Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Vista vs. OS X?

We want to hear from readers.

By TR Editors

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
Credit: Microsoft Vista/Mac OS X

In early January, we posted a review of Vista, Microsoft's new operating system. Written by senior editor Erika Jonietz, the piece first appeared in the January/February 2007 issue of our magazine. In the piece, Jonietz described her disappointment with the company's new software--and confessed to having crossed that clearest of lines in the cultural sand: she went from being a Windows user to being a Mac user.

The piece is the most widely read story we have ever posted on our site; it continues to be viewed by thousands of people every day. Clearly, it struck a chord with a lot of our readers. In response to that reception, we're encouraging readers to share their thoughts with one another about the look and feel of Vista and Mac's OS X.

To help get a discussion started, we've asked our former Web editor Brad King to write a pro-Microsoft response to Erika's review (see below). We encourage you to read both pieces, then post your thoughts in this comment section!

Microsoft's Imperfect Perfection
Reviewers have been unexcited by Microsoft's new Vista operating system. But despite its flaws, the O/S makes for good computing.
By Brad King

After five years and $1 billion, Microsoft's Vista operating system is here. Gates and his lieutenants hailed the release of the O/S as a world-changing event, hoping that everyone from the hardened reviewer to members of the general public would fall all over themselves with praise for the feature-rich, aesthetically pleasing, and user-friendly package.

That hasn't exactly been the case.

Most reviewers have treated Vista with, at best, a shrug; at worst, Microsoft and Gates have been skewered for creating a bulky, resource-hogging Apple knockoff. Even Technology Review's senior editor, Erika Jonietz, a Microsoft user, described Vista as "terribly familiar" to any Mac OS X user and "a prime example of software bloat."

Jonietz and the countless reviewers who warned users not to purchase any of the early versions of Vista are absolutely correct. Microsoft's early software iterations are always glitchy. For the general user, upgrading to Vista (sifting through each option, optimizing the computer for one's existing hardware) can be quite maddening.

But Gates understands this. We know this because he estimated that only 5 percent of the PC market would upgrade to Vista before those people purchased a new computer.

However, the fact that most people won't upgrade to Vista until they buy a new PC isn't an indictment of the company's operating system--or even the company's development process. It's a testament to the Redmond giant's ability to change and turn with an ever-evolving PC market that requires its developers to create tools that can be used by many highly various people.

The company's software--and Microsoft is a software company that exists in a hardware-agnostic world--must be developed in such a way that it can conform to the needs of all of its hardware partners. It must power hundreds of millions of computers around the world, some for personal use, some for networking and data security, some for servers, some for gaming, and some for digital entertainment.

The only way to create a product that can serve so many purposes is to build it "broken." In that imperfection--or, rather, incompleteness--there is room for customizing, tweaking, cajoling, and hacking, all of which ultimately make for a more personalized computing experience.

[1] 2 Next »

Comments

  • Imperfect Perfection?
    dima.berastau on 02/08/2007 at 1:35 AM
    Posts:
    4
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    Are you maybe confusing a shrewd marketing strategy with a well engineered software/hardware product? Microsoft happens to have a dominant market position, hence it can deliver inferior products (e.g. Vista) and still get away with it. Technology has a fair amount of inertia associated with it. Once you commit to a certain "platform" it is costly to change, which is exactly what Gates et al. are exploiting.
    There's no question that OS X is a better engineered operating system than anything Microsoft ever developed with or without "one hardware" argument. Even Linux, which runs on exactly the same hardware Windows runs on and then some, is a much better engineered product than Windows.
    "Build it broken"? I don't know about you but I, as a user, couldn't care less about infinite number of problems than Microsoft is trying to solve. If I am going to *pay* for their software I want that software to solve *my* problems. I want a desktop operating system that is stable, secure and fast, which is why I go with Apple. These features always seem to be coming in the "next release" when it comes to Microsoft products.
    Other users may want to play games - they don't have a choice they go with MS because that's what games developers target, which they do because of the dominant MS market position. Once again, this is exactly the vicious cycle that MS is exploiting. Virtually everybody has Windows. Are you going to write games for OS X then? Obviously not, that's not where the market is. Same for corporate software. And now that you have your hundreds of software tools that run on Windows only and are essential to your business/life are you going to switch to OS X or Linux or upgrade to Vista when your support contract expires? Probably upgrade cause it would be less disruptive.
    IMHO, everybody else, who is comfortable with picking up a new OS, learning new tools and so on = has a low-switch cost should be considering to switch.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Imperfect Perfection?
      Woodman on 02/11/2007 at 5:28 PM
      Posts:
      3
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      It's great having stable software, but Windows is often only shaky because people like to load umpteen different programs running in the background. Apple's certainly stable, but never gives enough customization options, they feel they know best, which is probably mostly true - but anyone like me who wants their computer just how they like it, but isn't quite the developer they wish they were (or we'd use Linux) then Windows is the next best thing?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Imperfect Perfection?
        dima.berastau on 02/12/2007 at 12:12 AM
        Posts:
        4
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        I wouldn't entirely agree. I tend to run a whole bunch of things in the background or the foreground on my apple laptop include a database, JSP/Servlet container, proxy, etc ALL at the same time. It's still stable. In fact even if I run completely unstable stuff the OS is still stable unlike it's Windows counter-part. The architecture is simply different. OS X is based on UNIX (FreeBSD/Mach3) which has been designed from day one (that's nearly 40 years ago by the way) to be a multi-user, multi-program OS.

