.
This is the age-old question. I still remember the times before Windows, when DOS users would patiently explain to me how a GUI (graphical user) interface was inferior to the sheer speed of a command-line interface. As soon as Windows appeared, they were converted to graphical user interfaces, but now Windows was "good enough," and, besides, "most software is made for Windows." (Most auto parts are made for GM vehicles, so go out and buy a Chevy.) But most reasonable Windows lovers will still admit when pressed that "Macs are better at graphics."
From what I've seen, that's not quite accurate. With Photoshop behaving the same way on Macs and PCs, and graphics cars being better on high-end PCs, Macs are no longer the graphics kings, at least not by a real margin, and not when you're talking about the Web. Yes, I'd still rather use a Mac in paper publishing, thanks to ColorSync and other advantages, but in the world of the Web, color synchronization is actually a Windows advantage - most people will view your site using Windows, like it or not.
Most people use Microsoft Internet Explorer under Windows to view Web sites. But not everyone. Unfortunately, many Web designers forget about Firefox, Opera, Safari, and Mac versions of Explorer. We have seen quite a few major differences in web site display between Macs and PCs, and Explorer and everything else - mainly when using style sheets (CSS). That leads to weird looking pages at best, and loss of important functions (like submit buttons) at worst. Do you want to lock out 14% of your users?
The ideal is to test on all major platforms - which in essence means Explorer for Windows, Explorer for Mac (they are different), Firefox on either platform, and Safari, which is a good approximation for Konquerer under Linux. (Linux users also use Firefox, Mozilla, etc., but the Mac and PC versions are similar enough.) In short, you should at least have both a Mac and a PC for testing. There aren't any good Mac emulators for Windows - yet. So this points to the need for a Mac, perhaps an old used iBook ($250 or so) or a beige G3 sitting in the corner for periodic use. Or, on the other side, it points to the need for a cheap PC sitting in the corner. However, with the modern Intel-based Macs, you don’t need to own a separate PC. Parallels Workstation provides nearly the same speed as a “real” PC, within a window on your Mac (or taking up the whole window). It runs at nearly full speed because there's no need to emulate the processor. What’s more, because it runs off a disk image and not a real disk, you can easily backup up the full installation of Windows completely and with an assurance that a restoration is a mere drag-copy away. That means that if you get infected by a virus, you don't need to spend hours or days reclaiming; just use an old backup copy of your PC disk!
In terms of compatibility with other people (the old "you need Windows because that's what everyone uses" argument), Macs and PCs share most major programs and formats, so that's mostly a non-issue. It may change in the future, but Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and all major graphics types are fully interchangeable. (Of course all Web formats are also interchangeable.) You can set your Mac's gamma to resemble Windows, and vice versa.
Another argument in favor of Windows is the Mac version of Dreamweaver, which is, at best, not as good as the Windows version. It's slow and buggy, according to many users. Of course there's also Adobe GoLive and the cross-platform, free nVu. (More on web design software - click here.) Now that Adobe owns Dreamweaver, and the rest of Macromedia, perhaps that difference will disappear; Adobe does seem better at programming for Macs. There are also some specialty programs that are Windows-only. That includes most web placement software, but I find the placement programs to be less than completely useful, especially when DigitalPoint is giving away similar services for free; they're also rather pricey. There is web placement software for the Mac, though not WebPosition. (And there’s always Parallels or the WINE-based Windows emulator, Crossover, to run those Windows programs on your Mac.)
Balancing the Windows software argument is the Mac shareware/freeware software library. Generally, I've found that there is much more quality free or cheap software for Macs that is free of spyware, odd license code restrictions, and sheer "non-workingness."
There is also the question of maintenance. I find that my Mac OS X machine requires very little maintenance and troubleshooting; the only real trouble I had with it turned out to be the fault of a bad mouse, and I discovered that by looking at the kernel panic log (after a quick Google search to learn how to troubleshoot kernel panics, or as I used to call them, “crashes”). Meanwhile, my PC has crashed a few times for no apparent reason, required two spyware removal sessions, and has developed odd behaviors (like XP updates not installing, without error messages) that required more intense searching; and a hard drive failure caused no end of work trying to restore from backups without simply setting up a fresh system, putting my data back, and then going through the pain of reinstalling all programs from the original CDs. In short, what with the spyware and viruses and system registry and odd backup requirements, my PC has required four times the work of my Mac in maintenance and repair, not counting the hard drive failure, despite the fact that I only use it for about three hours a week!
