Introduction

Since the beginning of time (or at least the dawn of the Apple computer industry), there has been a so called Mac versus PC war. Steve Jobs and Apple's marketing promoted this war with the introduction of the "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" commercial campaign.

So what's the big deal? Why all the fuss between Apple and PC users? I think a lot of people aren't even sure why this is. Others are simply so uneducated in these matters that it makes the whole argument look silly.

So this week on the last word, I decided to take an unbiased (as much as I possibly can) look at the "clash" between Macs and PCs.

The first thing to note here is that when we talk about Macs and PCs, we are talking about hardware, not software, so those types of arguments just won't fly here. Also, we're not trying to argue aesthetics as part of the hardware game.

Comparison

So who is the winner here? Probably the best way to make a comparison between Apple-sanctioned hardware and the PC market is to look at the difference between your standard Mac hardware and the Psystar Open computer, a PC designed to run the OS X software.

Bang for the buck

In benchmark tests, Psystar's Open Computer out-performed the nearest price competitor, the Mac Mini, by nearly 50%. These tests are also considered industry standards. The results were confirmed by both Xbench and Geekbench. While these results are not entirely definitive, they do give us an overall idea of the capabilities of the Mac's hardware.

Overall performance

So if the price on Mac hardware is so much higher, one would expect the hardware to perform at a significant advantage. This is not necessarily so. The Asian branch of Tech-On opened up an iMac to see what made it tick.

In this day and age, PC and Mac hardware is virtually identical. Macs sport nVidia and ATI video cards, both of which are acceptable brands. Mac chipsets apparently are based upon the Intel 945GM specification, even though the graphics module in this chip is not used. However, the LSI modules for Firewire, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, and many other components are not Intel manufactured and thus not compatible with the full specification that Intel has offered. It appears, for example, that the Wi-Fi card was manufactured by Broadcom, a company not well-known for high-quality manufacturing.

To further this point, there is research estimates that about 30% of new Apple products (i.e. the iPhone) are returned within one month of purchase. Anecdotally, I have found that all Mac users critically depend upon the warranty service offered by Apple. The service I heard was exceptional, but it is another $400~ on top of the premium-priced hardware.

Why it is the way it is

A simple survey of Mac users will reveal a statistically significant amount of all Mac owners believe in the products they purchase—almost with a fanatical loyalty. A recent article from Psychology Today suggests the reason behind this. A more aesthetically pleasing device elicits less frustration on the part of the user whenever mishaps or mistakes occur. This was a "solution that Sony used in its Aibo robot dog toy: Make it adorable. The toy doesn't work very well...but somehow it doesn't matter. With its smoothed-off contours, soft colors and awkward body language, its failures come across as puppy-like mistakes—and who could get angry at that?"

You can also see a more detailed in-depth analysis of how Apple works its magic in my other article, Why Apple Can Do No Wrong.

Conclusion

So when it comes down to the hardware, the PC industry can out-perform and deliver more bang for the buck. However, Mac customer service is easily the best in the business. There are many reports of hardware components automatically being upgraded to the latest and greatest when Apple customers send in their computers for repair. So the real question is if that type of service and overpriced machinery for an aesthetically pleasing look worth it to you.

Appendix: Processor Architecture

For the longest time, Mac ran on the PowerPC architecture. It seemed like a smart move since RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) was a more recent innovation and also the processor of choice. x86 CPUs, however, are cheaper mass-produced and have compensated for CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computing) problems in later lines (e.g. 686+ lines). The point is rather moot though, considering Apple switched over to Intel processors in 2005, thus securing the x86 platform for years to come.