common with modern boxes but if your PC is older, it may literally be underpowered.
upgrade to a 400w.
4. You can't install IIS web server under XP Home
5. Disk Cleanup : Stops Responding when searching for compressed files
6. Compressed files : XP search treats zips as directories and searches through them. If you have lots of compressed
files, this can extend XP search time to hours.
7. CD-ROM Drive or DVD-ROM Drive Missing After You Install Windows XP
8. DSL : XP kills Verizon DSL
9. Infrared Data Transfer Slower in Windows XP Than in Windows 2000
10. Q811493 - Windows XP Security : after applying it, XP systems are SLOW

http://www.windowsnetworking.com...

Here are some of the negative points of Windows Vista

1. Many hardware components have no drivers for Windows Vista.
2. Lots of new applications do no work on the new operating system due to the fact that software developers created applications that function only if the user has full administrative privileges
3. Lack of third party security solutions
4. Only Windows Vista Ultimate and Business Editions support faxing
5. Vista really, really hogs Memory and CPU. It takes about 600 MB space even without any programs running
6. Intense graphics results in slow loading times
7. License Misunderstandings are common
8. Installing the OS is difficult and slow
9. Java doesn't work on Vista. Neither do some Adobe products and anti-virus programs like Norton.
10. Upgrading to Vista is a rather expensive business

http://www.vista4beginners.com...
http://www.buzzle.com...
burningpuppies101

Con

OK, so I want to start by just thanking my opponent for this debate.

Before I get to the arguments made by my opponent, I just want to reiterate the burdens that I stated, which were not answered.

My opponent had to prove why a Mac is better than a Personal Computer. All he has done in his final speech is try to prove why Mac OSX is better than Windows XP and Vista. And quite frankly, I'm going to show him wrong (I hope.)

Since my opponent has failed to show why a Mac is better than a PC, I have already won this debate.

My burden for this debate was to show how a Mac is not better than a PC, and I did so by showing how a Mac IS a PC, so a Mac can't be better than itself and therefore I have won.

Right there, you can vote for me. But in case you don't buy my argument, I'm going to disprove all my opponent's arguments, therefore you can still vote negative, since my opponent didn't show how a Mac is better than a PC.

1. The security issue. My opponent tries to make an argument that hackers break the law to fluff their ego, but he offers no warrant except for a site that is all about Macs, obviously biased towards Macs, and even that site doesn't say anything but claims. Here is the most likely reason that hackers don't build viruses for Macs. It is not because the Mac OS is too strong. You can do anything you want with a Mac, provided you know what you are doing. Same goes for PC. SO my opponent's bogus argument can't stand.

Here's why people build stuff for Microsoft more than they do for Mac. In the large corporations, what kind of computers do they use? Do the really big corporations use Macs? No. They use Microsoft. Many more people use Microsoft OS than they do use Mac OSX. Therefore, if one was to build a virus, would you want to build a virus that only affects a small amount of people? Not only that, but just the sheer number of Microsoft run computers out there has the overwhelming statistical support that there will be more people using Microsoft computers to house their sensitive data, do their banking, finances, and the like, from a Microsoft computer, not a Mac. It's just the math. So why would a hacker want to build a virus that for one, won't affect as many people, and second, won't provide as much sensitive information that can be used by the hacker?

Now, before my opponent goes to pointing fingers, saying, "Ha! Microsoft computers must therefore be less safe, since there are more viruses!" But he is wrong. Yes, the numbers are on his side, but it is really a problem of the user, not the computer. You don't blame the hammer for hitting your finger, you blame yourself for being clumsy. Same here. You don't blame the OS for giving you a virus, you blame yourself for not arming yourself with all the free anti-virus and anti malware programs out there. There are very many really good ones, better than Norton, and best of all, you don't pay a dime! There is no excuse not to use it.

