Pc's are better than macs

Firstly I would like to start off by refuting my opponents' points. "If you are using a windows PC right now, look at the tower, or the monitor... plastic right? If you're using a mac, look at the monitor, metal... Windows have just started using more metal to build their computers, but macs have been doing this all along!" Look, not everyone is willing to pay extra for a PC made of Metal, OK. However, if the user wants one of metal, they can certainly spend more and get a PC of metal, WHICH COULD STILL COST LESS THAN A MAC (my $700 desktop PC with Windows 7 has a metal case). However, with Macs you don't have a choice - you have to get the more expensive computer. "Obviously a mac doesn't NEED those fancy processors because they do not crash as much." If you do things such as gaming (and few gamers get a Mac, most get a PC), video editing, etc, then you really do need a powerful processor. Sure, you could get away with a slow processor on a Mac (ex. a PowerPC G4), but it would be slow. And besides, with the PowerPC ones, you can't even run OS X 10.6 anyway since they lack a Intel processor. If I got a PC, I could certainly get one with a processor like the Intel Pentium 4 and run Windows 7 with all the aero effects. "You cannot rule out the only option for this photographer by saying "Its way out of the price range" if that photographer really wanted a quality computer to do work on, he WOULD pay the extra price. Here the think livebriand, Macs ARENT overpriced because the creaters feel like doing that, their over priced because they cost more to make, (the metal parts, the high quality screen etc.)" I said that the photographer would need a nice, accurate display and already has one (or has set aside the money for one), but simply needs an inexpensive computer that won't break the bank. For example, I have a fairly nice monitor and I calibrate it (as I do photo work sometimes), but I DIDN'T SPEND LOTS on the PC that I'm using. So in some cases, the photographer might not have the budget for such an expensive PC. So what should he do in that case? The answer is simple: GET A PC!!! "Example: You have the choice of buying a 700 dollar Windows machine OR a 1000 dollar Mac With the 700 dollar PC, you might have to buy: Extra RAM, software that dosn't come with the computer, hardware, and not to mention maintenance costs! With the mac, maybe you would have to buy a printer... but that's it, maintenance is pretty much free, as long as you're not buying a whole new part." Here are the things that a PC user would likely buy (monitor excluded): maybe Microsoft Office (though many include Microsoft Works), a printer (if they don't already have one), and that's just about it, as many include a mouse, keyboard, and speakers, and they can download free AV software, rather than paying for software like Norton. You would have no need for extra RAM since many PCs have 4GB or more, and that is more than enough for most people (including me). On a Mac, you likely would also buy an office suite (which is commonly Microsoft Office on both platforms) since even if Macs include one it likely isn't very good (like, admittedly, Microsoft Works). "Ever tried calling support over the phone about your PC screwing up? This is one of the most painful experience one can go through. For the sake of a debate, I used a problem with my broken windows PC and called support." It seems that you haven't heard of things like online forums or asking others. Who needs support from the manufacturer? At most, you'd probably need to just reinstall Windows. Also, it appears that my opponent never refuted my point about the gadgets. They also did a poor refutation of my points of Macs not being as cutting edge or having new processors. So as you can clearly see with the points I have stated, PCs are CLEARLY better than Macs. I strongly urge you to vote Pro. *************** By the way, in case you were wondering, my PC is a self-built one with Intel Core i5, 4GB RAM, 640GB HDD, NVidia GeForce 210 (512MB)