One of the hottest debates in cyperspace compares the merits of the two biggest competitors in the world of computers—the Mac and PC. Actually, it’s typically more of an argument than a debate, frequently erupting into flame wars on one forum after another.

In fact, my observations suggest that a virtual army of Microsoft whores deliberately subvert many of these discussions with their propaganda, often with the intention of persuading forum moderators to halt the discussion entirely. But that’s another story.

In a perfect world, we might convince people to abandon Windows for Mac or Linux simply because Bill Gates is a global asshole (even though Apple is no paragon of virtue itself). Unfortunately, many people don’t care about ethics or socio-political issues. And even if they did, one can’t expect a person to ignore practical considerations when investing in a computer and software.

But if we’re going to dismiss ethics, then what about the coolness factor, which clearly benefits Apple? Personally, I think coolness is less important than ethics...but there are many people who believe just the opposite. Whatever; practicality, politics and coolness all play a role in choosing a computing platform.

So which is the better platform, and what should people consider when choosing between a Mac and a PC?

This article is a lengthy and somewhat rambling attempt to explore the topic in detail. My bias is obvious, but so are my facts and logic. But I won’t hold a gun to your head and force you to abandon Microsoft. In fact, there are good reasons for some people in particular situations to remain Microslaves.

For now, just read on and judge for yourself.

Rules of the Debate

Before we continue, let’s set some ground rules, or at least decide exactly what we’re debating.

First, are we comparing hardware, software or both?

I think the Mac vs PC debate generally focuses mostly on software. In other words, the comparison is between Macs (obviously running some variation of Mac OS X) and PC’s running Microsoft Windows. PC’s running under Linux are not a part of this debate.

Linux

However, let me briefly comment on the Mac vs Linux non-debate. In the short run, a PC running Linux is your least expensive option by far, while Mac is generally the most expensive. In the long run, however, a Mac will pay for itself simply because it’s relatively user friendly and doesn’t suffer from all those problems that spell MICROSOFT.

Linux will similarly relieve you of all those Microsoft woes. However, anyone who tackles Linux will probaby find the learning curve a lot steeper. In addition, there are many wonderful commercial software programs that aren’t compatible with Linux (e.g. Dreamweaver and Photoshop).

Thus, I think the average person would find a Mac a better value than a PC running Linux. But please note that you can run Linux on a Mac, too. In fact, you can run all three major operating systems—Mac OS X, Windows and Linux—side by side on a Mac, but you can’t run Mac OS X on a PC.

Hardware

Am I doing Microsoft a favor by removing hardware from the argument? Well, many people believe that Apple makes most of its money from hardware, rather than software. After all, Apple is known for its relatively high prices, though its software is generally quite inexpensive. And only a fool would doubt the quality of a Mac’s hardware.

On the other hand, Microsoft is primarily a software manufacturer; PC’s are made by many diverse companies. Some people argue that PC’s are superior because intense competition has rendered many of them very inexpensive, and there are so many parts and peripherals that can be interchanged.

I’m not going to delve into that argument too deeply here. I think it’s probably true in general. However, it is possible to install non-Apple hardware items in a Mac, which can also be connected to many of the same printers, scanners and external hard drives PC’s connect to.

Moreover, Mac’s may not be as expensive as you think, especially when you consider the time they can save (primarily beause of their superior software). In addition, some people prefer Mac’s partly because they’re more stylish.

To sum up this section, I suspect a PC may be a better choice for a person seeking a hardware platform on which to run Linux, assuming that person is on a tight budget and/or wants maximum latitude in choosing parts and peripheral hardware items.

But if we’re comparing Apple and Microsoft, we need to focus on software.

By the way, when I use the word “platform”—in this article or others—I’m generally referring to a computer’s hardware AND operating system. I’ve noticed that some Microsoft whores try to win the argument by claiming the word platform refers to hardware only. Frankly, I think debating differences in hardware alone is generally pointless.

Hey, they can make up any rules they want...it would just be nice if they let other people know the rules before they begin a discussion.

To make it perfectly clear, I recognize two primary platforms—1) a PC running Windows and 2) a Mac running Mac OS X. A PC and a Mac, both running Linux, more or less constitute two different platforms. A PC running Windows AND Linux or a Mac running all three is a little more complicated. More about that later.

Ethics, Anyone?

In this era of corporate corruption, I believe it’s vitally important for people to believe in and support morals and ethical behavior.

