Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Vista vs. OS X?

We want to hear from readers.

By TR Editors

Thursday, February 08, 2007

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

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.

Credit: Microsoft Vista/Mac OS X

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.

Comments

  • Imperfect Perfection?
    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

    dima.berasta...
    02/08/2007
    Posts:4
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Imperfect Perfection?
      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

      Woodman
      02/11/2007
      Posts:3
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: Imperfect Perfection?
        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

        dima.berasta...
        02/12/2007
        Posts:4
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        • Re: Imperfect Perfection?
          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

          Woodman
          02/13/2007
          Posts:3
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
          • Re: Imperfect Perfection?
            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

            dima.berasta...
            02/15/2007
            Posts:4
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
    • Re: Imperfect Perfection?
      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

      jessedorland
      07/16/2008
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
  • Optimize and customize
    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

    don4lfonso
    02/08/2007
    Posts:4
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Optimize and customize
      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

      frankieherre...
      02/08/2007
      Posts:3
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      • Re: Optimize and customize
        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

        mbluett
        03/25/2007
        Posts:2
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
    • Re: Optimize and customize
      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

      Woodman
      02/11/2007
      Posts:3
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
    • Re: Optimize and customize
      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

      jessedorland
      07/16/2008
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
  • The devil you know
    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

    asdar
    02/08/2007
    Posts:67
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: The devil you know
      "I like windows because they're not proprietary."

      What does that mean?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      don4lfonso
      02/08/2007
      Posts:4
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: The devil you know
        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

        asdar
        02/08/2007
        Posts:67
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        • Re: The devil you know
          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

          wiredbeat200...
          02/08/2007
          Posts:16
          Avg Rating:
          5/5
        • Re: The devil you know
          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

          machelpdesk
          02/08/2007
          Posts:2
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          • Re: The devil you know
            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

            asdar
            02/09/2007
            Posts:67
            Avg Rating:
            4/5
          • Re: The devil you know
            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

            wiredbeat200...
            02/09/2007
            Posts:16
            Avg Rating:
            5/5
            • Re: The devil you know
              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

              spam
              02/10/2007
              Posts:1
              Avg Rating:
              5/5
              • Re: The devil you know
                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

                wiredbeat200...
                02/12/2007
                Posts:16
                Avg Rating:
                5/5
                • Re: The devil you know
                  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

                  salo
                  02/14/2007
                  Posts:3
                  Avg Rating:
                  1/5
                • Re: The devil you know
                  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

                  SJDukeNJ
                  03/25/2007
                  Posts:1
        • Re: The devil you know
          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

          don4lfonso
          02/09/2007
          Posts:4
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
        • Re: The devil you know
          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

          ikshields
          04/03/2007
          Posts:4
          Avg Rating:
          5/5
  • What about Linux
    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

    MITBeta
    02/08/2007
    Posts:26
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: What about Linux
      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

      mikeykinz
      02/08/2007
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
    • Re: What about Linux
      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

      wiredbeat200...
      02/08/2007
      Posts:16
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      • Re: What about Linux
        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

        kleinerfreak
        02/08/2007
        Posts:2
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
        • Re: What about Linux
          "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

          wiredbeat200...
          02/09/2007
          Posts:16
          Avg Rating:
          5/5
          • Re: What about Linux
            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

            kleinerfreak
            02/10/2007
            Posts:2
            Avg Rating:
            5/5
            • Re: What about Linux
              Well, I would with this caveat ~ Microsoft's support has always been top notch for me (and that's a personal argument ~ I can't argue on the whole); and  the company is also developing a loosely held-together product that needs to be tightened in a variety of markets, for a variety of reasons.

              By its very nature, the service will be spotty. Still, for most general uses, I've found their service to be fine.

              Now, if I was running a company, I'd want to use Linux and hire my own in-house team because I don't like depending upon other folks.
              Rate this comment: 12345

              wiredbeat200...
              02/12/2007
              Posts:16
              Avg Rating:
              5/5
              • Re: What about Linux
                So first you have to buy the product (which you're not really buying but more like renting...) and then when you have trouble with it you have to pay MS to help you fix it, if they can.

                They get you coming and going...
                Rate this comment: 12345

                MITBeta
                02/12/2007
                Posts:26
                Avg Rating:
                4/5
                • Re: What about Linux
                  I've never paid Microsoft for service (and with my XP, for instance, HP offers free online service for most of my needs).

                  And yes, I buy the product because the product does come mostly complete. There is no install. And even if I use Linspire, for instance, I'm still paying an upfront fee.

                  Of course, you aren't going to back me into a corner. If you know what you're doing, Linux is really the best alternative.
                  Rate this comment: 12345

                  wiredbeat200...
                  02/13/2007
                  Posts:16
                  Avg Rating:
                  5/5
    • Re: What about Linux
      It's pretty interesting to keep an eye on what the Linux systems and the other open source software guys are doing. The rate of improvement and the determination and organization of these people is phenomenal. The best desktop distributions like Ubuntu and OpenSuse are pretty much surpassing XP in usability, and have almost caught up to Vista and OS X. But where will Vista be in 4 years? There will be very little improvement if MS's past is any indication, until the next generation. Apple has done a little better. But Linux has been improving significantly every six months or so, certainly on a year by year basis.

      Open source is gaining momentum and is likely to start overtaking commercial software on a number of fronts.  Vista is much better and slicker than XP, but I think once the shiny new gloss of Vista wears off, the bloat and licensing and DRM and security headaches will start to reveal themselves for the warts they are, and people are going to start looking at Linux as well as OS X a lot more.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      ArtInvent
      02/13/2007
      Posts:24
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Cheap verus price worth
    May be some PC's do have a lower price than an Apple, but as I thaught about buying my (first) Mac Book Pro in Oct 06, I compared the price of an MacBook Pro, 80GB, 2GB RAM with a comparable Dell laptop.

    The Dell laptop had double the price than the Apple MacBook Pro. I also compared it with other laptops and I found that in some cases they was may be a bit cheaper, but without the design and all the small things that makes a Mac a Mac (for example this brilliant power plug).

    Furthermore, you can not pay for the look of the people in a meeting if they see my Mac.

    So may be sometimes the price of a PC lower, but  the Mac is more price worthy.

    For me MacOS X is the equivalent of a good looking women having a lot of IQ, and Windows is like a boring girl trying to look good and trying to be intelligent but falls short of that. Poor Windows.

    Regards,
    Stephan
    Rate this comment: 12345

    stephan.froe...
    02/08/2007
    Posts:6
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: Cheap verus price worth
      "For me MacOS X is the equivalent of a good looking women having a lot of IQ, and Windows is like a boring girl trying to look good and trying to be intelligent but falls short of that."

      Probably that is why everyone admires Mac,but buys a
      Windows!!!
      Rate this comment: 12345

      shobhit.shri
      02/09/2007
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Soliciting Windows and OS X feedback?
    Vista is another Windows ME.

    An aborted child that never should have seen the light of day. That being said, I am actually rather agnostic when it comes to Windows in general vs. OS X.

    When I first read this article, I had difficulty understanding what the author was trying to convey.

    With a title "Vista vs OS X" one could be lead to believe that this may be a point by point break down of their features, shortcomings, future directions, market penetration, etc.

    I'm a little disappointed that the author devotes only two pages to a subject that could fill a volume - but in the interest of digestibility, I can excuse the brevity of their work.

    In essence, this article reminds me of so much hyperbole - it provides no truly valuable point of view, and doesn't state a hard opinion either way. It hardly qualifies as something worth printing and commenting on beyond the vagueness of its scope.

    A treatise into the finer points of OS X's superb features, integrated applications, seamless security, and short learning curve would provide some good basic content for feedback on one side.

    A further dive into Window's enterprise options, manageability, ubiquitousness, customization options, and yes, short learning curve, would provide a valuable counterpoint.

    I have both platforms at home, and have come to the realization that your OS is a toolbox. Your applications are your tools. Pick the tool that fits the job.

    For myself, I break my activities into a loose category for each OS - with some obvious overlaps: Windows for gaming and serious work (Project, Visio, Office, name just about any third party software vendor), and OS X for your life (Music, videos, web surfing, pictures, iPod integration, etc.)

    To put a stake in the ground, we really don't need to choose either OS - for myself, I chose both. So this year I bought my first Mac (iMac Intel Core Duo 20"), loaded it with Parallels Desktop, and now have the best of both worlds - minus the gaming, which duty was taken over by my new XBox, and hopefully a new PS3 when the prices drop.

