Mac vs Windows?

My day to day job is multimedia design. If you see something that moves around or is interactive in any way, shape or form online, that's the sort of thing I do. In the late 90's I got a grant from The Princes' Trust and started printing skatewear t-shirts and moved on from there. When I started out I needed a computer so I bought a Mac. I chose a Mac primarily because I had a friend that knew about them and could help me fix it if it went wrong. I've been using them ever since and am now the bloke my friends with Macs call when theirs goes wrong. Contrary to what Apple would like you to believe, just like Windows machines, Macs throw a wobbler on occasion too.

Currently on my desk at work I have a Windows XP box and an iMac. I don't really use the Windows machine. It's not because I have any objection to the fact it's Windows, I just know how to get around the Mac better. Other folk I work with that also have the same set-up work the other way round, with the Mac hardly getting touched. Again, it's just about what they are familiar with and prefer. I find the whole frothing at the mouth evangelism some Mac users have a bit sad. I like using my Mac but I don't see why somebody who is perfectly happy with their Windows machine should be ranted at for their preference. I think the PC fanatic who rants with equal candour against the Mac is also misguided, and often misinformed. Both operating systems do similar things equally well, but there are some things a Mac does better, and some things Windows machines do better. Bizzarely, I find Microsoft Office is better on the Mac and one of my creative mainstays, Adobe Flash, is better on a PC. On a Mac it runs slower and is more processor hungry. Annoying but true.

But here is the thing. I'm glad Microsoft has the market dominance. I can't help but feel that if Apple had the same domination that Microsoft has they would be a lot more ruthless - to the detriment of the consumer. When Apple had market dominance way back in the late 80s and early 90s, the computers were astoundingly expensive. Bill Gates wanted to licence the Mac OS but was told where to go, so he made Windows. Apple responded to the new threat with arrogance and didn't work on giving people a better deal with Windows machines running at thousands of pounds cheaper than the Macs of the time. By the time Apple realised what they had done Microsoft had stormed ahead to where it's the system the majority of you are using now. Similarly, Quark was once the dominant force in publishing software, but has now been supplanted by Adobe InDesign because Quark didn't listen to it's consumers or understand the threat from the competition. Apple lost out for the same reason.

As far as figureheads go, I think Steve Jobs is an influential and charismatic leader as well as a great company figurehead, but I think Bill Gates comes across as a nicer - if geekier - bloke. I know he's been replaced by Steve Balmer as the head of the company, but I think most people still see him as the lead guy. I think the charitable trust he and his wife set up is great and his general ethos on the staggering wealth he has is a good one. I tend to imagine Steve Jobs may well sleep in a coffin, albeit a very nicely designed one.

Comment by all means but please don't prove the point of the article. Save the Mac and PC flaming for Engadget. Don't forget, even if you hate the other operating system to the one you use, the fact it exists means there is competition that will push forward the development on your favoured system. Consumers benefit and lower blood pressure all round.

Yes, I know Unix and Linux are players in the market too, but it's going to be an online OS we are all going to end up using in the future anyway. The Google ramraiding will continue.

Don't get me wrong, I love using my Mac and don't want to change operating systems. I just think some of the Apple users out there need to have a little more perspective about their beloved Apple, and to just chill out a bit. We should be more relaxed, we are running the better system after all. But then, I would say that, wouldn't I?

Comments

[David W]

'Cool' is not something one can really work at...you either are, or are not.

Apple products are perceived as cool.

It's a shame as I think the 360 is by far the cooler console..

As Johnny Storm would say...Flame On !

[Oli Burgess]

I completely agree with you. I'm not going into Windows fanboy-mode, but I have to say that I find Apple to be more monopolistic and competition crushing. Its started to force people to download safari - their browser which is below-par on security. If microsoft were to do this nowadays then they would be fined up to the hilt. It seems that with apple, anything goes.

[Mark Warwick]

I can see merits of both companies and as much as i like the mac machines I simply cannot afford one. I've been looking at the iphone but again they are pricey and not to mention that you need to have a plan to use the options on the phone. I recently sold my Ipod to upgrade to an iphone but was turned off by mac's business attitude and lack of wanting to play nice in the sand box. I hate the fact that if you buy anything from mac you have to unlock then to actually feel as though it is yours. Some times you think that they should just give you the items and make the money off the lack of freedom that comes with them.

[Sir Daniel]

Surely Apple's success lies in ownership of both device and software?
The integration makes for a better user experience, closer control on branding and style, and I suspect, more money.
Personally, I have neither the confidence in capability, nor lust for deisgn, I once had with Apple products.
That said, its still a better bet than even the fanciest of PC.

