|
|
Nearly LevelJan 06 '10 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in PC Desktops
The Bottom Line Both 10.6 and Window 7 are evolutionary releases. That said, both are excellent and there is little reason to abandon either one for the other.
Nearly Level I've written more than one essay on the Mac vs. PC subject, usually writing a new one when either the balance shifts to favor one or the other, or the technology radically changes. This is the second type of essay, one based on technology change, as the playing field as it were, has been even since Leopard and Vista hit the streets 3 and 4 years ago. Vista and Leopard were both replaced in late 2009 with new OS versions. In both cases, the changes were more to refinement and stability than flashy new features. Apple's Snow Leopard is a more significant overhaul to the underlying technology, while Microsoft's Windows 7 makes more changes to the user interface, though in the grand scheme of things when used on current hardware with current software (current meaning as of January, 2010) much of the promise of both systems is yet to be realized. Now before the flames come about how I minimize the value of Apple's underhood changes or how Windows 7 really is a ground-up overhaul of the "failed" Vista, let me give a bit of background. Apple: Apple's OS X operating system is now ten-years-old, with the current Snow Leopard (from now on, 10.6) version representing the sixth major upgrade to that system. Windows fans love to blast Apple for charging money on "point upgrades" or "service packs", but fail to take into account that Apple simply uses a different numbering scheme for its product. Saying that 10.6 was a 10.5 service pack, was a 10.4 service pack etc, etc, is the same as saying that Vista was an XP service pack and XP was an ME service pack. Apple and Microsoft name and number things differently, period, end of story. 10.6 added very few new features to 10.5, at least in terms of what the user sees. There are some changes to the dock, enhancements to Expose, and a few other changes, but most of what is new with 10.6 is under the hood, hidden in the ones and zeros where non-programmers will not see it until new applications come on the scene that take advantage of those changes. A great example is multicore processor support and support for offloading computational work to the graphics processor. With powerful dual, quad and even 8-core systems and 1 GB graphics cards that are more powerful themselves than the CPUs of recent years, this holds tremendous promise for demanding tasks like video and high-resolution graphics rendering, scientific calculation, engineering and of course that most demanding task of all, gaming. Today, however, your Mac (or PC) rarely takes advantage of all of its power and even in multicore aware applications, there are limitations. 10.6 is slightly faster than 10.5, uses slightly less space, and makes most of its present gains by the elimination of legacy code to support older PowerPC Macs. A fair trade, I believe. Now many Mac users are upset that fairly new (4-year-old) Macs were left behind, but there really is nothing in 10.6 that would enhance performance on those systems anyway and so few changes in the user experience that running 10.5 on older Macs alongside 10.6 on newer ones is no real issue. I even own one such Mac, a 2005 model Power Mac G5, and it is every bit as fast, stable and well-integrated with my network as the MacBook Air sitting next to it running 10.6. Microsoft: Microsoft has received a lot of complaints about how bad Vista was, and how vastly improved 7 is. The truth is something different in both cases. I beta-tested both Vista and 7 and had a very similar experience with both. On fairly standard hardware Vista, even in its early betas, was fast, stable and a vast improvement over Windows XP. Vista brought a lot of changes to the Windows NT architecture, with the most serious being the move away from all-powerful administrator accounts as default on single-user systems. This broke a lot of applications that were written poorly (not following Microsoft's user account guidelines) and wouldn't install or wouldn't run without administrator privileges. Other problems were with peripherals (including built-ins like graphics cards) that lacked driver support. Most of these problems were addressed as the new OS was adopted, though a few lingered. I had a Toshiba laptop that used a non-standard SATA controller that worked fine in Vista, until I tried to watch QuickTime videos, which would crash the system with a BSOD. Apple, who makes QuickTime, said it was a Toshiba or a Microsoft problem. Microsoft blamed Apple and Toshiba, while Toshiba blamed Apple and Microsoft. Long story short, within four months of Vista's release Toshiba released a new driver for the SATA controller and not only did QuickTime no longer crash the system, but it also was faster and got better battery life. That was in 2006. By 2007's service pack 1, Vista was fast, stable and a very significant improvement over Windows XP. I have two computers in my office that are still on Windows Vista, with no need