I’m clueless?
Yes, you are.
Now, was there a “to” somewhere in the subject question?
Such a question will always be answered in shades of grey. It completely depends on what you value in a computer.
There’s amazing hardware on both sides, and enough software on both sides that if you are an average user, you can successfully use either.
Apple has been far more totalitarian in their control over their computers. Some people value this consistency. Others value the freedom afforded by pcs to choose each component individually to suit one’s needs and assemble a highly tuned computer oneself.
In terms of raw speed, top of the line pc computers generally outperform top of the line mac computers. However , Mhz for Mhz, macs have some impressive numbers.
In terms of price/performance, pcs come out ahead.
In terms of pretty cases, macs come out ahead. Usually. Unless you like do it yourself weirdity, in which case I can show you lots of fun stuff (computers immersed in mineral oil coolant and stuff)
So, it depends on what you value. I’m personally a pc person, though I don’t like windows or intel all that much. My computers generally run Linux on AMD chips.
Oh boy.
For some reason, this question really, really gets people worked up into a lather. Witness the discussion not too long ago in IMHO (I believe) on Mac vs. PCs in the specific area of graphic design. You could practically hear this one poor woman (who shall remain nameless) pop a blood vessel in her frothing, misguided hatred of all things Mac.
Bottom line: IBM compatible PCs have their good points and their weak points. Macs have their good points and their weak points. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just being bigoted against the other system.
One argument goes: “You should get a Windows PC because there’s much, much more software available for PCs”. Well, true enough in and of itself, there is much more available for Windows. But what do you really need that’s NOT available on Mac? Word processing, graphics apps, CAD, etc., is all available on Mac, with several good choices. Two instances I can think of where the availablity of software should affect your choice: 1) You’re really into games. There’s a hell of a lot more games for Windows (although this is slowly getting better for the Mac). 2) Your work has proprietary software that’s written for Windows. Other than those two examples, you’ll be able to find pretty much anything you want on Mac.
It really depends on what you want/need the computer for. Also depends on personal preference. Not to mention access to friends who know one system or the other and can help you out when problems arise.
Go to some computer stores. Mess around on both systems. Talk to the salesmen. Look at the software available. Figure out what you need. And make your decision based on that.
I use a Mac, but I’m not going to blindly say Windows sucks. It doesn’t. Not anymore than Macs suck. They’re just different.
But I’m sure I won’t be the last word on this. Here comes the flood…
[nitpick]
It’s “Mac”, not “MAC”. The letters are not an acronym for anything.
[/nitpick]
TheNerd gave a pretty good summation. (Except for that pretty cases part; haven’t you seen Compaq’s cute changeable color panels for the Presario? 
Oh, and if I’m remembering correctly, you can’t compare processor speeds by their MHzs alone.
Yes, you’re right. One 500 MHz machine is not neccessarily as fast as another 500MHz machine. There are other important factors at play.
Thanks, Anamorphic.
Macs are better for graphic designs and stuff like that. Blizzard (pretty much the only games i buy, also the best games around) is starting to release mac/pc versions at the same time. If you want more variety in games windows is better. However if your a serious gamer you will look at new titles and say “cool” buy them and look at the box then go back to what you were playing before. (however there is no mac version of counterstrike:D)
The only real reason you would buy a mac over a pc is for stability and if you wanted it that badly you would get linux. Or graphic design which macs are better at. Windows=better compatabiltiy but crashes for no reason. (for example i “fixed” an invalid long filename and it told me to reinstall windows after I did that) but things like that you just click on the ok button and ignore.
I have used Macs and I have used PCs. I have found them both to be good machines. I prefer PCs because I love computer games and don’t want to wait for them to come out for the Mac. Until the game producers start showing more support for the Mac, I think PC users will vastly out number Mac users despite the advantages Mac has over the PC. Also, Apple has turned me off with their new ad campaign: “We’re Pretty! Buy Me because I’m purple!” May work on people who only care about style, but those of us who like to use the latest gear go PC. Just my opinion.