        The second part is also not entirely valid. You can customize A LOT, even the GUI if you want except it takes a bit more effort. Although I've never felt the urge to customize Apple GUIs. They are certainly at the front of the pack when it comes to that.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Imperfect Perfection?
          Woodman on 02/13/2007 at 3:14 AM
          Posts:
          3
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
          True - sorry I'll clarify more with customization I mean more piecing your computer, part by part - so I can cut costs in places I don't need much, but boost in the areas I do.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: Imperfect Perfection?
            dima.berastau on 02/15/2007 at 10:20 PM
            Posts:
            4
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
            Ah, in that case you've certainly got a good point here. When it comes to *hardware* engineering Apple doesn't give you much of a choice. Their hardware also costs more than competitors. This is particularly relevant with desktops. Laptops are normally sold as one unit by all manufacturers and there's not much you can do, so there's a more equal playing field here.
            Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Imperfect Perfection?
      jessedorland on 07/16/2008 at 11:41 AM
      Posts:
      2
      OS X is a good operating system. However, it's not as good as you claim.

      Let's stat with finder it should list folder first then files. Such feature was not provided in a new OS 10.5.4 even though over million users asked for -- that's over a million os x user ignored by Mac/Apple & Steve Job. Remember, this feature is part of UNIX/LINUX/BSD, but Mac boys removed/crippled it -- just as cups are crippled by Ubuntu.

      Modifying files require a root account, but it's been disable, among other things. It took me three days to setup the system as I would like to use.

      I am using Linux & Mac. I find it very frustrating, like "home, end keyboard keys' crisis! Let's not forget that it's a locked operating system design by a company that doesn't want to us to replace a battery even on a phone!  I find the company highly dictatorial. Still, I am happy with my first mini mac computer. It's not a perfect system, nor it is design for professional computer technican. Well, I buy another apple PC?

      It all depends on how long this one last.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Optimize and customize
    don4lfonso on 02/08/2007 at 7:08 AM
    Posts:
    4
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    Two points in this article made me think a bit.

    "Microsoft's operating systems leave room for improvements by individuals, by companies, by governments, and by countries. The system is set up to allow you to better optimize your computing experience to give you the results that you want."

    A statement like that reminds me actually much more about Linux than any Windows system. It reminds me much more about the Unix philosophy "mechanism, not policy". To me this statement sounds more like a euphemism for "Microsoft ships broken software and lets the user clean up the mess".

    Secondly,

    "Computer code is meant to be broken because from that unjoined code comes personalization that no company can give me."

    Well, no. This is like saying: "I sell you a broken chair for much money and that's a great thing because being broken it offers much space for improvements." A system shouldn't be broken in order to be customizable, a system should be customizable in order to be customizable. Again, see the Unix family of operating systems, which by the way comprehends also MacOSX.

    I actually don't think the author really tried to write a pro-Microsoft article, after all.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Optimize and customize
      frankieherrero on 02/08/2007 at 7:38 AM
      Posts:
      3
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      Regarding:

      "Computer code is meant to be broken because from that unjoined code comes personalization that no company can give me."

      For me, it means:

      "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

      I truly agree that a system/application should be customizable to be customizable. Ask the guys at Mozilla Foundation.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Optimize and customize
        mbluett on 03/25/2007 at 1:42 PM
        Posts:
        2
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
        With regard to bugs, almost any new software contains bugs. Look at the bugs that exist in Firefox (since you mentioned Mozilla). I use Firefox in preference to other browsers because it has some features I love, but no the less it is irritating when one of the bugs rears it's ugly head.

