MegaFyte! Choose your sides in the Macs-vs.-PCs debate

Kirk Baird

Tuesday, April 4, 2000 | 9:01 a.m.

Capulets vs. Montagues.

Hatfields vs. McCoys.

East Coast Rappers vs. West Coast Rappers.

History is replete with rivalries. So why should the computer world be any different?

It's not.

Macintosh vs. Microsoft Windows-based personal computers, or more commonly referred to as Macs vs. PCs, has been a simmering feud for more than a decade.

One one side, there's the Mac devotees: They tend to be fiercly loyal to Apple Corp., although that faithfulness was put to the test in the mid-'90s when the company struggled financially. When Apple co-founder Steve Jobs returned to the fold nearly three years ago he took the helm of the beleaguered corporation and infused it with much-needed enthusiasm and direction. The result has made Apple profitable again -- its trend-setting, candy-shaped iMac has been flying off the shelves -- and created the rallying cry: Mac is back.

On the other side, there's the PC disciples: Their loyalty has never been tested. Since Microsoft created the first version of its Windows operating system in the late '80s, it has only known prosperous times with the various incarnations of the Microsoft Windows operating systems. Times have been so good for them, in fact, that Microsoft is waging a battle with the government regarding accusations that it's monopolizing the market place. Meanwhile, PCs outsell Macs about 10 to 1, and enjoy a huge dominance in the amount of software available.

Both camps maintain their computer superiority, with the key arguments coming down to the operating system, otherwise known as graphical-user interface (GUI), and how it interacts with the hardware (monitors, CD-, and DVD-roms, printers, etc.) and software (Microsoft Word, Netcape Navigator, Quake III, etc.).

No, the rivalry doesn't grab the type of headlines that sporting events for territorial bragging rights do, nor does it stir the imagination the way the bloody shootings of "The Godfather" films do. But to those involved in the debate, there's a fanatical devotion that exists with either faction.

Consider Jack Samit, president of Las Vegas Macintosh Users Group. Samit has been using Macintoshes for years and wouldn't have it any other way. He said that the Mac is more stable and less prone to "crashes," where the operating system freezes and the user is forced to restart or shutdown the computer.

He also said that the Mac is simply easier to use than a PC.

"I've seen people in Summerlin who've retired up there and small children both get the Macintosh for the first time they have a computer, take it home, plug it in and within 15 minutes be on the Internet," he said. "It's what (Apple) started advertising when they started the iMac."

When asked for the advantages to owning a PC, he laughed. "When it keeps breaking down, there are an awful lot of people who think they know how to fix it. I don't think there are any, to tell the truth."

David Read, editorial assistant at Mac World, was a little more kind. "I have to give credit to Windows, they do a lot of things well now," he said of Windows 2000, the latest version. "(Microsoft) managed to make it crash less left often (than Mac), and make it a little more robust."

But he's quick to add that Windows 2000 shipped with close to 63,000 known bugs, or glitches. "That sort of thing wouldn't happen on a Mac," he said.

Karl Rehak, president of the Las Vegas PC Users Group, is willing to concede that the Mac might be easier to use and that it also "may be a little more stable." Although, with Windows 2000, he said that Microsoft is attempting to address that problem.

But what the Macintosh may offer in terms of performance is easily negated by its price. Rehak has owned various PCs for a decade now and never considered buying a Mac for exactly that reason: He gets more for his money with a PC.

It's an advantage that he said still exists, as he prefers to buy the upgraded accessories -- system board and CPU, new memory chips, sound cards, video cards -- and install them himself.

"I do all this in steps," Rehak said. "It's not a wholesale change. With the Macintosh, you can't quite do that."

While Alan Stafford, senior editor of PC World, agreed that Macs tend to be more expensive for the more powerful computers, when it comes to the home market, Apple's iMac is competitively priced with the PCs.

Still, when it comes to software, he said that PCs have a clear advantage, with many Mac versions of the same programs being more expensive than their PC brethren.

"For example, MacInTax is quite a bit more expensive than TurboTax," he said.

But like many people, Stafford said he believes that the Mac is easier to operate, and is better geared for the novice or average user, whereas Windows, which is slightly more configurable, is better suited for the experienced user.

Walter Mossberg, personal technology columnist for the Wall Street Journal, said that he sees the systems as being near equals in terms of performance, with the Mac being slightly easier and more stable. He said that where the computers really differ, though, is in how their owners feel about them.

"People can -- and do -- fall in love with the Mac. Windows machines are more like commodities," he said. "I never met anyone who really loved them, though millions tolerate them."

And while everyone acknowledges that there is a rivalry -- however good-natured -- that exists between Mac and PC users, only Read said that he wished the war would end.

"It's really just a personal choice; it's about picking a machine that does what you need to do," he said. "If you choose a Mac, great, we love you and we understand why you chose a Mac. If you choose a PC, there's no reason to ridicule you in the streets."