Windows:

1) Used by most people around the world
2) You don't have to buy a new computer to use it, you can just buy the OS
3) You can RIGHT CLICK
4) Most software is designed for it
5) You can PLAY GAMES
6) Windows' Service Packs are FREE
7) Vista's Aero Interface looks much better than Leopard's GUI

Mac:

1) Not used by most people
2) You need to buy an overpriced computer to use their OS
3) You cannot right click
4) Does not have as much software as windows does
5) Macs and games don't get along very well
6) You need to pay for Mac's "Versions"
7) Mac's GUI is terrible the minimize, restore down, exit buttons look like TRAFFIC LIGHTS!

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

Oh boy. Lets see:

Miran94 wrote:

Windows:
1) Used by most people around the world

Correct.

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

I suppose that depends on what you own already, doesn't it? And if you want to run vista and you haven't upgraded in a long time, you're probably going to have to buy a new computer anyhow.

3) You can RIGHT CLICK

Correct. Incidentally, you can also right click on a Mac.

4) Most software is designed for it

This depends on what you mean. Most software is released for Mac as well, or there is a Mac equivelant of the same quality. This goes for pretty much everything I can think of except sales systems in stores to be frank.

5) You can PLAY GAMES

Correct. Incidentally, you can also play games on a Mac. Incidentally, you can technically play more games on a Mac if you invest in Parallels. If you don't, then you're still going to be able to play almost every single game released. And you have been able to, for years now.

6) Windows' Service Packs are FREE

This is pretty much the only solid point I see in this entire list. While Apple's updates are much larger than Windows service packs (The difference from 10.4 Tiger to 10.5 Leopard is quite a bit) and include new software as well, the price seems a bit hefty for upgrading.

I do however think you can purchase upgrades at a discount, and in any case theres no protection on the CDs like there is with Windows - Know someone with Leopard? Borrow their CD and upgrade.

7) Vista's Aero Interface looks much better than Leopard's GUI

This is subjective. Both allow for customization. However: OSX has supplied the better API for interfacing with the GUI, allowing for much nicer tweaking. See QuickSilver for an example.

Mac:
1) Not used by most people

While this is true, pretty much everyone knows what a Mac is. I fail to see how this is an actual relevant point, and its becoming even less relevant than it already is over time (Read: more people using non-Windows based OS'es)

2) You need to buy an overpriced computer to use their OS

Prices are a bit steep, yes. However, they're not insane. Some hardware is (like the macbook air), but their Power Mac's deliver what you pay, so do the servers, etc. Prices have gone down a lot over time, and students are given discounts on *any* purchase from Apple.

3) You cannot right click

Incorrect.

4) Does not have as much software as windows does

Incorrect.

5) Macs and games don't get along very well

Incorrect.

6) You need to pay for Mac's "Versions"

See above comment on this.

7) Mac's GUI is terrible the minimize, restore down, exit buttons look like TRAFFIC LIGHTS!

And Windows look like a Brick, two Windows and a big cross. At least bring up the fact that its located in a non-standard location, which is rather stupid. And that maximize doesn't stretch to fit screen in many applications, which is also stupid.

There are dozens of reasons for and against mac and pc which happen to be very relevant, which never seemed to make their way onto your list :/

I work with both, for the record. Windows XP, Windows Vista, OSX 10.4, OSX 10.5.

Miran94 wrote:

I didn't make a full list :P, but about the right click thing, don't macs use ctrl+click?

You can both ctrl+click and right-click. You've been able to right-click since USB, basically.

Well, this is a tricky one, not least because neither are systems designed to be used by people such as myself. The messy / clean concept is something I'd like to hear more about, what sort of experience do you have in this area?

Personally, I'd say Mac has the upperhand in terms of what I look for in a system.

First off, it's UNIX powered. So I get a terminal that really does have some power behind it, with pipes, redirects, process signals, symlinking and the filesystem singularity concept, among other things. A consequence of this being I then have a nice toolkit with which I can automate many system tasks (I would argue more situations than batch processing could sensibly do, although there is some seriously arcane DOS stuff that is sometimes nice), this toolkit encourages me to actively go about making my experience on the computer easier.

Second, I get a package manager. I'm afraid I really cannot begin to express how useful this is without just getting someone to use a package manager, the ability to go 'okay, update all my applications to the latest version' and not have to go chase them down, seriously eases up system admin. Unfortunately it's not full-on like Linux package management systems, but that's a result of the closed upgrade concept Apple runs.

The standard applications for Macs are an improvement on Windows, although I'm sure I could easily find some faults in them too. However this does at least remove the need to go 'okay, system installed, time to go replace the default browser/media player/IM client'. The applications are not necessarily the most featureful, but they don't seem arse-backwards to me.

