On April 12th, I posted a response to an article that condemned the Mac as being an inferior, useless machine. I was rereading the article today and I noticed a few more mistakes that I would like to point out now. Since I'm not going in order, I'll quote the article and then insert my response. The original article can be found at: http://www.kstatecollegian.com/article.php?a=5792
"Many games that are hits on the PC are just not made for the Mac. Most companies feel that since there are so few Macs capable of running their game, why bother making a Mac version?"
The reason games come out for PCs first and often exclusively is because of a campaign Microsoft waged on two fronts. First, Microsoft pushes developers to program in DirectX and Direct3D, which are Windows specific. If games were written in a cross-platform environment, like OpenGL, they could be ported from one to the other with little effort. In Windows Vista (as of this writing), OpenGL will only be supported as a layer on top of Direct3D, which will significantly degrade the quality of OpenGL games, which basically forces the developer to use Direct3D instead. Second, there once was a time when games came out on the Mac first, but Microsoft bought those companies. Good companies like Bungie. Bungie had even planned on releasing Halo exclusively for the Mac until Microsoft bought them and converted Halo into an Xbox project.
To even more directly counter the argument, the ability to play games comes more from the GPU and not from the CPU. Since Mac video cards are often not upgradable (like in laptops), Apple ensures that all Macs ship with a video card that is more than capable of playing the latest games. Unless you buy a gaming rig, you'll probably have to buy a video upgrade when you buy a PC.
"History has shown that PC gamers drive the whole computer market, with Macs left in the digital dust."
Perhaps you should research actual history before making such an absolute claim. The first computer games were played on computers by Apple, Commodore, and Tandy, back before there was such a thing as a "Mac" and a "PC." The games did not push these computers to evolve into modern computers. In the 80s, games were released evenly for the Mac, Commodore 64, and Amiga computers. Many classics like Lode Runner were originally released for the Mac. In the 90s, when Windows took over, games pushed the development of, shockingly, GAMING HARDWARE.
Briefly, I will now list some of the things that Apple has done to drive the whole computer market. I will go ahead and ignore the iPod phenomenon, as that has created a sub-culture more than advance the computer industry. So, USB was released in 1996, and was not widely used. When Apple put it on their iMac in 1998, suddenly computer manufacturers crapped out a shitton or USB products, forcing PC manufacturers to add it to their computers, and Microsoft to support it in Windows 98 Second Edition. Apple also created FireWire, which was later raped by Sony to create i.Link.
To take this from a different angle, if in fact the whole computer market is driven by gamers, then what a waste. There's nothing wrong with gaming, but if the entire industry's sole purpose is to push gaming forward, then the computer industry is no different than the gaming console industry. And in the end, gaming doesn't do much to better society. I'd take Apple's philosophy of promoting art and thought over the proposed philosophy of gaming any day. What the author should have said was that that gamers have a large influence on the computer market.
"The PC has evolved from your grandma's beige behemoth. Now you can get them in as many different styles as there are colors in the 32-bit color scheme (4,294,967,296)."
32-bit color is actually 24-bit color with 8 bits of alpha channel. Therefore, there are 8 bits to represent red, 8 for green, 8 for blue, and 8 for transparency. Therefore, there are only 16,777,216 distinct colors in 32-bit color, which can be at any of 256 transparency levels. Close though.
"With your help we can eradicate this vile plague from the entire earth."
If there was no Apple, Microsoft would have nothing to strive to beat. Linux is already trying to be as much like Windows as possible. Apple creates a standard in user interface that Microsoft is trying to desperately to defeat. People who study human-computer interfaces consistently rate the Mac OS as significantly easier to learn. Note I said "learn," not "use." If you had never used a computer in your life, according to experts you would learn to use a Mac faster and easier.
"Mac users can best be described as a cult of Birkenstock wearing, hippie tree-huggers. They have their 'pretty' computers that do 'everything they want it to.'"
Yep. And not only does it do everything we want it to, our standards are significantly higher when using a Mac. If the Mac fails to do something, we get pissed. When Windows fails, we restart the computer as if the reset button was a Windows feature.
One feature I do like about Windows is that it helps me manage my day by creating natural breaks in production. Like I might say to myself, "ok, I'll go put my laundry in the dryer next blue screen of death," as if it were a commercial. Ok, I'm just being mean now. I promise not to rant about this article again for another 6 months.