    The PC sat in the office, and I played games on it, and did serious work on it, and surfed the web, hacked around, and basically broke it six ways from sundown. I am on my 7th rebuild of Windows XP right now on that particular machine (Averaging about once every 6-8 months). In essence, the PC was a tool and little else. It requires lots of manual tweaking to keep it running and to a certain extent I expect to do that sort of thing - as the author of the article espouses - Windows is good at that sort of thing. However, I really don't have that sort of time anymore. I need an OS that just works.

    Enter the Mac.

    The Mac fills a space in my life and household that the PC never did. It currently sits in a position on honor on my kitchen table and is used by everyone who comes over: to surf, have fun, look things up, etc. I've loaded every CD I own onto it, digitized every movie I own onto it. 99% of my online activities now happen on it. It has never crashed, never given me any problems, never once held me back from doing anything I wanted to do.
    Out of my friends who have come over, more than once the topic of conversation has turned to Vista/Windows vs OS X. I am not surprised that many of my friends, who never before had even contemplated a Mac, afterwards are now devoted converts. Many of my work peers have also recently taken the plunge and shipped themselves off to the Mac camp in droves. This actually bodes ill for MS - when technical consultants starts carrying MAC laptops into boardrooms and start quietly wowing senior decision makers who are long die-hard Windows proponents - it's a recipe for hard times at Microsoft.

    In essence, the Mac has become what the PC never could - the digital center of my personal universe.

    /Don
    Rate this comment: 12345

    DonAndrews
    02/08/2007
    Posts:6
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Great Satire
    It took awhile for me to understand this article...then it hit me. You can't write an article about why Vista is better than Mac without your tongue  planted firmly in your cheek! Congratulations - you had me going for a bit :-)

    The essence of the article is that Microsoft makes broken software intentionally - a blatantly ludicrous concept. It is broken, that is for sure. It is broken because they don't know how to do it right, don't want to take the time to do it right, have such powerful marketing that they don't need to bother...but certainly not because it is better that way. Nobody is customizing Windows XP or vista because it is easier with all the broken parts. They customize it in a huge, costly and never ending effort to compensate for it's flaws - not to celebrate them. In the Windows World, the word "customize" is a euphemism for "fix." They do it because they have to.

    With the Mac, which just works right out of the box perfectly, there is nothing you need to fix, or "customize" for most people (some gamers and scientific apps aside). Anything you can do on XP/Vista to actually customize usability you can not only do easier on a Mac, but now you can do almost identically with VIsta, because they knock off the Mac OS. But why even bother - the Mac works just fine as is for most people and is easy to learn.

    Microsoft has been knocking off the Mac's usability features for years, and never more "transparently" so than now with the coming of Vista. The real customizations users need aren't in the user interface anyway - they're in the hardware - more memory, bigger hard disk,faster graphics - and these days the Mac can keep up with anyone there.  A Mac APPEARS less customizable to XP/Vista users only because it doesn't need to be fixed or customized, but they need a justification to "believe" in. Like many mindless fanatics, so called "believers," it is a blind act of faith not founded in facts. 

    That also applies to the more software argument. Other than some very technical, scientific or business apps or some games, most users will never need anything that is not  available, and working better, on the Mac. You don't even need Parallels to switch to Windows, unless it just makes you feel better or saves you the cost of replacing some software you already have. I do audio & video editing, photography and retouching, Powerpoint, flow charts, web development, office apps, you name it - all on the Mac. And there are some things I do now on a Mac and never could do on a PC.

    And then there is the experience of FREEDOM the Mac gives you, freedom to get your work done without worrying, freedom from hours every day fighting off viruses and malware, freedom to just love and enjoy your computing experience. There is no price for that, it is quite literally invaluable. So there goes your cheaper PC argument. If you value your time, your “cheap” PC is far more expensive than the highest priced Mac, far too expensive to even be in the running. At minimum wage, a PC user is probably spending over $1,000 a year as a premium or service charge - for the time they spend servicing their own PC. Bill Gates made his billions stepping over the dead bodies of million sof Windows users. Businesses that bought PC's because they seemed cheaper have been spending untold billions on computer support, repair and maintenance. In terms of total cost of ownership, productivity, reliability and every other measure, Microsoft has stifled industry, crippled innovation and reduced productivity. In the long run, there is never anything really gained by using something cheap and low quality to substitute for a quality, well made and effective product. The short term gains are illusions.

    Since its inception, Apple has been reinventing every market paradigm it touched, inspiring innovation and creating new opportunities. The Apple II virtually invented the modern personal computer. The Mac, inspired perhaps by Xerox, reinvented computing. The Laserwriter reinvented publishing and typesetting, with help from Pagemaker. The Newton, though not successful at the time, was a vision of the future of PDA’s and smart phones ultimately leading to the iPhone, which successful or not will reinvent the cell phone for everyone. The iPod reinvented the MP3 player and turned the music industry on its ear. The Intel Mac is just such an opportunity.

    What has Microsoft given us – incremental improvements in an operating system that was and still is a bad knock off of the Mac/Xerox concept? Crushing innovation and competition to the point they were investigated by the Justice Dept.? An OS so full of holes that it can never be secure (perhaps intentionally- ever wonder what happened to the vigorous pursuit of MS by the Justice Dept., and why they suddenly didn't feel a need to keep pushing the industry for a "back door" into all computers in the name of national security?). Office apps that basically just copied, bought out or scavenged, and destroyed other existing products that were actually less bloated and better in some ways? The Xbox? Well, ok, I’ll give them that one.

    I have a Powerbook G5, which I will keep another few years since I have learned to love life without anything from Microsoft (I love using open source software). I wouldn't exchange even this slightly older Mac for the latest high-end Vista notebook ... though I would consider donations of a new MacBook :-)
    Rate this comment: 12345

    RawFoodGuy
    02/08/2007
    Posts:6
    Avg Rating:
    1/5
    • Re: Great Satire
      Speaking to this user's comments on cost - he makes an excellent point.

      I recently completed an assignment where 10% of a 3500-user company was using MACs - for development of rich content, flyers, commercials, advertising, etc.

      They had their own printers, support staff, procurement channels and various other bits to run their environment.

      From the senior managements' perspective they were tolerated because they had a maverick unit manager who refused to bow to corporate pressure to replace the MACs with PCs.

      Now onto the cost structure...

      For those 350 MACs, they had 1 support guy... two servers, a NAS device and three high-volume or high quality printers.
      I was tasked with doing a quick business case (I was working in the PC side of the company) to do a TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) exercise on the MAC environment.

      The PC infrastructure had ~3200 desktops, multiple servers required to manage them, printers everywhere, Huge amounts of bloated storage because people didn't know how to manage their files, locked down desktops, and over 50 support staff.

      I won't bore you with the details, but the PC desktops cost the company approx. $280/user/month to run, and the MACs cost the company $190/user/month to run.

      The results of my TCO were never made available to senior management because the windows-bigot director who was trying to quash the MACs didn't like the results, even though the financials had been signed off on by the finance dept.

      Sigh. It was because of this that I started to look long and hard at Macs.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      DonAndrews
      02/08/2007
      Posts:6
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Great Satire
        If Macs in the workplace are cheaper to support, I would suspect that it's because they actually support a narrower range of apps. For instance, most of the Mac's in your company sound like they were probably running graphic design software. While the PC's may well have been running similar graphic design software as well as a much more diverse set of office, business, networking and communication, accounting, sales, customer relation, database, and who knows what all. It's the apps that require support more than the OS. Macs have advantages (and disadvantages) because they do a smaller set of functions and thus can concentrate on those and do them brilliantly. PCs have advantages (and disadvantages) because they can do anything and everything.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        ArtInvent
        02/08/2007
        Posts:24
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        • Re: Great Satire
          You said: "If Macs in the workplace are cheaper to support, I would suspect that it's because they actually support a narrower range of apps."

          There are currently over 15,000 applications that run on the Mac. Add to that the entire compliment of Windows applications that ALSO run on Macs. And then there's Open Source. Over all there's over 10,000 more applications that run on a Mac than a PC.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          machelpdesk
          02/08/2007
          Posts:2
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
        • Re: Great Satire
          These users on OS X called into the same helpdesk for support of core business apps (MS Office, Lotus Notes and file server issues).

          What was interesting was that the users in the Mac side of the business made 54% less calls to the helpdesk than those on the PC side.

          Also, a portion of the increased cost was that the company had to upgrade PCs more frequently than Macs, and that the DOA rate on Macs was much lower than PCs. (DOA rate on our IBM desktops was about 8%, vs less than 1% for Macs)

          It was a pretty comprehensive business case that took into account hardware, software, support, infrastructure, power, space and manpower.

          Since doing that business case, I moved completely over to Mac at home and haven't looked back (I didn't own one before the business case!)

