The Instigator
smc_gamer
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Brian314
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Windows vs. Mac

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
smc_gamer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,400 times Debate No: 16739
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

smc_gamer

Pro

Hello, Debate.org. This will be my first instigated debate, and as a first, I'll choose a popular topic among new members: the everlasting war between Windows and Macintosh computers. I'll be Pro, taking the position of Windows and computers running it, and my opponent shall support Macintosh.

The first round shall be for opening statements, introductions, and definitions. Rounds two and three will be for debating, and round four will be closing arguments.

Definitions:
Windows - A computer running the Microsoft Windows operating system
Macintosh - A computer running the Apple Macintosh operating system

I'm looking forward to having this debate. Thank you.
Brian314

Con

I accept this challenge and look forward to a good debate.

Before we begin, I would like to make a few clarifications to your definitions. You defined a Macintosh as "a computer running the Apple Macintosh operating system". Apple Macintosh is not an operating system. I would like to redefine a Macintosh as "a computer made by Apple, Inc. which primarily runs the Mac OS X operating system". A Windows computer will be defined as "a computer that primarily runs the Microsoft Windows operating system".

I wish my opponent good luck, and await his arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
smc_gamer

Pro

Thank you, Brian314, for accepting my debate. I accept your refined definition of a Macintosh computer, and I apologize for my misrepresentation of it.

Arguments against Macintoshes

Price: The price of Macintosh computers, is, in general, much higher than computers running Windows with comparable specs. Compare the iMac[1] against an eMachines computer[2] with roughly the same specs. The iMac starts at $1,199, while the eMachines is $349.99. In addition, compare the iMac against the Dell Studio XPS Desktop[3], a computer with much better specs than the iMac. Even the $699 Mac Mini[5] is more expensive than a comparable Windows machine[4].

While a higher price usually indicated superior quality, I'm not seeing the superior quality of Macs. While their build is remarkably strong, they bring only normal computing power at about double the price, while Windows PCs at the same prices bring far more power.

Programs: As seen on the Apple Developer page[6], to develop for Macintosh, you would require a $99/year enrollment. However, development for Windows is free using the Visual Studio Express[7] development software. In addition, there are many other free development tools, such as gcc[8], or Dev-C++[9].

I'm sure that there are free Macintosh dev tools, but, in order to be published to the App Store, you'd need to be enrolled - a factor which might turn off new programmers.

Customizability: Macintosh computers lack hardware customization options, or at least easier options. Most other PCs can be opened, and new parts can be added, or parts be replaced at the will of the owner. Not so with Apple computers. You typically do not have that option with Macs.


[1] http://store.apple.com...
[2] http://www.bestbuy.com...
[3] http://www.bestbuy.com...
[4] http://www.bestbuy.com...
[5] http://store.apple.com...
[6] http://developer.apple.com...
[7] http://www.microsoft.com...
[8] http://gcc.gnu.org...
[9] http://www.bloodshed.net...
Brian314

Con

I would like to begin by adressing my opponent's case, and then I will move on to some of my own.

Price
My opponent shows that Macintosh computers generally cost more than Windows PCs, and claims that "while a higher price usually indicated superior quality, I'm not seeing the superior quality of Macs". I will now show that, with each of the comparisons my opponent offers, the Mac has features that make it worth it's price.

He first compares the iMac against an eMachine computer, claiming that these have "roughly the same specs". These two computers do not have roughly the same specs, and I will explain why the iMac is more vaulable. Firstly, the iMac consists of a built in 21-inch display within the $1,199 price point, with a high definition webcam built in. With the eMachine, you would have to purchase an external display and camera. The iMac also has built-in speakers[1], whereas the eMachine contains none[2]. The iMac's processor is also much more advanced, as it is a quad-core (essentially four process in one) processor.

Next, my opponent asks us to compare the iMac against the Dell Studio XPS Desktop[3], and says that the Dell has better specs than the iMac. I can apply the same arguments as stated previously when comparing against the eMachine. The iMac costs an extra $150, and for that price, you receive the built in display, high definition camera, and speakers.

Finally, he asks us to compare the Compaq Presario Desktop[4] to the Mac mini[5]. Firstly, these are not comparable. The Mac mini prizes in its compatability as a desktop computer, being an inch and a half tall. The Compaq is 15 inches in height. The Mac mini also includes built in WiFi (802.11g) and Bluetooth wireless capabilities, as well as a dual-core processor. These additional features make the Mac worth the price you pay.

