A Short Treatise on why Macs are Better than PCs

The timeless computer war over which operating system is the best and most powerful has been a central focus of the home computer industry ever since the industry took off in the 1980s. By that time two prominent companies, Apple and Microsoft, had arrived on the corporate scene, and both were poised for the upcoming battle over which company would attract the most hearts and minds of consumers in the following decade. Retrospectively, the answer is quite obvious. Dominating the global computing industry, Microsoft holds an enormous share of the world's computer operating systems, and its founder, Bill Gates, was known for many years by the epithet "World's Richest Man." However, one must not equate popularity with quality, a word which, I believe, rightly belongs to the Apple Macintosh line over anything else. (Just for the record, I am currently typing this blog on a MacBook.) The reasons for this "fact" are listed below:

1. Macs don't break (easily)

All computers, or rather, all electronic devices are subject to bugs, glitches, and malfunctions. This is a simple fact of life. However, there is no doubt that Macs receive far fewer viruses and break down far less often than their PC cousins do. I still have a PowerBook G4 computer soon to reach 6 years of age that has only broken twice in its seasoned lifetime. It continues to perform internet, word processor, and powerpoint tasks with ease and efficiency to this day, and I can see no end to its lifespan anytime soon. Perhaps this supposed invincibility is due to the fact that Macs, forming a much smaller market share than PCs, are less targeted by hackers rather than less vulnerable to them, but the fact remains that Macs are, on the whole, more stable than PCs.

2. Macs have a better user interface

Once again, I must take into account my own bias and my greater usage of Macs before I delve any further into this topic, but it should be noted that my family owns a Gateway computer in addition to three (count 'em, three!) Macs, and after using both types of computers considerably, I firmly believe that the Mac user interface is far more simple and aesthetically pleasing than the interface offered by Windows XP and Vista. Knowing that, I just think that the Mac interface is just plain better than that of Windows, no further questions asked!

3. Macs look cooler

OK, maybe sheer looks shouldn't be a serious criterion for whether an operating system is better or not. But all Mac operating systems are run on Apple computers, so not discussing Apple computers would be like not discussing the exterior of a Mercedes-Benz when making a judgment of the luxury car company. The Mac operating system and Apple computer are two halves of one whole, and the Apple half certainly pulls its own weight when it comes to doing a good job. On first glance at an upscale specimen of Appleness, one is allured by the shiny, chrome silver exterior, awed by the led-backlight keyboard, and captivated by the crystal clear monitor of many fantastic colors. In my eyes, such beauty and style can only be given the title and rank of "Mercedez-Benz of computerdom."

Whatever the reader of this blog's personal opinions may be, this wraps up my short study on the soon to be age-old "computer question". I have tried to combine fact with feeling, reason with passion, and I hope I have either enlightened, impressed, or even converted the heart of the reader in regards to my stance in this matter. One final note. There is no doubt that Macs burn a bigger hole in your wallet (even I lament at this sad truth) than PCs. One can easily get just as much, or even more hard drive, memory, and features on a PC for less than on a Mac, but, then again, it pays to have quality over quantity, right?

Language and Identity, Relations and Effects

Man has used language and vocalizations to convey his thoughts, feelings, and desires ever since his first appearance on Earth. And in doing so, he has paved the way for a whole new method of communication and human interaction, but at the same time provided an unintentional method of cultural and national identification. It is no coincidence that so many languages, French, Russian, Japanese, and Spanish to name a few, all have the double definition of nationality as well as a distinct method of communication between certain members of the human race. Language has also been one of the planks of nationalism movements and a cause of border wars throughout the past few centuries, from the German unification movement and wars over the "true owner" of Alsace-Lorraine of the 19th century, to the pan-Arab and Zionist movements of the 20th. Language has become just as much a source of identity as physical traits and religion have been in the past.

But is that to say that the languages one knows automatically places them in a unchangeable mold set for life, one which cannot be reversed? Of course not. People have, and continue to gain access and acquire mastery of languages other than their own, learning 2, 3, sometimes up to 4 or 5 different languages, while at the same time maintaining a clear view of who they are and where they stand on life's greatest issues. Indeed, one of the more favorable, and almost required characteristics of the successful person in the modern, cosmopolitan world of the 21st century is the knowledge of more than one language. This knowledge is used by people of all different types of people in diverse professions, from an French businessman learning Chinese to do trade in Beijing, to a CIA officer acquiring knowledge of Arabic to conduct operations in the Middle East with greater efficiency.

There are some things in life that man can never change. He cannot escape his end, and he cannot alter his beginning. While a person may have the mark of their culture implanted from birth in the form of external looks, religious beliefs, and language, this last mark certainly doesn't have to be the only one of its kind. One can transcend this seemingly impassible canyon, and acquire knowledge of tongues other than their own. As the 21st century unfolds, those who are willing to make this crossing may find success in life more easily, and may become the vanguard to lead man's continuous march into the future.

Why I Write, Orwell vs. Didion

Both George Orwell's and Joan Didion's essays entitled "Why I Write" share the same name, (or rather, Didion "stole" it from Orwell), and both describe the path that they followed to become writers from youth to adulthood. Beyond that, however, there is very little similarity. Besides the fact that our class read more out of Orwell's essay than Didion's, Orwell's essay is also more descriptive and thorough, and addresses not only himself as a writer, but writers as a whole. He discusses the main motivations of writers, and also includes specific examples of his work like "Animal Farm" and "Homage to Catalonia"

Didion's essay is much more centered on her life and her experiences, and unlike Orwell who describes four motivations of writers, she emphasizes just one, what Orwell would have described as the "political", persuasive motive. However, she does describe her personal life and experiences in much greater detail than Orwell, giving her essay a more personal, and at times aesthetic feel.

While both styles and both approaches in the writing of these same-title essays are pervasive and convey what the authors want to say in a clear and precise manner, it is my personal opinion that Orwell's essay gets the job done better than Didion's. His work, to me, resonates more and leaves more of an impact in my mind than Didion's. By taking a more general approach and discussing writers as a whole rather than just himself, I think he makes his essay more academic and interesting. In addition, I think that Orwell's language itself is far more sophisticated than what Didion's essay has to offer. Orwell's four motives of writers, Orwell's poem reflecting his own personal life at the time of writing, and his claim that all books are "failures" all outshine Didion's most interesting word choices, such as "I, I, I", and writing is "an aggressive, even a hostile act," to name just a few excerpts from both essays. While Didion's essay was certainly very interesting to read and definitely well-written, Orwell's version of "Why I Write" simply stirs up my thoughts and makes me wonder a bit more.

Mohamad Akef

1st blog

welcome,

here begins our eventful journey into the wonderful world of the blogosphere. i am your guide, mohamad akef, and i will be here all year and beyond. i hope i can be of assistance. let's get going. huzzah.

mohamad akef (your guide, i already said that)