          /Don
          Rate this comment: 12345

          DonAndrews
          11/01/2007
          Posts:6
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
    • Re: Great Satire
      "Like many mindless fanatics, so called "believers," it is a blind act of faith not founded in facts. "

      Now that is rich. I have never met more fanatical people than MAC users. To listen to MAC users is like listening to evagelicals.

      To compare a PC to a MAC is like comparing an eagle to a human or a cheetah to a human. yes the eagle can see better than any human can ever dream of and the same can be said for the running speed of a cheetah. But PC are generalists. Look how well the Xbox works. It is a product that has optimized its hardware with its software and vice versa. There is a very good reason why MACs are only built by apple. That way they can optimize their software to their hardware. No wonder it runs great.
      While I admit that apple is a wonderfully creative company one has to also see that it is easy to be creative when you are allowed to work with a blank canvas...I would like you to make a Picasso out of a Loutrec
      Rate this comment: 12345

      aymeric
      02/08/2007
      Posts:17
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • From the author...
    It's enjoyable reading your comments (even the not so flattering ones), and I appreciate the feedback.

    There's almost no way to write about this subject without starting a holy war. Still, I'd like to add a few thoughts to the piece.

    First, I absolutely didn't talk about Linux or the Free Software Foundation. That wasn't an oversight on my part -- merely not part of my assignment. However, I am a big believer and supporter of the open-source community.

    Now...

    I believe the best way to think about these platforms is in three silos: usability, flexibility and ease-of use. In each of these silos, the three main competitors -- MS, Apple, Linux -- perform different functions.

    For ease-of-use, the order for me is: Apple, MS, Linux;
    For flexibility, the order for me is: Linux, MS, Apple; and
    For usability, the order for me is: MS, Apple, Linux.

    These are not well-defined, hard rules that everyone will agree. I do think it's instructive, though, to view the operating systems from the silo perspective so we can determine the reasoning behind the thinking.

    This is how the debate has worked out in my experience: Linux users will argue that their OS is the best -- and for flexibility, there is no denying that; but the MS counter is that their OS is more usable; while Apple can counter their OS is easiest to use.

    All are correct. And all are wrong. Each OS functions best for the roles they are designed for -- if they didn't, they would disappear.

    One final note (for now): The MS market position clearly helps push its system. Apple had the same opportunity -- actually, the first opportunity -- but decided to close its hardware-software loop, thus insuring competition for cheaper products would erode its consumer base.

    This doesn't justify monopolistic practices; however, MS climbed to the top in part because of business decisions Apple made.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    wiredbeat200...
    02/08/2007
    Posts:16
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: From the author...
      Some good points - but...

      I tried hard to become a Linux user. I really did. It was one of the biggest disappointments of my life that it is not ready for prime time. I couldn't get it to work properly. I really do believe all software should be open source. SO I bought the Mac with OS X, which is ALSO UNIX - just as flexible if you want it to be as Linux, but with a ready-for-prime-time GUI!!!

      It is nice to believe that MS is better for usability - but if that was really true, how come they are knocking off the mac's usability features every chance they get? Truth is, they are now about the same....until you calculate total cost of ownership (the value of your time) into the usability analysis - since in the XP/Vista universe you will be spending a lot of your time fixing problems, fighting viruses exploiting all its holes and otherwise allegedly customizing the software.

      It is true that Apple could have become a software company in the 1980's, and maybe even clobbered Microsoft. They chose, wisely I believe, to be a hardware company. There is a good reason for that, probably many. If they became a software company in those early days, the pressures of the market would have demanded they cheapen (or otherwise degrade) their product. Apple chose wisely not to give into such pressures by not merely controlling the hardware, but by making the best hardware available in the world. Microsoft took the low road, and gave into every pressure to make Windows more bloated, to rush out updates, to make it everything to everyone so it really isn't great for anyone. I believe that Apple took the high road.

      Thanks again for your thought provoking article.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      RawFoodGuy
      02/08/2007
      Posts:6
      Avg Rating:
      1/5
      • Re: From the author...
        When was the last time that you tried linux?  I was in the same boat as you for a long time.  Every few years I would try a linux install just to see where they were at.  Always there was so much configuration and scripting... no fun. Last month however, I installed Ubuntu Edgy and was very surprised!  The install was so simple.  Furthermore, it automatically found and configured all of my hardware including my USB external hard drive.  Things are much more plug-n-play with linux now.  The only thing that gave me some trouble was getting the new Beryl composite manager running (btw, this new UI seriously competes with OSX and Vista)

        Having said that, to make linux an OS that any newbie user can use, I still think it has a way to go with respect to various things such as drivers.     Give Ubuntu Edgy an install and see what you think.
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3304682858126153303
        Rate this comment: 12345

        enantiomer20...
        02/08/2007
        Posts:39
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
    • Re: From the author...
      I didn't mean to be offensive, merely convey that the subject and content seemed to vary by a wide margin, and needed to be more succinct.

      In essence, I believe that with their move to Intel processors, Apple has shifted the paradigm.

      No longer do people have to choose between a PC with Windows and a MAC with OS X.

      Windows still has a lot of life left in it for business use and third party software development, but I think with the capability to run Windows inside of a MAC that the decision is no longer one of OSX or Windows, but really the option to do both on one platform.

      I only hope that Apple tries to calm down their hardware development group. They sometimes have a tendency to release hardware, and then immediately offer something 2 months later that is better. I may be a bit bitter in this regard, as immediately after buying my iMac Intel Core Duo 20", Applea released the 24" Core 2 Duo with significantly improved hardware specs. like a Bigger monitor, faster processor, better mounting options, Wireless N networking, etc - not to mention that the G5 was swing-arm mountable, the Core Duo iMac was not, and the Core 2 Duo Mac IS. That's a slap in the head...

      If Apple wants to truly own the space it is entering into right now, it needs to do more end-user usability testing or requirements polling. They love their flash bang surprise announcements and media hype, but in the end, they need to fill their user's requirements.

      /DA

      Rate this comment: 12345

      DonAndrews
      02/08/2007
      Posts:6
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: From the author...
        Hey Don:

        I don't disagree that the piece could have been longer ~ and it could have easily included Linux ~

        As for usability, by that my definition is simply I have an easier time customizing my computer to do what I want it to do with a PC ~

        Mac has the market on ease-of-use because they control the hardware-software...nobody is ever going to beat them on that for that reason...

        It's merely how I view the competing platforms ~ but certainly each platform offers something for its specific uses...it's why people are so devoted to each...
        Rate this comment: 12345

        wiredbeat200...
        02/08/2007
        Posts:16
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
    • Re: From the author...
      I disagree that for usability Linux is behind MS. 

      Try keeping all of you programs up to date in MS and then do the same in Linux.  Tell me which is easier.

      Try keeping your system free from spyware and viruses in MS and then do the same in Linux.  Tell me which is easier.

      Try running XP (I won't even dare you to try Vista...) on <500MB of RAM.  Now do the same in Linux.  Tell me which runs faster (isn't this part of usability?). 

      Try reinstalling Windows or upgrading to a newer version while preserving all of you user settings and files.  Now do the same in Linux.  Which is more "usable"?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      MITBeta
      02/09/2007
      Posts:26
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: From the author...
        My point about usability is simply for the non-tech users...clearly, you can use OpenOffice, Linspire, ect and make it work quite easily...that "leap" is difficult for many who, if something goes wrong, don't know where to start when looking for help...
        Rate this comment: 12345

        wiredbeat200...
        02/09/2007
        Posts:16
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
  • Buy it Broken?! WTF?!
    I dont want to buy software knowing that it's [i]broken[/i]. That analogy has to be the dumbest thing I've read in years. When I spend my hard earned dollars for anything I expect that first and foremost that the item in question is going to work, and work properly and then, if I deem it necessary, tweak or make improvement or upgrades. But the item must have a solid foundation to begin with otherwise you're throwing good money after bad.
    I just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a new home. New. New construction. The workers had hardly gone out before we moved in. If you think for one minute that I would have bought a house where the plumbing leaked, the switches and outlets didnt work properly, broken windows and the doors wouldnt open, all with the idea "Awww, that's okay. I'll make it perfect later!" you must be out of your mind! As a matter of fact if I had and complained to you about it you'd likely call me an idiot. "If you knew the windows were broken, why did you buy it?" But you argue that it's okay to buy a copy of Vista broken, and install it [i]then[/i] fix and perfect it. What th'...?! And when it breaks a bunch of other stuff on our computers I guess we should just fix and [i]perfect[/i] that too, eh?