        But that is life with software: It rarely is ever bug free! So, why would anyone expect Microsoft's to be any different?

        As for OSX and Linux, they too have bugs. All you have to do is pay attention to the developer community lists and you will see discussion of such.

        I am a programmer and know how easy it is to inadvertently create a bug. Most of them you don't even realize you have created.

        The only thing software vendors can do is pre-release test their code with the public.

        The only concern I have of Microsoft is whether they do adequate pre-release testing.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Optimize and customize
      Woodman on 02/11/2007 at 5:33 PM
      Posts:
      3
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      But I DO buy broken chairs, and the end result is a much cooler piece of design than something new... futhering the metaphor, Linux would be buying gear to make a new chair - but I'm just not clever enough haha - and Apple is buying a brand new Eames lounge chair.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Optimize and customize
      jessedorland on 07/16/2008 at 11:54 AM
      Posts:
      2
      You are being unfair. Linux is not a broken operating system. Nor unstable -- try Kubuntu/Ubuntu. They are very much like Mac. Once you get used to them moved to a higher end distro like Debian/Gentoo.

      I should mention that I have been using Linux for over six year -- by no means as expert. But I have never gotten into any major trouble with it.

      Microsoft Vista is very unstable, slow, and the most hated operating system in the market. Users have been downgrading to XP Pro, and in some case buying mac -- myself included. I just buy my first Mac computer. And I have installed Linux & Windows XP in my laptop.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • The devil you know
    asdar on 02/08/2007 at 7:23 AM
    Posts:
    62
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    I agree that mac's OS Is nicer, but from a user standpoint what difference does the OS make anyway.

    Both systems are mostly unobtrusive. I've had both and going back and forth I don't have any problems. That's all most people want is a clean seamless way to get to their specific app.

    The fairly recent introduction of Spyware and widespread viruses is the only reason it seems important again. I wouldn't buy Vista for what it does and I wouldn't buy the mac for the operating system.

    It worries me that people place so much importance on something that I want to be able to ignore.

    I like windows because they're not proprietary. I'm not sure if it was an ethical decision to allow people the freedom or a business one, but I don't want to go from the semi-monopoly of MS to the stranglehold monopoly I think Mac would have.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: The devil you know
      don4lfonso on 02/08/2007 at 10:09 AM
      Posts:
      4
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      "I like windows because they're not proprietary."

      What does that mean?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: The devil you know
        asdar on 02/08/2007 at 10:51 AM
        Posts:
        62
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        I'm sorry, I guess that wasn't very clear.

        I like PC's because you can grab components from anywhere and put them together. It's open structure leads to competition. You can run Linux or another OS from the PC, but for the most part PC=Microsoft for the OS.

        If you open up a PC you don't see any one brand. If you open up a mac they have mac components.

        That's changing a bit now, but I think Mac's philosophy is to control the whole thing. Purely my opinion.

        I think if you do control the whole computer it's easier, but it denies competition. If Mac were to "win," or even gain a substantial market share, I think you'd see them trying to lock down everything once again.

        When I mentioned Mac as Proprietary, I meant that they owned all of the hardware that is in an apple computer.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: The devil you know
          wiredbeat2000 on 02/08/2007 at 12:45 PM
          Posts:
          16
          Avg Rating:
          5/5
          And at the end of the day, that's the best description of "usability" from my point of view.

          I'm updating my PowerMac PC from 9.2 to Tiger. I called the Apple store and asked about updating my processor. The response: "I can't talk to you about that, but I can help you buy a new computer."

          I was floored.

          I don't need a new processor, I just wondered if I could upgrade. I can (there are two solutions I know of), but Apple was only interested in selling me a new computer.
          Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: The devil you know
          machelpdesk on 02/08/2007 at 7:16 PM
          Posts:
          2
          Wrong, wrong, wrong!

          You said: "I like PC's because you can grab components from anywhere and put them together."

          Like the Sony, Seagate, Western Digital HDs in Macs. The ATI and nVida video cards. PC3200 RAM. The intel processors. Seems like pretty standard off-the-shelf components to me

          "It's open structure leads to competition. You can run Linux or another OS from the PC, but for the most part PC=Microsoft for the OS."

          I can run Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux on my Mac.

          "If you open up a PC you don't see any one brand. If you open up a mac they have mac components."