Programs
My opponent says that to develop for the Mac, you need pay a $99/year enrollment fee. This is not true. The standard Apple Developer registration is completely free[6], and that includes the Xcode IDE for developers, as well as access to resources. My opponent goes on to say that to be published on the App Store, you must be enrolled. However, the App Store is not the only source of distribution of applications, it is merely a choice given to developers. They may also post their applications on their own websites, or use free Mac app distribution websites such as MacUpdate[7]. The Apple Developer program also includes free documentation, videos.

Customizability
My opponent states that Macs "lack hardware customization options, or at least easier options". This is completely false. All Macs include very simple hardware customizability when you buy it[8]. My opponent also claims that "Most other PCs can be opened, and new parts can be added, or parts be replaced at the will of the owner. Not so with Apple computers." This is, once again, not true. Many Macs, including the MacBook and the Mac Pro is designed to be able to be easily have its parts replaced, and there are many instructions available for how to disassemble Macs[9].

Energy Efficiency
I'd like to move on to my own arguments now. Firstly, Macs are generally more energy efficient and environmentally friendly than PCs. Let's compare the two computers that my opponent discussed at the beginning of Round 2- the iMac and the eMachine. The iMac is Arsenic, BFR, mercury and PVC-free, contains highly recyclabe aluminum and glass, and meets both the ENERGY STAR 5.2 requirements and EPEAT GOLD[1]. The eMachine boasts none of these benefits, and even admits under its "Specifications" page that it does not meet ENERGY STAR qualification. Apple prizes in incredible environmental performance, and does everything they can to ensure energy efficiency[10].

Software Availability
Next, I'd like to discuss software availability. On a Windows PC, the only software you are capable of running are those programs which are written for Windows, since Windows is the only available operation system for it. However, on a Macintosh, software exists including Boot Camp, Parallels Desktop[11] and VMWare Fusion[12] essentially allow a Mac, which runs Mac OS X, to also run Windows, and run all programs that only run on Windows. Therefore, a Mac has a greater amount of software available for it to run.




Therefore, since Macs are worth their price, have a wider variety of choices for developers, are just as customizable as PCs, are more energy efficient, and have more software available to them, a Macintosh is better than a Windows PC.

I await my opponent's response.

[1] http://www.apple.com...
[2] http://www.bestbuy.com...
[3] http://www.bestbuy.com...
[4] http://www.bestbuy.com...
[5] http://store.apple.com...
[6] http://developer.apple.com...
[7] http://www.macupdate.com...;
[8] http://store.apple.com...;
[9] http://www.ehow.com...
[10] http://www.apple.com...
[11] http://www.parallels.com...
[12] http://www.vmware.com...
Debate Round No. 2
smc_gamer

Pro

Price: While the iMac does have a monitor, speakers, and an HD webcam, I propose that one could buy those things separately for less than twelve hundred dollars. Combining the eMachines computer ($349.99) with a monitor[1] ($169.99), an HD webcam[2] ($59.99), and a reasonably okay pair of inexpensive speakers[3] ($34.99), the total would be $614.96, excluding sales tax. I concede the quad-core processor to you, however.

In hindsight, I see that a comparison between the Mac mini and a Presario was uncomparable. I did not realize or put much thought into the purpose of the Mini (very small but powerful computer). I concede that one to you.

Programs: I did not see that (probably because the free option wasn't listed) on the page I cited. I concede that to you as well.

Customizability: I concede this to you as well. I knew it could be disassembled, but I thought that Apple didn't like people doing that. It appears I was wrong.

Energy Efficiency: While the eMachines machine may not be Energy Star certified, the HP All-in-One[4] is, and it's comparable to the eMachines, comes with a monitor, speakers, keyboard, and a mouse, and still cheaper than an iMac. It's only really lacking in processing power.

Software Availability: My opponent claims that you can only run Windows programs on Windows PCs. This is true, except the he also claims that you can use Boot Camp, Parallels Desktop, and VMWare Fusion on a Mac, which is also true. But there is also virtualization software for Windows, such as VirtualBox[5] and VMWare[6], both of which have free options, and both of which can run x86 software on other operating systems.