    It makes no sense to knowingly buy an [i]operating system[/i] broken so that you can perfect it... and you know this. Your piece was written purely to attract responses, to get hits and in this it has been successful. But it has also been damaging. Each time you put out an article such as this you sell a small bit of your credibility for hits. Eventually you'll be left with none. Yeah, I logged on, signed up here to comment and that counts, so you got me. But I wont be back. And with writing or "reporting" like what you've done here, Mr. King it's unlikely that I'll ever take you seriously again.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    FrankenBerry
    02/08/2007
    Posts:1
    • Re: Buy it Broken?! WTF?!
      I'm never a big fan of the "analogy" argument, but following through with buying a home -- in fact, people buy homes all the time that need improvements, upgrades, additions and the like. And we have the "freedom" to go to any store or contractor we choose to get the job done.

      You aren't confined to the purchasing only through your real estate agent.

      We buy "things" all the time that aren't perfect coming out the box. Many people accept that (I haven't changed my Pontiac Vibe one bit), but others like the opportunity to tweak as they see fit.

      This is the basis of my argument -- not that one is superior over the other, but that one system offers more "usability" than the other. For some, that is a key selling point; for others, it is not.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      wiredbeat200...
      02/08/2007
      Posts:16
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
    • Re: Buy it Broken?! WTF?!
      My favorite Windows analogy is the one about buying a new car. Would you buy a car that wouldn't start unless you rolled down the windows first?

      The conventional Windows "believer" point of view is that you can customize it. I say again, you mean "fix" it so it is less broke.

      The believer always parrots the idea that there is more software choice. However, that is also an illusion, with the exception of certain games and scientific or engineering applications. Speakingfor "everyman," what most people do every day, personally and in business, can easily been replicated on the Mac. And if you like the Flexibvility of Liknux/Unix, you should love the Mac - it is Unix, with a better GUI shell. All the open source you can download works just fine. The Unix command line interface is available either in a terminal window or on bootup when holding down a coule of keys.

      Seems to me all the comments are just parroting the old and now hackneyed Windows vs.Mac arguments without really understanding the Mac. Most of these folks probably never actually used it.

      I might add that I was a Windows power user and professional consultant. I build my own Windows PC's. The last one I built a few months before buying the Mac. I rarely turn it on any more, though it is virtually new. I applaud the mac not due to blind faith, but through intimate, hands on, in depth actual experience of both systems as a power user.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      RawFoodGuy
      02/08/2007
      Posts:6
      Avg Rating:
      1/5
      • Re: Buy it Broken?! WTF?!
        Well, I am a former Mac user who upgraded several years ago (particularly when I was covering digital entertainment and few of the applications ran on a Mac).

        As for the analogy, I would re-iterate that I was simply responding to the initial analogy.

        At the end of the day, though, we are having a semantic argument. What you think is "broke", I see as a "feature."
        Rate this comment: 12345

        wiredbeat200...
        02/08/2007
        Posts:16
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
  • Windows is the supermarket of computing, OS-X is an elegant delicatessen
    Vista is not as elegant or streamlined as either OS X or Linux. It has a lot more flaws and is not as easy to use. One reader commented that, since these are just operating systems, it makes little difference. Absolutely. The actual applications you are using are what matters, and this is where we find the real reason that MS will continue to dominate even though Vista may seem less than world shaking. Plus, Vista goes a long way towards making the Windows system at least visually elegant easier to navigate, even if under the hood it's still not quite in the same league as the other OS's.

    MS is a multi-flawed semi-monopoly, but their strategy was brilliant and is no less so today: to make it absolute top priority that every other software developer wrote for Windows. When Apple concentrated on limiting their world to a tight, controlled, and elegant set of integrated apps, with equally tightly controlled hardware, they ceded the exploding world of highly diverse software apps to MS. Business and industrial software of all kinds, games, graphics, multimedia, all gravitated immediately or eventually to MS because their strategy created the most open, diverse, and massively thriving computing ecosystem.

    Every individual has a slightly different set of apps on their computer. Whatever it's flaws, Windows is simply the only system that easily and instantly runs the crazy quilt of diverse apps that people have come to know, like, love, depend on, and/or make money with.

    Of course the Apple system is fantastic and easier and better in many ways, and I think people who love Macs have every justification for that. I love to see what Apple will come up with next. But Mac is like a boutique or a luxury store, doing a smaller set of things in a beautiful way. MS is like a Home Depot and the mall rolled into one, the everyman of computing. It may not be super convenient or easy to navigate, but you can get exactly what you need there. Yes, a lot of people would love to have a simple beautiful and elegant system like OS X, or a free and open and logical and flexible system like Linux. But their apps, data, and user history is all with MS and those three or four or fifteen little programs that they love simply don't run and don't have a truly compatible or adequate equivalent on the other system.

    I personally have one old computer running Ubuntu Linux and I absolutely love it and the whole idea of Linux and Open Source. They have made tremendous strides, and some of my favorite apps are actually open source, like Blender 3D software, Audacity audio software, OpenOffice, and Firefox. But I simply can't switch to Linux completely no matter how I twist the problem in my head. I am invested in too many commercial apps like Photoshop, Illustrator, CorelDraw, Quicken, and a number of more obscure others. Yes, some of these are actually available or have near equivalents on Mac or Linux, but on MS, ALL of them install and work effortlessly, exactly as designed. And I really need all of them to work. And with MS, you know that if there is a program out there in the future, it will definitely run natively on MS. Now, why on earth would I switch to Mac, pay a price premium and go through all that trouble, for a smaller choice of apps now and in the future? Why would I even give up one app that I really like or need?

    Now we come to Vista. Many have poo-poohed it's pretty new face and it's blatant copying of search and gadgets and other less-than-revolutianary improvements. But these are truly useful things, and they managed to blend these very useful and pleasant improvements and integrations into an OS that will run every program you can imagine throwing at it. The new look is, in my opinion, stunning, and a very under-appreciated recognition that the visual feel of the computer is extremely important. The 3D desktop and transparency effects are both visually wondrous and useful. Sideshow is actually extremely cool and not a little innovative. I mean, admit it, half the appeal of the Mac is style and elegance, and a Vista laptop is going to be a sleek and desirable machine.

    Now I'm still watching the Linux community and efforts like Crossover Linux and Wine, and efforts to port Windows software to Linux or run Windows in a virtual machine. But these end-arounds are neither elegant, nor easy, nor flawless. And running Windows on a Mac is now possible - I'm sure MS loves it when Mac guys buy a copy of Windows - but supporting two complicated operating systems is not what a Mac is really about, is it? I would love to get a new machine this year and run Ubuntu or OpenSuse on it. I will probably continue to tinker with Linux running from an external drive. But my new machine will almost certainly have Vista on it and that's probably not a bad thing. I have a feeling it will be pretty great.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ArtInvent
    02/08/2007
    Posts:24
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • comparing a cheetah to a Human
    "Like many mindless fanatics, so called "believers," it is a blind act of faith not founded in facts. "

    Now that is rich. I have never met more fanatical people than MAC users. To listen to MAC users is like listening to evagelicals.

    To compare a PC to a MAC is like comparing an eagle to a human or a cheetah to a human. yes the eagle can see better than any human can ever dream of and the same can be said for the running speed of a cheetah. But PC are generalists. Look how well the Xbox works. It is a product that has optimized its hardware with its software and vice versa. There is a very good reason why MACs are only built by apple. That way they can optimize their software to their hardware. No wonder it runs great.
    While I admit that apple is a wonderfully creative company one has to also see that it is easy to be creative when you are allowed to work with a blank canvas...I would like you to make a Picasso out of a Loutrec
    Rate this comment: 12345

    aymeric
    02/08/2007
    Posts:17
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: comparing a cheetah to a Human
      "Now that is rich. I have never met more fanatical people than MAC users."

      Both camps have their believers. However, as I point out in a reply above, I am both a PC and Mac power user and used them both for years, building many of my own PC's along the way. After OS X came out, however, it was a new ballgame...because OS X is UNIX. The superiority and functionality advantages of the MAC are not because they control the hardware - that is an old story before OS X. It is because it is UNIX. OS X is just the GUI - and a damned good one.

      I don't understand the eagle and cheetah analogy. Perhaps you should use an Eagle (the mac - far-seeing, sleek, fast) and an Ostritch (head in the sand, ungainly) or a vulture (scavenger).

      I specifically in my first post gave Microsoft a "pass" on the Xbox....the got that one right. 