          Like the aforementioned hard drives, video cards, RAM memory, optical drives, etc.

          "That's changing a bit now, but I think Mac's philosophy is to control the whole thing. Purely my opinion."

          Apple has always controled the entire widget. The entire end-to-end user experience.


          "When I mentioned Mac as Proprietary, I meant that they owned all of the hardware that is in an apple computer."

          Just plain wrong.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: The devil you know
            asdar on 02/09/2007 at 10:46 AM
            Posts:
            62
            Avg Rating:
            4/5
            I mentioned that some of the exclusivity has changed. Not very long ago Mac owned everything inside.

            They allowed some free architecture because they couldn't compete without it.

            I'd rather have the company that started with total freedom than the one that begrudgingly allows one component at a time.

            Both companies want monopolies, that's the way business is. I'll stick with the one I can make on my own from the motherboard on up. I'm not a huge fan of MS, but I actively dislike Mac's business plan as a consumer.

            Like I said in my original post, my only concern with the OS is how invisible it is. I just want to get to my applications and use them. MS does that better because there's more applications that are compatible.
            Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: The devil you know
            wiredbeat2000 on 02/09/2007 at 5:19 PM
            Posts:
            16
            Avg Rating:
            5/5
            When I wanted to upgrade my Mac (yes, I have one) on Saturday, I called the Apple store. They told me: you're computer is old (it's a PowerMac PC G4), you should buy a new one

            When I asked about upgrading the processor (400 Mhz), he said: I can't help you with that. We don't make those products. I can tell you about our new computers.

            When I want to upgrade my PC, I can go to a host of stores (or take it apart myself) and get help.

            That is a big difference between the two hardware systems, it seems.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: The devil you know
              spam on 02/10/2007 at 4:57 PM
              Posts:
              1
              dude apple can't help you upgrade a 400mhz g4 because they don't produce those processors anymore it's obsolete.
              Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: The devil you know
                wiredbeat2000 on 02/12/2007 at 10:51 AM
                Posts:
                16
                Avg Rating:
                5/5
                Their third-party vendors do and can ~ as I've talked with several of them (and my G4 shouldn't be obsolete ~ I was told that Tiger would run on it. Shouldn't I be able to upgrade? Or do I need to replace my Mac products every 2 years.).

                My point: Apple said, we can't help you unless you want a new computer. And if you have a third-party vendor help upgrade, Apple won't stand behind the work, even if it's Mac certified. (This is what the salesman said to me.)

                I can only report my experience.
                Rate this comment: 12345
                • Re: The devil you know
                  salo on 02/14/2007 at 2:15 AM
                  Posts:
                  3
                  Avg Rating:
                  1/5
                  Yes you can upgrade g4's to faster g4's. Apple doesn't sell them, but I'm pretty sure Dell won't sell you a P3 off the shelves these days either. None of your argument has anything to do with Windows Vista whatsoever. And G4's? They are available in stores... Micro Center in boston has many G4's for sale last I checked. They are hard to come by, but that has nothing to do with Apple, OS X, Microsoft, Vista, or even Motorola or Freescale.

                  And as far as making your computer up to date, as G4 is a full three processor generations old now (though admittedly this happened a bit fast, but mac users wanted faster computers and they got them), you're pretty much in the buy-a-new-computer market.

                  And yes, if you had a P3 and wanted state of the art, unless you're picking up a new motherboard, powersupply, hard drive, video card, processor,optical drive, cables and memory, you'd be in the buy-a-new-computer market as well. 

                  In fact, this is more the case with what we were called on to discuss, not Apple's ideology, not Microsoft's business plan, but Windows Vista and OS X. The counter article, the for... or at least in someway a defense for Vista, actually sums up the complicity of upgrading an old PC to run Vista, and concedes that most users will simply have to buy new PC's. That is, somehow the glory of Vista... but I can't explain that because I didn't quite understand that part myself. I mean, if I bought a new car, be it a scion or a BMW, and it didn't run, it would be hate mail and demands for a refund and not constructive criticism I would be dealing.

                  But above all, the proof that you are a troll and I am wasting my time, your G4 400 is NOT two years old. Apple is NOT forcing you upgrade every two years... assuming you have a desktop (if you had a laptop you generally wouldn't be able to upgrade the processor no matter what OS you run) your G4 is - count them - SIX to EIGHT YEARS OLD. It will still run Apple's most recent operating system with no hiccups whatsoever, speed being the only disadvantage.