to upgrade them to 7. Windows 7 arrived with tremendous praise last October, with reviewers delighted that unlike with Vista, their current hardware works perfectly. Well of course it does, as 7 uses the exact same drivers as Vista and the industry has had four years to catch up. Yes, 7 has a cleaner interface than Vista and is a bit more intuitive, but the differences, even in look and feel, are minor. Just as with 10.5 and 10.6 on the Apple side, Vista and 7 machines play very nice together and it is a very small adjustment to move between them. The Playing Field: So which should you choose? Mac or PC? Snow Leopard or Windows 7? In years past I examined the advantages and disadvantages of each platform and recommended accordingly. Here are some examples of the shifts in the playing field of recent years. In 1999 Mac OS 8.6 was a far better platform than Windows 98. Both were archaic and lacked security or stability, but OS 8 was at least easy to fix when it did break. Windows 2000, however, changed the game. Where Windows NT was stable, it was difficult to configure and lacked support for most modern technologies such as plug-and-play, power management and USB. Windows 2000 brought all of the consumer-level simplicity and ease to Microsoft's business-grade NT operating system and instantly made both Windows 98 (based on DOS) and Mac OS 8 obsolete. XP in 2001 made Windows 2000 even simpler, and the Windows advantage grew. Back in 2003 the flood of malware and the vulnerability of Windows XP was such that I urged people to abandon Windows and move to Mac OS X (10.3). With the release of XP SP2 and the improvements in security that it brought my confidence was restored in the Windows platform. 10.4 was a significant upgrade to 10.3 and grew Apple's lead despite the patches to XP, which still required far more user interaction to make and keep secure. 2006 was another great year for Apple. Microsoft really botched its marketing and the whole "Vista Capable" mess resulted in tens of thousands of angry users who bought laptops with Vista stickers on them that were incapable of using Vista's biggest feature, its new graphics system. To make matters worse, it took Microsoft 5 years to get Vista out the door, slowed by the malware onslaught of 2003 and the urgent need to patch XP. Vista also lacked many of the promised features, and was based on Windows Server 2003 instead of an all-new architecture as Microsoft initially promised. Marketing aside, once the industry caught up Vista was a giant leap ahead of XP. Using the Windows Server 2003 architecture was a stroke of genius as that server OS was extremely stable and secure. Apple's 10.5 system was an easier transition from 10.4 than Vista was from XP, but what most fail to consider is that Vista was a much more significant upgrade to XP than XP had been to Windows 2000. The move from OS 9 to OS X was more difficult than XP to Vista, but Mac users understood and expected difficulties in the move, where Microsoft users did not. Here and now: So here we are today. Windows 7 is merely a refinement of Windows Vista, just as Snow Leopard is merely a refinement of Leopard. Both camps accuse the other of charging money for a "service pack" and call each others' release "what Vista/Leopard should have been." I take a different view. Technology moves forward, sometimes in small steps, sometimes in giant leaps. Some of the changes are obvious while others take time to make themselves seen or felt. Some changes are reactions to bugs. The debate over what should be a free upgrade and what should be a paid upgrade is unlikely to be settled here, but I'll give my opinion nonetheless. Bug fixes should always be free, and should be released as soon as they are ready. Both Apple and Microsoft are extremely good at this, with Windows Update (Windows) and Software Update (Mac) allowing for the automatic notification and installation of patches. Service packs are a bigger deal, but should also remain free. Microsoft as the dominant platform sets the expectation here, and does the right thing by making service packs free and available through Windows update. Vista is currently on SP2, while Windows 7 does not yet have a service pack issued. Apple follows Microsoft's example and also makes its service packs (point-point upgrades, such as 10.6.2) available through software update. The two companies differ a bit in what they consider a service pack. Apple will issue bug fixes immediately, but more significant changes or a combination of many smaller issues will be rolled together to form a point-point upgrade. On the Microsoft side, a service pack is a bigger deal, usually involving architectural changes (Apple does this too) rather than just updating drivers or issuing patches. Both companies will usually roll all prior patches into a service pack. Windows fans accuse Apple of "selling service packs" because of the confusion of point upgrades rather than full number upgrades. Trust me, the move from 10.3 to 10.4 was every bit as significant as the move from Windows 2000 to Windows XP, and to refute the claim further, both Apple and Microsoft used point