The Instigator
KarmaPaymentPlan
Pro (for)
Losing
40 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

PCs and Macs are basically the same.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,313 times Debate No: 1285
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (26)

 

KarmaPaymentPlan

Pro

Hello. This is my first debate on debate.org, so, I don't intend to go "balls out" on this one. This is simply a quirk of mine. For as long as I can remember, the Mac vs. PC debate has been metaphorically "ablaze." I see no end to it. There just seems to be no compromise between PC and Mac elitists. I want this to end, because, quite frankly, it's getting old. To set the premise, I am both a PC and Mac user.

When it comes down to it, OSX and Windows are the same. They both provide all of the same functions (commonplace functions, rather,) but in different ways. There are certain things that are easier to do on a Mac than a PC, and visa versa. What it really boils down to is what's more "user friendly" for YOU. "Preference" is the key word. The word to end the PC vs. Mac debate. It depends on what YOU like.

Some of the most common arguments on the PC side are:

1. "Macs can't play games."
Correction: Newer Macs can run Windows via Boot Camp, thus run PC games. Sure, there may occasionally be an incompatibility issue, but I haven't heard of many. If you have a good Mac, then the games should run swimmingly with no issues. I've done it, and thousands of others have, too. (See youtube if you need proof.)

2. "Macs aren't upgradable."
This is true - for some models. When people hear "Mac," they automatically think "iMac." The all-in-one Apple desktop. While it is a nice machine, it isn't upgradable. Think of it as a laptop. A huge one for your desk. When you buy an iMac, it would be ideal to get one that will last you a good while. I do understand that technology grows and expands quickly, but not that quickly. I digress. Now, back to the crux of the matter. Apple does have a customizable desktop model. The "Mac Pro." Look into it. Nowadays, you can even build a "Hackintosh" - a PC that runs OSX.

3. "Macs are too expensive."
While I do agree that some of Apple's computers are overpriced, this isn't entirely true. You have to stop and take a look at what you're getting for your money. Similar pre-built PC desktops are usually within the same price range. Also, as I said earlier, you can very well build a "Hackintosh" for under $800 dollars. All it takes it time, patience, and a screwdriver. Macs are only expensive as you need them to be - just like a PC.

4. "OSX has an interface that appeals to toddlers."
There's nothing wrong with having an interface that's pleasing to the eye. Hell, I personally think Vista's "Aero" theme is more of a shiny "look at me!" gimmick than OSX's interface. There are more people trying to make their PCs look like Macs than the other way around. Third party software such as "WindowBlinds" and "Object Dock" make this very possible, and I see tons of people using at least one of them.

5. "Macs don't have as much 3rd party software available."
This is true, but not true. For every 3rd party application I can think of for Windows, there is a Mac version or a suitable Mac alternative that accomplishes the same function. Not to mention that Macs can run Windows now, so, theoretically, a Mac can run all of the same applications that Windows can.

Now, some of the common arguments on the Mac side are:

1. "Macs don't crash."
Oh, but they do, and when they do, they crash hard. Macs are not perfect machines. No computer is without flaws. Much like PCs, they have their faults, and they're occasionally going to crash. Don't lie about it.

2. "Macs are better for digital media and photos."
No, they're not. All of the major media editing applications, such as products from Adobe, various video editing and image editing software, and, well... practically anything you can think of is, in fact, available for PC. You can't honestly say that one is better than the other because they do the same things. Again, it boils down to preference.

3. "PCs are riddled with viruses. Macs don't get them."
It is true that PCs can contract viruses, but any average Joe knows how to take care of his PC and prevent them. In all my years of using a PC, I've only come across one virus, which was fixed with a single scan of Norton Antivirus in roughly 20 minutes. Any Mac enthusiast who says Macs don't get viruses are liars. There are several known viruses for the Macintosh. The reason viruses aren't more abundant on the Mac is that PCs make up 90% of the computer market. Why would a virus writer only aim at that 10% when he can glorify himself with the 90%?

4. "Macs are intuitive and work the way you do."
So do PCs. That's kind've my entire point in this. They do the same things.

5. "Macs are beautiful. PCs are large, bulky, and ugly."
That's a matter of preference. Personally, I think the new Aluminum iMac is hideous. Not to mention, the Mac Pro is large, bulky, and has tons of wires, just like any other PC. You also fail to mention that most PCs are quite customizable. You can make them look practically however you want.

Don't you see, people? All of these "flaws" in each system is a matter of PREFERENCE. What's right for YOU.

