Wall Street Journal: Mac vs. PC 142
cpk0 writes "Walt Mossberg is taking a few days to discuss the differences between Mac and PCs, and which is suitable for whom. He begins by saying the tides have definitely turned in regards to Apple's state as a computer which he will recommend. This is the first in a miniature series of articles by Mossberg touching base on the Apple vs. PC situation (but don't worry, it's not at all about bashing one side)."
Re:*sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not trying to flame you, but did you bother to read the article before you posted? All of those points are covered by the author in more or less detail and it really doesn't seem like you've bothered to read the article before you posted. I am truly sorry if I am wrong in that judgment. I use and support both macs and PC's everyday at work and I found the article to be spot on. Of your objections, the only one that is really valid is the one about gaming. Many of the best selling games *do* come out for PC's first. Some are released for both platforms at the same time but the balance are indeed released for PC's first. Cost is on par, except in the low-low end. Office for OS X is on par with Office XP an as for development environments go, what are you asking for? Windows APIs? Other than that you've got just as powerful tools for software development on the Mac as you do on a PC.
In this case, I firmly believe that the scales are pretty evenly balanced overall and each platform has its pluses and minuses. Now, that is exactly what the author of the article expressed in his piece. If you disagree, you should be pointing out what, in his article, is factually wrong rather than making a blanket statement about "the only rational choice..." That's more rhetoric and rather trollish of you (something you claimed to be avoiding at the outset of your post.)
just my thoughts, -inco
Re:*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
Mossberg (Score:3, Insightful)
to Mac/'doze comparisons. If it works, he'll say so,
if it doesn't he's not gonna sugarcoat it. Back before
the return of Jobs, he faily accurately sized up the
trouble with Apple and called them on it. He's shown
the same attitude toward Microsoft.
No ass kissing, just what he thinks works. A refreshing
change from yesterday's Dvorak drivel.
Re:*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
For "old hokum" it seems that the article is making EXACTLY the same point as you are.
For instance, my mom needed a computer that she could use to check her email and maybe do a little web browsing. The iMac is perfect for her.
Sounds just like one of the conclusions of the author.
I need something that will let me run a quality office suite, a standard development environment and all the latest games but not cost me an arm and a leg. The only rational choice for any of those things is a PC running Windows XP.
Hmm, The ONLY rational choice for ANY of these things? Microsoft Office [microsoft.com] isn't the quality office suite you are looking for? ProjectBuilder [apple.com] & Interface Builder [apple.com] that come with the package aren't exactly standard I guess, you could always get CodeWarrior [metrowerks.com]. And the BSD environment, GCC 3, Java 2 etc. etc. etc. seem pretty standard.
As for "an arm and a leg" I'll grant that Macs tend to sell at a premium but when you are considering the actual specs in detail they are not that much higher, and in some cases are actually lower than comperable PeeCee's.
There are many games available but for the hardcore gamer a PeeCee is still the way to go.
A computer is a tool and this particular tool may not meet your particular needs but of the four needs you mentioned you seem to be mistaken about the Macs ability to meet three of them. It is common misconceptions like yours which prompted the author to write this "old hokum".
Re:The Apple Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
The same thing could be said of any non-PC computer vendor. And yet, lots and lots of businesses use Suns and IBMs, to name two. Who makes an AS/400 besides IBM? As far as I know, no one. Does this stop businesses from buying and using them? Of course not.
Businesses have no problem whatsoever signing up for proprietary systems or solutions, as long as those solutions make good financial sense. If it's cheaper to run Macs on the desktop, they'll run Macs. Hardware "monopoly" be damned.
As an aside, I'm getting pretty tired of the widespread misuse of the word "monopoly" by the Slashdot community. It's not really a monopoly, in the strictest sense of the word, when only Apple can make Apple computers. Only Volkswagen can make the Beetle; that's not really a monopoly. You guys may wish that every product or service could be decentralized, but that's just now how the world works.