      Unix is hardly a blank canvas. It was invented around 30-40 years ago by AT&T, and developed by the open source community for decades. It is a solid foundation for a well designed GUI like OS X. Both Picasso and lautrec would love it!
      Rate this comment: 12345

      RawFoodGuy
      02/08/2007
      Posts:6
      Avg Rating:
      1/5
      • Re: pot calling the kettle black
        Microsoft always gets accused of simply copying the Mac interface and functions. But... if MacOS is just a repackaged UNIX system, then they cannot claim much originality either. Pot calling the kettle black.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        gabrielg01
        02/08/2007
        Posts:361
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
      • Re: comparing a cheetah to a Human
        Exactly,

        I wouldn't consider OS9 a good OS. That was a mess by all accounts, neither am I a fan of all things Apple. OS X on the other hand is a great example of what can be done if OS design is approached with an open mind. They took networking implementation from FreeBSD 5, borrowed ideas from Mach3, etc and put a well thought out UI (Apple's specialty) on top of it all. That gives you an interesting UNIX variety with a very productive UI. That's the one thing that's always been messy in the UNIX land before, the UI. Apple fixed that.

        Windows on the other hand has always had a feeling of being "patched" together with glue. Dig a little deeper and it'll be a cardhouse about to fall apart. They tried a few interesting things in NT (which was actually attempted by a luminary who designed VMS before that, don't remember his name). That didn't work out and MS went back to what they do best "patching it together".
        Rate this comment: 12345

        dima.berasta...
        02/09/2007
        Posts:4
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
      • Re: comparing a cheetah to a Human
        Using Unix as a foundation IS in fact an original idea...it took a lot of guts and original thinking to go in that direction. In addition, OSX is extremely original itself...and is what makes the Unix platform workable - briniging it to the masses essentially for the first time. If that was easy, Linux would be a viable platform,, and though it has made great strides, there is no GUI on Linux ready for prime time by the masses. So kudos to Apple for the originality and vision it took to make a huge commitment to something like OS X. That is called thinking outside the box...something Bill Gates hasn't eve been aqble to do since he first managed to pull of a deal for MSDOS with IBM - and had to go out to buy it from someone else on the sly (ripping off the real programmer who didn't know about the IBM deal in the process).
        Rate this comment: 12345

        RawFoodGuy
        02/15/2007
        Posts:6
        Avg Rating:
        1/5
    • Re: comparing a cheetah to a Human
      What a ridiculous bunch of rhetoric. Apple has a blank slate to create from? Microsoft has too many platforms to support? Intel and AMD processors are the same. The video cards, the IO processors and the peripheral connections are also the same. And of course the storage systems work the same as well.

      Dell, Sony, Gateway, Toshiba all produce hardware to run Windows, not the other way around! Microsoft have created vendor lock-in systems based on exclusive contracts. OEM's don't create hardware with no idea of what software will run on it, they know! If you have an exclusive supply contract with a manufacturer, you'll have control over the hardware. OEM's will rush to optimize your software features to differentiate themselves from other makers offering essentially the same products.

      Microsoft isn't concerned that the buzz surrounding Vista is lack luster, because they know they'll get their money. So what if Vista looks just like a wanna be MacOSX? They know they took all Apple's ideas, the gloss, the shine, transparency, the little applications, they changed the names a little but yeah they ripped Apple off. But so what, where else you gonna go, suckers, give them their money.

      Microsoft has a history of delivering bad products simply because they can, and no one can force them to do other wise, not even the DOJ. Those that continue to purchase their products (Dell, Gateway, Sony) either have a contract saying they must, or those (average users) that simply don't mind tinkering with broken stuff, wasting money and settling for much less.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      GiloftheOC
      02/09/2007
      Posts:1
  • Windows and Mac OS X
    I did the same as Erika Jonietz but not necessarily for the same reasons.  Mine was that I needed a new computer.  Since Apple now uses Intel processors in their Mac's, I decided they deserved at least a look.  So several times a week after work, I visited an Apple Store to try them out.  Naturally, Mac OS felt familiar yet different but it wasn't until an employee gave me a brief demo that it made me realize there was more to it than what meets the eye.  Simple stuff like pervasive drag and drop of most content regardless of application (in Windows, it is hit or miss making copy/paste the preferred way) and tools like Automator and Expose.  iLife is what really impressed me though.  Deceptively simple yet powerful.

    To make a long story short, I ended up getting a Mac Pro instead of waiting until companies like Dell or HP began selling Vista systems.  I figured I could always run Vista on the Mac Pro but I really wanted iLife.  In order to assist with my transition, I purchased Parallels Desktop to install XP and some of my programs I still need until I can find Mac equivalents.  Since I am not a gamer, this was perfect since I did not need to use the Boot Camp beta to setup a dual boot system;  I could just run my Windows program in a virtualized environment (the performance is still better than my previous Dell).  I purchased Vista and also installed it in Parallels Desktop.   The interface changes are nice and in some cases, looks much nicer than the current Mac OS X.  That is only part of the story though.

    The past two months has been an experience of learning and discovery.  I've come to realize that at the surface, Windows and Mac OS X may have similarities but it's the unobvious tiny attention to details that seems to be a bit more thought out on the Mac where you only realize it once you try to do the same back in Windows.  The Mac isn't without its faults but I've found the experience less painful than I thought it would be.

    Will there be some current Windows users who will look at a Mac if their current computers don't meet Vista's requirements?  Probably especially if they begin hearing too many stories like the one Erika Jonietz wrote about.  If plenty of things just don't work in Vista and requires people to buy a whole new computer and upgraded software, these factors may have some sticking with XP and then possibly  evaluating a Mac since it can also run Windows quite well.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    tsharble
    02/09/2007
    Posts:1
  • Most STUPID article!
    You call this a review or a comparison? This must be the STUPIDEST but I mean the DUMBEST most lacking thing and logic I have ever read!.

    Please get a clue before deciding to write something!
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jarod
    02/09/2007
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    1/5
  • In a fair fight OSX takes it...
    Pound for pound Mac OS X is a much better operating system.  Tiger already wipes the floor with Vista and Leopard will widen the gap.  Unfortunately, Vista does have the proverbial trump card in that it can be installed in any Intel or AMD computer you wish to buy, including Apple's own.  With Mac OS X, you're forced to go with whatever computer Apple thinks you should be using.  You also have to deal with the cult of Mac.  The question is are you unhappy with windows to a point where you are prepared to make sacrifices to switch to apple's vastly superior operating system?  If not, is Vista good enough to make you stay?  That's something you have to decide for your self.  If OSX were to be licensed there would be no question as to which one.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    benroethig
    02/09/2007
    Posts:1
  • Vista vs. OSX alternative
    Vista vs OS-X ???

    I have read both the articles written by Erika Jonietz and Brad King. I read the current replies to Brad's article, but didn't sift through the massive amount of replies to Erika's article. So I would like to add my own perspective to the question.

    I can't comment on any of Apple's systems, as I have never had one to play with. That fact aside I have a lot of respect for the Apple Computers because in the early days Intel's (WIN computing) chips were all but brain dead compared to Apple's Motorola Processors. I never bought into the Apple systems for two reasons, they were rather expensive compared to WIN computers and because they ran on proprietary (Apple) hardware. Every graphics professional I have known swore by their Apple systems while most WIN-users swore at their WINTEL based systems.

    One of the earliest "computers" that I worked on had either a 64bit or, optionally, a 128bit core memory, RAM was implemented in TTL logic. It was a computer, but was designed for a single specific purpose. Those who understand "core memory" will know that I've been around computers for more than a decade or two. That has nothing to do with my comentary, other than to give you an idea of how long I've been playing with computers.LOL


    In the late 1970's Bill Gates came to speak at the San Fernando Valley Computer Club. After the meeting, he had an open discussion of what he envisioned for the world of computing. Even back then he proposed that he would like to see "software as service" not software as product. No one at that meeting could forsee the growth of Microsoft to where it is today. Nor could they see the virtual strangle hold that Microsoft would
    have upon the "desktop".

    In the ensuing years since that early time in small computer history, Windows has grown into the virtual 800 pound gorilla. And each ensuing version of Microsoft's operating systems has locked more people into Microsoft's version of WIN computing.

    Apple's venture into using Intel based chips and Microsoft's Venture into Vista (which some people seem to think is a poor OS-X clone) at this point in time completely changes the traditional playing field for desktop systems. As an example you could run both OS-X and/or Vista on the same computer, inso far as that computer is hardware compatible with both operating systems. In either case you are still locked into proprietary operating systems and will have to follow the path that either Apple or Microsoft chooses for you.

    The only real choice to escape the "proprietary lock-in" of both Apple and Microsoft operating systems is to go to an alternative operating system which is not "proprietary property". "Software as a service", is Microsoft's end goal, it also means that you do not "own" the software, or even a user license to it, it will be yours to use only as long as you pay your monthly subscription to Microsoft. This takes all the headaches out of software and software "bugs". But when you stop making your monthly payments you may only have files with your data on them and nothing left to edit or ammend them with. Possibly, you may not even be able to display them. Software as a subscription is great for the owner of the software, but the convenience of such a plan may not be so good for the subscriber.

