Great anti-windows pro-mac article

[solrac]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/02/04/notes020405.DTL

This is mostly funny, but that's because it's mostly true. I like the authors complete disgust of windows and his use of adjectives to express that.

I disagree with the article in only these ways:

1) You can't compare Windows to a car. Even though it's been done before a million times, it's not an accurate comparison.

2) Yes, the mac OS is more robust and harder to hack, but there really are more viruses on Windows because Windows is more popular. You just can't argue that. If Mac was as popular as Windows, no matter how much harder it was to hack, it would be flooded with viruses too. Maybe not as many TYPES of viruses, but they would be there in numbers.

Other than that... yeah.... why does Microsoft still suck? God only knows.

 

[Viro]

1) The comparison isn't too bad. If you bought a car and it didn't work like advertised, would you put up with it? People don't put up with their purchases (cars, washing machines, etc) if they don't behave like their supposed to. Why not apply the same standards to computers?

2) The Mac doesn't have as many viruses or attacks because it is more secure by default. Once Mail.app starts executing arbitrary attachments by default, the default user is allowed to modify system files at a whim, useless services like RPC and such are turned on by default, then you'll get as many security problems as Windows. The whole "Windows is attacked more because it's more prevalent" is bunk. A common counter example is Apache is the most widely used webserver, yet we see that IIS has more 'issues' than Apache.

The article is alright. Not the best piece of journalism, but still gets the message across.

 

[chevy]

I've asked lots of IT people to try to understand why they still choose Windows for many applications. Here are some answers:

1) Hardware is cheaper
2) We know how to manage Windows machines (or network)
3) We have licenses for all software
4) Software X Y or/and Z is only available on Windows

But several told me they like MacOS... and more than I thought had Macs at home. For pure technical computing they now use farms of Linux machine on Athlon64 (fast and reliable... while cheap).

What they don't like with Windows ?

Virus (and other security problems)
Stability problems
The price of licenses

 

[fryke]

The question that arises here for me is: What can Apple do about those 'issues'...

1) Hardware being cheaper
They're already on the task, I'd say. The Mac mini will certainly lure some more PC-users over to the Mac. However, the PowerMacs are still too expensive, whereas in the notebook field, Apple's doing great.

2) Knowledge about managing Windows machines & networks
Apple's doing a _lot_ of stuff here in Mac OS X Server. However: As long as trying out Macs involves _buying_ Macs, PC heads will probably try Linux before Mac OS X.

3) Licenses
A big investment in software _is_ a big hurdle. And it's not as if Adobe or Microsoft would give you an incentive to switch to the Mac. (And why would they...) I believe you can get upgrade prices from Windows Adobe software to Mac Adobe software, but _is_ the same true for Microsoft Office, for example?

4) This can in some cases be solved by a different product that serves the same purpose or Virtual PC. Since switching PC users often buy MS Office at some point, anyway, the 'big' version gives them Virtual PC, too.

One reason less talked about is: "My friends all have PCs." Don't put this off as in "And if they'd jump off a building, so would you?", because there's some legitimate reason behind this argument quite often. Computer-illiterate people depend on their friends. Those are the ones who come to help if something goes wrong. And being PC users, those people 'know' that problems _do_ arise with using computers. Sure, they'd have much less problems and hassle as soon as they're on a Mac, but even with all those viri and worms, they still feel better in a network of colleagues and friends who are "in the know".

And to help here, you can tell someone who's almost willing to make the switch: "First, you have _me_. Second: You'll have _less_ problems with a Mac than you do now with your PC. And third: There's macosx.com, where people will help you quickly, should your Mac ever fail you."

 

[kainjow]

Why the hell do people put up with this? Why is there not some massive revolt, some huge insurrection against Microsoft? Why is there not a huge contingent of furious users stomping up to Seattle with torches and scythes and crowbars, demanding the Windows Frankenstein monster be sacrificed at the altar of decent functionality and an elegant user interface?

