Windows PCs are only good for running games

Walk into a PC store and “ask what Macs are better for compared to PCs and see what your average salesperson concedes,” Les Posen blogs for CyberPsych. “Once they’ve said ‘graphics‘ or some similar narrow usage confined to the creative, but not corporate enterprises, surprise them by asking,

Why is it better than the PC for graphics?”

“Note what responses you get. Is it confined to better software choices on the Mac? A better user interface? Better graphics processor? Faster CPU? Really try to pin them down,” Posen writes.

“Then, when you’ve collected the answers, ask why a system that has these advantages isn’t suitable for corporate use. Then watch the squirming and justifications begin,” Posen writes. “Then, when all is said and done, and the salesperson has done their song and dance act of justification (you’ll know they’re clutching at straws when they cite ‘price‘ and ‘upgradibility,’ neither of which can be sustained as a differentiator in 2006), ask if the current Macs can also run Windows, including Vista.”

“Then prepare to watch cognitive dissonance in action,” Posen writes.

Posen writes., “You see, one of these days, not far away, Steve Jobs will know he has succeeded in his efforts to make the Mac a sensible choice for all kinds of IT use, when you walk into a computer store, and overhear the salesperson say: ‘You want a Windows PC? Are you sure? You know they’re only good for running games. The rest of the time you don’t want to trust them with your mission critical applications and data.’

Full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “vitaboy” for the heads up.]

Related MacDailyNews articles:
Dude, you got a Dell? What are you, stupid? Only Apple Macs run both Mac OS X and Windows! – April 05, 2006
Why buy a Dell when Apple’s Intel-based computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
Defending Windows over Mac a sign of mental illness – December 20, 2003 (Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance)


  1. where is any data that something is running better on a mac or apple machine? pc’s are better just for the upgrade ability because there are always new games requireing more graphic intensive or processing capability, and you are very limited when upgrading a mac or apple machine.

  2. when I read about a new pc or videocard or motherboard review there are always data describing why it is better than others. Why do the apple comercials tell which apple machines they are comparing to which or whose pc machines and where is the data to back up any claims? Most gamers I know have made upgrades to their stock machines either ram or videocard or processor, because stock machines are crappy.

  3. I have used Macs since 1984 and suffered all the ups and downs. (yes I bought a 2vx!)
    It seems like these are definitely the golden days and I hope they last. Over the last 10 years I have been in a position to influlence the purchase of IT in a small community organisation and now have over 20 Macs including an x serve that faultlessly provides database (FMPro), Mail (communigate Pro), calendaring (iCal), Web etc.
    I’m not sure what MSPCs are gfood for these days but do know we hhave survived and prospered without them. Occasssionally I am faced with a problem that appears to have only a MS solution and maybe we would be more efficient with a better more integrated mail/calendar solution but it is hard to see how the trade off in terms of security is worth it.

    Ken I had never heard of “Mono” until you mentioned it and wonder if Webobjects is the Apple – Mac solution to equal it?
    You state “I’m going all Mac as soon as Mono runs on Mac and I can undestand it…”
    I checked the website and they describe it as a multiplatform opend source solution builder that does support Mac OSX. It looks intersting – now all we need to do is understand it.

  4. Being a Mac user at home for almost 20 years, and having started a Consultancy Company with two collegues a few months ago, I’m more than happy to say that by using MacBook Pros, Open Source Software, we have no problems regarding viruses, costs for Software are nil, and on top of that we are able to run our business in a complete different way than our competitors…

    Macs and Open Source Software are an absolute killing formula…
    (luckily others haven’t woken up to that fact yet…)

  5. I would like to see the default for dunderhead’s description of the mac to switch from good for graphics to good for virus free emailing and web surfing.For the majority of home users currently usng PCs, this is all they need to do and the mac does it better.

  6. Ken,

    Although you are very knowledgeable on the Windows enterprise side of things, I think you should do further research before making comments such as this:

    “It is also possible to set up a Microsoft network so that any worker can use any workstation and still find all his files and settings available as if it were his dedicated workstation. Microsoft has securitiy problems, viruses, and all that crap, but there are corporate solutiosn for that, as long as IT doesn’t suffer from the “stay two versions behind” superstition. Apple doesn’t have the product line to compete in that arena. “

    Apple has this, it’s called OS X server, Open Directory, and LDAP. Users are managed using Workgroup Manager, part of server admin tools. User home directories are available when logging in and they have their same prefs no matter what workstation they use. In fact, Windows users can also be part of the Open Directory on OS X server. All this, withh far better security. Many Universities implement Mac OS X Server and Mac workstations and you would be surprised at the things they are able to do. In short, I don’t think Apple is too far behind in enterprise as far as product line goes, and the new Intel based Macs will help even more.

