Mac computers are better than PC's

OK, so I want to start by just thanking my opponent for this debate. Before I get to the arguments made by my opponent, I just want to reiterate the burdens that I stated, which were not answered. My opponent had to prove why a Mac is better than a Personal Computer. All he has done in his final speech is try to prove why Mac OSX is better than Windows XP and Vista. And quite frankly, I'm going to show him wrong (I hope.) Since my opponent has failed to show why a Mac is better than a PC, I have already won this debate. My burden for this debate was to show how a Mac is not better than a PC, and I did so by showing how a Mac IS a PC, so a Mac can't be better than itself and therefore I have won. Right there, you can vote for me. But in case you don't buy my argument, I'm going to disprove all my opponent's arguments, therefore you can still vote negative, since my opponent didn't show how a Mac is better than a PC. 1. The security issue. My opponent tries to make an argument that hackers break the law to fluff their ego, but he offers no warrant except for a site that is all about Macs, obviously biased towards Macs, and even that site doesn't say anything but claims. Here is the most likely reason that hackers don't build viruses for Macs. It is not because the Mac OS is too strong. You can do anything you want with a Mac, provided you know what you are doing. Same goes for PC. SO my opponent's bogus argument can't stand. Here's why people build stuff for Microsoft more than they do for Mac. In the large corporations, what kind of computers do they use? Do the really big corporations use Macs? No. They use Microsoft. Many more people use Microsoft OS than they do use Mac OSX. Therefore, if one was to build a virus, would you want to build a virus that only affects a small amount of people? Not only that, but just the sheer number of Microsoft run computers out there has the overwhelming statistical support that there will be more people using Microsoft computers to house their sensitive data, do their banking, finances, and the like, from a Microsoft computer, not a Mac. It's just the math. So why would a hacker want to build a virus that for one, won't affect as many people, and second, won't provide as much sensitive information that can be used by the hacker? Now, before my opponent goes to pointing fingers, saying, "Ha! Microsoft computers must therefore be less safe, since there are more viruses!" But he is wrong. Yes, the numbers are on his side, but it is really a problem of the user, not the computer. You don't blame the hammer for hitting your finger, you blame yourself for being clumsy. Same here. You don't blame the OS for giving you a virus, you blame yourself for not arming yourself with all the free anti-virus and anti malware programs out there. There are very many really good ones, better than Norton, and best of all, you don't pay a dime! There is no excuse not to use it. 3. Lets move on to the Default Program issue. My opponent makes the argument that those space wasting programs are not detrimental to the system. He tries to provide a definition, but here is the second meaning, which I believe applies more to this situation: detrimental : an undesirable or harmful thing. If we take my opponent's definition, then we make the assumption that a virus that is taking your personal information and sending to to a hacker is not detrimental until we know about it. So, we can't really accept this incorrect definition. Also, my opponent makes the argument that the programs don't take up very much space, so it's ok. Why should my parents have to go out of their way to get rid of a program that they don't want, and is only taking up space? Shouldn't it be the other way around? The users who want the programs should request that it be on their computer from the seller, instead of the seller just forcing these unwanted programs onto your computer. Now we're at the "good stuff" about Macs. 1. Spaces. First, again, my detrimental argument can apply. Second, how is this a benefit? This is just a handy dandy add-on that most people don't even know about! Also, for XP there is a program called VirtuaWin. It does the same thing, and I only got it because I wanted it. I didn't get it because it is a system default. Took all of about 30 seconds to get it up and running. 2. Partitioning the hard drive. I just want to point out that the moment you mention BootCamp, you have conceded the debate by accepting that there are things that XP or Vista does better than Mac, necessitating the use of BootCamp. Thank you. Also, Partitioning a hard drive is not a unique benefit of Macs, so it can't be considered one. And again, cross apply my detrimental program arguments to BootCamp. Now we're at the negative points about XP. First off, every single one of these "problems" have a solution provided by the very same site my opponent is using to draw these argument's from. Also, I run a default XP on my computer, and I have none of these problems, so clearly it is not the OS's fault, since I'm running a default of the OS, and I have no problems. 1. PEBKAC. Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair. 2. This is wrong. You misquoted your own source. XP only uses 80% of your bandwidth, leaving that extra 20% as a buffer. Unlocking it can overload your system. 3. PEBKAC, and only there. 4. That would be because most people don't run a server off a home computer. And that's just a compatibility issue, and I notice how Mac doesn't even support this option... 5. PEBKAC. I've had not problems with the default OS settinsg. 6. Definitely PEBKAC. Stop blaming the hammer for driving a nail into your hand. 7. Again, PEBKAC, considering I have clean re-installed my XP, and then proceeded to start burning discs like there was no tomorrow. 8. PEBKAC. Also, that was only one isolated instance. No strict facts do you provide, only a review from an "impartial" third party. 9. Proof? Nonexistent, since the site you get this from only has a claim, no warrant. 10. Apply my response to #9 Now we're at the issues with Vista: First off, the article you pull this info off from is two years old, in which time Windows has provided tons of updates that now solve all these problems. 2. Admin privileges can be obtained by the user. PEBKAC. 3. Not anymore. 4. Why is that negative? That is like buying a low end Toyota, and complaining when it doesn't perform as well as a high end Lexus. You get what you paid for, and it's only the user's fault if they bought the wrong item. 5. When the user bought the computer, he/she accepted that, and nowadays, with x64 bit computers including those with Vista, a theoretical one terabyte of ram can be used. 600 MB is no longer a problem. 6. That would be the graphics card, and a hardware issue, not a software issue, which is what we are talking about. 7. PEBKAC. Not Windows' fault if you don't read the ToS and the License of Agreement. 8. Considering that it comes with the computer, that's not a problem. Also, if you think 1-2 hours is slow for a install, you are wrong. The average install of an OS is 2 hours. 9. Not anymore 10. Getting a Mac is even more. So, when we look at the debate, we have to realize that my opponent has failed on 2 counts: 1. He has not shown how a Mac is better than a Personal Computer, since a PC IS a Mac. 2. He has not shown how a Mac is better than XP or Vista. Please note that my burden of this debate was not to prove that Windows was better than Mac. My burden was to show how Mac is not better than a PC, and I have shown why on both counts. I want to sincerely thank my opponent for this debate, and I look forward to more in the future. Thank you.