Here's an old post I made on the subject,
This. And while historically they were always considered "PCs" in the broadest sense of the word ("Personal Computers", a term which was sometimes used even for e.g. the C128, the Amiga 3000, the ATARI TT, the Acorn Archimedes etc.), today they are quite literally "Pee Cees": aka Wintel IBM-PC compatibles.
I don't. They are just overpriced PCs with a worse and locked OS.
IMO this pretty much killed any arguments based on presumed hardware or architectural advantages (which were pretty weak even when they had their own, e.g. 68k or PowerPC), so any "sheen" they have left can only come from the OS and the brand name itself. And while I can concede that a better OS, firmware and software might make a better platform, brand name is no longer something that "flies", in a world where all electronics are made in Shenzhen, China. And as for software, Mac fanboys conveniently seem to forget that today cross-OS development is all the rage. It's not like in the early 90s, where indeed, Macs had exclusive DTP software.
In layman's terms: if you spend $2500 on a MacBook pro and then use it to run GIMP as well as a $300 PC, well, something is wrong.
Someone mentioned that Mac Apps do look better/have better usability etc. I can buy that, especially since some of those are actually RIGOROULSY ENFORCED aspects for application approval (and also extends to iOS, which is why iPhone apps have a superior perceived performance compared for "free for all" platforms). But that has nothing to do with the HARDWARE or SOFTWARE itself, it's purely a political decision. If Microsoft decided to be as anal with Windows 8 apps, you'd see the same consistency throughout.
Last edited by Maes on Feb 12 2013 at 12:35