  7. Midnight,

    Thx, but the whole 1-button/2-button mouse issue is more complicated than a hit-n-run post can possibly address.

    Next time, I’ll post something with a bit more substance, like I did in my reply. And I’ll still try to be a smart ass!
    ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />

  8. You people saying stuff like “I’ve been using Macs for 20 years” need to realize that your “Mac experience” prior to OS 10.1 is irrelevant.

    What really matters at this point is your Intel Mac experience, and the only way that has interesting context is if you also have plenty of Windows XP experience to compare/contrast it to.

  9. Gaming is the only reason I bought a PC a couple of months ago. The reasons a PC beats a console for my gaming are two: First of all you NEED a keyboard and mouse to be able to play first person shooters. You simply can’t aim with the same speed and accuracy with a gamepad. Secondly consoles lag in the graphics department within a year after introduction at the current rate of nVidia and ATI releases.
    An added bonus is that my gaming PC compiles gentoo way faster than my p3 800MHz web/mail/file/game server ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />

  10. You people saying stuff like “I’ve been using Windows since Win3.1” need to realize that your “Windows experience” prior to WinXP is irrelevant.

    Can you see how fscking ridiculous that reads?

    Why not claim that your experience at opening a tiny jar of marachino cherries will be irrelevant when you try to open a WalMart jar of Vlassics?

    Will your experience of car driving be irrelevant, if you decide to learn to drive a truck?

    Each of these ‘new’ skills is rooted in the past skills.

    Give your head a shake. Or…

    Go do some one-handed web surfing. It’s late, your mom won’t catch you.

  11. Green Meanie, use your brain for a moment.

    Imagine old farts muttering stuff like “well, back in Mac OS 9 you used to add a printer this way, let’s see if that works…”

    or “a G3 Mac simply won’t be enough to run Mac OS X – I learned that when I tried to run Mac OS 10.0 back in the day.”

    The computer world is all about experience with current technologies, not experience with outdated crusty stuff that nobody cares about anymore. It won’t help you troubleshoot Mac OS 10.4 if you were a wiz with HyperCard back in 1994. Jars of fruit have one moving part (the lid), and it hasn’t changed much in recent history. If you pull your head out of your butt for a moment and think, you might see that Mac OS has changed considerably more than jar lids in the past 20 years.

    Prior to Mac OS X, the Mac OS was utterly different from what it is now; the only common elements are the menu bar at the top of the window and the whole “folders and documents” concept that Windows also has. Anything you know about Mac OS before the switch to X will only serve to amuse and confuse you at this point – excepting some keyboard shortcuts.

    Prior to 10.1, Mac OS X was pretty much still in beta and was missing much of what makes it user-friendly today. It didn’t even have DVD playback. It was buggy and horribly slow. It wasn’t useful on a G3 computer.

    10.2 brought the address book, Quartz Extreme, Windows network support that didn’t totally suck, massive performance boosts, a decent Finder, web services and so on. It worked great on my iBook 800Mhz G3. It was the first Mac OS X that was ready for mainstream consumers.

    Relevant OS X experience really started with Mac OS 10.2, and I was being generous by including Mac OS 10.1.

  12. [Relevant OS X experience really started with Mac OS 10.]

    You’d be almost completely correct, except 10.2 also needed drivers for some things. An Epson inkjet printer I had wasn’t plug-n-play. (It was soon releaved of duty — one ink cart per month, yikes!). And a rarely use Zip drive. But, my Brother laser just plugged in, and found its drivers under 10.3

    Yes, 10.0 and 10.1 would be fairly foreign to someone that hadn’t been using Mac OS up to 9.2. Altho’ they’d probably recognize: windows; folders; menus; shortcuts; aliases; and a few other things. And if they did, they might be able to ‘muddle’ thru’, no?

    So yes, I agree. OSX wasn’t very ‘Mac’ like till 10.2.

    BTW, sorry for being an ass.

  13. [Yes, 10.0 and 10.1 would be fairly foreign to someone that hadn’t been using Mac OS up to 9.2]

    To clarify…

    They’d likely have known what Apple intended to do with OSX, rather than carried over knowledge.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.