Macs are better than PCS
Debate Rounds (5)
I love debates like these, there really should be more. Same goes for xBox vs. PlayStation, iPhone vs. Samsung Galaxy, etc. Anyway, thanks for creating this debate!
I'll let you go first to explain why Macs are better than PC's, but first let me remind you that computers built for Windows operating systems can also run Mac OSX, as well as dozens others, such as Linux, Steam, Android, and more . Hackintosh is a name given to a PC that's been built to run Mac OSX, which can be considered arguably better than an actual Macbook or Mac computer or whatever. So yes, Macs can run Windows, however PC's can also run Mac OSX . So there is no edge to the Mac here, and considering there are dozens of operating systems that can be run on a PC, I'd have to say you kind of dug your own grave there.
So thanks for the debate, and fire away - let's see what makes a Mac superior to a PC.
Alright, so apparently, according to 'Onewhomshallnotbenamed', "It means how many dollars it costs per year."
Not only will I need some kind of source to prove this is true - that PCs cost almost four times as much as a Mac to... perform per year(?), but I'll need to see what kind of PC you're talking about that... well, requires anything to perform after it's been built. I've built three PCs in my life, and owned three different laptops, over the span of about ten years. I haven't spent a dime on any of them after I bought them. Free antivirus, no hardware malfunctions, and no software upgrades or malfunctions.
Let's get into hardware though - and get ready for this, you'll love what I've gotta show you! Keep in mind, cheaper doesn't automatically mean better, but when I can give you the exact same specs of a Mac (or better), but with a PC, for about a third of the price... well yes, that is better. Get ready.
This  is an iMac with slightly above average specs. It's durable, reliable, will last several years, is fast and efficient, and quite easy to get the hang of. However, it's $2,200 before taxes - about $2,500 after taxes and shipping and all that fun stuff.
Now let's go to NCIX.com - a Canadian based computer hardware and software store, where you can order your own parts, build a computer yourself, or have them build it and ship it to you. Right off the bat, the customization of a PC is far superior than a Mac. What I'm about to do is show how I can build a PC with the exact same (or better) hardware as a Mac, and have it cost less than half the amount it would have costed you to buy a Mac.
Before we buy anything, we need a motherboard - so here's a pretty good one  (sorry for random number, lol) for $95.
The Mac I picked out has a 3.4GHz Quad-core Intel Core i5 processor - on NCIX, that costs $320 . However, with processors in particular, I find that AMD has the same performance and reliability as Intel, yet costs significantly less, as you can see here , an AMD processor with better specs than the Intel one is less than half the price of the Intel one. So let's use this one for our build.
For our Mac, we have 8GB of 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - $90 on the NCIX site, and it's slightly faster .
For our Mac, a 1TB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200 rpm - $ 60 on NCIX .
We've got an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 775M 2GB GDDR5 for our Mac, a pretty good graphics card actually, however I can get a much better one on NCIX for $240 , as you can see from this comparison chart .
Now there's not many more specs for the Mac, so I'll add in the mouse  and keyboard , and of course tha case , power supply , and cooling . Also keep in mind you could get pretty much any case you want, whatever you think looks coolest - instead of the mandatory white (which doesn't look horrible) Mac stuff.
Obviously if you want to stay legal, you'd need to actually buy a operating system as well, so here's windows 7 (easy enough to get the hang of after a little bit, just like Mac OSX .
And just to be on the safe side, to ensure the system is as fast as a Mac, let's throw in a Solid State Drive, which is more than enough  in comparison to the Mac.
So if I did my math right and added the correct stuff to my cart, we're looking at everything - better specs than the Mac in comparison - for less than $900. Of course we need a monitor too, so we'll get a 27" one (same as the Mac) for $200 .
So Just shy of $1,100, less than half the price of the Mac. Better specs, too, keep in mind.
I have literally less than two minutes to post this so apologies for spelling errors and such.
So, saving more than a thousand dollars in order to get a computer with better overall capabilities? (Flash, Java, etc), I would say yeah, that is better.
Onewhomshallnotbenamed forfeited this round.
Come on man you messaged me again explaining what the cost per year is, lol.
But let's just use what you said in your message, "the unit rate of the average lifespan of a Mac to cost." So this implies If you spend the same(?) amount of money on a Mac as well as a PC, the Mac will outlast the PC by years (taking into account of your $175 to $45 figures).
I haven't found anything that says exactly what the lifespan is of a Mac or PC, other than Macs last longer. But I got answers like ~5years for PC and ~10years for Mac, so let's use that. Unfortunately it didn't specify exactly what model of PC was being used, so why don't we use my PC to Mac comparison in my previous reply, but minus a few specs such as SSD and the better hardware so the price of the PC is $900 compared to the $2,200 Mac.
Right off the bat, by doing simple math, 5years is half of 10years, so let's just say we buy two of the same PCs, the other five years after the first. That's still a $300 difference, and spending $900 on a PC in five years will get you even better hardware than the first one. So, using 10 years, you can either spend $2,200 and have the same Mac for that time, or $1,800 and have a PC for five years, and an even better PC for the next five years and save $300.
I don't really have much more to say. Overall, PCs are cheaper than Macs.
Please come up with some new arguments supporting Macs lol
Onewhomshallnotbenamed forfeited this round.
Come on, lol
http://www.therichest.com... the most expensive Macintosh laptop is $30,000 but that's cheap compared to the $1,000,000 Luvaglio that obviously isn't a mac.
Unfortunately your argument kind of backfired on you. When we're going for the "most expensive" of something, we aren't necessarily going for "best dollar to performance ratio." If a multi-millionaire wants to show off his laptop, he can get a million-dollar Luvagilo to go with his mansion. A $30,000 Macbook is great and all, but when we're talking that kind of money, it isn't for performance, it's for looks or just overall value of whatever the item is. And if it was for performance... well, you'd be paying a tad too much. But here's a PC  that's faster with a much better screen resolution and overall look (in my opinion - solid gold is tacky) for significantly less. And I'm sure if I actually looked for longer than ten seconds, I'd find one for much cheaper than that too.
So what have we found out? PCs are overall cheaper than Macs, better performance to dollar ratio PCs can run the same programs (and more) than Macs, and if you're too rich for your own good, you can brag with an over the top expensive PC, but can't with a Mac.
So I don't think Macs have been shown to be better than PCs, and in fact it's really the other way around.
Thanks for a good debate, Onewhomshallnotbenamed!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lee001 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to con for no forefit. Pro FF multiple times. Pro didnt really make any arguments except for the last round. Con had convincing well written and organized argument's, he also used ledgidible and reliable soources while pro didn't.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.