The two people that replied here are kind of being idiots for seemingly not reading the original post and realizing that Mango didn't ask for your opinions, he asked for you to present a case (like with facts and evidence and shit) as to why one is 'better' than the other. Very clearly this all boils down to a preference thing, and you'll still get obnoxious people from both sides sitting with their fingers in their ears while shouting, "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA!"
I've gone over this topic countless times, and each and every time at least one person has refused to actually read what I say, and instead simplify my points down to, "Hurr PC is da best." Which they then proceed to spew the same shit I just countered back at me, so I will most likely ignore anyone who does this to me with this post. Unless you have some good counter-points that you have put a lot of thought in to, please don't bother posting here.
The first thing I want to address about this debate is the semantics of it. I don't really like the "Mac VS. PC" debate, because it's fallacious. A Mac, by definition, IS a PC. PC stands for Personal Computer. Is it YOUR Mac? Is your Mac a computer? Then it's a personal computer. Technically, because Mac is covered under PC, the debate could be Mac VS Mac, which really is pointless. However I get what the debate is supposed to be about, and you're just using the catchy buzzwords Apple uses in their ads to try to differentiate themselves as a brand. It's catchier to say Mac VS PC than to say Mac VS Non-Mac.
However, the issue becomes a bit muddled when you're trying to figure out what you should be talking about. Some people say Mac VS PC when they really mean OS X VS Windows, which would explicitly exclude any hardware related debates, and focus entirely on the two OS. More often, the debate is really meant to cover machines that RUN OS X VS machines that run Windows, which would get into the realm of which side's hardware is better AND include the OS debate. The problem with this is that it's also fallacious, because both sides can run either software. Macs can run OS X AND Windows using bootcamp, and non-macs can run Windows AND OS X using OSx86.
So then that would mean that the latter debate is REALLY about which hardware is better, right? If both hardware can run both OS, the "which OS is better" debate becomes pointless because either side can just say, "Well if I need any part of Windows/OS X, then I'll just install it with bootcamp/OSx86, and then I'll have all compatibility!" So then what else is there to debate? If we're now only looking at hardware you can get through apple, vs. hardware you can get anywhere else, the argument becomes sort of one-sided, because Apple only offers so much in the way of hardware, and you can barely upgrade it after the fact.
It's very easy to refute hardware claims that Apple hardware is better, because you can still buy the equivalent or better parts yourself and build your own machine that has x times more power than a stock Mac. The convenience factor in Mac hardware is also moot because you can go the same convenience route through other retailers like Dell, Gateway, HP, etc. So you might say, Macs are the best hardware you can get for that kind of convenience. Well that's unfortunately not true either. I did an experiment once where I compared the price of the most expensive Macbook Pro I could make, and the price of the equivalent from Dell, and there was a significant price difference. I also built upon that, and added even more to the Dell machine, so that it was better than the Macbook Pro, and it was still less.
So, I can pay $3,400 for a Macbook Pro with all the bells and whistles and run both Windows and OS X, or I can pay $3,090 and buy a Dell laptop that still matches everything the Macbook Pro offers, and also builds upon those specs with some more bells and whistles (3D Display, blu-ray read/write, 16 GB RAM, face tracking technology, etc.) and still run both Windows and OS X. Any shopper would choose the latter over the former if it was about price and features.
If non-mac hardware can be cheaper AND better than Mac hardware, why would a person really want a Mac? I'm not entirely sure, I've been given reasons from "I like x feature," to "I just do." Most of which, are perfectly reasonable and understandable. Some people just don't care about price and like the look or feel of the computer. That's great! However, as I said earlier, this debate is almost entirely about preference. Your person preference is not factual for everyone, please don't treat it that way. By which I mean, if you like OS X for it's simple interface, and you say, "THE WINDOWS INTERFACE IS SO CONFUSING AND CLUTTERED." You have to understand that some people like a cluttered interface, and that your distaste for interfaces that are cluttered is your problem, not Mirosoft's. You also need to understand that it's possible for OS X to become cluttered as well, and for Windows to get tweaks that make it much more simplified. These arguments are not set in stone, it's just your preference and perception that you're arguing.
On Reddit once, I had someone tell me a few actual specific points about why he felt Macs were better, but they were based on an outdated view of non-mac hardware. The biggest thing is, Apple isn't really a unique flower. Pretty much anything they offer you can find elsewhere. The only thing it comes down to is preference, and that's all you can say. If you prefer the Apple brand, be it for their support, their style as a company, their brain-wash ads, or just their insistence on pushing innovation and forcing other companies to be competitive, then all support to you!
TL;DR: When we're not talking about preference, and focusing on cold hard facts and numbers, "PC" wins every time simply because it's too broad not to.
