Grant Griffiths visited this page on Tuesday, February 27, 2007, and wrote:

Ben -- I just took a look at the software list you mentioned. Now this is going to be fun. I am afraid you may have stepped in it here. I will work up my reply to your software challenge and have a Mac answer to each you mention.

 

Bill Simms visited this page on Tuesday, February 27, 2007, and wrote:

“My friend Grant Griffiths has now responded to my opening salvo in our PC vs. Mac online debate. So let's see where we stand:
I stated that functionality would be the "core value" of my argument.”

[Yes you did state that but your post was utterly devoid of any explanation of what you meant by “functionality”. It really was a rhetorical exercise to get Griffiths to go first b/c you apparently couldn’t think of anything to tout regarding your PC platform.]

“Grant has failed to come forward with any other "core value" for discussion.
Hence, this is now a debate about functionality.”

[Actually, Grant addressed both functionality and compatibility. Please don’t try to simply ignore the arguments for which you have no retort.]

“That's major progress, folks, because it means this will not be a debate about how cool our respective systems are.”
[It is good that you concede this point early on given that the array of GUI functionality, widget enhancements, and other “cool” features of Windows Vista have been in place in the Mac OS for the last 5 years.]

“Oh, I could have talked about all of the cool peripherals that I have been able to choose for my PC platform, compared to the much more limited after-market of peripherals for Macs.”
[Really? This is an interesting statement. Please list by manufacturer and model number just 5 from the list of “all the cool peripherals” that you have for your PC that you believe cannot be utilized on the Mac platform so we can verify.]

“But Grant has acquiesced in a debate about functionality instead. So let's talk about functionality.”
[I am stunned by Ben’s witty banter. Still waiting for some substance to this argument though.]

“Predictably, Grant has opened with what he perceives to be his trump card: the specter of the "blue screen of death." It must have seemed like the right card to play, since no one can deny that a computer is rendered completely non-functional if and when it locks up. But here's the question that begs to be asked:
If the blue screen of death were as prevalent as Mac users would have the rest of the world believe, why has the rest of the world (or at least the vast majority of the business world) chosen to stick with the PC platform year after year after year?
[Wow is that a bad argument. Betamax was unquestionably a better video format than VHS but I don’t have one hooked up to my TV. The fact is that there are a lot of issues at play in any platform war OTHER THAN technical superiority. Microsoft controls the vast majority of the OS market because it made better strategic business decisions in the 80’s with regard to whether to maintain an open or closed platform. Once it became firmly entrenched as the standard platform for personal computers, it became virtually impossible to unseat and remains so to this day. You see the same effect today with the Ipod. Apple beat Microsoft to the punch and controls the market. Now Microsoft, a company about a zillion times the size of Apple brings all its force to bear in support of the Zune music player. Is it technically superior to the Ipod? Answer: Who knows and it doesn’t matter. It will be extremely difficult for it to make serious inroads into Apple’s market share in this area regardless of if it is a better product or not. This is why in format wars it is often better to be first than to be good.]

"I suppose Grant and his Groupies would answer, "the tyranny of Microsoft, that's why!" But that argument ignores the fact that the business world has been quick to abandon a product that just doesn't do the job. If system lockups (a/k/a "the blue screen of death") were as much of a problem as Grant would have us believe, the PC platform would be little more than a funny story in the annals of desktop computing.
[I think you should refrain from ad hominem attacks if you can. Characterizing Apple users as a bunch of “maniacs” or “groupies” is just as wrong as characterizing all PC users as a bunch of old men that really shouldn’t get involved in a debate on tech b/c they come from a generation that still thinks digital watches are “pretty neat” (10 points if you can name that reference without using Google or asking someone under the age of 40).
Substantively however your argument is not sound. I think just the opposite is true regarding the business world’s ability to turn on a dime and throw out what is not working. See above. Perhaps you could give us some examples of what you are referring to in this regard and we can discuss whether it is a properly analogy for the operating system issue.]