If all you care about is owning a good computer—in other words, if you’re one of those apathetic assholes who turns a blind eye to treason, war crimes and child abuse—then ethics probably don’t matter to you. Moreover, we could frame the debate so that it focuses only on practical comparisons, not ethical. Philosophically, I might argue that ethics often translate into practical matters. For example, I would argue that Microsoft is a pile of shit precisely because Bill Gates is such an extraordinary shithead himself.

One might label me a hypocrite for ignoring Apple’s ethical lapses. In fact, I am aware of some problems in Apple’s corner of the high-tech marketplace. For example, Al Gore—who I think ought to be hung for treason—sits on Apple’s board of directors.

I’m also aware that Apple CEO Steve Jobs was implicated in some sort of scandal, though he claims he was cleared by a commission led by none other than Al Gore. And I’ve read some clueless statements Jobs made regarding education. (Note to Steve Jobs: Do the world a favor and stick to what you do best, leaving education reform to me.)

Still, Apple doesn’t even begin to compare with Microsoft in terms of corruption. Merely listing Microsoft’s major transgressions is a major chore. If you want to know more, begin your homework at Billysoft.

The irony is that most technical forums don’t allow political discussions, effectively barring ethics or morality from the debate. Curiously Microsoft whores are typically allowed to freely spout their propaganda.

Rules Summary

Now let me try to summarize the points I made above, some of which conflict with each other. This article focuses primarily on a practical/technical comparison between Windows and Apple/Mac platforms, focusing on software (particularly the operating system) more than on hardware.

However, I also offer additional comparisons that factor in hardware, ethics, even Apple’s coolness factor. After all, one size does not fit all.

In the end, you can choose based on YOUR practical/technical needs and values, or lack thereof.

Geek vs Normal Person

In the preceding section, I suggested that some geeks (a nickname for people who are extremely knowledgeable about computers or software or are simply in love with their computers) may prefer a PC to a Mac based on the hardware, which is generally less expensive and more diverse.

In fact, Apple appears to apply a similar argument to the entire Mac ecosystem. Apple promotes PC’s as the logical choice for people who want to do stuffy things, like work with spreadsheets. In contrast, Apple is promoted as the brand more suited to people who want to do fun things, like listen to music (think iPod and iTunes) or view pictures (iPhoto).

Indeed, geek versus normal person is the dominant theme of the famous Get a Mac ad campaign.

Geeks vs Microsoft Whores

Another interesting thing that has caught my attention is that the people who most passionately defend Microsoft in online debates (or flame wars) are typically geeks. They often ridicule people who complain about various problems with Microsoft Windows, claiming they simply don’t know how to properly operate it.

Some of these people claim to own both a PC and a Mac, typically adding that neither is a better computer.

Based on a variety of observations, I believe many of these people are Microsoft whores. But what if some of them are speaking the truth? In fact, I have a friend who owns a software testing company and claims his PC’s run fine even without anti-virus protection—and he’s not a big Microsoft fan.

Well, this line of debate pretty much backs up those Get a Mac ads. If you’re a geek, and you think you can easily handle those infinite “Windows annoyances,” then stay with your PC.

But if you’re a normal person who would rather drive a car than strip it down and rebuild it every week, check out a Mac.

Too Cool for Geeks?

Only a fool would deny the Mac’s aura of coolness. Apple is a respected brand name, while many people associate the name Microsoft with crappy software, monopolism or blatant corruption. The iPod is the essence of cool; Microsoft’s competitor, Zune, is a joke.

Yet a growing number of professionals are embracing Apple. For example, I’ve noticed a growing number of web designers abandoning their PC for a Mac. Actually, many web designers own a PC AND a Mac, largely so they can preview their web pages in both environments.

I might be considered a semi-geek. I’m primarily a writer turned online publisher, but I’ve spent a major portion of my life studying web design. I still consider myself a normal person. (I’m certainly not an androgynous pussy with the maturity of a four-year-old, like Bill Gates.) But I’ve learned enough about computers and software to better understand some of the differences between the Microsoft and Apple environments.

But rather than jump into a lot of technical mumbo jumbo, let me hit you with a piece of logic:

Many Mac enthusiasts boldy claim that Mac’s are better than PC’s. In contrast, you’ll seldom hear anyone claim that PC’s are superior. Rather, Microsofties usually claim that a PC is “just as good,” or it’s simply too much trouble to switch platforms. Many try to change the argument, claiming that Mac enthusiasts are deranged in their hatred of Microsoft or are simply arrogant. Ironically, Bill Gates’ stooges increasingly sound like deranged attack dogs themselves.

