The Mac/PC conversation: PCs are better than Macs

Initially,I presented three main points in support of my position: that PCs offer greater versatility-of-options than Macs (re: my initial for working definitions of "PC" and "Mac"),that PCs are easier to maintain than Macs, and that PCs are more ubiquitous in the personal-computing ‘world' than Macs.My opponent (hereafter "Con") has taken issue with aspects of each of these points, so for this round of debate,I wish to point out what I think are some inconsistencies in the reasoning processes he used to contend with my initial points. Versatility:Con rightly acknowledges the correctness of my claim that the PC market offers a significantly greater selection of options than the Mac market,and even agrees with my position that claiming that one software is better than another is a subjective value judgment. However,he then proceeds to contradict himself by stating that more doesn't always equal better,citing a comparison of restaurants as his analogy:"…McDonald's offers a greater number of menu options than the The Dining Room restaurant at the Ritz Carlton in San Francisco. Where are you more likely to have the better culinary experience?" He's attempting to make a value judgment (about whether McD's or the Ritz offers the better experience) into an absolute position. Perhaps,for some,the assets of the Ritz outweigh those of McD's;but what if, for me,the most important aspect of eating out is price?Or timeliness (how quickly can I get in, get my food, and get out)?Or convenience (how many Ritz's am I likely to find within a three-mile radius of my house?;how easy is it for me to take my kids to the Ritz for a quick meal on the way home from school)?Or, heaven forbid, the food itself (am I not entitled to prefer McD's' Big Mac over the Ritz's pan-fried goose liver)?While it's true that more options may NOT equal better options,it's equally true that more options may WELL equal better options- but the problem is that the minute one starts arguing that the Ritz offers a better experience than McD's,HE IS MAKING A SUBJECTIVE VALUE JUDGMENT,which we have already established is not acceptable.All we're left with on this point is ‘more options' versus ‘fewer options', so in order for Con to win this point, he's going to have to argue that ‘fewer options' is an intrinsically better state-of-affairs than ‘more options'.The point: having more options is nearly ALWAYS preferable to having fewer options.This holds for Con's examples regarding hardware as well. User-maintainability:This initial point was that it is easier for the PC-user to maintain his machine than it is for the Mac-user, which is an advantage, since responsible computer-ownership entails some degree of maintenance. Con seems to have missed this point: "What I would disagree with, is my opponent's claim that a device that requires greater user maintenance then definitively provides its owner with a ‘better experience'." To be fair, I never claimed that a device requiring greater user maintenance must be a better experience-in fact, I never claimed that PCs require more maintenance than Macs at all (which they don't, as a matter of necessity). What I asserted is that ALL personal computers require some sort of maintenance, just as all cars require some sort of maintenance, and that having more options for maintenance, and a greater availability of tools and resources for maintenance, is preferable to having fewer options and resources. Let me state again that ALL computers require maintenance, and that it is a false assumption that PCs invariably require more maintenance than Macs (this is a function of user proficiency, not intrinsic device properties; cf. http://archive.macfixitforums.com...; http://www.macmend.com...; http://support.apple.com...; etc.). Again, this point will be won or lost on the battlefield of ‘more versus fewer'. Accessibility: There is a theme at work in the points-of-departure:Con is assuming variations on the ‘quality over quantity' approach, which I addressed in my initial remarks.This shows up again in his response to my remarks on accessibility, as he states: "…my opponent and I would both agree that there are more PCs than Macs and this is fairly evident in most places of businesses as well as homes. But this doesn't necessitate then, that the experience their respective users have is better." I think at this point, it's appropriate for me to explain that, in my view, freedom and options are always good properties, and that any assumption I make about why something is better than something else includes consideration of those properties. Further, I maintain that freedom and choice are universally and objectively good, and that all human beings are inevitably drawn to, desirous of, and defensive of, the potential for freedom. This is perhaps the crux of this argument: in a very real way, Apple is the anti-choice, anti-freedom option in personal computing (of course, this is a hyperbolic and anecdotal way of expressing the idea). When you buy an Apple product, you enter into a legal agreement that restricts your use of the product in lots of ways; part of Apple's business model is that you never will need to open your machine to customize it (the iPhone goes further- You CAN'T customize it, and if you try, you have to ‘break' into it); etc. Why am I making comments about human freedom and the restrictions of Mac products in comments about the accessibility of PCs? Because Con commits what we might call the ‘Apple fallacy' once again: he states that "An Aston Martin may be less accessible to me, and you, and many, many others, but that doesn't mean sitting behind the wheel of an Aston Martin makes me long for a Civic." This is the problem: his unstated assumption is that the Aston Martin is the de facto better car, and that anyone who doesn't prefer an Aston Martin to a Civic is clearly wrong. This is a bad assumption. I imagine that,if Con earned $35,000 a year,and found himself sitting behind the wheel of a $75,000 Aston Martin,he would find himself longing for a Civic when his first car-loan payment came due. Regarding freedom,not EVERYone would trade their Civic for an Aston-Martin, as difficult as that may be for Aston-Martin's PR department to believe. Con's remarks about restaurants are similarly flawed. I wouldn't want to eat at Jack-In-The-Box every night for the rest of my life, but I wouldn't want to eat at the Ritz-Carlton every night, either. The most important thing is that I be given the freedom to choose where I want to eat every night (and if we're going to exhaust this analogy, I suggest that a Mac is neither Jack-In-The-Box nor the Ritz-Carlton, but something in between, like Chili's; continuing the analogy, I'd rather go back and forth between Jack and the Ritz than be stuck at Chili's for the rest of my dining life). Con toys with a fictional scenario in which "…(he) were to offer to buy (me) a car, any car, up to $75,000 in price…". In this scenario, my choice would be neither a Civic nor an Aston-Martin, but a Hot Wheels toy with the $75,000 stuffed inside, so I could do as I pleased with the money. This is ultimately a discussion about the freedom of choice, more than it is about whether one device or OS is intrinsically superior to another. In my initial remarks, I established that I believe the better machine is the one the user prefers, and that I only intended to engage debate with someone who holds that Macs are de facto better computers. I don't believe Con has made this point. His remarks have all been variations on this statement, which he uses to close his entry: "that there are more Windows-based PCs out there, doesn't really influence the experience I have with my Mac-based PC at all". That's fine, but he fails to demonstrate why Macs are objectively better than PCs, and since that is the foundation of this debate, and not his preference, he must be viewed as having lost this round of the debate.