Has the Mac versus PC concept confused anyone recently?
Ever since Apple switched to the x86 architecture, the debate as of late seems to be nothing but blurred. I remember when Macs used to be running PowerPC processors which, to me, seemed to be what the basis of what the argument was about. Macs versus PCs back then seemed to be a hardware platform debate which had clear distinctions between the competing platforms that had totally different anatomy on the inside, outside, and on which software they ran, etc.
After learning that Macintoshes are now pretty much PCs, I've never understood why everyone continues to make the distinction between them. Why are we still treating Apple built PCs as a hardware platform separate from PCs? Why aren't we emphasizing Mac OS X versus Windows Vista, both which are compiled for the same processors now, instead of Macs versus PCs?
I hear many times from Mac users that "The Switch" from PCs to Macs will be inevitable for everyone. And I believe it sometimes; Mac OS X is an incredible operating system and I've recently recommended to many people, my little sister included, to buy a MacBook.
And it scares the bejeezus out of me when I think about it. Had Macs still been literally a different hardware platform from PCs, that concept of inevitability wouldn't alarm me too much. However, now that Macs are technically PCs, "The Switch" concept is ceasing to sound like a platform/standards switch like it originally was. The concept of "The Switch" from PCs to Macs in terms of hardware is beginning to sound like a desire or dream that all relevant x86 hardware, hardware that possess the cockblocking Trusted Platform Module that allows Mac OS X to run, to be monopolized by Apple.
That is, unless "The Switch" is in fact emphasizing a software switch from the draconian Microsoft operating systems to the superior user-friendly Mac OS X. Though even then, the inevitable global Switch would still entail everyone consuming and purchasing their x86 hardware from a single vendor: Apple.
Ever since Apple switched to the x86 architecture, the debate as of late seems to be nothing but blurred. I remember when Macs used to be running PowerPC processors which, to me, seemed to be what the basis of what the argument was about. Macs versus PCs back then seemed to be a hardware platform debate which had clear distinctions between the competing platforms that had totally different anatomy on the inside, outside, and on which software they ran, etc.
After learning that Macintoshes are now pretty much PCs, I've never understood why everyone continues to make the distinction between them. Why are we still treating Apple built PCs as a hardware platform separate from PCs? Why aren't we emphasizing Mac OS X versus Windows Vista, both which are compiled for the same processors now, instead of Macs versus PCs?
I hear many times from Mac users that "The Switch" from PCs to Macs will be inevitable for everyone. And I believe it sometimes; Mac OS X is an incredible operating system and I've recently recommended to many people, my little sister included, to buy a MacBook.
And it scares the bejeezus out of me when I think about it. Had Macs still been literally a different hardware platform from PCs, that concept of inevitability wouldn't alarm me too much. However, now that Macs are technically PCs, "The Switch" concept is ceasing to sound like a platform/standards switch like it originally was. The concept of "The Switch" from PCs to Macs in terms of hardware is beginning to sound like a desire or dream that all relevant x86 hardware, hardware that possess the cockblocking Trusted Platform Module that allows Mac OS X to run, to be monopolized by Apple.
That is, unless "The Switch" is in fact emphasizing a software switch from the draconian Microsoft operating systems to the superior user-friendly Mac OS X. Though even then, the inevitable global Switch would still entail everyone consuming and purchasing their x86 hardware from a single vendor: Apple.