    Great hardware is currently available, powerful enough to do most computing chores that anyone might care to do. 64-bit multi-processor systems (single and dual core now, quad and more in the near future). Do you wish to "own" your software, or at least the license to use it for as long as you wish and transfer it to as many systems as you may choose to move it to in the future? WIN XP allows you a couple of hardware upgrades and a renewal of the license agreement if you move it or make extensive changes to your system, but you must jump through hoops to do so. Vista allows for only a single hardware change and then you must purchase a new license. I may not be perfectly accurate in this, but there is certainly a lot of current controversy on the subject of "licensing". It will only get worse when MS begins to sell software "subscriptions".

    LINUX is a viable operating system contender, which can be used with either a command line interface or with one or more, of several "windows" systems. Although a change to it will mean a learning curve that many computer users will not want to face. But unlike Vista and OS-X it has open licensing and there are too many software programs that run on it to begin to readily name them all here. LINUX is also "POSIX compliant" a standard for UNIX which is imposed on the industry by the U.S. government to ensure software compatibility across multiple hardware systems and operating systems.

    As a computer user you do not have to be locked into any "proprietary software system", there are plenty of choices to make about the operating systems and software you will use, the choice will always be yours.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    hdlss1
    02/09/2007
    Posts:2
    • Re: Vista vs. OSX alternative
      leopard is a built 64bit but can also handle a 32bit if reqiures.so i think it is clever peice.
      microsoft need to stop smoking stuffs & start thinking.
      ya i agree "OS X only MAC" is a disappointment but i think its OK for me.

      but i see sensabilty in you may people tell things about macs & critize them.but ask them one question "have you ever used one?"
      and the subject kinda changes to the format wars.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      shahul
      02/14/2007
      Posts:7
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: Vista vs. OSX alternative
      Where oh where to begin?

      I guess we'll weed hardware out of this discussion fist, since it has nothing to do with the comparison between two different software products... not that Linux has anything to do with the discussion... but so much for what we were supposed to talk about. 
      Buying a PC or a mac with installed proprietary software does not make you a blind retard and should not make you feel all bad inside. There is an army of Linux users online who want to save billions of computer users from being damned to silicone hell for using products that you can't change and configure, all day, every day, until the end of time. The fact is, if Linux settled down six years ago, it very well could have held a huge - contending with windows, surpassing OS X - market share of desktop systems. It stayed true to it's nature instead... which is good.  It is a good choice for non-desktop environments. I recommend linux for servers and workstations and such because the work going into configuring it is less than the work it could possibly do on its own, once properly configured.
      Let me clarify thus, computers were supposed to make our lives easier. They were supposed to do work for us. So when you spend 8 hours writing your own perfect custom Apache script and another few hours installing and configuring PHP and SQL and linking them together, you would benefit if it let thousands of people access your site without it crashing. Go Linux!

      If, on the other hand, you spend that much time configuring your audio to output anything at all, building your video card drivers and linking them to your kernel, trying to find a way to change your resolution, and loading up your favorite OS X-like or XP-like skin just to sit on Digg and Slashdot to damn other users to a fiery hell where Bill Gates and Steve Jobs laugh at all the fools who blindly followed their path and sold their DRM'd souls for drivers that actually worked with their peripherals and applications that don't require you to configure or MAKE everything in order for it play nicely with your hardware, you have become a slave to your computer. It is not working for your to the extent that you are working for it.

      And to the thousands,possibly millions, of Linux coders, you should be proud of yourselves. When you had the opportunity to sweep the desktops, when Apple users were PO'd at Apple for their then slow and buggy revolutionary OS, and MS users were PO'd at MS for all the viruses that started popping up (the latter never changed, but people learned to deal with it), you made a token effort to make the Linux installation process for Red Hat and a few other distros slightly easier to understand, but otherwise never sold out your high end users by dumbing the system down. You passed up the desktop market to remain strong were Linux has always been strong.

      I used to love Linux... and it makes sense. I once asked a friend of mine who had been in a bad relationship why she didn't want it to end. She said that you have to love things that you take care of-because you have spent so much time and effort on them-even if you would hate them otherwise. Cats, fish, dogs, people, religion, linux, whatever. It's universally true. And the user whose statement I am replying to loves linux, and perhaps won't, perhaps shouldn't, change. He or She seems well informed enough to make his or her own decision... seems, other than the comment that WIN computers were around in the early days (it's semantics that Windows specifically wasn't around in the early days, I know what the author means, and likely agrees that the early days were even before Apple carved computers out of wood and Microsoft wrote software for them) , a veteran of the computer age. I also agree with software subscriptions being a bad idea. I simply disagree that Linux presents an viable alternative to mainstream desktop computing.

      Now on to POSIX. It may be true that the linux kernel is POSIX compliant, and you should therefor be able to run most any POSIX compliant software on it. This is, of course, not true out of the box for Vista, so I'll leave that out for now, but is true out of the box for OS X. In fact, I hear that 10.5 server is going for UNIX certification, a bragging right badge held by particularly few operating systems these days. Not all applications, depending on your installation and distro of Linux are POSIX compliant, which means that there are still some applications which cannot be ported to native OS X without some help. There are also some Linux apps which cannot be ported to OS X at all, or some that cannot be ported to specific macs (such as the inability of POWER based macs to run emulators and such that are written in X86 assembly language). For the most part, however, you can build or install binaries and run open source software packages on OS X, just as you can on Linux, with no modification whatsoever. Many popular applications even have Aqua front ends for OS X, giving you the luxury of a mac with the configurability of Linux. Linux desktop environments can be run in conjunction with Aqua(which, in my opinion, leaves too many toolbars all over the place), on top of, or underneath the Aqua UI, giving you the ability to run even the applications written specifically for Gnome or KDE or the like. 

      What is often talked about when comparing operating systems is PC's and their ability to run alternative OS's as well as Windows, and, in the other dark corner, Apple computers with their proprietary hardware. Ten years ago it was not the case, and it is not the case today. The only piece of hardware that couldn't be purchased off the shelf is an Apple motherboard. You can and always could (though a while ago you needed less common SCSI drives) swap your Fujitsu or Toshiba hard drive with any other. You could use standard, non-Apple branded memory to upgrade your system, provided you had the a supported bios and drivers(on the manufactures side) you could use any interface card made for your available interface ports, be they firewire, PCI, USB or SCSI. Apple serial ports and ADB input devices were an Apple only affair, but many manufactures made hardware for these ports... and they have long gone the way of the Saber-tooth Tiger. You could and still can take that Fujitsu or Toshiba harddrive out and put it in a PC. Video Cards generally had special firmware for mac versions, but consisted of the same hardware as equivalent PC cards. Memory and video cards were once, a long, long time ago incompatible with PC counterparts when the memory used in Apple's were 5V chips as opposed to the more common 3.3V PC memory chips, and NuBus cards were once used instead of PCI,PCI-X,or PCI extreme cards, however these were all standards, and all were available off the shelf. Processors, and not just the new intels, but going way back to the POWER PC 601 (and even earlier if you knew what you were doing) were standards (Power pc REference Platform, and Common Hardware Reference Platform I recall being two standards used), off the shelf products that could be fitted to any mac with the correct pinout and bus support.

      Of course, modern macs, in addition to every other piece of hardware, use Intel processors, and those with removable processors can be upgraded with off the shelf processors, just as any PC can. The only difference between Apples and PC's these days, hardware wise, is the Bios system.

      Since Apple made available it's BIOS emulating boot loader for download (which will soon ship with it's evil, proprietary operating system) it has the same flexibility an off the shelf PC has.

      So it can be said now that it is neither the case for PC's or Macs that buying the hardware locks you into some roadmap from Apple or Microsoft, as either computer can run many other open source operating systems if desired (and, of course, the Apple can run Windows, but not vice-versa). so we can remove the hardware aspect from the conversation.

      Assume you bought a mac, and you have the option of running OS X, Windows, or Linux, and you have a debate. I don't feel that Linux will come out on top until evil, proprietary, closed source software is written for it. I don't mean all the software, or, like Apple, most of the software, but specific applications. Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver(does that still exist?), Avid or Final Cut Pro, Logic or Protools... applications that professionals and even some amateurs have invested huge chunks of time and money to master. These programs cannot, in most professional uses, be replaced by linux counterparts without suffering from either functionality, or retraining, and often both. A windows photographer can learn to switch to Photoshop on a mac, but isn't going to swallow The Gimp without a fight. I'm sorry to be the one who has to say it. Proprietary software is as important to common users as proprietary hardware is to you. And neither is more evil than the other... and the purest of the purist army of the proprietary computer hasn't yet, to my knowledge, built their own processors or the like.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      salo
      02/14/2007
      Posts:3
      Avg Rating:
      1/5
  • Whatever you want
    Who cares as long as you're happy.

