The Mac/PC conversation: PCs are better than Macs

INITIAL CLARIFICATION OF TERMS: By 'PC', what I mean is a computer that is set up to run a Windows OS as its primary OS, with hardware that is made by a manufacturer or manufacturers other than Apple. By 'Mac', what I mean is a computer manufactured by Apple, intended to run Mac OS X as its primary OS. ROUND 1 COMMENTS: This is obviously well-trodden terrain, and the truth is that it's a topic that doesn't have an altogether right answer. Some people simply prefer the Mac OS interface, and prefer its software offerings to PC-compatible alternatives. I have no problem with that. I'm looking for a debate from someone who holds the strong position that Macs are the de facto superior option in personal computing. It is to these people that I am willing to assume the position that the PC is the better experience. I wish to offer three points in support on my position. They are versatility, user-maintainability, and accessibility. Versatility: it's an irrefutable fact that there are orders of magnitude more options for the PC user, in available software, hardware options, and accessories. While some Mac advocates may respond by claiming that Mac-only products are better than their PC equivalents (the 'quality over quantity' argument), this is neither demonstrably true, nor relevant to my position. The claim that Apple and its partners offer 'better' products is entirely a subjective value-judgment; the claim that Microsoft and its partners offer MORE products is a demonstrable fact. The real lynchpin for this point is for us to determine whether Mac-specific products can do tasks or perform functions that are impossible on the PC side. To my knowledge, there isn't anything one can do on a Mac that one CAN'T do on a PC, and the difference in many cases is that a multitude of options exist on the PC side for many major tasks and objectives (in most cases, more than on the Mac side). The hardware issue is similar: there are so many options for the PC consumer, that literally anyone can become a computer-user. One can build their own machine; buy an inexpensive netbook for uncomplicated tasks; buy a top-of-the-line machine for high-end workflows; buy a tablet-enabled PC to replace traditional tools for certain workflows; customize the hardware in a PC to almost infinite lengths; this level of versatility simply isn't as readily available to the potential Mac-buyer. User-maintainability: By this, I mean that the PC is a machine that not only invites its user to become an expert in its usage and maintenance, but it almost demands such. On the surface, this point seems to actually weaken my position, since one of the selling-points of a Mac is that it supposedly 'just works' (a myth that I will hopefully be privileged to dispel in the course of this debate). My argument here, however, is that because a computer is both indispensable in the modern world, and a precision machine with many, many variables, the user SHOULD become, at the very least, a lay-level expert in at least its basic maintenance and intricacy. While it's beyond the scope of these opening remarks to belabor this point, I will present the analogy of an automobile. An auto has at least two things in common with a computer: it is indispensable in the modern world, and it is a precision machine with many variables and intricacies. It is the height of folly to assume ownership of an automobile with no intention of being able to maintain or diagnose it. No man-made device EVER 'just works' all the time- they are all the handiwork of imperfect minds and hands, and they all have problems of some kind, at some point. At the very least, an auto-owner should be able to fill his own gas tank, check her auto's fluids and air-pressure levels, and be able to perform basic tasks like changing oil, changing tires, replacing light bulbs, etc. A computer brings with it the same responsibility. While you're free to buy one and never learn how to maintain it, it is unwise and irresponsible to do so. It is harder for a Mac user to achieve this degree of maintainability and mastery, for at least two reasons: Macs aren't engineered to be end-user-maintained, and Apple places a number of limitations on what its consumers are legally allowed to do with the products they supposedly own. Accessibility: This is a continuation of the last point. Precisely because so many people use PCs and because there are so many options and opportunities for people to learn to maintain and master them without troubling themselves, PCs offer the most accessible 'world', perhaps in all of modern technology. If you get a job that requires computer knowledge, odds are that you already have some basic skills to offer, because your new employer probably uses PCs. Chances are, you know someone who can fix most any problem you might have with your PC. If you don't, there are an almost infinite number of resources available to you, from websites and forums, to books and publications. This extends beyond simply maintaining the machine as well. If you want to become an expert in some particular workflow or task or discipline, it's easy to do. The Mac 'world' is far less accessible, simply because it's the minority 'world'. It's something of a 'closed' community, and learning to be 'in the know' requires one to 'check out' of the PC side. While this, in itself, is neither a good nor bad thing, it is challenging and impractical for many consumers, and there's no guarantee that those who choose to adapt will have their needs met. Don't mistake elitism for supremacy. Of course, there are other points that can be made, and other arguments that can be advanced, but I think this is a sufficient opening for this debate, and I hope to see someone accept the challenge!