Okay, I was on ICQ with Ms. AudreyK, and she seemed to be working herself up into a Quaker-like fervor over this issue (again). Now, while I appreciate her views on this the same way I appreciate those of any repressed minority, I didn’t see the point, telling her “it seems pretty cut and dried to me.” At which point I felt as if I had to clarify/justify my position. Which I did. At length. At which point she told me I should post it. Why, I don’t know. But she can be persuasive, so here’s something of a transcript. Please forgive the length.
Okay, let me see if I have a proper understanding of this issue. One of the predominant arguments is that of the production value of one platform over another. The two main values traditionally used to measure this is speed versus quality. Some fancy schmancy economics formulae will be able to plot a point that delineates a point of an ideal balance between the two.
Based upon familiarity with the platform, including user-customization, and technical performance of the machines, the “best” machine is the one that allows the user/producer to reach the point of ideal production (calculated above) most easily, if at all. All other points are moot.
Okay, now tell me where I’m wrong/naive/misinformed.
I’m cooking my non-production oriented stuff now, BTW.
As for issues that are not concerned with productivity/economic factors, other issues come to the fore, though a similar line of thought can be followed. Namely, one must determine what he wishes to use the computer for, and which would allow him to do so the most efficiently (again, factoring in platform familiarity, etc.).
Even if it’s something as simple as web browsing and email, we can project a person’s “productivity” in terms of pertinent pages viewed and emails sent. Obviously, the computer that allows him to send his emails (say 250/month) the fastest and with the highest quality (spelling, etc.) lends itself to the same formula used before.
The pertinent web page viewing is based upon the (number of) web pages the user wishes to see and factors in such things as the ease of banishing popups (which compete with the desired web pages for viewing time), time and concentration lost as the result of a system crash, and so on. Again, similar formulas apply.
On to, human factors ->
Now, obviously, one of the most decisive factors about which computer is “best” boils down to personal preference. In this case, it is a matter of the machine’s overall utility value. Here the term utility value is used as a catch-all to measure a user’s overall satisfaction with his/her machine. It can be calculated using two variables, that of emotional satisfaction with the machine and the production it allows. If one is emotionally satisfied with the machine, an positive arbitrary value is assigned to this variable. If emotionally dissatisfied (read: upset) with it, an arbitrary negative value is assigned. Similar values are assigned to the productivity variable. The sum of the two numbers dictates the overall utility value of the machine.
Ideally, a user will have equal experience with both machines, in order to calculate the utility value of both the Mac and the PC, and the resulting difference between the two numbers dictates the preference of the user (since the values are assigned arbitrarily by the user, it is obvious that his own biases are used in the valuation).
Like I said, seems rather cut and dried…
<her> Aw, come on. You forgot to argue specs, parts, availability of parts and software, competency of management, what everyone else is using… all that stuff.
<me>Okay, fine! I know you were kidding, but I like hearing myself think. And I miss it.
The competency of management and the “it’s what everyone else is using” factors are also closely linked to one another, for the simple reason that “what everyone else is using” is often the most cost-effective alternative, especially when it comes to technical support (a greater number of technicians are going to be more familiar with the equipemtn “everyone else is using,” yielding a greater number of technicians, and usual laws of supply and demand take over).
The compentence of the management comes into play here, because management must be able to determine the company’s ability to create a higher quality (and presumably higher priced) product using more expensive tools of production. Obviously, if the higher quality product brings in revenue that outweighs the production cost (here one factors in the machines and wages of the skilled workers who will operate them), then the more expensive tool(s) of production are justified.
Summary ->
Obviously, these are all conclusions based upon the applications of tools in an environment where cost and profit meet in the usual paradigms. In the comparison between machines, removed from an environment where production is king, relative production values are not always as cut and dried as they may seem. The key argument here could quite possibly be which machine can yield the highest possible quality product, and assuming there is a plateau that only one machine can reach, then that machine is obviously superior at producing that particular product at that particular level of quality.
I could say more, but I’m tired… 