I have, however, noticed one notable difference. The users.

Mac elitists are the worst. I hate seeing "Get A Mac" ads. You don't see PC companies posting pompous garbage like that, do you? Elitists like this give all Mac users a bad rep in many people's eyes, unfortunately.

Most of the PC elitism (that I see) comes from people (notably gamers) who have never used Mac OSX outside of the cheap, crappy G3 iMacs from 1999 that are in their school's computer lab. If these people would actually take the time to actually use OSX, they might see that I'm right.

In closing, neither is better than the other. It's a matter of preference.

Your move, whoever you may be.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Well I'll pick this up and run with it I guess. You argue that neither is better - I argue that PC outstrips Mac any day. I'll go down your list and provide my arguments for why there is a difference, and why that difference leans towards PC...

1. Newer Macs running Win32 and Win64 apps simply add another layer of things to go wrong between the software and the user. It is clear that more games are written for PC. Also, there is no such thing as a "gaming" Mac - Macs are decent for gaming, but don't come NEAR the performance of a Gaming PC. And one other thing... that one button mouse is WORTHLESS for gaming...

2. Upgradability is a HUGE bonus for me. If I'm buying anything - not just a computer - I'm going to go with what is upgradable. That means PC over Mac.

3. Anymore, the price issue isn't really all that much of a consideration. For the same CPU, HD, and Graphics, Macs and PC's are roughly the same price - expensive. The reason PC's are more affordable is that you can build them - you don't have to buy pre-built systems. My desktop is more powerful than new Mac desktops, and cost less than half as much because I built it.

4. Ease of interface isn't something that really should enter the debate between the two in my opinion. Between PC and Mac, I think it depends most on what you used as a kid, which would be PC for me. But I have mine kind of set up like a mac, with a double row taskbar, where the top row is all quick launch. So - in this case, I'd advocate a hybrid. But if you REALLY want ease of UI, get Linux or Unix.

5. I disagree here - I believe if you tallied 3rd party software, PC would win in a landslide. Tallying USEFUL software might produce different results though. I think the distinction here is that most of the 3rd Party stuff came for PC first, giving it that developmental edge.

2nd set of points...

1. Neither platform crashes if properly maintained. Or at least - doesn't crash often. I leave my desktop running for weeks at a time without a crash. But I boot XP on 28 processes and have a powerful machine. The point is that proper attention by the user can prevent 98% of crashes.

2. Neither platform has an advantage in any area... Standard Macs are usually better at media processing than standard PC's, but again - that's an issue with obtaining comparable equipment. PC has more productivity software, but a lot of it is available for Mac too. I would say that neither side has a definitive advantage - or that Macs might have one in music and video, but PC in 3D modeling and programming.

3. No argument here...

4. I think PC's are more user friendly, actually... I don't find the Mac UI very intuitive. And that one-button mouse is a pain. Macs aren't very friendly with their interface to storage devices and folder trees either. IMO - PC wins this one.

5. This portion should be eliminated - it's pointless. The hardware can be taken out of a computer and put in almost anything. Although PC's are much easier to stick in new cases because Macs have some ridiculous case designs. Basically, anything with an ATX-based form doesn't matter as far as looks go. I think that PC wins this one though, because it's ATX-based 99% of the time.

While a certain amount of what you want to do will determine which platform you get, as a general computer user, you can't go wrong with a PC. Take for example the time when most people are looking at getting a computer - college. Unless you are a Commercial Music or Graphic Design student, a PC is almost certainly the way to go. They're more network-friendly with systems that are already in place, offer a wider range of software for things like word processing and entertainment, and are also usually cheaper. Now if you're doing fairly specialized work, you might want a Mac, but only for certain areas - and if you're going to spend that much money anyway, you might as well get a comparable PC and save some hassle with compatibility.

In my opinion - there is a difference. PC wins in nearly all categories.
Debate Round No. 1
KarmaPaymentPlan

Pro

All right. Here we go. I guess I'll just stick through the 1-5 thing so people can follow easier.

1. Considering that Boot Camp allows you to run Windows natively and that Macs and PCs are built with mostly the same parts (Intel processors, HD video cards, etc etc,) your argument on this one seems somewhat moot. Like I said, try watching some of the videos on youtube of people playing games like Call Of Duty 4 and Bioshock on High on a Macintosh. All Macs these days come with pretty high-end video cards, and you can easily upgrade the RAM on any desktop Mac - even the all-in one iMac. Also, I couldn't help but notice you brought up the whole "one button mouse" argument. Apple desktops have been coming out with two-button mice (The Mighty Mouse) since 2005. Not to mention, you could buy your own multi-button USB mouse and use them before, just like you would have to do with a PC. This just goes to show that you're the stereotypical "PC Elitist" that I described earlier. You've most likely never touched a Macintosh. I don't think you can really delve into this debate if you aren't experienced in both operating systems.