People just don't care enough. They're accustomed to the problems that happen with their PC, but they have learned how to work around them (pop ups? just X out of them, slow startup? just wait). The PC does what they need without too much extra work, so they are satisfied. Not everybody needs the best, not everybody can afford the best, etc. However with Apple's lower prices on hardware, I think things will begin to change in big ways.

 

[texanpenguin]

Slow startup? My PowerBook takes approximately four times longer to start up than ANY PC I've owned.

I don't mind, mind you, because I only ever restart it for Security Updates and OS X revisions.

I think there're a few things that have to happen before Macs become more prevalent:

Apple needs to do now what they did with the Apple II in the early 80s; practically (and very often actually) giving them away to education markets. So often, schools introduce PCs because it IS cheaper to have a hundred PCs than a hundred Macs, even with education pricing. And it's also easier to get PC network administrators. Mac OS X should be a free inclusion with every education Mac; get them off OS 9.

That means people will buy Macs at home to keep their children up to date with what their school uses. Then you'll get a generation of Mac users, who'll be familiar with Macs moreso than PCs, and thus, they'll keep Macs at home. When they get into business, they'll be more likely to want Macs there, and if not, they'll keep them at home, recognising their advantages. Then you get mass campaigning to managers, and then the businesses recognise a need to update to Macs.

Then you get VPN software and Access written for Apple products and then you get Microsoft doing what it does best, Office programs (which started on the Mac, mind you).



Although it's all just a pipe dream. There's just too many billions of dollars invested in the x86 architecture.

 

[kainjow]

Slow startup? My PowerBook takes approximately four times longer to start up than ANY PC I've owned.

While I admit my Athlon 64 3200 PC boots up faster then my Dual 1.8Ghz G5, both machines with 1GB, most people do not have top of the line machines. I did DSL tech support for a while, and many people have terribly slow machines, but brand new too! Why? Because they let crap like spyware and stuff build up, which doesn't get put on Macs. So in the real world, Macs do boot up faster if you're comparing non-geek PC users to non-geek Mac users, from my experience.

 

[MisterMe]

....

2) Yes, the mac OS is more robust and harder to hack, but there really are more viruses on Windows because Windows is more popular. You just can't argue that. If Mac was as popular as Windows, no matter how much harder it was to hack, it would be flooded with viruses too. Maybe not as many TYPES of viruses, but they would be there in numbers.

....

Huh! Are there any scientific studies that show a causal relationship between popularity, an undefined term, and the prevalence of viruses? Any at all?

This notion of a causal relationship between Windows marketshare--which is not the same thing as popularity--and the number of viruses attacking the platform was an assertion made by Microsoft in 1999 as an excuse for the withering number of viruses on the platform. The gullible popular press and users accepted this excuse without demanding documentation for it. There was no documentation for the excuse in 1999. There is none now. It remains what it always was--an excuse for sloppy system design and computing practices.

 

[JonKemerer]

People just don't care enough. They're accustomed to the problems that happen with their PC, but they have learned how to work around them (pop ups? just X out of them, slow startup? just wait). The PC does what they need without too much extra work, so they are satisfied. Not everybody needs the best, not everybody can afford the best, etc. However with Apple's lower prices on hardware, I think things will begin to change in big ways.

Then there are people on Windows who simply don't have these issues. I've run Windows in one form or another since 1996 and never had anything serious enough to fuss about. Sure, Spyware can be a pain to remove (only had to remove it on two occasions), but it's not that big of a deal. The last time I did have to deal with anything was about a year ago. Not bad odds, eh?

It wouldn't be fair to imply that Apple is the clear cut best choice, it certainly isn't the best choice for everyone. I've yet to encounter any situation that's black and white... I know, this is an Apple board, but I hope everyone looks at things objectively and fairly (for lack of a better way of putting it [brain fart]).

I've never owned a Mac, but have dabbled with them. I want a Mac because I think Mac OS X is awesome, and there are many oppertunities with the Mini. But I doubt I'd ever trade my Windows PC away for a Mac (or vice-versa). Especially not for the reasons mentioned in the article (oh yeah, the author's "valid arguement" is he's mad because *his* PC crashed and burned). Though I can't see any valid arguement of why you wouldn't try a Mac over another PC for $499 either, since apparently you don't have these aforementioned issues on the Mac.