3. Lets move on to the Default Program issue. My opponent makes the argument that those space wasting programs are not detrimental to the system. He tries to provide a definition, but here is the second meaning, which I believe applies more to this situation: detrimental : an undesirable or harmful thing. If we take my opponent's definition, then we make the assumption that a virus that is taking your personal information and sending to to a hacker is not detrimental until we know about it. So, we can't really accept this incorrect definition. Also, my opponent makes the argument that the programs don't take up very much space, so it's ok. Why should my parents have to go out of their way to get rid of a program that they don't want, and is only taking up space? Shouldn't it be the other way around? The users who want the programs should request that it be on their computer from the seller, instead of the seller just forcing these unwanted programs onto your computer.

Now we're at the "good stuff" about Macs.

1. Spaces. First, again, my detrimental argument can apply. Second, how is this a benefit? This is just a handy dandy add-on that most people don't even know about! Also, for XP there is a program called VirtuaWin. It does the same thing, and I only got it because I wanted it. I didn't get it because it is a system default. Took all of about 30 seconds to get it up and running.

2. Partitioning the hard drive. I just want to point out that the moment you mention BootCamp, you have conceded the debate by accepting that there are things that XP or Vista does better than Mac, necessitating the use of BootCamp. Thank you. Also, Partitioning a hard drive is not a unique benefit of Macs, so it can't be considered one. And again, cross apply my detrimental program arguments to BootCamp.

Now we're at the negative points about XP.
First off, every single one of these "problems" have a solution provided by the very same site my opponent is using to draw these argument's from. Also, I run a default XP on my computer, and I have none of these problems, so clearly it is not the OS's fault, since I'm running a default of the OS, and I have no problems.
1. PEBKAC. Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.

2. This is wrong. You misquoted your own source. XP only uses 80% of your bandwidth, leaving that extra 20% as a buffer. Unlocking it can overload your system.

3. PEBKAC, and only there.

4. That would be because most people don't run a server off a home computer. And that's just a compatibility issue, and I notice how Mac doesn't even support this option...

5. PEBKAC. I've had not problems with the default OS settinsg.

6. Definitely PEBKAC. Stop blaming the hammer for driving a nail into your hand.

7. Again, PEBKAC, considering I have clean re-installed my XP, and then proceeded to start burning discs like there was no tomorrow.

8. PEBKAC. Also, that was only one isolated instance. No strict facts do you provide, only a review from an "impartial" third party.

9. Proof? Nonexistent, since the site you get this from only has a claim, no warrant.

10. Apply my response to #9

Now we're at the issues with Vista:

First off, the article you pull this info off from is two years old, in which time Windows has provided tons of updates that now solve all these problems.

2. Admin privileges can be obtained by the user. PEBKAC.

3. Not anymore.

4. Why is that negative? That is like buying a low end Toyota, and complaining when it doesn't perform as well as a high end Lexus. You get what you paid for, and it's only the user's fault if they bought the wrong item.

5. When the user bought the computer, he/she accepted that, and nowadays, with x64 bit computers including those with Vista, a theoretical one terabyte of ram can be used. 600 MB is no longer a problem.

6. That would be the graphics card, and a hardware issue, not a software issue, which is what we are talking about.

7. PEBKAC. Not Windows' fault if you don't read the ToS and the License of Agreement.

8. Considering that it comes with the computer, that's not a problem. Also, if you think 1-2 hours is slow for a install, you are wrong. The average install of an OS is 2 hours.

9. Not anymore

10. Getting a Mac is even more.

So, when we look at the debate, we have to realize that my opponent has failed on 2 counts:

1. He has not shown how a Mac is better than a Personal Computer, since a PC IS a Mac.

2. He has not shown how a Mac is better than XP or Vista.

Please note that my burden of this debate was not to prove that Windows was better than Mac. My burden was to show how Mac is not better than a PC, and I have shown why on both counts.