2. As I said before, you can get a Mac Pro, which is a fully upgradable desktop PC, and you can build a great Hackintosh for less than $800 dollars. Also, upgrading the RAM on an iMac is basically a 3-step deal that can be done in two minutes, if that counts for anything to you.

3. Again, Hack-in-tosh. Cheap, effective, and fully customizable. I'm assuming by "better" than Apple desktops, you're refering to the iMac. You have to remember that you're buying a complete computer, monitor included. I'm not sure about the Aluminum iMac, but the white iMac's screen was pretty high-end and worth 3-400 in itself. Of course, that tacks on to the price. Like I said earlier, a Mac is only as expensive as you need it to be, much like a PC.

4. Yeah, buddy, Mac OSX 10.5 Leopard is 100% UNIX, whereas Linux is not. If you want a real Unix experience, Leopard is the way to go. But, then again, this simply boils down to preference and what's easier for YOU. Personally, I grew up using Windows. I haven't been using Mac as long as I've been using PC, but I still found OSX to mesh well with what I already knew. It doesn't take that much of a learning curve. They've both become second nature to me, and I can honestly say that PCs do some things better than a Mac, and Macs do some things better than PCs. But... you wouldn't know, right?

5. I agree with you. But you really didn't debate my point here, so, moving on.

Next set.

1. I agree with you here. My point was that apple sells lies when they say "Macs don't crash." They're computers, just like PCs, and if not properly taken care of, they're going to crash.

2. So, we agree? They are pretty much the same in every area. I do have to disagree with you in one area, though. PCs aren't any better for 3D modeling. Macs have Maya, one of the most advanced 3D apps to date. They also have Cinema 4D, but I've never used it.

3. Good. Moving on.

4. Uhh... something tells me that the only Mac you've ever used is quite... well, ancient. Macs don't use one-button mice anymore. They haven't for the past 2 1/2 years. Try using a newer mac with the newest operating system installed before you try judging it. That was rather absurd. That's like comparing Windows 95' to Windows XP when you've never used XP and saying that 95' is more user friendly. Sorry, but your argument here is completely moot. After you've used a newer Mac with OSX 10.5 Leopard for a couple of weeks, decide which is more user friendly to you then. While my entire point is that the PC vs. Mac debate is mostly all about preference, you have to give a fair trial to both, and that includes using the newest hardware with the newest OS.

5. What you said had nothing to do with my argument. I was refering to the looks on the outside of the computers, not their guts. Moot.

To your closing statement -

The same thing can be said about a Mac. Macs can do everything a PC can do, even moreso now because they can run Windows natively. PCs aren't any more network-friendly than a Macintosh. No idea where you're coming from there. Macs have Mac versions of the aferomentioned software, and, if not, there's a suitable Mac alternative. If all else fails, they can simply boot up Windows. It is true that some PCs are cheaper, but by no means do they have the same guts that fortify Macs and high-end PCs. But, again, this all boils down to preference. What's right for the person buying the computer. As I've clearly explained, they all do the same things. Some easier than the other and visa versa, but neither one is fundamentally better than the other. That's what I'm getting at.

About that last little line of yours - You can't honestly say that you would know. It's been made painfully clear that you haven't used a Mac from this decade, thus, your judgements are rather unfair.

Your move.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

1. If you buy a Mac and run Windows natively, then that's just plain stupid. Buy a PC instead... Unless you want the pain and hassle of shutting down and restarting into the Mac OS every time you want to use the Mac stuff. No doubt the graphics on Macs are better when buying the standard systems. Mac standard systems are better for gaming than PC standard systems - but they cost twice as much. And again, in the end, nothing Mac has stands up to a PC gaming system. Mac still has a 1 button mouse as standard - look at the Mac Book Pro - one button. You have to buy a different mouse to make a standard Mac system worth gaming on.

2. Not sure what your point is here... if you're going to build a computer - it's cheaper to build a PC. And if you're going to buy one - there's no difference in price for the same equipment now that Mac has started using PC components.

3. See #2 - again... what's your point? PC is still cheaper. In the end, the main cost difference is going to be the OS itself - and that's a crapshoot on price wherever you get it.