 

[contoursvt]

Granted I'm not a mac guru but I do support macs and PCs on our network and while I'm still learning OSX (I wont even bother speaking of OS9 just as I wouldnt bother speaking of win98), I have to honestly say that I dont think its quite as stable as Win2k or XP - at least not in our environment. Its still very stable but I have to give the edge to 2K/XP.

We have .net developers using the PCs as well as Flash/web designers doing HTML, flash, photoshop..etc on the PCs. The macs are used a little for Flash but we do see that the performance is much lower for this application - probably macromedias fault. As for other tasks, we use the macs for photoshop, Illustrator and Quark for a lot of print work and some web graphics too.

Here is what tends to go wrong on our OSX boxes:

-problems with file permissions frequently - repairing permissions fixes it but I dont understand why it should even have to be like this
-too often there are print issues. Doesnt matter what printer or applications. Printing just stops, items in the print queue just sit there. Also printing the same items (even a web page) is 2-3x slower to the same printer. Dont know why. Printers are Phaser wax printers as well as Xante 3G B&W printers. It doesnt make a significant difference if its printed via appletalk or TCP/IP.
-freezing and occasional messages that the computer has stopped and must be restarted.

Here is what tends to go wrong with our PC boxes:

-viruses - sometimes a computer will become infected because a brand new virus will be out before the scheduled antivirus has run. Its rare but has happened.

-spyware - although everyone is careful, sometimes you do get some spyware that can be tough to remove. This happens a lot more often with the average user. Developers know enough to be careful when surfing - well at least ours.


Our Macs range from single G4 733's to dual G4 2.0's and some dual 1.8's in there too. Oh a few new 17" imacs for general users.

Our PCs range from PIII 500's to P4 3.2Ghz. We have a couple IBM intellistation dual Xeon boxes (dual 2.4 I believe) but to be honest, I dont think they can outperform the custom built P4s we have which are like 1/6th the price

The macs have anywhere from 512mb to 2gig (the dual G5's have the 2gig). The PCs have anywhere from 256mb to 2gig.

I'd also like to add that our MAC hardware failiures have been about 2:1 compared to the PCs. Not sure if this is just the luck of the draw or not. Usually its been the mainboard that has been replaced while under warranty. To be fair, its mostly the imacs and not the towers.

Now having said all that, I'd have to say that I think if I had to get a computer for someone who didnt know much and wasnt careful when online, a mac based on OSX because it would be easier to maintain. For anyone who can do their own maintenance like spyware removal and such, I'd suggest a PC with 2K or XP. I think its just as stable as OSX and much cheaper to have if you want a tower which has room to grow.

I do have a Mac running 10.3 at home but its only on a B&W G3 so understandably its sluggish even with 768mb ram and a 40gig 7200rpm IDE drive. I dont regret having it but I only have it because I purchased it used and cheap. I dont think I could ever afford a new G5 tower. I'm not making the big $$ yet

As for my PC which was somewhat expensive to put together, its a P4 3.0C with 1gig CAS2 RAM, 3x U160 36gig 15K drives, Adaptec 39160 Dual channel card, X800XT ati videocard and an M-audio 2496 soundcard all in a full tower antec case. Oh and two Pioneer internal 16x DVD +/-R drives. I was able to build it all brand new for $2550 canadian funds including WinXP pro (not some hacked copy. I like being able to do updates). The price is high for a self built machine but I will tell you that its rock solid and very fast. I think it still works out cheaper than a G5 single 1.8 with a gig of ram, 6800GT and a 250gig SATA drive.

 

[Satcomer]

Here is what tends to go wrong on our OSX boxes:

-problems with file permissions frequently - repairing permissions fixes it but I dont understand why it should even have to be like this
-too often there are print issues. Doesnt matter what printer or applications. Printing just stops, items in the print queue just sit there. Also printing the same items (even a web page) is 2-3x slower to the same printer. Dont know why. Printers are Phaser wax printers as well as Xante 3G B&W printers. It doesnt make a significant difference if its printed via appletalk or TCP/IP.
-freezing and occasional messages that the computer has stopped and must be restarted.

