Since before the time of newsgroups, people have waged a war of words online to promote, defend, or berate a particular computer platform. At the moment there are really only two contenders in the ring; Apple’s OS X and Microsoft’s Windows. Linux has, for the better part of a decade, tried to wedge itself into the fray but has met with mixed results. At one time, many would foolishly enter into the fray on various newsgroups and forums promoting the various advantages of Apple or Microsoft’s products while others would boo and hiss, stating that they’ve been drinking the grape Kool-Aid too long while promoting their own flavor of the powder-based drink. Later, others would state that certain types of people might prefer to use Ubuntu, a human-friendly version of Linux, to better defend themselves against viral infections while surfing the web. But, at the end of the day, does anybody really give a damn about the territorial pissings performed by legions of technologically aware social deviants who believe so devoutly that they are working on The One True Platform as ordained by whatever deities they might wish to conjure?
This is a topic that I’ve wanted to write about for months but have been unmotivated to do until reading a post from TechCrunch that I have since been unable to find on the site. Was it the level of idiocy behind the post that struck a nerve with me? Was it simply the straw that broke the camel’s back? Don’t know. Either way, after reading such a pile of drivel, I felt it was time to mount my own soap box and shout like a raving lunatic that the world has had enough of the “Platform X vs. Everyone Else” idiocy that has filled way too many forums (and now this site, too) with endless pages of pointless foolishness. Heck, visit any blog or forum that worships one platform over another and replace the name of the platform with Scientology, and the inventor of that platform with Lord Xenu, and you’ll have yet another site for 4chan to openly mock and hack.
OS X Is Not Better Than Windows, Nor Is the Inverse True
The author of the (now vanished) article on TechCrunch had started out by saying how he was supposed to write an article talking about a camera but, once he neared the end of the piece, his computer Blue Screened and he lost all of that work. First off, what kind of (supposedly) computer-literate person working with Windows software for more than five years has not yet learned that Auto-Save is your friend? Secondly, even with Auto-Save off, most word processors developed since 2000 have had some kind of temporary cache storage in place so that some of the work can be recovered in the event of a system crash.
Interestingly enough, after bitching and moaning about having lost his article and all the time spent trying to recover it, he grabs his trusty MacBook Pro from the next room and hammers out a rather lengthy negative article on Windows XP and everything Microsoft while simultaneously singing the praises of Apple, OS X, and The Steve. I think this is interesting because, despite having a MacBook Pro in the other room, he grabs a Windows-based notebook first to do work. What does that say about his MacBook Pro?
Blue Screens are a bitch. There’s no denying it. However, I can actually count the number of Blue Screens that I’ve received in the last six years on one hand, and they all happened on a Dell. So long as someone has a quality computer, proper drivers for their devices, and don’t load their systems up with crap software (a.k.a. most freeware), the odds of receiving a Blue Screen of Death will become virtually nil. I’ve never received a Blue Screen on either of the two HP notebooks I’ve owned since 2002, nor have I had one on my Acer AspireOne, which is coming up to its first year of operation. These computers (including the AspireOne) are used for everything from games to programming in .NET, Java, PHP, and Ruby, and typically see over five hours of usage a day depending on my schedule.
They Should “Just Work”
The biggest complaint that I hear when people bitch and moan about Windows over OS X is the simplicity factor. OS X is incredibly simple to use and lets people do what they want to do while staying out of the way. Hey, that’s great. I won’t deny that OS X has a remarkably intuitive interface that is easy to learn and inconspicuous, but is this all the operating system has to offer? “It just works” is usually the response to this question.
Hmm … for an operating system that “just works”, there sure are an awful lot of people dependant on Time Machine. I can’t even count the number of times that colleagues and friends have told me this year alone that they’d be up Shit Creek without a paddle if it hadn’t been for Time Machine. Huge media files seem to be corrupted quite often, and (not surprisingly) Adobe’s products eat up data as though it was dinner. The common theme that I’ve picked up from these complaints is this: Apple computers are great for talented artists and media professionals, but they’re about as reliable as computers running Windows98.
Don’t get me wrong. Windows is hardly the ultimate operating system. It’s nearly the same ridiculous size as OS X, has constraints out the yin-yang, is incredibly convoluted in many places, and doesn’t like freeing up memory locked by piss-poor applications that have crashed, but at least it’s consistent. If Windows refuses to let me run an application one day, I know it won’t let me run it the next. If an application is eating massive media files on me today, I know it’ll do it every single time that I run that program. This is not always the case with OS X.
