Briefly About the Show

Typically I hear people who don't like Macs ramble on about how the OS is just eye-candy, "pretty doesn't make fast" and other subjective nonsense based on no facts whatsoever. But sometimes people ramble on and complain about shit that is just plain incorrect.

In a recent TechSpot article, Julio Franco does such a thing. I'll address each one of his statements...

After all, what good a computer is if it can't run over 80% of the software available out there, it's slow, not to mention way overpriced? (the last which still remains true today).

See, this is the way people think for some reason and I'm not sure what it's based on. The truth is, most major software packages are available for Mac and PC. Beyond that, sure there are thousands of crappy little Windows shareware apps that comprise a huge amount of the software market. Problem is, no one on Windows would want to run them, much less anyone on Mac or Linux.

If these are the apps he's talking about when coming up with his 80% figure, then it makes sense, but it paints a very inaccurate picture. There are also thousands of Mac only apps by 3rd party developers. The truth is, there's no significant difference in software selection between the platforms. You might not find the same titles once you move beyond the big boys, but you will find equivalents or often times improved options on Mac for little apps.

Then he says they're slow? Oh, I can't even open this one up, but they've always been of comparable speed. Barefeats has some good floating point comparisons of chips and when you compare the G5 to other chips of its generation, you find very similar results, and even many where the G5 comes out ahead.

Overpriced is also madness. Take the new iMac 20" and let's compare it to Dell's XPS 200 which is similar in specs...

So the iMac is $71 more than the Dell. I wouldn't call that way overpriced. Also, notice that the iMac has a more powerful video card, includes Bluetooth, has the newest generation Core Duo vs the older Pentium D, and it comes with a remote control for media-center functions. Still think Macs are "way" overpriced?

Nevertheless it is hard for me to stand comments on how Windows is not getting an overhaul after several years, while OS X has. Well, at $130 for each cosmetic update and add-on you give to your OS, Apple’s updates are far from being perfect.

It's clear that this guy has not used 10.3 and then upgraded to 10.4 to witness the changes. Sure there are cosmetic changes, but they also added Spotlight, Dashboard, Automator, Core Image, Core Video, Smart Folders, Burn Folders, and almost 200 other under the hood changes in Tiger. That's hardly a cosmetic release. It's far more than Windows has seen in the past 6 years.

Not to mention we PC users are used to see thousands of application releases every month from developers worldwide, so we don’t have to depend on the OS provider for new added functionality (e.g. Desktop search is one of the latest big features in OS X, which can also be done in the PC through the use of free tools from Google, MSN or Copernic).

This is laughable. Windows doesn't have to depend on "any" new software from Micrsoft, that's very true. I don't think the fact that so much is bundled with OS X and new machines (in terms of software) is a bad thing. But to compare Spotlight to desktop search from any vendors he mentions is silly. Spotlight is integrated meta-search, and if it was just the same as what Google offers, then why is Microsoft building an almost exact replica of Spotlight into the upcoming Vista OS? Hmmm.

Give OS X at least a decent share of the pie (which it lacks), and we wouldn’t have to wait long until malware and viruses for the platform start popping everywhere and in quantities. Not to justify Microsoft’s petty efforts on combating malware in XP, but that doesn’t make Apple a better company.

No doubt that attacks will increase as OS X's market share increases, but to say that's the reason Windows suffers is again misleading. The registry in Windows is a great hiding place for all things bad. It's much harder for apps to hide in OSX, and that's a significant reason why it's less of a target. I think OS X will handle attacks much better than Windows ever did.

After Apple’s continued failure to prove themselves better and faster than PCs, they feel obliged to move to x86 technology.

The G5 chip was a very powerful and fast chip. When you compare it to the Intel and AMD chips of the generation (see link above) you get a clear picture that it outperforms in a lot of cases. Apple made the move to Intel because IBM wasn't as aggressive moving forward and their plans for a mobile chip were crap. The G4 could no longer compete against the latest and greatest Intel chips because it was just too old. They had to do something and clearly Intel's unreleased Core architecture was a very big step forward in performance.

Does it outperform the G5? Yes. But Core is the next generation chip, so it should. Apple just moved forward and to the side instead of trying to get IBM to get their shit together with a G6, which would have likely never been crammed into a Powerbook.

So now that we can finally compare oranges to oranges, same processors, similar platforms… you still have to pretend there are faster components inside the stylish yet proprietary overpriced box with the Apple emblem?

We do? I'm not pretending that the hardware is somehow still faster. Nor should any responsible person just generally do this. However, I will say that comparing a Dell and Gateway with very close hardware specs is not a new idea. Hardware configs have always differed in actual real-world speeds. If someone's running lab tests and they have XP running on a MacBook vs XP running on a Dell and the results show Apple ahead, then there it is. That doesn't mean a Gateway with the same hardware couldn't then best the Apple. This happens all the time.

There have been tests comparing Windows XP on the new MacBooks that find the MacBooks doing quite well in terms of speed. So you're saying it's the exact same hardware, but they somehow get these results. Is it a conspiracy? Comparison Tests

The fact is there's no spin that I have seen to make people believe Apple is still empirically faster with the same hardware specs.

Julio Franco is the Editor in Chief at TechSpot.com. He also happens to own an iPod, a Mac, along with a few PCs. No flaming necessary on Apple’s user’s side as I am one, too. Just trying to put some fairness on the entire BS you can come across out there.

I appreciate Mr. Franco's opinions, but I wrote this response because I feel that a lot of what he's written sounds as thought it lacks factual basis.

What amazed me even more, were some of the commenters who replied to the article. Here are a few...

Also, to the guy above, for 1200 I could piece together a PC that would blow the socks off of apples offering.. I believe that is what the author was getting at.

Hi dumbass, you could put together a computer yourself on the cheap that would compare or beat any machine put together by a manufacturer. That's not saying anything. Go price out an actual PC with the same hardware as a Mac and look at the price differences. That's the topic. No one doubts that hobbyists can do better for cheaper, but that's not only in regards to Apple.

A dell XPS laptop for 1400 beats apples intel based ibook in price and performance.

There is no Intel based iBook at this time, so right you are! If you're comparing the Dell to a current iBook with a piddly G4 from 2 generations ago, then whoopdy-doo. Bring a real argument to the table.

The OS X UI is taking (Waisting in this case) more processor power than any games for Win.

I'll call you Mr. Megadumb. Dear Mr. Megadumb, understand that the OS X UI uses Quartz which makes use of the 3D video card for a majority of the effects, not the processor. And yes, it does eat a little more power than Windows XP, but not than a 3D game. Also it's called progress, get used to it. Oh, and Vista will be doing things the same way with hardware requirements that go far beyond OS X, just for the OS to run, so enjoy.

WHEN the iPod era ends, Apple will be back to where they started and will have to develop another gimmicky product. iPod - the TAZO of the new millennium.

If gimmicks monopolize 80% of the market, last for several years, and piss people like you off for no apparent reason other than you hate "popular" things then I guess that makes Windows a gimmick as well.

Okay, well that was fun. My take on all this Windows vs Mac shit is that overall OS X is a more advanced OS. Period. Vista is sure to level the playing field considerably. I prefer Mac. I don't care if you do or not, but don't go around preaching nonsense and fact-less garbage. Make a real point.

That is all.