[Ian]

Yes I agree 100% with this article. I think if Apple were to be #1, the world would be a horrible place.

I can't say I have never freaked out about I think Windows is better (I run Vista, and Love it! ^_^), but I seem to notice that Mac users are 110% dedicated to Apple, its like they would literally kill themselves to prove there product is better.

I don't like Macs, but thats because they are so expensive, and I don't like how it is setup... I tell people all the time its personal preference... Just because you like it doesn't mean everyone else will and or should.

Great Article btw :)

[Simon Brooker]

I find the MACs too restrictive and generic. You can't whip the cover off and upgrade this or that and you most certainly can't build your own. The apple "myth" that it just works, and that it is as secure as can be is just that, a myth. If apple had even a quater of the OS market share Microsoft have, criminals whould be pulling the code apart left right and centre. FACT.

You pay through nose for an overpriced pretty, glossy white system. Which comes preloaded with an operating system, you cannot replace or use an alternative with. It comes preloaded with a media player, itunes and all manner of applications. Microsoft bundle IE, WMP etc and get a slapped wrist/fined. Microsoft have rightly got alot of stick for their anti-competitive behaviour, yet Apple it seems are above that law.

[Bob D]

Apples are a lot less proprietary than these comments would indicate. A Mac Pro is extremely expamdable. So is my seven year old Power Mac, with standard hard drives, graphics cards, memoty, even processor upgrades. Apple also makes systems with lttle internal room, but even those can use external USB and FireWire peripherals. It's not like the bad old days when you haf to get Apple specific printers, modems, scanners, etc.

Ths bit about not being able to replace the OS is just wrong. First, Leopard is fully certified Unix, with all the tweakability that implies. Second, there are Mac users who have replaves OS X with Linux and run it as their only OS. lastly, runiing multiple OSs si sinple, I run Leopard, Vista, XP, and Ubuntu on my Macbook.

The main differneces between Apples and Windows PCs are that Apple offers only a few models, which may or may not be what you are looking for, and Apples come with an operating system that actually works well.

[Philip J Fry]

I like my Mac and for what I paid for my iMac it's actually no more expensive than a PC of the same specs. Sure you can get cheaper PC boxes but the specs are significantly lower.

As for upgrading certain parts? By the time I am looking to upgrade the processor I also want a better screen, video card etc. etc. so for me it's better to swap a new machine every couple of years. If I were a big gamer then I definitely would go for a PC for the upgradeability but for most regular users, the upgradeability isn't a big issue as most people don't upgrade anything other than RAM in their machines.

I don't have an issue with Windows, I also just prefer using OSX. It was annoying that Apple took so bleeding long to bring out a 3 button wheely mouse though. The one button mouse was just s***.

[mrshev]

Simon, the desktop systems can be upgraded in terms of RAM, HDs, GFX cards and have DVD and bluray added aftermarket. i agree, you cannot upgrade the chipset on the actual motherboard.

In terms of the operating system, AFAIK you can quite easily install Windows or OSX on an Intel Mac - maybe you can install Linux, but I don't know that. I have both on my Mac (XP & OSX) because they are both good at doing different things.

I do agree that Apple act as if they are above the law sometimes.

[Pecos Bill]

As a GUI developer and afficiando of a well designed GUI, I have major problems with XP and Vista. Apple does a lot of bone-headed things. Couldn't say I love the company but do love most of their products.

Most Mac users are happy to bash Apple when something is wrong/bad/crap. PC users just don't see it. What pisses me off is when a PC(Win) user spews incorrect facts.

Here's a good one: Vista actively copying files from CD to hard drive on laptop. The Start menu refused to open. Entire task bar stopped responding!! Windows asked if I wanted to restart it (the new not responding UI). It's not like the data streams were flooded as I was still able to open directories in an Explorer window from both the HD and CD. That's pathetic. Vista is lipstick on a pig.

OS X pisses me off when it allows an app to steal focus from the app I was using. Seems to have gotten worse over recent releases.

[Chuck]

David, you are utterly, utterly wrong.

I never call you when my Mac wiggs out.

Jobs def sleeps in a coffin but he's just the salesman. 'The other Steve' Woz is the Earl of Mac. Youtube Woz. There are some great keynotes and docos on and by Woz.

The philanthropy of Gates is his most endearing feature. Gotta love him. I was really sad to see Vista do so badly.

