Windows or Macintosh?Apr 01 '04 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Laptops
The Bottom Line Both have become excellent platforms, both have lost most of their flaws. Today, its the viruses that make Macintosh a better choice.
Linux has made great strides recently in terms of installation ease and ease of use, however the free operating system is still quite far from prime-time for two reasons, both directly related to Microsoft’s monopoly; the lack of Internet Explorer for Linux, and the lack of Microsoft Office for Linux. While there are plenty of substitute applications available, its just not the same as having the real thing. So, for the average home, business or education computer user, the choice really comes down to Microsoft Windows or Apple Macintosh. Obviously, there are many versions of these two systems, and over the years the balance between performance, features and stability has shifted back and forth between the two platforms. I’ll briefly cover older systems by the time period they were available, but the focus of this article is between the two modern versions that will come preinstalled on a new PC or Macintosh computer. Back in 1987 I bought a new PC running Windows 386, and quickly upgraded to Windows 3.0 and then 3.1. Macintosh was on System 6 through 7.1 during this period. This was actually a very interesting time to shop, as the advantages on both platforms were quite drastic, as were the disadvantages. Windows ran on cheap hardware, usually with large 14” color monitors, but no built-in sound. Macintosh computers were very expensive, had tiny 9” black and white screens and did have built-in sound. So for hardware, Windows machines were much more attractive, however the Windows operating system, which was really nothing more than a graphical command shell for DOS, was clunky and inefficient at best. Macintosh System 6 and System 7, on the other hand, were elegant, logical, and extremely easy to use. The result was that Windows dominated business where nice graphics and sound weren’t important, while Mac dominated education and art where simplicity, control and elegance were more important. Both systems left a lot to be desired in terms of stability, but Macs were generally more reliable. Things stayed essentially the same as Windows 95 and System 7.5 and 8 added on features while the primitive operating system kernels remained the same. Systems crashed more often as DLL conflicts on Windows and Extension conflicts on Macs caused more and more problems unimagined back in the 1970s and early 80s when those systems were first thought up. The real change came in 1996 with the introduction of Windows NT 4.0, which for the first time combined the ease of use of Windows 95 (use, not installation) with the stability of a modern, enterprise-level operating system kernel. 1999 was an even more radical shift in the platform war, as Windows 2000 was even more stable than NT, while at the same time offering both ease of use and ease of installation and configuration. With Windows 2000 you finally had USB, plug and play and DVD combined with industrial strength stability and the same ease of use as Windows 98. Of course, Windows 2000 was the expensive, business version, while consumers got stuckw ith Windows 98 and later, Windows ME, which were both the same old creaky DOS-based garbage. Compared with Windows 2000, Macintosh OS 8, 8.5 and 9 were all sorely deficient. Sure, they had much more cool multimedia toys that were far better integrated, but they still crashed due to the same antiquated OS kernel from System 6. Windows ME and 98, however, are even worse than Mac OS 8, 8.5 and 9, as they lacked the integration and polish of the Mac, but without the stability of Windows NT and 2000. 2000 saw the release of Mac OS X, which was to change the balance back in favor of the Macintosh, and in some ways it did. While OS X 10.0 (Cheetah) was every bit if not more stable than Windows 2000, but it lacked compatibility with the vast majority of peripherals and lacked native applications. 10.0 was also such a resource hog that the very fastest Macintosh computers of the time could still not run it quickly. 10.1 (Puma) was an improvement, but not until 10.2 (Jaguar) was released could OS X be considered a truly viable operating system for exclusive use. The current version, 10.3 (Panther), while still a bit slow compared to the current version of Windows (XP Professional), is fast enough in its basic UI operation, and combines the stability of its UNIX kernal with the easeof use and multimedia integtation that the Mac has used to have in the pre-OS X days. So when looking at older systems, there was always a balance between stability and features, with Windows 2000 probably the best of the old stuff. Fortunately, most people computer shopping are looking for new equipment, and will end up with either Windows XP (Home or Professional) and Mac OS X Panther. Both systems are built on industrial-level kernels that are incredibly stable, and both feature all kinds of multimedia tools for everything from DVD-burning to ripping tracks off of audio CDs. So if both systems are stable and both include all of the multimedia extras, why would anyone go with an expensive Macintosh that lacks compatibility over a cheaper Windows machine that will run everything? Good question, and the answer varies. Windows is more compatible, and has a MUCH larger library of software available for it. Mac OS X, on the other hand, has a very limitted software library, software is much harder to find, and many internet apps simply do not work on the Macintosh platform. So why choose a Macintosh? Well, it is even more stable than Windows XP, quite a bit more. The main applications, Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, etc., are available and often are even better than the Windows versions. Finally, and most importantly, since the Macintosh platform is only between 3 and 7% of the market, there are far fewer viruses, worms and other malicious programs aimed at Mac users, with none so far directed against Mac OS X. This is important, and is the reason why I sold my Windows XP Professional laptop and bought a Macintosh laptop running OS X Panther. Of course, security and stability are not the only reasons to chose a Mac. The Mac has always been and remains a better platform for multimedia. DVD movies look better on a Mac, digital photographs are easier to import and manipulate, and the list goes on. Since Apple makes the hardware and the operating system, there is a much tighter integration between the hardware and software, resulting in a better user experience. Another difference is the hardware itself. Apple has a reputation for being expensive, born out of the 1980s and 90s when that really was true. Today, while Apple does not compete at the bottom end, their price for mid and high range systems is usually within $50 to $100 of a comparable Dell or HP system. Case in point, Dell’s compact laptop averages between $1100 and $1600 depending on configuration. Apple’s compact iBook starts at $1100, while the compact PowerBook tops out at $1800, but comes with a DVD burner that the Dell lacks. The cost is usually about the same for most software titles as well, though the cheap niche programs usually cost more on the Mac. Even compatibility has been mostly addressed. When I brought my PowerBook home for the first time and plugged in the network cable that used to go to my Windows XP laptop, it saw my desktop computer (also running Windows XP) right away, printed to my 15-year-old HP LaserJet, and connected right up to my DSL connection. My scanner and digital camera connected right up to the Mac, and once I installed Microsoft Office v.X, my documents all opened without need for conversion. OS X Panther behaves just like another Windows computer when plugged into a Windows network, even sharing its own folders and printers as easily as if it was another PC. If you can’t tell, I’m very much pro-Macintosh at this point. Of course, this remains subject to change. Back in 1999, I wouldn’t have considered using Mac OS 9 instead of Windows 2000, and were I using a computer too old for XP or Mac OS X, my choice would be a PC running Windows 2000. If I was a hard-core gamer, again my choice would be a high-end PC running Windows XP. Of course, I am not restricted to a 6-year-old computer and I’m not a gamer so my current choice is an Apple laptop running OS X Panther.  |
| Read all comments (5)|Write your own comment |
