As someone who builds his own Windows-based PC's, which have always worked out very well for me, I nevertheless second the comments offered above about Mac's being much more user friendly, and the more practical choice for many people.
Re the comments about lack of stability and poor performance in Windows-based PC's, though, my feeling is that there are three major reasons for that:
1)Windows-based computers built by the major manufacturers are typically delivered with bloated software configurations resulting in large numbers of useless processes running in the background. That can be remedied by reformatting and re-installing all of the software, but doing so obviously requires significant time and some expertise.
2)One way in which the major manufacturers of Windows-based pc's try to keep selling prices as competitive as possible is to offer default hardware configurations which are underpowered (too little RAM; slower cpu's, etc).
3)The fact that most users are not aware of, or don't have the time for, the fundamentals of proper computer maintenance and good computing practices (as necessary for Windows-based machines). See my post dated 11-22-09 in
this thread for a list of what I think that means. As I said in summarizing that post:
I have five Windows XP computers in my house, 3 desktops (which I built myself), and 2 laptops (which I reformatted and reinstalled the software on immediately after purchase, to get rid of the crapware that they are inevitably delivered with). These computers range in age from 1 year to 6 years. Every one of them works very fast, very stably, and as well as when it was new. And I have never had to do a re-install of the operating system on any of them.... Obviously all of this will be impractical for many computer users, but my point is that the performance degradation of Windows computers over time, that is often reported, is both explainable and avoidable.
What do I get in return for the time and effort I invest in these Windows machines, relative to what a Mac will offer? Mainly more speed and performance per dollar (which assumes greatly increased importance if the machine is used for computationally intensive applications such as video editing, which I do); much better customizability to my own requirements; and much broader compatibility with third-party programs, including some that are necessities to me.
It's ironic, though, that the much less user-friendly kind of computer has the much larger installed user base.
Regards,
-- Al