Love my mac. It's pretty and is laid out in a way I understand. Just hate all the thumbscrew upgrades and the oft need to 'work around'. Although that has become second nature.

Can't wait for COD4 in may.

[Bill Gates]

Steve, PLEASE have someone responsible seal you in your coffin and bury it DEEP so we don't have to listen to your superficial inane blather EVER AGAIN!

[zato]

A kinder, gentler, black PR from the Times of Microsoft.

[Steve Swonk]

Like David Hutchinson, I also work with both Mac and Windows computers on a daily basis. At work as a graphic artist and web developer, I use both systems constantly. At home, I use my 2008 MacBook primarily for entertainment and communication and a three year old HP Pavillion for checking the results of any private development I do here.

I am inclined to like both computers on their own terms. If you know what I mean, my Mac is my Jag and my Windows system is my Ford. The Mac is a beautifully designed system with an extremely quiet engine and nice seats. The HP is a rougher ride, but it does get me where I need it to.

The operating system question is key here. Is Mac OSX superior to Windows? In my mind, as a veteran of nearly 30 years of using DOS, Apple ][ and everything in between, the answer is obvious: a Unix-style OS is the best and most secure way to operate a networked computer. The access control and command line interface options alone sell me on that.

The thing about Windows that I really enjoy is the Office suite, which to me laps anything Apple has ever come up with in respect to business application.

Two other differences that strike me every time involve the installation of new software and speed of access. The Mac way of dragging a folder to copy into “Applications”, after providing an administrative password, and then launch – just works. Regarding speed, the Macs are always faster on startup. My MacBook 2008 restarts in under 30 seconds every time. I know there are too many variables to make this a benchmark remark, with web access and login applications being primarily key point.

Buying a Mac is a hard choice if you look at the initial investment. Windows is improving and I don't really have a big problem with it. But the Macs, man, they are really, really good computers.

[Nick]

"I find Apple to be more monopolistic "

Oh, do you? How can a company with around 4% of the market be a monopoly? In what alternative universe is this possible?

And it's not even as if Microsoft just happen to have large market share that's been honestly won.

Microsoft used Windows error messages to undermine DR-DOS.

BeOS offered its operating system free to any OEM that would preinstall it. When Hitachi took them up on it and offered a machine that would dual boot between Windows and BeOS, Microsoft forced Hitachi to remove all mention of BeOS from the bootloader. So Hitachi shipped a BeOS partition on their machines, but with no way to boot into it.

OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) have repeatedly introduced Linux desktops and then had to withdraw them, because Microsoft leaned on them.

Microsoft has even corrupted ISO (the International Standards Organization):

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/04/sinclairs-syndrome.html

And try googling "knife the baby" if you want to know one of the many reasons why there's likely to be little love lost between Microsoft and Apple. Not that MS haven't illegally trampled on the rights of Netscape, IBM, Sun, Silicon Graphics, and many, many others (to say nothing of the public's) as a nauseatingly large pile of court documents demonstrates in embarrassing detail.

[Seb Green]

I recently made the switch from Windows to Mac. I still use both, I'm a Cisco certified engineer, graphic designer and web developer.

The comment about macs only having pre installed OS is rubbish, I have mine running Leapord, Vista and XP. Guess which of them crash more......

I still use windows alot, I'm not going to say "Win is rubbish, Mac rules" like alot of mac maniacs do but Microsoft are trying too hard, vista is so complex and the majority of it is un-needed rubbish, and it just falls over most of the time. Mac OS x on the other hand may be simple, but it does just work, its simple. Yes it does ocasionally fall over but no computer software is full proof, its the way of computers, resources run out and computers slow down and eventually crash, Mac's suffer just as win machines do but an awfull lot less.

It's totally personal preferance which you use and preffer, personally I got frustrated at Microsoft applications, they just try too hard and don't seem to do enough testing before they release code to the public.

[Philip Dodd]

The idea that if Apple had dominated the market the effect woiuld have been more devasting for software users is a laugh. It sounds plausible if, and only if, you use the personalities of the people behind the software to extraplote into a user experience. Personality makes no difference in terms of a user experence...the person writing or selling it in no way equates to end product.

The truth was expressed by the late Douglas Adams who said:
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place."

And finally, Bill Gates philanthropy really is a cyncial ploy to raise his nice-guy profile, avoid nasty questions about the coding behind Windows, and remind people not to recall how often he is pulled up before regulators for market abuse.

