- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It's a small sample size and unscientific, of course, but from scanning over all the pages of comments here, it seems like the main distinguishing trait is that the Mac advocates here seem to know a lot more about what's good for everyone else.
Which is what makes any religion a great thing for its adherents, but a bad thing for everyone else.
Another running trend is the myths that seem to still perpetuate about the limitations of both systems. A lot of the arguments being made here, on both sides, are outdated and hearsay. (I say this as a successful graphic designer who's been doing pro work on my PC for years, with the full Adobe suite, Macromedia stuff, you name it.)
I still stand by my earlier point, which seems to me the only one that really can't be argued with: there's no such thing as objective better or worse for these machines. There's only better and worse for specific tasks and specific users. A utilitarian object can never be "perfect" entirely on its own terms. Its reality comes with use, and that is a personal experience.
People who love their PCs, or love their Macs, are perfectly justified in doing so. It's the people who think others are deluded by preferring one or the other for their own use who are the crackpots.