Then there's security, and by security, I mean both break-ins and the chances of losing data. Macs are clearly ahead in the normal meaning of "security," since there are no serious viruses floating around any more, darned few trojans, and far better internal security mechanisms. Mac users do not need to slow their machines down with spyware detectors and antivirus software; and firewalls are built in. That gives them a speed boost that helps bring down the effective price (not to mention the savings from not having to pay for virus and spyware scanner subscriptions).
Part of the Mac's virus-freedom comes from having a smaller installed base, probably; part from better internal security, in general; and part from the fact that any time a challenge arises, a massive number of helpful programmers start working on free solutions. It took one or two days from the surfacing of the Unicode domain-name vulnerability to the creation of a free solution. The community just seems happier and more willing to give their time. The spam-n-slam types seem to prefer Windows for whatever reason.
In terms of data security, I have had a number of Macs and PCs, and can say that most of the failures I've seen, particularly catastrophic failures, have been on the Windows and DOS sides. Macs seem to fail less often - perhaps it has something to do with not buying everything on the lowest bid? - and they also seem to fail less disastrously. Backup is easier, with both free and cheap software abounding and no open-files problems, and Macs seem to be designed for backup, restore, and disk repairs (e.g. Firewire target mode). Ever have to clone a PC disk drive? Not easy unless you buy Ghost, and even then it's tough. With Macs, you just need a free program called Carbon Copy Cloner, or any of a dozen other free or cheap utilities. You can also get down and dirty in the UNIX core, and there are lots of helpful sites waiting to give you a hand.
Ease of use is a mixed book; most things are easier on Macs, but some things still drive me nuts. Like many people I've installed FruitMenu to bring back my Apple menu, so I can reach the dozens of programs needed by a serious web guy, but the standard Dock is just insanely deficient for anyone who uses their Mac for more than ten programs. Likewise, I have X-Assist to provide a right-hand app menu and a few other utilities. With those, the Mac is far more user-friendly and responsive than my PC, whose specs are similar (my Mac is a dual-1.25 GHz G4; my PC, a 2.2-GHz Athlon XP machine). Of course, the PC has spyware detectors and virus barriers... I'll still hand it to Apple for screwing up the open/save dialogue boxes, though.
Price is an interesting story. The Mac Mini provides a best in class machine for those who want something small, quiet, and cheap; but there's a huge gap above it. The iMac G5 is great, but if you already have a monitor, it's overpriced. Then there are the G5 towers, competitive but quite expensive. Apple really needs something between the Mini and the G5 towers without a monitor - something faster than the Mini, with a full-speed hard drive and dual G4s or a single G5, but at the $1,000 price point. In any case, Macs last longer than PCs, on average; require less tech support (much less); and have much higher resale values. On the notebook side, Macs still have a price advantage. In some ways, it's like getting a Toyota Corolla instead of a Chevy Cavalier; the Corolla costs more up front, but the resale value stays high, and if you keep it for a while it ends up costing less than the Cavalier. That said, Microsoft Office comes free with most PCs, and is rather pricey on Macs, though JOffice is free and does most of the same things with the same files.
Yes, you sometimes have to wait for a good program to make its way to the Mac, and some key software never does or isn't that good when it finally shows up - SPSS, for example - but most of my day is spent using cheap commercial software or shareware, and things like Transmit and nVu more than make up for the times I curse at SPSS or fire up my real PC to run Perseus SurveySolutions. (For more on how I use two computers at once, see a future article...!)
It is probably obvious that I do favor a Mac, not just for Web work, but for any serious business use. Windows is better for Web surfing because of the speed and compatibility of Microsoft Explorer, but of course it's riskier too; Windows computers are cheaper; but I pay extra for reliability, durability, usability, and spending less of my time chasing down odd problems on my desktop machine and more of my time chasing down odd problems in my Web site.
See our hosting / dedicated server opinion for information Linux vs Windows servers.