[John S]

Philip Dodd: If Apple dominated the market the home computer would be significantly more expensive and it would be to the detriment of the consumer. The only reason Mac's are now reasonably priced is because they have to compete with Wintel boxes. If Microsoft only had a small share of the market, Apple would still have massively over priced hardware. The only reason Bill Gates got to where he is is due to Apple's greed and arrogance. Effectively it was Apple that threw everybody into the mine in the first place by charging so much for it's hardware. "second rate technology" can only get a foothold if the first rate technology is out of reach for most folk.

Saying Bill Gates philanthropy really is a cyncial ploy to avoid questions about his code is a stunningly cynical and laughable view. I think you need to take off the Apple blinkers.

I also use a Mac and wouldn't change to Windows if you paid me.

[Philip Dodd]

I thought Bill Gates got to where he is because of his first rate business skills - I mean that sincerely. That's the point I'm making that the ability to write good software has no relation to the man selling it. Add to that the ability to sell also bears no relation to how cool or not the man is, the facile point of the original article I thought.

Would computers now be massively overpriced if Apple had dominated? Maybe... I confess it's difficult to factor in developments in CCB manufacturing etc to get an answer to this one.

Would the business world waste millions of man-hours and money on downtime if Apple had dominated? Maybe not. We could go at this all day!

It's interesting to note that many users go Windows to Mac but almost never the other way around. And many people still believe Mac users are anti-PC because they are not Macs...not true. I've used both and Mac's work for me. I don't have blinkers, just plenty of experience that proves PC's have never worked for me. Ever.

Lastly about Bill Gates philanthropy (read: PR). Check the release dates from his publicity office about charity donations and how they correlate with court findings and judicial fines. If I had time I'd compile a full list.

[Brian Smith]

Apple have been making poorly designed but pretty looking stuff since the IIe back in 1982. Their latest iPod, iTouch and laptops display the same arrogance and shortsightedness that has typified the company from the very beginning. Who wants to send their device back to the manufacturer to change a battery? Overpriced, over hyped; they're not for me. People rant on about Windows and its rapacious behaviour. But when did Apple ever do anything that wasn't worse? They didn't have a "proper" working browser until last week; and I'm not sure it works even now. There is no doubt - as many commentators here have pointed out - that if Microsoft did half the things Apple does the EU would have fined them into oblivion already. As for who has the better OS I couldn't care less.

[mrshev]

'Apple have been making poorly designed but pretty looking stuff since the IIe back in 1982'

I'd be quite interested - in light of Jonathon Ives mantlepiece full of D&ADs, Design Excellence Awards, and he has a whole section to himself at the Design Museum - how you judge good design? Stuff breaks, especially complicated stuff. What do you consider good design?

[Chris Longley]

Nicely balanced piece. It baffles me that Apple haven't put some of their large iPod an iTunes profits into producing cheaper Macs. I hate the constant claims that Macs are easier to use which sway people who aren't computer literate into buying the product. Safari, Firefox, Photoshop, Word iTunes etc are equally simple / complex on either system.

[matt king]

Hmmm, it's a very interesting topic, I agree that both of the two most familiar operating systems both have their merits. I agree that Microsoft have always been more aimed at the majority of the business community, which is great but not practical for everyone. Vista was like their attempt at trying to make an operating system designed for the people but unfortunately it failed due to the unnecessary over coding! Twice as many lines as XP.

I studied computer science at Birmingham Uni and always found windows XP to be fantastic for coding but when I tried to introduce media into the equation it began to crash.

I decided to buy a mac as I was also interested in recording music. It was initially very hard to use the mac OS due to my conditioning and having been used to nothing but windows. However I was soon up to speed and could not believe how easy just general computer use was (what most of us now use computers for). Computing was now a pleasure instead of a chore, it was fantastic to not worry about where things were that I had installed and could not find the root of and viruses were just not there which used to make my life a constant struggle to go more than 10 minutes without a threat alert.

I dont agree that macs are more expensive, you get what you pay for. I value the time I no longer waste and I enjoy using my computers much more. I still have my XP machine but I find it better not to use it to connect to the internet unless I really have to :)

As for Jobs and Gates, they are businessmen, they need to make money to be successful, they need to be a good company head and they need to sell their firm. The comments that Apple were too greedy seem a little unfair, the time when Apple struggled most and were nearly insolvent were the years when they had forced Jobs out. Upon his return he introduced OS X. I think that in any scenario a company will charge what it considers a fair price for its software until somebody else comes along. This is why competition is good for consumers as it forces companies to sometimes incur initial losses in order to still sell products. It's unfair to say that it is greedy of a company to charge what they consider a fair price for a product when they are the only ones making it though.

