I view it as a symptom of hype.
One look at Apple Macintosh's advertising campaign says it all really.
We don't get those trite "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" themed advertisements here in the UK so when I first saw them, I was only seeing the send ups. Then when I actually saw the real thing, I still couldn't believe it was real... that anyone could assume I was that stupid was beyond belief.
For a company to actually use the competition as the fall guy in their adverts says they haven't much to say about the actual specs of their machines to sell them on those merits alone. It speaks of a struggle to appear 'cool' and popular. Something the British public don't tend to fall for, in my estimation.
All it does for some of us, is give the impression, that when something needs fixing, the Mac owner is at the mercy of technical support, while the PC user potentially has the power to consult an independant source of advice, get down under the bonnet and sort things out themselves. Though with the growing number of domestic computers, this would not always be the case.
I personally have no problems with Macs as machines go and without seeing any advertising whatsoever, came to the conclusion they are very fine items of kit. It is impossible to deny, they are very well built and the industrial design part oozes quality and style...
Whether I need all that in what amounts to a tool is a different story... The case is very often open on my machine.
However, the advertising strategy makes me sick and the false assumption that only professionals are worthy to use Macs is even more annoying.
I don't form emotional bonds with computers, I use them as tools. For some reason, the archetypal Mac owner seems to 'Heart' their Apple. I know this is only really another form of stereotyping but as they say... there's no smoke without fire. Whatever the truth, I think it leads to some large measure of ignorance.
If you look at the most common problems with PCs, from a purely domestic point of view, it does give the impression that the Mac platform is a more reliable and stable one.
Where the confusion lies IMO, is in the way Microsoft have let their customers down in some areas... buggy and incomplete operating systems spring to mind...
But this argument completely evades the fact that the base PC is an IBM clone and, as such, it's not reliant only on Microsoft Windows in order to function. Rather, the argument relies on the faults of one software manufacturer, for a platform which can potentially go anywhere you want it to.
The problem being... it's only THE BIGGEST manufacturer. Since they have the monopoly on domestic computing requirements, in a way, I am glad someone like Apple are at least challenging that, just by existing.
But when people appear to give the impression that the PC/IBM clone lies somehow 'beneath' their standards, it seems they have drank down the hype, rather than investigating some simple truths.
And the argument surrounding one being better for 'creativity' seems to exclude one of the most important points about computers themselves...
Is it not an act of creativity in itself, to strip and modify a machine to do a specific task to the fullest of it's potential?
It is, after all, just a tool.
Dr. V
