|
The Mac v PC argument has been around for nearly 30 years now and we all have actually profitted by it.
Back in the early 80's comuters were based on 8 bit processors using the Z80 cpu and then the 8086/8088 that had a 16 bit capability or the Apple system that used the Motorola chips. The other systems that were less flexible eventually went.
Both systems had their adherents. Apple was the smaller guy who came up against the corporations.
In 1982 IBM released the PC which brought computing into the new world of IT. Apple still produced its product and kept on improving it but IBM's open architecture design allowed cheap clones to be made of the PC and so it cornered the market.
Apple concentrated on home computers that were complete and the IBM clones went for the user upgradeable line.
The corporate use of the IBM machines meant that more software was developed for these machines than the Apple line but the many configurations of the PC that appeared meant that all programs did not work on all machines. However Apple developed its own suite of programs that emulated anything that was available for the PC and it did work on all its products.
Over the next 25 years both systems progressed to what we have now although Apple transfered to the Intel series of chips that had been used by the PC.
However we now have virtualisation that allows programs to be universal and work on either system.
The big difference now is price. Apple computers seem to run at about twice the price of the cheaper Chinese clones but do seem to be more reliable than the PC clones. However without the original open architecture of the IBM PC that allowed cloning all these computers would now be at least twice the price they now sell for.
I personally prefer the do it youself PC clones because they suit my experimenting better but for non technical people I believe the Apple is a better proposition and its graphical interface is extremely good.
Barry
|