No need for an arguement. Mac wins without a fight. You can actually run windows xp/vista on your macintosh faster than a PC can(asuming your macintosh isn't more than 5 years old) while PCs can't run OS X (I know that there have been some attempts).

Edit: Oh and one more thing, a macintosh actually shuts down when you press shut down, it doesn't keep you waiting long. And you never get to worry about drivers for your hardware nor malicious software that can harm your computer.

As far as I heard, in order to upgrade your Mac operating system you need to buy a whole new machine, whereas with a PC you can choose which operating system to install and you can keep your machine if you want to upgrade your OS rather than having to throw it away or sell it on eBay or somesuch.

But the fact remains that most applications on this planet are written specifically for Windows, and not Linux or the Mac. 'Investing' in Parallels seems stupid as you're pretty much buying a Mac and Windows.

Alathon wrote:

You've been able to right-click since USB, basically.

even farther back than that. i used 2-button and 4-button logitech mice and trackballs back in the 90's using the old Mac ADB ports.

Miran94 babbled:

Windows:
1) Used by most people around the world

in todays ever-growing internet-based application services, if you say 'used' to include the computers that host your favorite websites, email, and IM services, then *nix-based OSs are more 'used'.

2) You don't have to buy a new computer to use it, you can just buy the OS

odds are you can install Mac OS X on nearly any recently built intel-based machine, thanks to projects like PearPC, for example.

3) You can RIGHT CLICK

i've been right-clicking on Macs since the early 90's

4) Most software is designed for it

that's funny since Photoswhop was originally designed for the Mac *then* ported over to Windows afterwards. there are quite a few examples of this happening.

5) You can PLAY GAMES

tons of games for the Mac- most of them the same as their Windows counterparts. in principle you can run Linux games on Mac OS X too.

6) Windows' Service Packs are FREE

here is where i'll differ from Alathon's assessment. Windows Service Packs are mostly overdue bug fixes, where-as Mac OS X updates are often bug-fixes *plus* new features or improvements. and series upgrades, like going from 10.4 Tiger to 10.5 Leopard, are mostly new features. well worth the price in most cases. and, as Alathon mentions, once you have an upgrade DVD you can share it with friends! :)

In conclusion, Windows is much better than mac in every way imaginable.

only if you live under the rock of mis-information.

Kuraudo wrote:

The quality of some default apps on the Mac are better than the out-of-the-box defaults on Windows, but a good 15 minutes after Windows is installed you can have it running with alternative applications (often not available to Mac without Darwine or whatever) that do the job better than anything found on Mac.

Examples would be great. Show me an application type that can't be found on Mac. Your comment on 'Darwine' I can't make much sense of :s

my experience is limited to my use of others' machines (and school machines), and the GUI has always disheartened me. Big, bubbly icons that make me think that the Apple team is either blind or thinks that their users are

Unlike Windows, the Mac GUI is vectorized. What this means, is that every icon is scalable. Every single one.

an explorer application that loses organization (I really hope it's possible to align icons...every Mac I've used ends up with icons strewn about in irregular fashions; I much prefer columns and rows).

Yes, snap to grid is an option just as it is in Windows. What does 'loses organization' mean, specifically? The standard OSX GUI has far more organizational tools than Windows or Linux have ever had - The different view methods for folders are quite nice and customizable, the search engine is still leagues faster than Windows, the OSX API makes it much easier for third-party applications (such as QuickSilver) to create GUI-enhancing plugins/programs, et cetera.

As an example, let's look at their screenshot image: http://images.apple.com/macosx/features/images/ desktop_hero20071016.png. What the heck is that on the bottom? A bunch of big icons that go bouncy when you hover on them. And on the right, was it really necessary to have the thing wind off to the side?---not to mention how much space each item takes on its own! I'm personally a fan of small icons, and more organization, while Apple seems to prefer to make the Mac with "creativity" in mind and exception to practicality.

The dock is scalable down to very, very miniscule (Or can be removed completely if you prefer). The bounce can be turned off, just like glitz effects in Windows. However, dragging a folder to the Dock and watching it expand when you click on it is nice - Its.. functional! Then again, if you don't want that - You can again simply disable it. Just like in Windows.

I personally feel there is no "Mac vs. Windows" war. Mac is like an OS for the rich chimps that start clapping any time the screen icons bounce. This debate, then, goes to Windows, hands down. The only merited debate left at this point is the "Windows vs. Linux" one, where Linux wins in all fields except developer support; as more applications and games are ported over or made Linux exclusive, it won't be surprising to see Windows fall behind significantly.

Honestly, it seems to boil down to the fact that you don't like that icons bounce (which can be disabled) and that the icons are too large by default (Which they happen to be in Windows too, and just like there they're completely scalable). Just like there is eyecandy in Vista, there is eyecandy in OSX. Focusing on eyecandy that can be disabled as the sole reason to relate an OS to something chimps use seems a bit over the top.

What you describe could be easily duplicated by visiting a school Windows XP machine with 1024x768 resolution and large icons - I can provide you the exact same arguments to Windows XP that you've just given for OSX.

If you want a purely functional interface, OSX provides more options than Windows to get that and an equal amount to Linux. If you want a purely 'casual' interface with lots of eyecandy, OSX provides an equal amount to Windows (except the eyecandy in Windows happens to require far more processing power, for whatever reason). In the end its user preference - but relating OSX users to chimps has about as much merit as saying that Windows users are all 12 year old kids who don't have enough brains to be running a real operating system. Both statements are completely off, as far as reality goes.

This might be interesting: http://www.byond.com/ members/?command=view_comments&post=45576#comments