Michael
Macintosh man, all the way, baby! I only use clones because I’m forced to. Started with a Plus, then an SE, then a PowerPC, and I’m getting one of those neat little G4 cubes when I move to California. 
They used to say, never discuss politics or religion with friends. I’ve added Mac v. IBM to that as well.
Esprix
Ooh ooh! I want to know more about this mineral oil cooled computer or other unique configurations! When I build my next computer I would prefer that it not sit hidden under the desk gathering dust. If I could design build something that could go on display-
tell me more…
[Moderator Hat ON]
This is more of an opinion piece, so I’m shuffling it to IMHO.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
This has been about the most reasoned discussion of the difference between the two operating systems/machines I’ve ever read. Not a single “Macs Suck! PCs rulez!”.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been a Mac user since they first came out, but use a PC at work. I’d have to say that they’re roughly equivalent at this point, but the Mac does a better job of handling (or at least hiding) complexity. If you want to do something even slightly out of the ordinary (e.g. move an application), it can get very hairy on a Windows machine. The Mac’s plug and play capabilities are exceptional – I’ve never had trouble installing boards, devices, or drives on a Mac.
Neither Macs or Window PCs are great at window organizing, but the Mac’s window management scheme is the most seriously out of date. I haven’t played with OSX yet, so I can’t comment on its performance.
I just did a search for the mineral oil cooling system. I found the url, but the page has been taken down. ArsTechnica ( http://arstechnica.com ) had the article originally. You may also want to check out http://kryotech.com for extreme cooling. Though their systems aren’t as much of a visual knockout.
My take is this, and I am sure I will get shot down
If you want to do what the “average” home user does on a computer, either will do. IE - Games, small home office crap, Word Processing, Net, email, etc
However, I think a Mac user would be in denial if the disputed the fact that there is far more choices of both software and hardware for the wintel PC. Prices are generally way cheaper too. I have seen software marked down to $15 for the PC whearas the Mac version was still the full $50 price next to it on the shelf.
If you think you are going to play a lot of games (more so than just a side thing, but a major use of your computer) there is no doubt a Wintel PC is the way to go.
Either are very powerful machines now but windows PCs will get my nod for 90% (a number I pulled right out of my ass) of the people out there. Cheap, easy to use, powerful. I have never had difficulty installing hardware on a PC and all of mine have been extremely reliable.
My .02
I agree with most of the statements above. I’ve owned many Wintel boxes over the years, but no Macs. There are clearly more Wintel systems in the world. (Let’s not call them IBM compatibles, okay?) This makes it easier to find an “expert”, or at least someone who knows what you’re talking about. So that’s one for the PCs.
But I have to admit, I like the new Mac cubes. What I like about them is simply that they’re small. They can fit on top of my desk, instead of hidden where it’s a major act of contortion to plug a new peripheral into the back of the cabinet. For years, Macs have had one cable which connects the system to both the keyboard and the mouse. Simple idea, right? Because Apple completely controls their platform, they can make fundamental physical changes in a way that Intel and its partners cannot.
Bottom line though, I would recommend a Wintel PC to anyone who didn’t have a compelling Macintosh requirement.
As a protohacker (I don’t consider myself a full hacker, and I don’t mean cracker also) I prefer Clones, because I have more freedom to get into the guts of the machine and change things. Up until recently no part of my computers were more than six months old and I am constantly altering configurations on my experiment system. These are things that were far more limited on the Macs I used to use.
That said, I am planning on buying the new AmigaDE so that I can go back to the platform I truly love.
Let’s not call 'em “wintel” either. Like I said above, neither windows nor intel is necessary to have a fully functional and useful x86 based computer.
But now we’re quibbling over terminology, which is outside the intended scope of the OP.
To many people, macs have a far superior user experience, and the applications seem more “polished” due to the fact that Apple sets user interface guidelines, and mac programmers are more acceptable of the mindset which says “you should program this way because it makes things easier for users”. It works.