“Over the past 25 years I've worked in law firms, a corporate law department and a state bar association, all of which used PC systems. I can't remember when any of those systems locked up.”
[Wahahahah! Ben stop it. You are killing me. You don’t remember a PC running windows locking up on you in 25 years? That just simply is not credible. Reboot and try again.]

“Even as a solo practitioner, I can count on one hand the number of system lockups I have encountered with my PC platform over the course of a year. Usually they occurred when I was pushing the limits of my system in one way or another, not when I was using my computer to get work done. That makes me wonder if the main reason many Mac converts have bad memories about system lockups is quite simply that they were trying to make low-end PCs do too much.”
[I think you may actually have a point here. For years the primary argument in favor of Windows PCs purchased at the retail level has been price point. Because Apple has traditionally refrained from selling “low-end” models of its computers, Apple users are not accustomed to using under-powered systems. Given the competition in the open PC marked, there are many many very low-end systems available that anyone who knows what they are doing would truly not recommend for anything above the most basic uses. For years, even a sound card was an “option” for most PCs. That approach is fundamentally different from that of Apple, for better or for worse. I think it may be the case that many Mac users have been frustrated by the fact that they have been asked to use PC hardware setups that were really too cheap and underpowered and therefore did not work well. This really isn’t the fault of Windows. As you note in your analogy below. You can’t jump in a 4-cylinder Fiat and then get ticked off when it doesn’t have the same power as your BMW 7-series. But on the other hand, it certainly doesn’t make the Fiat a better driving experience than the BMW either.]

“I've always bought PCs that are up to the task of business computing. I don't think it makes sense to practice law with a "home computer" any more than it makes sense to work in my pajamas even when I'm working alone all day in my home office. But I suspect that other lawyers, especially solo and small firm lawyers, have had problems with their PCs because they have failed to understand that a "home computer" is not designed to serve as a serious business tool.
Apple's marketing strategy has always been somewhat analogous to that of some upscale cars. Yes, you will pay more, but in return you will have the confidence of knowing that you bought a machine equipped to do the job. Macs are generally pricier than many PC systems, but they also come loaded with plenty of memory. And the Mac OS has never pretended to be an open architecture. That has meant a more limited array of software, but also an array of software that has been road-tested for stable performance.”
[I think this is all true with one exception. I don’t think it is any longer true to say that Macs are any pricier than PC systems, IF you compare PC systems that are similarly equipped and produced by companies with similarly high manufacturing and design standards (Sony comes to mind and to some degree HP).]

"But there's really no point in dwelling on the issue of system lockups, and here's why: If you, the reader of this post, have already concluded (from your own experience, from what you have read, or from the incessant cant of Mac Maniacs) that the "blue screen of death" is a serious problem with a PC platform, then there is simply no reason for you to follow this debate any further. On the other hand, if you have concluded (like the vast majority of business people) that the problem has been exaggerated by Mac Maniacs, you probably want to hear more about the relative functionality of PCs vs. Macs as hardware platforms for solo and small firm practice.
[Personally I think that any system lockups are too many. Whether it be the 5 a year that you report or the 5 or so a month that my personal experience indicates is more the norm. And let’s be careful about what we are arguing here. It seems you want to move away from the operating system into a discussion of “hardware platforms.” That is a very different discussion and I don’t think we even know what hardware systems you are using or advocating.]

“And that, my friend Grant, brings me to the second step of my argument. The second step is simply this:
A hardware platform is simply a platform. The functionality of a system is mostly a matter of software -- the stuff that sits on the platform.. . . . .
So let's talk about functionality, Grant. In other words, let's talk about software.”

[OK – Well assuming what you mean by “hardware” is operating system at least we now at the end of your second post know what you mean by functionality. You mean “software.” OK well let’s talk about software.

To start with I am hard pressed to understand how you see the fact that Macs run ALL Windows software and ALL Macintosh software as a plus for Windows. Really, I don’t get it. The answer to your question of “Well if Macs run Windows software and a lot of business software is for Windows, why not just run it on a PC?” is of course that your Windows machine cannot run ANY of the Mac software and most people that have tried both agree that given a choice, Mac software is far far superior in usability and technical design to Windows software. So why not get the best of both worlds.