upgrades the same way, as Windows 2000 is really NT 5.0, while Windows XP is NT 5.1. Vista is NT 6.0, and here comes Windows 7, as NT 6.1. A word about Linux: There are many Linux-Geeks and OpenSource mavens who will read this and comment that users should just ditch both Mac and Windows and install whatever version of Linux the commenter likes. There are many, tech-savvy people for whom that is a great option, however for the vast majority of folks, Linux is a non-starter. It is a non-starter because most people want to just turn on their new computer, load their applications and get to work or play. Yes, Linux is easy to install, but that is not the end of the process. Getting everything to work, particularly on a laptop, is such a challenge that there are vast forums of questions and answers for everything from enabling wifi and power management to installing codecs to watch DVDs. Clearly not a problem if you use a desktop (or a very generic laptop) and don't watch DVDs. Another problem with Linux is the lack of industry-standard (yes, proprietary) applications. There are usually many free OpenSource alternatives, but compatibility is not perfect. This may not be important for many people, but if you share complex documents or move complex projects between home and work (or your work and collaborators' work) those alternate tools will be more trouble than the savings are worth. As an attorney I frequently work with documents called Legal Pleadings that have vertical line numbering on the left edge and some other complex formatting, not to mention citations, footnotes and indices. 90% of lawyers and courts are using MS Word (70% or so .doc and 20% the newer .docx) while the other 10% are holdovers of WordPerfect. OpenOffice, AbiWord or any of the other OpenSource word processors will open the documents, but most of the formatting is lost, in either direction, making the real, proprietary application a MUST. Yes, you can use tools like WINE to get Word or WordPerfect onto Linux, but it isn't perfect, and again will require a novice to spend a lot of time and effort with the forums to get it installed and working. Again, if you need to share such complex content that an import from one application to another will cost you a lot of time recreating or repairing the formatting then OpenSource is just a non-starter. Linux-lovers please, save the lecture on how moving everyone to OpenSource will solve the problem. It isn't going to happen. I as a small business owner cannot force state and federal courts to adopt OpenOffice instead of WordPerfect or Word. If a court or collaborator switched to OpenOffice, I would install a copy on my Mac or PC to be compatible, but until Linux can naively run Word and WordPerfect, it is simply not an option. Final Word: So what should you buy? In past years, I would send users to the more secure or stable platform, or where differences were minor, tell them to use the platform with the features that are more compelling. Of course we should also take any change of platform seriously for economic reasons as a change from one to the other is more expensive than a new computer, as you will also have to repurchase many of your applications. Today is just such a time in the platform wars. Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are both very, very good, as were their predecessors. Each has minor advantages over the other, but they are just that, minor. Need better suspend/resume (sleep on Apple) then OS X wins. Need better handling of network folders including offline folder access, Windows (professional versions) are far superior. For most of us, however, just stick with what you already own a library of software for, pick high-quality hardware (premium PCs, any Apple) and don't open unsolicited email attachments. Finally, for those who are unfortunate or fortunate (your point of view) enough to use both, these are very good times indeed. My office is roughly evenly split between Windows and Mac, and my own desk is just such an example. I have an old Power Mac G5 running 10.5 at my desk, use a ThinkPad T400 for most of my writing running Windows 7 Pro and a MacBook Air running 10.6 for court and travel. The three machines (and all others in the office) interface beautifully with a server running Windows Small Business Server 2008 and with the other computers, regardless of platform. Both OS X (10.5 and 10.6) and Windows (Vista and 7) interact with other computers with little or no distinction between Macs and PCs on the network. For the first time, I can heartily recommend sticking with whatever you already have in terms of platform. On that platform, however, Intel Mac users still running 10.4 should definitely move to 10.6, and Windows XP users should definitely move to Windows 7. For Windows Vista users, the choice is more difficult, as reputation aside, Vista really is a fully modern OS. For Intel Mac users running 10.5 the decision is also difficult. Most of 10.6's enhancements really aren't noticeable yet, though the upgrade is so easy that it is more of a "why not" than a "why" question.  |
| Read all comments (6)|Write your own comment |
