Apple's XcodeGhost malware still in the machine...

Life is more complicated these days.

Apple's XcodeGhost malware still in the machine...

But...but...but...it's Apple. They're sacrosanct, aren't they?

No, not sancrosanct. Just 99 times better than Windows.

One of these days you will have to tell me just exactly how an Apple computer is 99 times better than a computer running Windows. What does the Apple do that the Windows computer cannot do? What does the Apple do better?

Please don't just come back with the virus problem. That has nothing to do with the computer's abilities, so if that's all you've got, forget it.

Consider it forgotten.

My question was about half serious, actually. I often hear people remark about the superiority of Apple computers, but I've never been given an answer as to why. Considering that Apples and PCs use essentially the same hardware: the same processors, RAM, HDD; Apple even uses the PCIe bus now, I cannot understand why these claims of superiority are made. Perhaps there is something of which I am unaware (it wouldn't be the first time).

Sorry, not playing.

Back in the day, Apple and IBM used different chips, although I don't know that one was inherently superior to the other. And I also don't know if they are still different. I was under the impression that the chief differentiator was that everybody and his dog was developing stuff (both hardware and software) for PCs running Windows, while serious applications for Apple were primarily only built by Apple, or were at least seriously controlled by Apple. That leads to good quality control for Apple and market dominance by Windows.

Nah-nah-nah, yadda yadda, nah-nah.

Apple lost the fight for market share long before there was Windows or a Macintosh. The biggest determinant was that IBM put the architecture for the PC in public domain, while Apple vigorously protected their designs.

This allowed the great explosion of PC manufacturers, all struggling for dominance in the market. It also allowed the design and manufacture of add-on boards as well as a wide-open software industry. You could do things with PCs that Apples could not do, simply because there were so many firms creating so many various products.

Before the Macintosh, which used a Motorola processor, Apple was using the MOS Technology 6502 processor, which was under powered for serious computing tasks, while the PCs used somewhat more powerful Intel chips. Intel also built a lot of chips for devices other than PCs, and the programming skills were easily transferable.

Today, Apple computers use the same Intel chips as PCs. There is little significant difference in the design of the Apple and PC hardware. In fact, you can run Windows on Apple computers, if you are so inclined. As far as I can tell, the biggest difference today between PCs and Apples is price, with both platforms delivering equal performance when configured the same.

I was a mainframe guy from the get-go. By the time PCs of any flavor were in serious use, I was encountering them in client-server and multi-layer systems, and I was working on the back-end stuff (or quality control). So from the PC perspective, I've always been more of a user than a technologist.

My first programming was on main frames. The IBM 360. Programmed in Fortran using punch cards.

My first PC was an S-100 bus, CP/M machine. I stayed with that long after the IBM PCs came out in 1981, In 1988, I was forced to get a PC-AT clone because that was the only machine that could run the programs I needed for creating some firmware. The AT was from PCs Limited, now Dell.