The GUIs on both systems makes me go "ARGH!" with their inconsistencies. There is practically no sensible way of relying on icon sets for either system, so applications end up bundling, creating a real mis-match feel on the icon side of things. The visual effects on both are quite amusing, with Aero chewing your CPU up on the one hand, and the Mac GUI effects looking rather old hat now. A small bow to Macs though, they kicked off the visual effects war and it was a nice change at the time.

Mac supports ELF, hurrah! Along with this comes shared objects and the surprisingly sensible structure that goes with that. Suddenly perl/python are available at the start and can be relied on should you develop for Macs. This further encourages development on my part, compared to Windows.

Truthfully, I wouldn't want either running my PC, but I guess if I had to choose, it'd be Mac, as much as the fanboi side to Mac irritates me.

Definately true. And again I have to stress the amazing feeling of using something like QuickSilver at work.

I save what is literally hours of button-clicking and menu navigation in just a single week, through QuickSilver. Want to search the image server for an image? Shift-F1 is my shortcut to initiate a Search on that specific directory. Want to attach an image to an email I send? Apple-F1, type in the name of recipient, drag the image onto the box or type in part of the name and hit enter, and then press done or hit enter again. No changing window focus, no navigating menu's, and searches optimized based on locations.

And thats just the tip of the iceberg as far as what QS can do. Whee.

SuperAntx wrote:

If you want to download and run email attachments sent by random people you don't know, buy a Mac.

If you want to play any game and run most software without having to tweak everything, get Windows.

I'm confused. I've never ever run email attachments automatically on a Mac, what exactly are you alluding to?

I've also never, ever had to tweak a Mac to make games and software work. Ever. I can't say the same for Windows :(

Get new examples :)

Alathon wrote:

I'm confused. I've never ever run email attachments automatically on a Mac, what exactly are you alluding to?

I believe he was saying that Mac were pretty much the same to other OSes in all aspects except that they are not prone to the dangers Windows machines are--email attachments being just one of those dangers. But let's face it, the security threats to Macs and Linux just aren't worth being exploited.

I've also never, ever had to tweak a Mac to make games and software work. Ever. I can't say the same for Windows :(

I don't think I've ever needed to tweak anything to get software to run on Windows. I don't use Macs often enough to try to get software to work on them, so I couldn't vouch for that side of the argument.

But I do agree, get better examples SuperAntX. :)

Alathon wrote:

This depends on what you mean. Most software is released for Mac as well, or there is a Mac equivelant of the same quality.

What about BYOND? The Mac version definitely isn't equivalent to the Windows.

Nickr5 wrote:

What about BYOND? The Mac version definitely isn't equivalent to the Windows.

BYOND really is an exception there, because theres nothing quite like it. Plenty of applications which are developed by smaller amounts of people (or single individuals) have OSX graphical ports or some other program that does the exact same thing.

CaptFalcon33035 wrote:

Alathon wrote:

I'm confused. I've never ever run email attachments automatically on a Mac, what exactly are you alluding to?

I believe he was saying that Mac were pretty much the same to other OSes in all aspects except that they are not prone to the dangers Windows machines are--email attachments being just one of those dangers. But let's face it, the security threats to Macs and Linux just aren't worth being exploited.

Ah, that makes sense. My father claims to have gotten a virus once, but that was just his hardware dying after six years. I've never had anything on a mac before, nor do I know anyone who has. Unfortunately, as the market grows for macs so does potential security threats. Sadly, something that Apple *dont* have going for them is the fact that they tend to release security fixes quite slowly most of the time.

As for running OSX on a PC: Yes, its technically possible. However, the issue is that while you can find UNIX-ported drivers for most PC hardware the same isn't true the other way around. All macs run with pretty special equipment and only a specific set of graphics cards, motherboards, etc. and so generally speaking there aren't a whole lot of drivers. This is a major plus in a sense because it removes a lot of headaches (Not having to cater to *every single possibility*).

You'd need to install OSX and run it command-line until you got X11 working as a window manager and use that instead of the default mac desktop. Which means what you'd be running is basically a variation of FreeBSD with either Gnome or K in X11, and I'm not sure how feasible that is. Then again I'm not a Linux guru, so someone might be able to crrect me on that. I know several attempts have been made, and some were partially successful.

Mr.Kitten wrote:

Windows: Messy coding and "quantity over quality"

Macintosh: Clean coding, perfect concept of the GUI, and "quality over quantity"

I wouldn't say Mac has "quality over quantity," because that directly relates to Mac having quality; in my experience Mac has "lack of quantity, and not so much quality either." 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.

For Mac, I also wouldn't say it has a perfect concept of the GUI; I've always disliked Mac's GUI. I'm sure there is some way to make things...more organized, but since I neither have a Mac, nor could I afford to buy one, 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, 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). 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.

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.