Anything to divert attention from the obvious, that the Mac is widely revered for both practical and esthetic reasons.

Software

Comparing those stylish Apple iMacs with those clunky PC’s Dell has long shipped may be a waste of time. In the end, it’s the software that really matters for most of us. And this is what the Mac vs PC debate is really about.

So let’s begin by dividing software into three categories: Operating systems, other proprietary software programs (i.e. software manufactured by Microsoft or Apple) and third party software.

Operating Sytems

More than anything else, the Mac vs PC debate is about the two dominant operating systems (OS), Mac OS X versus Microsoft Windows, so pay attention.

Windows has long been famous for its countless problems, problems that inspired the nickname Windoze. Microsoft was years late getting its latest Windows upgrade, Vista, out the chute—and it was promptly pronounced a loser. In fact, PC World named Vista the biggest “Tech Disapointment” of 2007.

In contrast, Apple’s latest operating system upgrade, Leopard, was a few months late, yet it promptly became a media darling. It was widely praised for its innovation, while Vista remains mired in the mountain of crap only Bill Gates can dream up.

How bad is Vista? Well, many victims of the Microsoft monopoly have actually backgraded from Vista to their original OS, Windows XP! In the meantime, Bill Gates announced yet another Windows upgrade due, I think, in 2009, which means we’ll probably see it sometime in 2011.

Again, there are geeks who will insist that Vista is just fine...if you just take the time to learn how to fix its problems. But try telling that to the people who have abandoned Vista or the media that that continue roasting it.

For whatever it’s worth, I upgraded to Leopard in January 2008 and have no regrets. It was widely promoted as a collection of minor improvements and fixes, rather than a dramatic upgrade. Yet the new Spaces feature alone sells it for me. I find it far more useful than the more publicized Time Machine feature.

I have had to wrestle with a few bugs, but that’s partly because I’ve installed so many software programs—more than I have on my PC (which I’ve now abandoned).

Proprietary Software

Let me start by naming two Microsoft software programs that are widely regarded as outstanding: Notepad and Excel (spreadsheet).

Beyond that it’s pretty much downhill. Consider web browsers. Apple’s browser, Safari, blows Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (IE) out of the water. Come to think of it, just about any browser is better than IE.

I haven’t even tried Apple’s e-mail program yet, but its Microsoft equivalent long ranked as one of the biggest virus magnets in cyberspace.

Some Microsoft apologists will counter that such horrible programs can be replaced by third party software. For example, they may use Firefox or Opera instead of IE.

That’s absolutely true, and it demonstrates how one can begin effectively boycotting Microsoft even if you own a PC loaded with Windows.

Still, it would be nice if the software that comes loaded on your computer and other software manufactured by whatever company created your operating system worked the way it’s supposed to.

Microsoft’s FrontPage was long the butt of jokes among serious web designers. It has since been scuttled, like so many other Microsoft jokes, replaced by a program called Expression.

From what I’ve heard, Expression is a pretty nice program. The problem is that it doesn’t support PHP, arguably the most important programming language in web design.

That’s precisely the problem with Microsoftware: It’s proprietary to an insane degree. To really understand it, just think of it as an extension of Bill Gate’s clinical greed and selfishness.

Apple’s famous iTunes and iPhoto (which come pre-installed on Mac’s) are also proprietary, but each is a class act.

Third Party Software

It was long argued that the Mac is a poor choice because of a dearth of compatible software.

That argument is no longer valid, for a number of reasons. First, there are many, many software programs that are Apple friendly. If you can do it on a PC, you can probably do it on a Mac.

E-Mail & Web Browsers

I haven’t even tried Apple’s e-mail program, Mail, yet. Instead, I long used a free open source e-mail client, Thunderbird on my Mac and PC both before I signed up for Google’s GMail.

Similarly, I’ve installed the Firefox and Opera web browsers (both free) on both computers. I designated Firefox my default browser on my PC, but Opera has become my favorite on my Mac. (I also use the Safari browser which comes pre-installed on Mac’s.)

Office Stuff, Word Processing, etc.

I’m a little more out of my element here, because I seldom use this sort of software, even though I’m a writer. In fact, I’ve become accustomed to using Dreamweaver as a word processing tool.

So rather than get bogged down in too many details, let me just offer a general overview.

