|I'll get more mileage out of my Mac than I would any other laptop that I didn't create myself. I am certain of this.|
But have you ever done an empirical test? Have you ever read any kind of evidence? Of course you haven't. What you've probably read is Apple marketing data that you've chosen to believe for some reason, and are now projecting it onto real life because you already believe it. This is a known cognitive bias, the tendency of humans to be more accepting of evidence that supports their already-held beliefs even when contrary evidence is better. You're accepting Apple "evidence" and ignoring their conflict of interest because you want to believe that the hardware you own (or prefer) is better than the hardware you don't. Go ahead and prove me wrong with some empirical evidence.
|Your "build quality" argument also holds no water.|
It does, you just chose to ignore it (or else misunderstood it somehow). That point was against the idea that Apple computers somehow have better "build quality" than other manufacturers despite being assembled in exactly the same way. That idea can now be safely discarded.
|It's the design behind it that I question. You would be a fool to suggest that no matter how you design a computer, it will work well and be of the same quality as something specifically created to be (which is what it seems that you're getting at). |
The "design behind it"? How vague can you get? And besides, once again, they're exactly the same! They all use ATX or similar motherboards and cases, they all use Intel-based processors, they all use NVIDIA and ATI graphics cards, they all use PCI, AGP and PCIe buses, they all use SATA and IDE, they use exactly the same specifications for everything
. This isn't a matter of what you "believe" and I find it ironic that you call my argument "headstrong" and imply that it's based on belief and then talk about your
mileage with Apple hardware. That's completely based on your subjective experience
which is totally irrelevant to this kind of discussion; what I'm talking about are irrefutable facts: everything about Apple and non-Apple PCs is almost identical such that there's no room for real, measurable differences in quality. If you can find even a modicum of objective, factual evidence
that suggests otherwise, that Apple hardware somehow really is better quality than PC hardware even though it's exactly the same and made in exactly the same factories (or if you can prove that it's not
the same and not
made in the same factories), I will reconsider my position. There's no room in a discussion about what is better
for subjective experience, and that is the core of your argument. Subjective experience belongs only in arguments about taste and preference. This thread is (or was) about preference, but now you're arguing about what is better, and that's not a subjective matter.
If you want it, my personal opinion on the matter, since I haven't quite made it explicit yet, is that Apple computers are PCs, and all prebuilt PCs are of approximately equal value and quality (given equivalent specifications) but that Apple charge a lot more for it. Actually, those are facts, my opinion is that Apple is charging for form and brand (that may not be a fact, but if it's a fact that the quality is identical (which it is), then I don't see what else you could be paying for, except maybe the OS (in which case, continue reading)). I also consider it a fact that Mac OS X is a higher-quality operating system than Windows, but I use Windows because it's more useful to me because video games.
|Also, about the shiny box. When did presentation become a bad thing? I'll take all the hate in the world for having the best damn looking laptop on the market. |
Nice strawman. I didn't say it's a bad thing, but it is a superficiality that you are now admitting to buying into, and by the way, that makes your opinion less valuable.
|That's a load of crap though. Windows was "made to be secure" as well. The reason there is so much malware for Windows operating systems (aside of some really silly design choices) is that the OS is so popular; there's more money to be made harassing Windows users.|
I actually disagree with this (well, partly, anyway). I do think that UNIX-alike operating systems are, generally speaking, inherently more secure than Windows, and that includes Mac OS X. Just because Windows is designed or intended to be a certain way ("was made to be secure as well"), doesn't mean it is a certain way - I don't know how someone can possibly argue that. On the other hand, I also think that the popularity is more important than the actual security of the system. I'm certain that there have been and are now bugs in Linux and Mac OS X which would allow an attacker to compromise the system, but due to a combination of lack of interest from malicious software developers (due to lack of desktop popularity) as well as, in the case of Linux, a (presumed) high rate of bug-finding due to its open source codebase, these bugs just aren't found before they can be exploited. If Linux or OS X was more popular on the desktop, then I do think it would suffer from malware as well. Maybe not as much as Windows does, because as I said I do believe UNIX-based operating systems, correctly implemented, are inherently more secure, but it would definitely occur more than it does now. I'd also like to address the point that Linux is more popular on the server than Windows before someone has a chance to bring it up. That's true, but, Linux or not, servers are usually run by people with far more expertise where network security is concerned than are desktops, so the risk of failure or, even worse, being caught is much greater for attacking servers than for desktops. As with the relative popularity, the risk/reward ratio is just too skewed in favour of risk.