I will give you credit on the permissions issue. I tend to hate that aspect of OS X but I will take it compared to the freezes of the pre-OS X days. Now printing, if I were you, I would look at the printer drivers and if the OS X machines have an updated print drivers, what system is doing the print services and the style of printing. The OS X console log might give you clue. I say this because I see the exact opposite on a Samsung laser and a Canon color jet.

 

[ex2bot]

For those Windows users who have not used an OS X machine for general computing day-to-day, I wouldn't expect you to know why OS X is generally a better choice. There are good reasons.

1. OS X is better designed. Procedures for accomplishing various tasks generally make more sense.
- VERY simple example: command-Q to quit, not ALT-F4. Yes, I know. You have committed ALT-F4 to memory. But, what is the mnemonic? Why ALT-F4?
- amazing-that-someone-would-even-check-this example: There are about 75 Control panel "screens" or panes, or whatever you want to call them. In OS X, about 50 System Preferences screens give you about the same control. I counted.
- Why do yellow speech bubbles pop up?
- Why is there a search doggie?
- Why in search do you have to click a link before you can search? Every time!
- Why is XP orange and blue? Garish!
- On your huge 23 " LCD monitor, why would you want to make WordPad maximize to take up the whole monitor?
2. OS X Mail indexes lots faster than Outlook Xprs. Read Anandtech.com.
3. OS X is sooo pretty. It's like looking at a beautiful woman all day (if you like that kind of thing). Well, not exactly. But, Windows isn't. Not at all. Not even close. Eek!
"Dear, you wore orange and blue again. And you brought your doggie. Uh, huh. And you shaved your mustache. How sweet."
4. No need to authenticate. Apple doesn't check to see if your OS X is legit. Mine is, but I don't like heavy-handed anti-piracy measures. Why go through it if you don't have to?
5. Most of Apple's software is top-notch, included with Macs, and not available for Windows. iDVD, iPhoto, iMovie, Garageband. Some costs extra, but still top-notch, some even superior. Keynote 2, Pages, Final Cut Express, Logic, Final Cut, Shake. . .
6. If you've ever wanted a nice consumer OS that you don't have to recompile or drop to CLI to get something done, but at the same time you want to grok *nix . . . that's OS X.

Also read Anandtech.com. Click the Macintosh tab.

Of course, if you think the orange and blue gui is keen (or you like the olive variant) and dig that sweet little search doggie, don't let me trouble you further.


Doug

 

[MBHockey]

Slow startup? My PowerBook takes approximately four times longer to start up than ANY PC I've owned.

I've read in several different places that a main objective of Tiger is to significantly decrease boot times.

 

[MBHockey]

-freezing and occasional messages that the computer has stopped and must be restarted.

I don't believe i have ever seen that message. What does it look like (unless you mean a kernel panic?)

 

[kainjow]

Then there are people on Windows who simply don't have these issues. I've run Windows in one form or another since 1996 and never had anything serious enough to fuss about. Sure, Spyware can be a pain to remove (only had to remove it on two occasions), but it's not that big of a deal. The last time I did have to deal with anything was about a year ago. Not bad odds, eh?

It wouldn't be fair to imply that Apple is the clear cut best choice, it certainly isn't the best choice for everyone. I've yet to encounter any situation that's black and white... I know, this is an Apple board, but I hope everyone looks at things objectively and fairly (for lack of a better way of putting it [brain fart]).

I've never owned a Mac, but have dabbled with them. I want a Mac because I think Mac OS X is awesome, and there are many oppertunities with the Mini. But I doubt I'd ever trade my Windows PC away for a Mac (or vice-versa). Especially not for the reasons mentioned in the article (oh yeah, the author's "valid arguement" is he's mad because *his* PC crashed and burned). Though I can't see any valid arguement of why you wouldn't try a Mac over another PC for $499 either, since apparently you don't have these aforementioned issues on the Mac.