Let’s take a look at your list of your favorite software for your office:
Adobe Acrobat Professional, version 8.0 (digital document storage, reproduction and editing) – MAC NATIVE VERSION AVAILABLE

CaseMap 7 (case analysis and trial prep) – I RUN THIS ON MY MAC VIA PARALLELS. WORKS GREAT.

Copernic Desktop Search, version 1.70, build 974 (document retrieval) – NOT NEEDED AS GLOBAL SEARCH IS BUILT INTO MAC OPERATING SYSTEM.

Dragon Naturally Speaking, version 9.0 (speech recognition) – RUNS ON MAC VIA PARALLELS (I use it); ALSO THERE IS A SIMILAR PROGRAM THAT IS MAC NATIVE.

FeedDemon, version 2.0.0.20 (RSS feed management) – THERE ARE MANY NEWSREADERS FOR BOTH PLATFORMS. I USE NETNEWSREADER. I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH FEED DEAMON.

Microsoft Office OneNote 2007 (unstructured note-taking) – THERE ARE SEVERAL MAC NATIVE NOTEBOOKS PROGRAMS. MY FAVORITE IS ACTUALLY CALLED “NOTEBOOK”. I HAVE SEEN ONENOTE AND I THINK THE MAC APPLICATIONS ARE FAR SUPERIOR. YOU WOULD HAVE TO TRY THEM BOTH TO MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION.

Mozilla Firefox, version 2.0.0.1 (enhanced web browsing) – FIREFOX IS NATIVE FOR MAC. IT’S GREAT.
NoteMap, version 2.0 (outlining and drafting) – NOTEMAP CAN BE USED VIA PARALLELS ALTHOUGH I PREFER OMNIOUTLINER AND/OR SCRIVENER (TWO MAC-ONLY APPS) FOR THESE PURPOSES

Olympus DSS Player 2.0 (voice file management) – MAC NATIVE. I USE IT DAILY FOR DICTATION.

PaperPort Professional, version 11.0 (digital document management) – PAPERPORT IS A MAC NATIVE APPLICATION. ALTHOUGH GIVEN RECENT ENHANCEMENTS TO ADOBE ACROBAT PRO, I THINK THE USEFULNESS OF PAPERPORT IS COMING INTO QUESTION.

Stamps.com (Internet-based address verification and postage) – NOT SURE THIS IS REALLY SOFTWARE BUT YES YOU CAN BUY POSTAGE ONLINE WITH A MAC.

Time Matters and Billing Matters Plus – THESE TWO PROGRAMS ARE CAN BE RUN ON A MAC VIA PARALLELS BUT WHY OR WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO. THEY ARE JUST AWFUL. . . IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.

OK, so now let’s talk about some Mac Software that I use in my practice and you let me know what you use for these purposes:

Keynote (presentation software) – (Please don’t reference Powerpoint as it bears little resemblance to the look, feel and functionality of Keynote.)

IChat AV – (Built in video conferencing software that comes free with every Mac and is used to communicate with lawyers, clients and staff in other locations)

Isync – (Build in syncing software that keeps all firm and home computers synced up as far as calendars, web bookmarks, password systems, and Address databases. Comes free on every Mac)

Final Cut Pro – (For editing video depos, etc. for mediation and trial presentations)

IDVD – (For buring DVDs to supplement briefs, use for hearings, trials and mediation and and to provide video and documents to clients.

So there are a few. I look forward to your thoughts.

(To be sung to the melody of “Anything I can do you can do better”) – So given that functionality as a “core value” cuts against using Windows, what will be your next “core value.”

 

Post a comment

Use this form to post a comment about "PC vs. Mac: Let's talk about functionality."

Your comment will be reviewed for relevance and propriety before it is added to the comments section of this page. The author reserves the right to disapprove any comment that is found to be inappropriate.