My opponent, in his closing statements, also states that Macintoshes have more available software. Open-source software host SourceForge[7] lists 59,111 Windows projects on its project search page[8], while only listing 12,630 Mac projects[9]. CNet's Download.com lists 193,867 projects for Windows XP[10, on the left]*.

*I'd list Mac stats, but they're probably wrong, seeing as there are only 14 application for Max OS 10.5.[11, on the left]

[1] http://www.bestbuy.com...

[2] http://www.bestbuy.com...

[3] http://tinyurl.com...

[4] http://www.bestbuy.com...

[5] http://www.virtualbox.org...

[6] http://www.vmware.com...

[7] http://sourceforge.net...

[8] http://sourceforge.net...

[9] http://sourceforge.net...

[10] http://tinyurl.com..., http://preview.tinyurl.com...

[11] http://download.cnet.com...

TinyURLs used because the real ones kept breaking.
Brian314

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

Price
My opponent here, as he did with the Mac mini, is not realizing the purpose that each Mac computer serves. The iMac is advertised and known for being the ultimate "all-in-one" computer[1], meaning that it doesn't require multiple pieces and components (webcameras, speakers, and computer), because it's all built in. The combined value of the computer, web camera, speakers, and computers that are built into one frame and designed to work together is far more valuable than the separate parts.

Programs
My opponent has conceded that registration as an Apple Developer is, in fact, free. This is counted as a dropped argument for Pro.

Customizability
Again, my opponent has conceded this argument and it counts as a dropped argument for Pro.

Energy Efficiency
My opponent lists one Windows computer, the HP All-in-One, that meets ENERGY STAR requirements. Since we are looking at computers in general, and not specific ones, one computer that meets ENERGY STAR is not enough to say that the entire line of Windows computers are more energy efficient. On the other hand, every single Mac in production meets both ENERGY STAR requirements as well as EPEAT GOLD energy ratings[2][3][4][5][6][7]. Therefore, in general, Macs are more energy efficient than Windows PCs.

Software Availability
My opponent lists virtualization software for Windows- namely, VirtualBox and VMWare. However, these arguments do not show that a Windows computer is better than a Mac, because, as previously stated, a Mac can run any Windows software through the use of Boot Camp, Parallels Desktop, or VMWare Fusion. Therefore, any piece of software my opponent can name that works on Windows will also work on a Mac. My opponent says that VirtualBox and VMWare run x86 software on other operating systems. The same thing can be done by running the same programs on a Mac. Since a Mac can run all Mac OS X and Windows software, and a Windows PC can only run Windows software and not Mac OS X, the Mac has more software available to it.

As for the closing statement, I believe my opponent misinerpreted what I meant. When I claimed that Macs had more available software, I meant that, by using Boot Camp, Parallels Desktop, or VMWare Fusion, a Mac could run all Windows software in addition to Mac software- therefore totaling more than just the Windows software.

I look forward to my opponent's response in the next round.

[1] http://www.apple.com...;
[2] http://www.apple.com...
[3] http://www.apple.com...
[4] http://www.apple.com...;
[5] http://www.apple.com...
[6] http://www.apple.com...
[7] http://www.apple.com...


Debate Round No. 3
smc_gamer

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

Price: My opponent claims that I have also missed the point of the iMac over a standard computer, that is, an iMac is an all-in-one desktop. I apologize for not realizing this, but I'm not quite conceding this point, please see "Maintenance".

Energy Efficiency: While it is true that not all Windows machines are Energy-star certified, there are quite a few[1]. But, it would be near-impossible for every Windows computer to be Energy-Star certified, as they are produced by many different manufacterers.

Software Availability: My point in presenting Windows virtualization software was to show that Windows computers were as capable of running Macintosh virtual operating systems as Macintoshes were able to run Windows VMs, thus making your point invalid: Both platforms can run each other's software through virtualization.

I also apologize for my misinterpretation. I'd also like to introduce a couple more arguments.

Maintenance: Take the iMac in particular. If something major breaks, like the monitor, it's not going to be easy replacing it. You'd probably have to send it in to Apple's repair centers, which could cost a lot of money. However, with a Windows not-all-in-one PC, you only have to replace the monitor without sending it in for maintenance or digging through all the hardware to remove the old monitor. Individual, separate parts are easier to replace.