In addition, it’s a lot easier to do many many things on a mac (configuring your network card, for example, is a complete snap) because the number of options you have to choose from is reduced, and the user interface can be simplified accordingly. For the example of your network card, other computers generally allow you to have more than one network card, which means the user interface needs to present one greater level of abstraction to you: instead of just configuring the network, you have to find the list of network cards, and choose which one you want to use. Most users would throw up their hands at this point, and Apple recognizes that. Simplifying the problem to a case that covers 95% of users really helps.
On the other hand, anyone claiming that MacOS is technically superior really doesn’t know much about (or isn’t honest about) operating systems. Its shortcomings as an operating system (and their impact on stability and performance) are horrible. As an example, the MacOS Toolbox is not “reentrant”, meaning that the system functions cannot be called simultaneously by multiple threads of execution, and in many cases cannot even be preempted. The performance impact this has is huge for any situation where multiple applications do any work simultaneously. Your new mac may be absolutely smokin’ when it comes to running that photoshop filter, but if one of your office workers was trying to get a file off your shared folder at the same time, he’s going to suffer greatly. These two operations don’t contend for the same resources, and really should not have an affect on one another.
This is why macs don’t make good servers, and is why, back when Apple sold their “workgroup server” line of products, they ran… unix! (well, A/UX, a unix-like OS with a Mac shell on top of it). These shortcomings are also why macs don’t make good multi-user machines, or machines that run for long periods of time without having to be rebooted.
Of course, all this will change when OS X comes out, because it’s just NeXT with a new face. OS X kicks ass, and will truly be on par with the “real” OS’s.
Lots of geeks object to macs on the philosophical grounds that A) computers that are easy to use are for wussies and B) “the OS’s shortcomings might not actually affect me, but it bothers me that they’re there.” To these guys (and to a certain extent, this applies to me), the computer and operating system themselves are the things to be enjoyed. What you actually do with the computer is secondary.
[Note: summary comin’]
But if you’re a newbie, do yourself a favor and don’t listen to what I said above. Buy the one you like. Unless your computer is your hobby, or there are other external influences (for example, if everyone you exchanged files with had a mac and you had a pc or vice versa, it would probably be a nuisance to deal with constantly, depending on what programs you use), the choice doesn’t make much difference.
PS. It’s really good to see a Mac vs PC thread which has remained this rational.
Using the processor speed in MHz to compare Mac and PC processors is misleading - a Mac processor clocked at less than 800Mhz will process faster than a 1GHz PentiumIII. Steve Jobs loves demonstrating this every time a new Mac is introduced.
I definitely agree that Mac software programmers put more thought into user-friendliness and intuitive design. Unfortunately, it’s also true that Mac hardware and software both tend to be more expensive than the PC’s they compete with.
In the end, you should probably try both platforms out and make a decision for yourself. This is the only balanced Mac vs PC debate I’ve ever seen.
For the record, BTW, I sell PC’s for a living. Go fig.
I think the primary thing that keeps me from even considering a Mac is the price. A nifty Mac would run significantly more than its’ PC counterpart. For example, the 17" monitor that’s advertised in conjunction with the G4 Cube runs at $450… a 17" PC-compatible monitor with similar stats would be half that.
On the other hand, I don’t need the raw power that a Mac has. If I DID (if I ever go into major graphics-editing, for example), I’d look into getting my hands on a G4 (although I’d stick with the tower, not the cube).
But even then I’d want to have a PC lying around to play around with… upgrade, fiddle with, run my games and hold my Mp3 and video collection (it’s more expensive to get tons of HD space in a Mac, you see).
One final note… I have a significant dislike for the iBooks. It’s not the hardware, they’re just poorly designed. The casing, being so curved, limits the size of the display and makes it difficult to cram hardware into the rounded edges, meaning that a lot of it is wasted space. THAT was poorly thought-out, in my opinion.