    I build my own system to 'optimize' so that basically my PC runs with the stability of a Mac.  I used a computer running Windows98 for six years.  Who does that?  I'm running and XP machine now for over two.  It is all about how you craft your system.  I'm probably going to stick with XP for another year or two because I don't care. 

    I do design work and enjoy using the Mac, however, I find their file system and window layout to be very annoying and counter productive.  Many people can attest to this.

    Vista vs. OS X.  Who cares.  Most people that love and understand computers do whatever they please.  Mix and match.  (Therefore, this comment stream is moot, because anyone reading the Tech Review is a 'computer person.')

    PCs are still the favorite in my family because at any given time, we've had 3-6 PCs.  That means, change out parts, swap with your siblings, and not have to worry about damaging equipment.  We had one mac, that gradually slipped into oblivion as it was too expensive to upgrade and fix.

    I almost feel like Macs are too fragile to use with a big family, because as soon as it breaks,  you have to take it to a factory to be repaired.  PC people fix their own stuff or take it to a service center.  PCs have options; less expensive options.

    I like the following association:

    Linux is to Windows as Windows is to Mac

    Linux is more controllable than Windows, and Windows is more controllable than Mac.

    Maybe Macs work 'plug and play' better than PCs, but I like to tinker at the root level.

    Do whatever you want.  The fact of the matter is, I haven't purchased a computer in 10 years.  I just get them as hand me downs or swaps, and buy inexpensive upgrades for new parts.  I got a Mac G3 off Craigslist for free and resold it to some Mac person for $50.  I guess Mac people will get desparate for parts because there are so few of them floating around.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    grausc01
    02/09/2007
    Posts:12
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • it doesn't beg the question
    to 'beg the question' is to assume an answer to the question under discussion.  where the author used that phrase, the intended meaning was 'raises the question'.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mbloore
    02/09/2007
    Posts:24
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Why Mac OS X?
    Well, Vista is comparable to Mac OS X.. The fact that many features of Vista are already found on Mac is something that only Steve Jobs needs to be concerned about. The fact that Vista takes up more resources is counter-balanced by the fact that you have more options for upgrade with Vista than with mac (like more kinds of graphic cards). So then the question is... why mac and not Vista.. To me, there is no more reason to buy a mac than a vista..
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gfc1080
    02/09/2007
    Posts:1
    • Re: Why Mac OS X?
      ...there was more to the previous article, but the writer's system crashed due to a driver conflict in the Windows system, resulting in 3 hours of troubleshooting by the IT Department, finally resolved by erasing the hard drive and reloading the system afresh.

      Writer is currently reconfiguring the system, and should be able to finish the article, God willing, before year's end.

      He called me to pass the emergency word on to you, since I'm on a Mac, and am currently on my fifth year without a crash, virus, or configuration issue.

      He also wants to let you know that the two systems are still pretty much the same, or something like that (his handwriting was garbled).

      Thank you all for your patience.

      - A Friend with a Mac
      Rate this comment: 12345

      ikshields
      04/03/2007
      Posts:4
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
  • OS X Convert - Not Just for Artsy Fartsy Stuff
    I bought my first iMac 20" back in April '06. Since then I have been amazed at the versatility and flat out stability of the OS. Moreover, I would also like to offer up a counterpoint for those that would say that Macs in general are for doing just "fun stuff."

    I use the platform extensively in both quantum mechanical and molecular dynamics studies and have found OS X to beat XP hands down. Both of these computationally intensive applications when run on my Windows machine cause frequent lockups, and  simultaneously abort even if they are the only application running. When running on my Mac I can multitask without EVER worrying about destabilizing my machine.

    What I am willing to concede to this point,  is that the stability is probably more a function of the BSD UNIX kernel than anything else, but if Apple is smart enough to exploit that, then more power to them.

    Last, websurfing has become a joy once again. All the extraneous junk that I (indeed all of us) have had to increasingly deal with, has not gone away but has undergone a significant decrease. This was noticable within the first couple hours of surfing when I took my machine out of the box.

    With regards to Vista, I can't say anything about it as I readily admit I have not used it. However, I don't feel compelled to purchase it based on my prior experience with Windows OS's. Since the nicely redesigned Windows 95, the following OS upgrades have just not been very inspiring, innovative, or brought any real additional value to my computing needs. To me ,that is what is most important, is the OS meeting the ever changing needs of the users? In my case moving from XP to OS X was a step just as pivotal, inspring, and need-fufilling as moving from DOS to Windows 3.0 was back in 1990.


     
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mcharend
    02/10/2007
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • It seems to me. . .
    that the author is not equally capable on different platforms.  Let's take the one example he offered: 

    </i>Four years ago, when I was doing press for my book, I used an early version of the XP Media Center like a TiVo to record the news programs on which I appeared, strip off the digital-rights management, edit the clips down to bite-sized chunks, and create a DVD media kit. While I'm comfortable with technology, I'm by no means a hacker of any sort. With the assistance of Google Groups and the Hewlett-Packard online help center on my PC, I was able to do all this in less than an hour.<i>

    1)  unless you were ripping a DVD you were not defeating DRM. 

    2)  analog digital converters were plug and play on Apple computers four years ago (we got Formac studio dvr).  With two computers a four year old with no net access could use one to defeat DRM.  We have news footage of the lead up to the war, old Daily Show episodes, clips from rented DVD's, etc.

    3)  Four years ago Apple computers came with very user friendly (and free) movie editing (imovie) and DVD creating (iDVD) software.

    Anyway, I did the same thing four years ago and didn't go to google groups or online help.  I plugged the computer into the wall and read the directions.

    Now more than ever I have a hard time seeing apple computers as inflexible.  I regularly use about 30 scientific applications written by individuals for unix systems via an x-windows interface.  I'm not a programmer, but my understanding is that these programs need only minor changes to be brought over and the number of apple users (relative to linux) makes it worthwhile.  More and more these "linux first" programs are getting apple specific GUIs and becoming more user friendly.  In a few months I will buy an intel mac so I can run a few proprietary windows programs also. 

    I'm very comfortable with Apple computers.  I won't attempt a comparison with other platforms because many middle schoolers are more adept with windows and linux systems.  I suggest the author consider a similar path in the future. 
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Bee
    02/11/2007
    Posts:1
    • Re: It seems to me. . .
      Hey there:

      It's true that I use Macs on and off, and I am more comfortable with the PC.

      I think you've misread what I wrote. I wasn't using a VCR or any other recording device. My television ran through my computer (the XP Media Center); I used the digital guide to set recording; and once it was recorded, I ripped the DRM and built the DVD right from there.

      To address your points:

      1) I was recording television straight to my PC using the Media Center DVR capabilities (which comes with DRM to keep you from burning to a DVD). In order to burn a DVD from that, you have to get around the built-in protections.


      2) If I was using a Mac, as I understand what you are staying, I would have needed to record a show using a VCR - then record to my Mac and edit. With the PC, I recorded straight to digital and edited from there.

      3) My PC came with a very easy-to-use software program as well; once I pulled the television programming from the hard drive.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      wiredbeat200...
      02/12/2007
      Posts:16
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
  • Macs can't even compute straight
    It was reported on Digg that the Mac Calculator program gives bizarre results. Check out the links below:
    http://www.digg.com/apple/Mac_Calculator_is_bad_at_math

    http://vowe.net/archives/008181.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9kBz1Q-paE&eurl=

    Hey, this computer can't even compute, but it has candy colored shiny buttons. That's all that matters right?

    1+3=7 How did that slogan go? "Think different!"...Tards :))
    PS - don't do your financial calculations on the Mac.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gabrielg01
    02/12/2007
    Posts:361
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Macs can't even compute straight
      hey i think you need to learn maths.
      1+3=7.
      why don't you tell it?
      [
      Adding 19% to 8511.22 renders different results depending on whether you use the % button or multiply by 1.19. The difference is more than 0.04. Which es enough to make you look stupid when writing an invoice. See this video and find out that the bug is related to the locale in use.
      ]

      didn't your maths teacher teach you rounding of decimals??

      Rate this comment: 12345

      shahul
      02/14/2007
      Posts:7
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • undeniable proof of the victor...
    If this is all we are talking about - which is better of OS X and Vista, I'll save each and everyone of you the time, aggravation, and downright hateful... almost religious tones necessary to convey your point.

    OS X is the better of the two, but don't take my word for it... take your own.

    ...or better yet, take Microsoft's.

    After all, what successful corporation would take a look at a product with nine times fewer sales than it's own competitive product, gather it's best employees for half a decade and give them a Billion Dollars to copy something that it considered inferior? That's right, no successful corporation.

