On the argument 'the Mac is now just another PC

By "the Statement", I refer to the statement that the Intel-based Mac is just another PC. I'm going to take a shot at demonstrating that the Statment has either: (a) Always been true (at least since the day when there existed an emulator for both sides of the fence) (b) Never been true

In my write-up, when I refer to PC, I'm referring to conversational meaning one would usually ascribe to it in the sense of "did you buy a Mac or a PC?"

ALWAYS TRUE: Imagine you approach two monitors, one has Windows on it and the other OS X. At first, one might conclude that one computer is an Apple construction and the other something else, but they could be reversed. Take these two monitors back in time to the first emulators, and you can say that the Statement has always been true, because, well, it's just a box, and both boxes can, albeit slowly, run the "other" operating system.

Thus, since both lines of hardware have had the ability, slow as it may be, to run the other guy's operating system for many years, the Statement has always been true, at least since day when there existed an emulator on both sides of the fence.

NOT TRUE: I believe the following hypothetical scenario throws the Statement out the window: What if we had never known anything about processors? Our computers were sealed units that self-destructed when you cracked them open, or, they had processors with no printing, just plain, black rectangles. Steve Jobs hauls in processors on military vehicles shipped from warehouses in the desert.

Our computers are now mysterious boxes on which we perform tasks, and some have an Apple logo, some have Dell, and so on. "The Macintosh" now becomes a computing experience you purchase from Apple, and the PC you buy from Dell. This alone immediately removes the processor from the equation, so one cannot say that the switch to Intel is what makes the Statement valid.

"But this is flawed," you say, "because you can run OS X on a Dell and Windows on an Apple, so therefore, they are truly the same." Taken on its face the statement is true, but it ignores some key elements and brings us more into the fold of the logo on the case and out of the operating system.

One is that it is more painful to get OS X running on a Dell than it is to get Windows running on a Mac. Yes, the former has steps you can find on the Web, but it's not within the scope of many, or actually, most, users. The latter is trivial; indeed, it is fully supported. Another is that like it or not, it's not within the license agreement. Third, even when OS X runs on a Dell, it's shown to be problematic.

Other elements of experience are a bit in the peripheral vision, but still valid. Consider the ease of booting from FireWire, for example. Someone explain to me how easy it is to do this on a Dell.

I suppose you could summarize this experience through your choice of OS. To illustrate, I ask this question: Do you want to (a) run ONLY Windows, or, do you want to (b) run OS X and Windows as well?

Barring the smart-butted answers from zara, MuahMan, T.E., et al., along the lines of why would I want to run OS X at all?, you see my point: If the Statement were true, that the change of processor makes the Mac just another PC, then if your answer were (b), there would be no difference in purchasing a Dell versus an Apple versus any generic PC on the planet, yet we all know, but some will not admit, that is not true: there *is* a difference. The informed consumer who wants to run OS X and Windows won't do it on a Dell. (Zara, MuahMan, Tom Elam, you don't have to bother with the joke "the informed consumer wouldn't want to run OS X anyway.")