4. Mac OSX is Unix-based - not a pure Unix system. Using Unix or Linux, you can customize the UI however you want. So on UI, neither PC or Mac wins. However, I would say that still, the Windows interface is more intuitive to someone who doesn't know much about computers. And for IT professionals... Mac OS is a terrible pain of a UI.

5. Mmk - we'll just drop this point, I guess.

Next set...

1. I think we agree here...

2. PC's have 3ds Max '08 and Maya. Maya is basically Max's little brother for biped modeling and other high-poly or mesh modeling. Max can do almost everything Maya can and a LOT more. I don't think there's a version of Gmax for Mac either, which is a significant detriment in the 3d modeling area... And I haven't looked into this, but I don't think Mac offers more than dual-monitor support - PC will drive quad monitors, which is another plus for modelers.

3. Agreed

4. Our MIDI lab runs Macs with OS 10.5 Leopard - and it's still a pain - Maybe it's just me... or maybe it's most of the people that work in our IT department - none of us like the Mac interface because it's simply not very intuitive.

5. Obviously you missed my point. You can choose ANY outside for PC's as long as it supports ATX. Newer Macs are probably ATX compatible, but certainly not the previous models.

As I said above, running Windows on a Mac is entirely pointless. It's simply a gimmick to make money. Newer Macs have PC processors in them - that was the problem with them running Windows without an emulator before. Why pay more for a Mac when you can just buy a PC that will do what you want it to? Macs are for the professional that doesn't have enough money to step up to a supercharged PC. Otherwise, there's no reason to buy a Mac except for the advertising that's given it a "cool" factor.

I'll ignore the ad hominem attack about me being a PC elitist - I work in an IT department that supports both Mac and PC - so I have plenty of experience dealing with the pain that is Mac on a large network. As you point out - the software doesn't change much from system to system either - so while I might have used just Photoshop and AfterEffecs on a Mac - I can extrapolate the experience to GoLive and Audition... I have never OWNED a Mac, but I work on them at school all the time - both fixing problems and using them in the labs. My judgments may seem harsh, but they're hardly unfair.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I've never used a Mac... using the same apparent logic as you, I'm going to say that you've made it painfully obvious that you've never used 3ds Max, and your judgments for Maya are unfair. My point is that you have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not I've used a Mac. And until you have any evidence either way, it has no place in a debate.
Debate Round No. 2
KarmaPaymentPlan

Pro

1. "That's just plain stupid." That's a matter of opinion. By enabling Windows to run on a Mac, you get the best of both worlds. Also, you don't have to shut down and reboot if you want to use Windows. You can simply run VMware, which requires a simple click. Don't generalize all macs by a laptop. A laptop which you can plug any USB mouse into, by the way. Also, tell me, who uses laptops for gaming? Not very many people. Every DESKTOP Mac comes with a 4-button Mighty Mouse, and has since 2005. All of this seems to lend more credence to the notion that you know nothing of Macs.

2. I don't know how many times I've said this. "A computer is only as expensive as you need it to be." If you're going to build a high-end gaming PC, it's not going to be any cheaper than a Macintosh.

3. Vista and OSX 10.5 cost the same. Missing your point here.

4. You are mistaken, my friend. Mac OSX 10.5 is 100% UNIX. Not Unix-Based, not Unix-like, but pure Unix. Perhaps you should do a little research before you try to bring something like that into a debate. The rest is simply your opinion and preference. Also, I wouldn't speak on behalf of anyone but yourself, like saying "Mac OS is a pain for any IT professional." You don't know this, and it's a bit brash to assume based on your own opinions.

5. Yep.

Next

1. Indeed.

2. I have used 3DSMAX. I have it on my PC. Not version 8, however, so I'm not completely savvy with anything new on the table. From my experience, Maya is the better, more accesible application. Again, this is all a matter of preference and opinion. You state your word like it's the gospel. To clear it up - Macs can support more than one extra monitor.

3. Right.

4. Again, you're posting your word like it's the gospel. You're saying "It's not intuitive," rather than "In my opinion, it's not intuitive." For some reason, I think you're being less than honest. Your blatant lack of knowledge for Macintosh computers makes it seem to me that you're just trying to cover up your tracks. Leopard didn't come out until late October, which means your school would've had to upgrade the OS mid-semester, and I honestly have never heard of a school doing that. Also, if you used Macs with Leopard in your class, you should have known that desktop Macs come with four-button mice, but you didn't.