    Microsoft clearly shot themselves in the foot this time. I think they expected every Apple user to say that Vista is a clear as day theft of everything OS X has been for years. I think they expected each and everyone of those users to get -5 flamebait ratings on Slashdot because the computer world hates people that use Apple's. But I don't think they expected every major news outlet running the story of Vista's past life... I mean every major news outlet, including and especially NBC.

    This is bad news for MS because most of the people  who are buying personal computers have no idea what they are buying. It's an appliance. A toaster toasts just like any toaster, and no one's looking at the manufacturer of the heating element, are they? Refrigerators cool and freeze, some like Kenmore better than Maytag, but no one cares who makes the compressor. A 1040i and 1040p TV is the same thing to many people... it's high def.

    I mean, when Granny Smith is out there buying her first computer, she doesn't even know that there are competing operating systems. She doesn't know what an operating system is. She goes to a store, and buys what they have. A few months ago that would almost always be a Windows PC of some kind. But when she reads that there is a better product; when she hears about it on the news... well Granny Smith isn't stupid, she just wasn't informed. Now she's asking about Apple. She'll find her way to an Apple Store eventually. She'll buy herself an Apple. And when she buys her daughter's family a computer for Christmas, it's going to be an iMac. And when her grandson goes off to college, he's getting a Macbook.

    This is going to be as bad for MS as Apple's years of trying to copy BeOS was for them. Apple had the sense to innovate out of it after they lost nearly all of their user base... well, after buying most of the groundwork they needed (which probably would have been Apple's to own if they hadn't canned Jobs). I'd love to see Microsoft fall that far. Frankly, they haven't innovated yet. Imagine how much cooler Apple products would be if they had competition.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    salo
    02/14/2007
    Posts:3
    Avg Rating:
    1/5
    • Re: undeniable proof of the victor...
      FWIW, the argument I made wasn't that one OS is better than the other...in fact, no single OS can claim that mantle. That is determined by your needs, skills, ect. My argument is that when you design an OS that is so widely used ~ on a platform that is independent of hardware ~ by it's very nature, it must not be completely "finished". It requires tweaking.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      wiredbeat200...
      02/14/2007
      Posts:16
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
  • Flawed design is not room for creativity ...
    I've been in the IT world for a long time.  I use OSX, Linux and Windows.  Windows because it is unavoidable; the others because they are superior.

    When I work with my computer (a Macbook with Parallels for Mac that runs all three OSes), I'm not interested in improving the OS.  I just want it to work, every time.  When I program a system (I'm a database geek), that is where I put my creative efforts.  The OS itself is much too far away from my area of concern when things go right.  It can become a factor if things go poorly.

    I am an application level person and leave the OS stuff to the geniuses that fully comprehend its details and technical ramifications.  When I run Linux or OSX I am confident that the OS will not have a negative impact on the work I am doing.  With Windows, in whatever form, it almost always has a negative impact on my work.

    What I tell people is "Stay away from M$, in any form and especially Vista, if you can.  If you can't, don't run their software."  My Windows sessions include the use of OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird, never MS-Office or Internet Explorer.  The systems stay healthy and I stay happy and I stay happily away from Windows for 99+% of my personal work.

    When people ask me the difference I tell them, "Given the same hardware, *nix vs. Windows, Windows will run half the throughput of the *nix box.  Throughput is efficiency.  Which would you choose?"
    Rate this comment: 12345

    sfarber53
    02/14/2007
    Posts:2
  • I like both
    I don't get the "made broken" argument the author was trying to make. I think what this article failed to mention since it was so focused on Apple is that Vista is a much needed and fresh upgrade for Windows from XP. Vista is more user friendly than XP while still retaining a familiar feel. It looks better. It has more cool features . You do need a powerful computer to run Vista but computers become obsolete so quickly you need a new computer soon anyway.

    I use both OS X and Vista and I like both. They are so similar now I don't even think the old adage that Macs are better for some things while PC’s are better for others is true anymore. I mean I still play video games on my PC and Photoshop on my Mac but basically they can do the same things if you wanted to buy the diffrent versions of the same software. I have iTunes and MS Word/Office on both. As long as I can listen to some music, browse the net, write a paper, and watch a movie on it I am happy.

    Who cares who came up with what features first? Am I really the only person who couldn’t care less if Microsoft “stole” from Apple? No one cares about who had airbags or seatbelts first. I’m just glad Windows looks better and that the start menu in Vista is so much better than it was on XP. I am sure most people are just like me. I mean we really just don't care.

    I can’t even agree with all the Mac people who keep saying OS X is so much better than Vista. That is just fanboyism at its worst. Macs freeze up and have an unintentional program closings just like PC's. I remember years ago my pc would crash or do something wierd like once a week. I practically used to have to kick it to get it to work but now both of my machines are so stable. I love it.

    To me they are just the same and now more than ever. They both look good and are easy to use partially because they look so similar. I can go back and forth without having to reorient very much. Vista and OS X both connected to my shared printer with no problems. They found my wireless router and connected to the internet seamlessly. They both could download pictures from my digital camera. If you remember what using a computer was like ten years ago its practically a miracle that both OS's have gotten so much better.

    I wish people would just let the Mac vs PC thing go. Really now that new Macs have Intel chips and can run Windows is there even a point? Obviously I only have minimal computing needs and so a lot of the more technical arguments don't really apply but I think most users are just like me. We don't really care as long as it looks kinda cool and works reasonably well than good whatever then. I'll just use both. If someone put a gun to my head then probably I'd choose Vista just because I don't like other Mac users but really both are fine.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Crash900s
    03/26/2007
    Posts:1
    • Re: I like both
      OS X and Vista the same? I dont think so mate. Here, a picture is better than a thousand word:
      http://amani77.blogspot.com
      Rate this comment: 12345

      stevenamani
      04/23/2007
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
  • I agree with Brad
    Gotta agree with Brad on this one.  Vista is crap.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    keath
    04/23/2007
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Pc better than Mac
      Osx is a toy. A beautifully implemented toy.
      But a toy.
      1) Osx is hardware restricted. A playstation os works well because is written to fit that hardware. OSX is better than playstation os because it works even with a dvd disc.
      2) Osx stable? Stability of every Apple os reaches its maximum two months before a new release (you must pay to buy) is available, via firmware upgrade or "system patches". windows "unstability" is the result of a lot of hardware software tecnologies that mac only dreams;
      3) apple innovation? what the hell is innovation in bsd? when mr. jobs discovered its toy was prehistoric, he decided it was time to go unix...
      4) desktop publishing? twenty years ago it had sense. now it is only an habit but it has no logical reason.
      5) why do i should buy a machine that is old after six months paying three times more than a personal computer? in six months for the same price i buy three personal computers...
      6) what do you say about the word: hardware upgrade?
      7) what do you say about tweaking? why should i have a "plastic shiny packaged" os but without any possibility to tweak it?
      8) why should i write a virus knowing that if i even could infect all mac on the earth, i would infected ten computers at all? (this is the main reason there are no virus or spyware on mac)... too much hard work for nothing...
      9) Architecture? Powerpc powerpc becomes Intel Intel Intel. A 9th level spell i've never seen, even in dungeons & dragons. Yep! The difference is a protected firmware so you can not change anything in your machine!! This is Architecture!!
      10) Explain to the apple mouse designer WE HAVE FIVE FINGERS NOT JUST ONE!!!
      11) Design? Yes, beautiful is beautiful, but why pay over 1.500 $ for a beatiful toy?
      12) Only one last thing: if your mac is no older than six months, sell it to iggy pop. buy one pc 1500$ worth. You'll have a machine more powerful than nine macs together.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      diamovoce
      04/18/2008
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • [no subject]
    "The hardware is high quality and I don't suffer through crashes, viruses, popups, spyware, defragmentation, windows balloons, windows registry, Windows OS slowdown etc."

    this argument does nothing other than prove your inability to reason. i can build the same box for less money and do it all by myself.

    there is no different hardware. same procs same memory, even the motherboards are manufactured directly adjacent to the motherborads i can buy on newegg.

    you want less viruses and popups and spam? stop surfing websites that you know you dont need to be surfing.

    these problems dont just pop out of the box when you install the windows OS.

    YOU DID THIS to your computer. and if YOU cant fix it yourself then you should be using a mac. because people like me are sick and tired of spending our weekends fixing your mistakes for a miniscule amount of money (if not for free).


    the walls in your house will break down if you swing a hammer at them. you dont blame the builder or the company that makes the sheet rock, you blame the idiot swinging the hammer.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    dmpullen
    08/27/2008
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review July/August 2009

Current Issue

Search Me
Inside the launch of Stephen Wolfram’s new “computational knowledge engine.”
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
Advertisement

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.