                  Try running Vista on a computer from 1999, and then tell me how it is really Microsoft that is forcing you to buy a new computer.
                  Rate this comment: 12345
                • Re: The devil you know
                  SJDukeNJ on 03/25/2007 at 2:05 PM
                  Posts:
                  1
                  Friend, an older Mac like I have is eminently upgradeable. I own a PowerMac G4 dual 450, purchased in 2001. It is now a 1.8 dual, courtesy of Other World Computing. I have replaced the Optical Drive, Hard Drive, Video Card, and have added USB 2.0 and FireWire 400 cards. I feel like I have a new Machine, which in essence I do. I contemplate using this machine, with the latest Mac OS for years to come. The upgrade components were produced by various Third Party manufacturers. Companies like the aforementioned and PowerMax supply Quality Gear backed up by guarantees and great tech support. I hope this is helpful. Steve.  
                  Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: The devil you know
          don4lfonso on 02/09/2007 at 2:48 AM
          Posts:
          4
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
          I actually never disassembled a Mac, but I suppose you're right. PC hardware is almost meant to be tinkered with. And exactly the same goes for Unix-like systems on the software level. Which is what makes those systems so powerful.
          Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: The devil you know
          ikshields on 04/03/2007 at 7:27 AM
          Posts:
          4
          Avg Rating:
          5/5
          Hmmmmm... let's see:

          The car some guys down the street built out of borrowed parts from other cars ("We're pretty sure it works!"),...

          ...or the Porsche, engineered exclusively by Porsche, for 10 percent more?

          Boy, that's a tough one.
          Rate this comment: 12345
  • What about Linux
    MITBeta on 02/08/2007 at 8:32 AM
    Posts:
    21
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    Why is this left out as a viable option to compete with OSX and Vista?

    This is the best of both worlds: the ability to run your hardware of choice and the security and non-bloat of OSX.

    Now that almost every major distribution of linux has a LiveCD component there's almost no excuse not to try out one or two or a dozen of them before committing to them.

    Vista's EULA is a nightmare, and the security "upgrades" are questionable.  MS should have thrown out all of their own code and started from scratch to come up with an OS that really works.  But then I guess that's what linux is...
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: What about Linux
      mikeykinz on 02/08/2007 at 11:43 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I agree. There are so many applications out there that only run on windows. So that's a shame. I believe just for that reason I will always have a windows system in my home. However, I already run a linux system as a server because I didn't want to have to reboot it every week. Linux distros are infinitely more configurable than OSX, XP, or Vista. The problem is, they don't support the plethora of apps that MS OS's do.

      I think that both Microsoft and Apple have made good products - I liken them to Chevy and Ford. But see what I want is a Mazda Miata. And using Linux, you can "build your own."
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: What about Linux
      wiredbeat2000 on 02/08/2007 at 12:51 PM
      Posts:
      16
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      You are absolutely correct that Linux offers the most "flexible" choice. The omission was intentional ~ the assignment was to compare MS v Apple.

      However, in terms of flexibility, nobody is going to beat Linux.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: What about Linux
        kleinerfreak on 02/08/2007 at 7:01 PM
        Posts:
        2
        If you're saying Linux is the most flexible - doesn't that contradict your "excuse" that Microsoft has to work with so many different hardware configurations?

        It is possible to run Linux on well over 50 entirely different platforms, Microsoft has to deal with 2 if you consider x86_32 and x86_64 as different platforms. And, let's face it: There are standards for hardware, usually the manufacturers deliver the needed software with their product and nobody asks for more than a working framework for drivers. The Linux developers manage to support the platforms and hardware out-of-the-box, so nobody can say it is impossible to do it.
        I know very well that there is still a lot of hardware that doesn't work as supposed to with Linux, but most mainstream products are supported completely by now.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: What about Linux
          wiredbeat2000 on 02/09/2007 at 5:22 PM
          Posts:
          16
          Avg Rating:
          5/5
          "Support" in the open source community is different that "support" in the commercial community...if my parents purchase a Mac or PC, there is someone they can call who can fix their problem...with open source software, that's not always the case...
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: What about Linux
            kleinerfreak on 02/10/2007 at 8:17 PM
            Posts:
            2
            True. But when we are just talking about support meaning that it technically runs on a certain platform, then Microsoft as a $ multi-billion company does certainly not very good compared to Linux. Wouldn't you expect that specializing on only one or two platforms means that you support them close to perfection with all the resources you have?
            Rate this comment: 12345
            (