Well.. since you've only "dabbled" with them, I'd suggest you look into it a bit more before you think you know what you're talking about. I don't want to sound rude, but so many people think that since they've "dabbled" (is that a word) with OS X they know how it works and compares to Windows XP. Not so at all. I've used OS X and Windows XP quite a lot, and have done programming with both quite extensively... I know the major differences between the two.

Sorry but I just don't take much from someone who hasn't had excellent experience with both OS's..

And by the way I was comparing regular users of OS X to Windows XP, not above average geek's like us the great majority of newbie PC users have spyware. It's a fact.

 

[MDLarson]

... so many people think that since they've "dabbled" (is that a word) with OS X...

Yes of course it's a word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dabbled

 

[powermac]

I am trying to get my School District to convert over to Macintosh. I am on the Shared Decision Committee, and trying desperately. The tech guy, who is a nice person is anti-mac. The good news is he is retiring at the end of this school year. The district is faced with purchasing new technology within a year or so.

Price comparison is always his argument toward not getting Macintosh. Second reason is more software is readily available. Of course I know these are myths, but I have to combat those arguments in the meetings. My question is were did people get those myths? How do we combat them?

The other thing that bothers me is people comparing Apple to windows. I guess in my view this not much of a comparison. Both computers are productive, and get the job done. It is the means to the end that is the difference.

What I have done so far is trying to get a couple of free computers from local clubs or other organizations, particularly from Apple. If the school and community see that Apple is committed to Education of youth, this publicity would be helpful.

Does anyone have any suggestions for me to help convince them to switch?

 

[kainjow]

...Price comparison is always his argument toward not getting Macintosh. Second reason is more software is readily available. Of course I know these are myths, but I have to combat those arguments in the meetings. My question is were did people get those myths? How do we combat them?...

Not so. Everyone knows the average cost of desktop PC's is far cheaper then the average cost of Mac's. I mean, you can get a full Dell package for $500 while the Mac mini alone costs that (the Dell may not be as good, but for computer newbies they don't care).

You might want to check in to see what kind of software your school is using. There's a good chance that there is a similar product available for Mac, but there's a very good chance there is not. Don't assume everything you need is available for Mac. Mac is a good choice, but not always the best choice when it comes to specific software. Do a little research before you want to convince them to switch entirely to Mac (a huge expense initially).

 

[fryke]

Tell them they can cut the support crew in half at least, because of a lack of actual problems after the switch.

And to the car comparison thing... Take anything instead. Pick something. Food for example. Buy a yoghurt. If you open it up and it develops funghi a few seconds afterwards... Do you eat it? Or a hoover. You buy it, set it up and after hoovering one room it starts choking and instead of _collecting_ the dust starts spitting things out occasionally. Do you bring it back to the dealer or live with an untidy apartment? Or CARS again. You buy that new car and drive away with it. It's not that it doesn't at _all_ work, it's just that it starts to become untrustable. Sometimes it _makes_ over 30 km/h and works okay, but sometimes it just doesn't, no matter how hard you hit on the gas pedal. Oh and yeah, the window's stuck at a certain position that let's the rain in. Do you _live_ with that car or bring it back?

Really, I don't get those PC users. It's so in their blood, too. They wouldn't live without antiviral software anymore. I mean: ANY switcher that came onto macosx.com after switching to the Mac asked the question of what antiviral software to use and whether there was anti-spyware products for the Mac, too. Coincidence? Nah... They're _used_ to it by now. That might be the only (and sad) reason why people don't get over to the Mac in droves... They don't even _know_ they have a problem in the first place. Or fail to see the simple (albeit at the cost of a new Mac) solution.

 

[wnowak1]

I've purchased my Mac about 4 months ago and I’m glad I did it. Like Anand from anandtech.com, I shelled out money on the best Mac available at the time.

I was always paranoid when friends were using my pc for browsing the net... always ran an array of spyware removal tools, etc…

My PowerBook has sustained a 43 day uptime, my xserve is now up for over a year... Having a computer science background, I was able to maintain my pc & servers w/ confidence. Maintenance was what I did most however. With Mac, I can get things done... strange feeling.