Apple has a Monopoly: Apple has a monopoly on computers running the Macintosh. No other manufacturer is allowed to use the Mac OS on their computers, only Apple. Since there is only one seller, this constitutes a monopoly, thus allowing Apple to set the price potentially a lot higher than what the Mac actually costs to build. Consider this article[2] that instructs you how to build a Hackintosh Pro for about $900, in comparison to a standard Mac Pro[3], which costs $2,338. They do have competition from Windows and Linux, but if you want a Macintosh (legally), you're going to have to go with Apple - and they set the price.

I'd like to thank my opponent for an interesting first debate. He has changed my opinions about Macs, but I still see them as overpriced.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://lifehacker.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
Brian314

Con

Price
My opponent instructs me to look at his argument regarding maintenance. Therefore, I will respond to his argument under the maintenence section, and will simply finish this argument by stating this- Macs are worth the price you pay for them, as I have previously stated.

Energy Efficiency
My opponent states that it would be "near-impossible for every Windows computer to be Energy Star certified, as they are produced by many different manufactuerers". The fact that they are produced by many different manufactuerers is irrelevant in terms of energy efficiency. All Macs are energy efficient with ENERGY STAR and EPEAT GOLD, and not all Windows PCs are. Therefore, Macs are more energy efficient.

Software Availability
My opponent here claims that "Both platforms can run each other's software through virtualization". This is not entirely true, as I will explain. VirtualBox and VMWare are, as my opponent stated, virtualization software for "x86 and AMD64/Intel64" systems[1]. While many Mac OS X applications are x86 and Intel64, there are a number of them which are PowerPC applications. PowerPC applications can only be run on on a Mac through the use of a built-in behind-the-scenes Mac process known as Rosetta[2]. Therefore, there is more software available to a Mac than a Windows PC.

Maintenance
On a iMac, my opponent says, "if something major breaks, like the monitor, it's not going to be easy replacing it." Meanwhile, on a Windows not-all-in-one PC, you only have to replace the monitor. There are two flaws to this argument. Firstly, it doesn't only apply to Macs. I could make the same statement with the HP All-In-One Computer[3]. And, just like in my opponent's argument, I could show that there are some computers, such as the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, which are not all-in-one and could get their monitors replaced. Secondly, I would like to point out that the built in display in the iMac is not your only option. If the display breaks, you are free to attach a new display that you could buy from anywhere and continue to use the iMac[4]. You are not forced to use the built-in display that comes with the iMac.

Monopoly
I don't see how this argument shows that a Windows PC is better than a Mac. My opponent says that "if you want a Macintosh, you're going to have to go with Apple". In the opening rounds, my opponent accepted my definition of a Macintosh as "a computer made by Apple, Inc. which primarily runs the Mac OS X operating system". Therefore, it's given that all Macs are made by Apple. Furthermore, Apple does not have a monopoly, they simply have a proprietary operating system that they use to compete against other computers with other operating systems. A monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service". If Apple were the only producer of computers in the world, then they could be considered a monopoly. But there are competing computer companies, competing software companies, competing operating system companies, etc. Therefore, Apple is not a monopoly.



I thank my opponent for a good debate.


[1] http://www.virtualbox.org...;
[2] http://docs.info.apple.com...
[3] http://www.bestbuy.com...
[4] http://store.apple.com...;
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
"Apple does not have a monopoly, they simply have a proprietary operating system that they use to compete against other computers with other operating systems. A monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service"

Con just admitted indirectly that Apple has a monopoly on the Mac OS X operating system >.>
Posted by smc_gamer 6 years ago
smc_gamer
I have to say, I made some pretty poor arguments overall. I probably should have done more research. I'd like to thank Brian314 for debating me on this topic, and for changing my opinions about Macintoshes.
Posted by smc_gamer 6 years ago
smc_gamer
@i8JoMomma: I'll save my political debates for later, when I'm better at debating.
Posted by i8JoMomma 6 years ago
i8JoMomma
how about us vs this corrupt government of tea bags?...the mob rules
Posted by smc_gamer 6 years ago
smc_gamer
I probably should have clarified this in Round One: you can use personal experiences with PCs/Macs as arguments.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
smc_gamerBrian314Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to have used arguments that really don't hold water, like bootcamp/ect for software compatibility.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
smc_gamerBrian314Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con delivered enough raw data to even over turn Pro's personal opinion. Solid win for Brian 3:1 Con.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
smc_gamerBrian314Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I like macs better, however, pro used more sources.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
smc_gamerBrian314Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Everything else was tied, Pros arguments just seem to stick with me more.