Microsoft’s Office Suite is allegedly its second biggest money maker. It includes the famous Microsoft Word (a word processing program) and Excel spreadsheet. (I recall using a word processing program called WordPerfect until it was hammered by the Microsoft monopoly, but that’s another story.)

Microsoft’s virtual monopoly on office software has been shattered, with competition coming at it from all directions, including Google. Some of the competitors don’t offer all the features you’ll find in Microsoft’s Office Suite, but they offer enough to satisfy the average user, at a far lower cost. For example, you can get similar programs from OpenOffice.org—programs that can run on a PC or a Mac—for free.

In fact, I purchased Microsoft’s Office for Mac 2008 so I could continue using Excel. (My needs are a little more demanding than the average person’s.) It’s the only Microsoft software program I’ve installed on my Mac.

However, I also purchased Apple’s iWork upgrade, primarily for its new spreadsheet, Numbers, which I think may be a little more flexible than Excel. And watch out for the next upgrade!

I’ve scarcely touched Apple’s word processing program, Pages, yet. But I’d venture to guess it doesn’t suffer from all the petty annoyances that come with Microsoft Word. For example, try writing some text in Word, then pasting it into Dreamweaver.

Miscellaneous Software

I gave my MacBook Pro a major makeover in January 2008. First, I upgraded to Leopard, the Mac’s latest operating system. Then I installed MAMP Pro, a dynamite platform for Apache, PHP and MySQL (programs commonly used by web designers).

Next, I installed Adobe’s Creative Suite 3, Web Premium, which includes Dreamweaver and Photoshop. (I might mention that the Mac has long been regarded as the premier platform for working with graphics.)

Then I downloaded about thirty additional software programs—some free, others commerical—that I’m still playing with.

I do not feel limited, and most of my programs have so far worked just fine.

Multiple Platforms

But what if there is some very special software program you crave that doesn’t run on a Mac? What if you have some compelling reason to run a Windows program, even though there’s an Apple or third party equivalent available?

No problem—just buy a program called Parallels. It allows you to run Mac OS X, Windows and Linux, more or less at the same time!

Confession: I’m not terribly knowledgeable about the growing variety of “emulator” software out there. Nor have I tried Parallels.

I do know that you can install more than one hard drive on a PC or a Mac, then install a different operating system on each hard drive. Alternatively, you can simply partition a single hard drive, then install different operating systems in each partition.

On a PC, you can then boot into either Windows or Linux, but not Mac OS X. On a Mac, you can use all three operating systems.

With Parallels, you don’t have to restart your computer to boot into a new OS; as I understand it, every operating system you’ve selected runs silently in the background. You can awaken it any time you want, just as you’d grab any other software program.

That alone is a killer feature that has sold the Mac to legions of people.

What’s the Point?

Microsoft whores sometimes attack Parallels and other emulation programs. “Why get a Mac if you’re only going to use it to run Windows programs?” they ask.

Well, there are many reasons. Many web designers own two computers, a Mac and a PC, largely so they can preview their web pages in a variety of browsers. But if you can’t afford two computers, just get a Mac and install Parallels.

Some people are more or less forced to use Microsoft software programs for a variety of reasons. If your job requires you to submit articles typed in Microsoft Word, just get a Mac and install Microsoft Office for Mac. But if you have to use a Microsoft program that isn’t compatible with Mac, get a Mac and install Parallels.

Incidentally, I planned on buying Parallels after I switched to a Mac. However, I changed my mind when I realized that there’s virtually no Microsoft software that I really need. As I already mentioned, I did purchase Microsoft Office for Mac because I like Excel. Other than that, I don’t miss Microsoft one bit. In fact, I’ll probably eventually abandon Excel for Numbers, after the next upgrade or two.

However, I’m not knocking Parallels. It appears to be a very popular program that only makes the Mac more versatile. Indeed, it has even been reported that, using Parallels, Vista runs better on a Mac than on a PC!

User Friendly

As I mentioned earlier, Mac’s are renowned for being user friendly perhaps more than anything else. Yet there are Windows fans who will insist that PC’s are just as user friendly.

Of course, everyone has their own idea about what “user friendly” means. Still, it would be very unusual to hear someone say that a PC is more user friendly than a Mac. The best Microsofties can do is suggest they’re both the same.

Security

This is an even tougher nut for Microsofties to crack. Sure, they can argue that Windows is just as secure as a Mac’s operating system...provided you properly set it up and configure it and install the proper security patches and on and on. But, even after jumping through all those hoops, it would be tough to argue that Windows is as secure as Mac OS X.