I want to sincerely thank my opponent for this debate, and I look forward to more in the future.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by darris321 3 years ago
darris321
Long after the fact, I have to revive this to alert any future readers.
You CAN have an operating system that is more immune to viruses than another. Unix systems don't just have "security through obscurity" they also have a system-wide permissions protocol and nothing can change the files in /this/important/directory/for/example without a password.
Windows IS less safe because of the fact that it does NOT have a comparable system.
Even when Windows implements password requirements, the password is laughably easy to remove without even knowing it.
There are some glaring holes in the security of the Windows OS.
Posted by cgbergeron85 5 years ago
cgbergeron85
I actually don't think that either side argued very well at all, but in fairness, this is such a dead topic that requires lots of user experience with both products, and complete separation from emotions tied to the historical nature of both products.
PRO used biased data which did not help the case. PRO also doesn't seem to have any real experience with Windows, just going off of popular assumptions you hear every day going back and forth about the OS and Viruses.
I also think CON took a ridiculous approach while calling PRO out on the PC definition. I think its insane that CON is getting praise for this. It was clear what the argument was, and if CON was so smart in taking that approach, then CON should not have referred to them as PCs for the rest of the argument. This in fact proved that he did indeed understand how PC was implied, contradicting his argument. If this was such a deal breaker, the both should have referred to the topic as Apple VS Microsoft or Windows VS MAC OS. These are more accurate titles.
As a whole, a lot of incorrect claims were made. Both OS's allow you to partition hard drives, there are many Windows-compatible computer manufacturers and all were lumped together incorrectly to argue a point about the operating system, not the hardware, price is not a sole reason for greatness as people find different value in different things which justifies willingness to spend money, etc
Posted by X_mitchell 6 years ago
X_mitchell
I really loved the debate and both of the opponents had very good reasons on why which one was better. But in the end I have used both a Mac and a PC and in my opinion they are both different, Windows is more of (in my opinion) used for everything, and works very well with all of the needs from gaming to business work. But the Mac is used for designing and music, although that Windows is used for this two the Mac really handles that subject very well. Anyway I will always be a Windows user, and it is true Windows users get viruses due to human error I gave myself a virus once.
Posted by mightymisfit 7 years ago
mightymisfit
personally, as a filmmaker...macs are far faster, quicker, cooler and easier to use

but i hate the pretentious snobbery mac users put out
Posted by Rumsy 7 years ago
Rumsy
Im not good enough for a Mac. Macs are for artists and musicians, people who want to express their ideas and only listen to music and make slideshows, blog and maintain a facebook.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
A very good debate. Both debaters stayed on the topic, made good clear arguments, and no furniture was broken. Conduct and Spelling and Grammar were tied. Nice job.

Source reliability goes to Con. The Apple site is clearly biased, and Pro has the burden of Pro.

I give the nod to Con because Pro did not meet the burden of proof. It takes mor ethan unsupported opinion to win a debate that depends upon issues of fact. If the current Mac OS was designed with security in mind, then there should be some independent source that says what is in the Mac design that is not in the Vista design. Similarly, if the Mac crashes less often, there should be data to show that. Con raised the points well enough to undermine Pro's case to the point where Pro really needed proof.

I think Con missed an argument in that PCs are cheaper. This gets to what is "better." The criteria depends upon use. Macs may be better for some purposes, but if a user is mainly interested in a few applications, and many users are in that category, then a cheaper PC is better. Pro could have argued that Macs are "better" in terms of being more user-friendly, which is important to some class of users.
Posted by burningpuppies101 7 years ago
burningpuppies101
I ask that all voters provide RFDs.
Posted by burningpuppies101 7 years ago
burningpuppies101
Yup. Maybe I should take it, just to show the flaws... Yeah, I'll take it.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Welcome subjectivity.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Slurve 7 years ago
Slurve
conoscenzaburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by conoscenza 7 years ago
conoscenza
conoscenzaburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sssssstephen 7 years ago
sssssstephen
conoscenzaburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
conoscenzaburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
conoscenzaburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 7 years ago
burningpuppies101
conoscenzaburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07