[Graham Lucas]

We have both here. I use Windows (XPPro and Vista), my wife uses Apple OSX. She finds the Mac better (she does graphics) I find the PC better (I use accounting and spreadheet packages). I have to say that was a really well written, balanced article. Ther is a place for both systems, and MS have opened up the computing market. I agree with the comments about Apples "it just works, 'coz it doesn't! And Apples comment about not having an egg-timer? They're right, they haven't, they have a little swirling, rainbow coloured circle, which appears just as often as the egg-timer!!

[Seb Greeb]

"macs are over priced" ..... Yes I agree they are a little more expensive in terms of actual spec vs spec basis but people don't understand macs, they actually run faster than most win machines (due to less irreligant os code and the fact that the hardware is all chosen because it works better together, not just because it will work together) . In terms of benchmark testing to get a windows of to perform like a mac in terms of graphics and audio processing you actually need to spend more on a win machine that on a mac so although spec for spec they are more they do actually perform better thus making them worth the higher price.

As for the comment on the battery.....having to send it back to factory for replacement...... Not sure how long back you are thinking but as far as I'm aware this hasn't been the case for quite a while (may still be case with mac book air but its the same with the thin tosiba I think too) .

Design is personal taste, you may not like how they look but I personally buy a machine to use and for its functionality, not because of how it looks.....

[Arnold Ward]

Having recently acquired an Imac, I have to say I was expecting more. The software available for the mac is limited and very expensive - compare say the price and capabilities of Quark express with Coreldraw.If i had known then what I know now and had not been taken in by the Imac's looks I would have stuck with PCs.

[Best Dressed Monkey]

Arnold: It's a shame you are unhappy with your new iMac but comparing Coral Draw with Quark is just not a reasonable comparison. Quark is a high end publishing software package and Coral Draw is a home graphics package that while it's a great piece of software, the 2 packages are in totally different leagues and are for totally different markets. There are loads of good software packages that are free or cheap for the Mac that can cover the functions of Coral Draw, you just need to search online.

However, I would suggest that if you are unhappy with the Mac OS you should just wipe it off the iMac and put XP on your iMac instead. Problem solved!

[Paul]

Hi, im a mac user, but only have been for about a year. I agree with the general jist of what you were saying. And i especially agree with the point on why mac only having a small amout of the market is good. Personally i like this because there are no viruses for mac:D and that i like to know i am using the better os:P haha

What i have always wondered is why PC users never use Tiger or Leopard on their PC's, because i genuinely believe that mac is a better operating system than Xp. Basicly load xp with lots of apps and media and it will run like a three legged donkey, but with a mac, it self defraggs, saving hours of time.

Anyway, i do genuinely believe Macs are better than windows. I switched to a mac, and i dont see me going back.

[kingkerouac]

The usual rubbish from PC jjlopy drivers.
Go back to your horse and cart, the (Mac) car is going way too fast!

[Bradley]

I used both Mac's and PC's in my days of growing up. I think it was my school's attempt to broaden our already limited scope of the techonolgy. Having said that, I've come to live in a dual world. I myself used to be a die-hard PC fan. I thought Mac's were the worst invention on the face to the planet and that society should surely strike down anyone owning a Mac.

Now I own one, and to be honest, I'm perfectly happy with it. I've never owned such a great computer (yet again, in my own opinion, not yours). It does what I need, what I want, and so much more. To me, no matter what I'm doing on my Mac, it feels like I'm playing as opposed to working or such.

At work I use a PC. Lucky for me, I'm pretty good with both OS's. I do like to use a PC for certain projects, such as CAD, but I perfer my Mac for EVERYTHING else.

I used to flame people for there choice of OS and even their choice of PC, but age and expereince has taught me that everyone's choice is influenced by their own requriements. You love PC's? I say good on ya, just don't try to shove it down my throat and I won't do the same with my beautifully designed MacBook :)

[clivex]

I have Macs and PCs. I use my Macs for what they are needed for and my PCs (with XP - not the dreaded Vista) for they are needed for. Some software I need for work is just not available on a Mac, other software I use isn't available for Windows. In both cases I have software for one OS and there's no need to get a second copy for the other OS - I run the machines side-by-side.

But... I do prefer Macs. They are just nicer.

[morton]

An online OS system?
And google? With online storage?
If ever there was to be another"big" war. Do people really think that the governments of the world would not seize google etc?
Hmmmm.