In fact, most people who own Mac’s don’t even use anti-virus software. Which doesn’t mean Mac’s are immune from viruses. But only a relative handful of Mac viruses have been identified, compared to countless thousands (over one million, according to some reports) that prey on Windoze.

Here’s where Microsofties mount a rather odd argument. They often claim that PC’s running Windows are attacked by more viruses “Because Microsoft is so much bigger than Apple!” In other words, people are deliberately attacking Microsoft merely because it’s king of the hill.

To this I say prove it. It could be argued that people attack Microsoft simply because they hate it, and for good reason. But even if the Microsofties’ argument was true, it would still tip the scales in Apple’s favor.

After all, the most important question is which platform is most subject to virus attacks, not why it’s attacked more often. And the obvious answer is PC/Windows. If you’re convinced that Billysoft is being targeted solely because of its size, AND you have a strategy for stopping these virus attacks, then get a PC.

Otherwise, get a Mac.

Innovation

Once again, most people would pronounce Apple the winner in this category. Its newest operating system, Leopard, was praised as an example of innovation by the adoring media, while PC Mag named Microsoft’s Vista the Biggest Tech Disappoint of 2007.

Indeed, Microsloth—which seemingly doesn’t have a clue about innovation—has been widely accused of borrowing, copying or stealing ideas from Apple.

Coolness

The Mac wins the coolness award hands down. Naturally, there are Microsoft whores who will insist that there’s nothing cooler than PC/Windows. But if a survey was conducted, I suspect even many Microslaves would choose Mac as the cooler platform.

Bill Gates’ army of propagandists have a lot of fun with the Mac’s coolness. They often suggest that coolness is the only thing the Mac has going for it; in other words, the world’s love affair with the Mac is superficial.

They also commonly describe people who speak highly of the Mac as “Mac fan boys,” a term apparently meant to describe a geek who isn’t quite as nerdy as Bill Gates and is armed with a better computer.

There are Microsoft whores who would describe Apple’s coolness factor as arrogance. Well, if they want to start down this road, they’d better take a good look in a mirror. The irony is that there’s no better example of arrogance than Bill Gates.

Expense

This is a somewhat confusing comparison. Apple computers are known for their relatively great expense. The average person would likely save money in the short run by purchasing a PC instead.

But if you place an imaginary price tag on user friendliness, increased security and time NOT spent wrestling with Windows’s endless problems, then a Mac can suddenly seem very inexpensive.

Moreover, one can now buy a Mac Mini for about $600.

Microslaves

Many people are effectively prisoners of the Microsoft monopoly. They grew up with a PC and lack the time, money or initiative to change. Or maybe they’ve accumulated piles of Microsoft software programs, files or projects over the years and are loathe to swap horses in the middle of another Service Pack or mega-fix.

Some people use PC’s because their employers use PC’s, or because the nature of their work requires them to use Windows computers.

But the situation is fast changing. Rememer, the fabulous Parallels program allows you to operate Microsoft software on a Mac. (And you can also run Microsoft’s Office Suite on a Mac even without Parallels.)

Verdict

So what is the verdict?

Philosophically speaking, one might argue that it’s impossible to designate either the PC or Mac as “best.” On a more practical level, it could be argued that either might be best in certain situations or for certain people.

But the Mac is almost universally acknowledged as the more user friendly platform, with greater security and innovation and a brighter future to boot. In other words, Mac users can look forward to things like Leopard, iPod and iPhone, while Microslaves are likely to dread the next Windoze or “Internet Exploder.”

The ability to run Mac OS X, Windows and Linux simultaneously on a Mac increases its versatility, taking it places no PC can follow.

On the negative side, Mac’s are generally relatively expensive. But they may actually be more cost effective in the long run...and don’t forget that $600 Mac Mini.

If we add either coolness or ethics to the debate, then there’s little competition—Mac wins by a landslide. Hopefully, Linux will one day offer enough comeptition to force Apple to continue running a clean act after it conquers Microsoft.

But that’s just my opinion. The real verdict may be delivered by the marketplace, which has long been ruled by Microsoft’s iron fist.

In just a few years, Apple has doubled its market share, from 3% to 6%. It’s predicted to double again in a few more years. When it hits 10%, watch out. In the meantime, Bill Gates continues to pose as a philanthropist in a desperate bid to refloat his public relations shipwreck.

So there’s no harm in at least checking out another platform. Ultimately, it’s your choice—unless you work for a school district that’s being blackmailed by Bill Gates.