5. I got your point, but it was completely irrelevant to my own.

Entirely pointless, you say? If you're running Windows on a Mac, you get the best of both worlds. You have Windows AND OSX. How is that pointless? ...It just seems like a huge point to me. The whole "gimmick" thing... hmm. It sounds to me like you're attempting to preach your word as the gospel again. You think it's a gimmick because you personally don't like it, I assume. You don't know if it was an intended gimmick or not. Though, making money is the foundation of any business.

However, the fact remains that having Windows and OSX on the same computer have proven to be widely beneficial to many people. Do some research. Read some testimonials. Most importantly, realize that your opinion is not the masses opinion.

"Why pay more for a Mac when you can just buy a PC that will do what you want it to?"

You don't have to pay more for a Mac. You keep going back and forth with this, consistently changing your stance:

"Anymore, the price issue isn't really all that much of a consideration. For the same CPU, HD, and Graphics, Macs and PC's are roughly the same price - expensive. "

Perhaps you should clear that one up.

For the last time - A computer is only as expensive as you need it to be. You can build a Macintosh just as you would a PC this day in age. You seem to be frequently ignoring what I tell you about Hackintoshes. It seems as though you're denying their existence.

Also, I honestly don't believe you work with Macs. Your knowledge of them is a little more than narrow. You've given me absolutely zero reason to actually believe you on that one, from your constant misinformations, to your claim that all Macs use a one-button mouse. I'm not new to debating. I've got a decent sense for when lies come into play. Unless you can actually prove me otherwise, there's no chance I'm going to believe you. However, if you actually manage to do so, I'll apologize.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

1. VMWare is essentially an emulator - adding another layer of things to go wrong between the OS and the secondary UI. My point about adding another layer stands - there's simply no way to run both OS's at the same time without turning off the computer unless you build a custom Tandem system, which is hideously expensive to do. I suggest you research Alienware laptops and then tell me those are not gaming computers. Desktop Macs may come with a multi-button mouse - that makes them passable for gaming purposes. But not if they're running Mac OS... there are still hardly any major titles released for both PC and Mac at the same time.

2. Again - you're missing my point. To build a normal machine... it's cheaper to build a PC than a Mac, unless you're building a system capable of running both OS10.5 and Windows - in that case, it's entirely dependent on the cost of the OS. Building a machine to specifically run Windows only is cheaper than building a machine to run Mac OS only. Although, anymore, this point is really moot because Mac OS is now designed to be able to use traditionally PC components.

3. Vista shouldn't be compared to OS 10.5 - Vista is still a complete PoS - XP is much better, especially in terms of system performance. And I believe XP is cheaper than OS 10.5.

4. Once more - you misunderstand me. OS 10.5 is ONE Unix OS. It is not the ONLY Unix OS - AIS, Solaris, Linux, Tandem's NonStop - all Unix OS's. I shall clarify a statement you had issue with here - "Mac OS is a pain for any IT professional THAT I HAVE WORKED WITH."

Next

2. 3ds Max 8 is old hat - there are 2 versions after it - Max 9 and Max 2008. From my experience with both, Maya is useful for high poly/mesh and biped modeling. Max is catching up, but beats Maya everywhere else. Perhaps it is not a matter of opinion that Max is more widely used by video game professionals - For example - Halo 3 was made in Max, not Maya. But personally, I prefer Max anyway. As far as monitor support, I suppose that depends on the system. I believe a standard system in both cases is capable of dual monitor support unless using onboard graphics. For example - my laptop has VGA and DVI out for dual monitors.

4. One would assume that everything I say is my opinion. It's like when you eliminate personal pronouns in formal writing style - it's already assumed to be your opinion. So, yes, it's my opinion and the opinions of the people I work with that the Mac OS is not natively intuitive. As for your ridiculous assumption that since October was the release date for Mac OS, we couldn't be using it in our lab... We needed to overhaul the lab's connection to both the video processing suite and the recording studio's mainframe to make it and optical connection between there and the lab's network drives, so the lab has been down all semester for classes - it works, but there just aren't any classes scheduled to use it. So we're not upgrading mid-semester per se - we're performing a semester-long upgrade.

See #1 about running Mac OS and Windows on the same machine... Yeah, you get the "best of both worlds" if you want to shut down the PC or use VMWare and destabilize it somewhat - but that works both ways - it's an entirely different system, not a PC or Mac, and is really irrelevant to this debate. The advertising gimmick is that most Mac commercials artificially make Macs seem cooler by portraying Windows as an old, broken-down man, which it is not. Also consider that Windows doesn't need to have commercials to keep its sales up.

I would agree that Windows and OS on the same machine would be beneficial. But I would never do it via dual boot or VMWare because of the hassle and degradation of system performance. However, as I said before - that's a completely different system - not Mac or PC and is irrelevant to your topic.

On price - A standard Mac is more expensive than a standard PC. However, a standard Mac has better hardware than a standard PC. When you compare computers of the same hardware, the price is essentially the same. A standard Mac and PC will both do basically everything the average computer user needs. Considering that, why would you pay more for a Mac?

Hackintosh machines are basically the same thing as a built PC, although probably illegal based on the Mac EULA concerning Apple-licensed machines. Why bother debating a Hackintosh when it's just a Mac OS on an Intel processor - something that's been around for a couple years now? If we're going to debate performance and specs of hacked OS's - then I put my vote in for XP Black...

Considering I can offer you no PROOF I work with Macs, I'm not sure how to change your opinion here. I see no misinformation about Macs. Where you assume I'm lying - I know you're not getting the whole story. Considering most Mac users don't have the new Mac Pro desktops, I think the one-button mouse is a valid point. Most of the Macs in our labs have either the older one-button mouse, or a Microsoft USB mouse - depends on the lab. If you read the previous text - you will not see any place where I made the "...claim that all Macs use a one-button mouse." You're putting words in my mouth. I would wager that of the Macs being used today, MOST of them are using the one-button mouse. Whereas ALL the PC's being used today have a two-plus button mouse.

In the end - as someone said below here - it probably is a subjective decision. But like I said - for the average computer user - PC is the way to go (in my opinion) mostly because of price. If I had the money, I'd buy a Mac Pro and wipe it to run Windows - like a reverse Hackintosh or something - a Hackindows. My opinion stands - Macs are for people that either need some additional performance in a specialized area beyond what a PC has, or for people with lots of money to spend so they can look cool.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by X_mitchell 7 years ago
X_mitchell
Yes, the same but in many different ways.
Posted by ElDiablo123 9 years ago
ElDiablo123
The point is to find out who argues they're opinions better, more persuasively.
Posted by Cindela 9 years ago
Cindela
This debate is almost complete opinion. The word "basically" in the topic leaves a lot to consider, and almost everything said in this debate was opinionated. "In my opinion..."
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Very interesting how the test was between a Macbook Pro and a Gateway E-265M... the Macbook has a faster processor and twice as much RAM...
Posted by gack1224 9 years ago
gack1224
You're wrong. Macs are more compatible and therefore more versatile. PCs, as was mentioned in the debate, have a closed OS and work difficulty with other OSs. Macs work with anything and everything. PC World even rated computers on how fast/how well they operated using Vista. Guess who won? A mac.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I think we addressed the hardware issue - that's moot, considering building vs. buying when price is taken into account. Macs do not have better compatibility with the majority of computers - PC's do - because the majority of computers ARE PC...

Anyway - it was an interesting debate - a hard topic to actually defend or attack because of the subjective nature. And in the end, I think it'll still be a contest among the voters of which platform they prefer.
Posted by gack1224 9 years ago
gack1224
Macs are better. They have better hardware AND software. However, PCs and Windows essentially control the market because they close themselves to other systems or computers. Apple is combating this with various compatibility features. It does come down to what you like yourself, but objectively, Macs are better because they provide compatibility and easier optimization than PCs with Windows.
Posted by AK-47debater 9 years ago
AK-47debater
apparently someone does want to
Posted by AK-47debater 9 years ago
AK-47debater
no one wants to read your guide to buying computers let alone debate you
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Who can really disagree with you? It's a matter of subjective judgement after all is said and done.
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by X_mitchell 7 years ago
X_mitchell
KarmaPaymentPlanJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
KarmaPaymentPlanJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 soldierboy 8 years ago
soldierboy
KarmaPaymentPlanJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
KarmaPaymentPlanJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by turtlecool2 9 years ago
turtlecool2
KarmaPaymentPlanJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by HCPwns95 9 years ago
HCPwns95
KarmaPaymentPlanJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bigblue 9 years ago
bigblue
KarmaPaymentPlanJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Judiciator 9 years ago
Judiciator
KarmaPaymentPlanJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
KarmaPaymentPlanJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by rockeywood 9 years ago
rockeywood
KarmaPaymentPlanJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03