Both OS X and Windows are powerful tools that enable us to do remarkable things with digital devices, and the same can be said about any of the other operating systems out there. Ubuntu will “just work” so long as it’s configured properly. Android, even as an alpha release, will “just work” so long as it’s properly configured. The same can be said for almost any other system on the market; past, present, or future.
We Shouldn’t Have To Configure or Maintain It
I hate this argument. It isn’t even an argument; it’s a sign that the person using the computer shouldn’t be using the darned thing. Most of us won’t drive a car until we configure it (mirrors, seat height, steering wheel position, etc.), so why is a computer any different? It’s incredibly important to perform routine maintenance on our cars to ensure they get us from A to B without incident so why is this a bone of contention with computers? The number of people that operate a computer for a few years without much problem who then complain about its responsiveness (or lack thereof) will never cease to amaze me. How many of us can run a car for 3 or 4 years without checking the oil, the tires, the overall engine, or any other component? How many people have a car for 3 or 4 years and never think to clean out the glove compartment or the back seats of all the crap that’s accumulated over the years? Well … I know quite a few people who are guilty of hoarding refuse in their cars, but still; it’s the principle of the matter. People who use something should know how to maintain it or, at the very least, understand that maintenance is necessary to ensure the machine remains “healthy”.
Don’t Look Down Your Nose At Me While You Live Under That Rock
When die-hard Mac users hear that I love programming Enterprise-level software for Windows, the reaction is often one of incredulity. How could any sane person enjoy using an OS inspired by Bill Gates? When I tell them that I prefer developing web applications in Windows the reaction is the same. Heck, unless I talk about the availability of games, a lot of the Apple fan boys that go out of their way to recruit people into their cult will react as though I’ve spontaneously grown a second head. It only gets worse when they hear that all of my servers run not Windows, but a Linux variant. Why all the hate?
I’ve met some remarkably talented graphic designers who use Mac exclusively and produce some really stunning works. I’ve met many others who prefer using Windows for the same task. I’ve met some incredibly talented programmers who create the most intuitive and responsive programs under OS X, but I’ve also met people that can offer the same for Windows, Linux, and any other platform you might desire. I’ve met people who do nothing but use a browser who swear by Windows, but OS X, Ubuntu, Symbian, Solaris, and just about any other operating system released since 2000 will do the same thing with similar results (although Solaris might be quite a bit of overkill). A computer is a tool, a means to an end, no different than a hammer or a screw driver. Most of us would never prevent someone from building my house because they’re not using Stanley-brand hammers, nor should we dissuade someone from using a particular platform for doing whatever it is they need to do. If the job is done well, the tool is irrelevant.
[Steps off the soap box]
So there’s my bit on the subject. I’ve already promised myself not to read any more emotionally-charged Platform X vs. Platform Y arguments as it’s just a waste of time and bad for the blood pressure, but I’d love to know what you think of these silly arguments. Do you take part in them? Should the whole world really make the switch to one of the several thousand OSes that are currently being used? I’d love to know your thoughts on the matter.
“I can’t even count the number of times that colleagues and friends have told me this year alone that they’d be up Shit Creek without a paddle if it hadn’t been for Time Machine.”
So you’ve never actually tried to live with and work with OS X yourself? (For any length of time – I’m not talking about a few minutes of playing around.) Instead it’s “colleagues and friends”. Oh dear, that’s not a good start really.
As somebody who’s spent 6 or so years with Windows (until 2001), 2 years with desktop linux (until 2003) and 6 years with OS X, I think I can give a pretty balanced account without referring to random “colleagues and friends” for stories and here-say. After that many years with all three, I can say that *I* prefer OS X and *for me* it’s been much less hassle and required much less maintenance than the other two. In October 2005 I even cheaped out and bought an Acer laptop for my wife in Japan for 6 man, which ran Vista. And that confirmed my choice was still the right one *for me*.
That’s the problem though. Rather than TRY the alternatives and THEN make informed decisions, far too many people go on words of “colleagues and friends” etc, a certain proportion of whom will have stories embellished or end up being Chinese-rumour type affairs.
In six years I’ve NEVER lost any data on OS X. And I use it for work and personal stuff every single day. That said I don’t use the professional Adobe software, only Elements. I use Time Machine but have yet (touch wood) had to activate it other than to try it out.
My experience is that so many people out there think there is only one choice when they buy a new computer. Especially in Japan where most peoples’ experience is with Windows; they can’t even conceive that there is another “operating system” available. I had that just on Monday night in fact, when one of my wife’s uncles came over, looked at my Macs and said “ah everybody is using Vista these days, but we’re still on XP at home”. I pointed out that they’re Macs and don’t run Windows, and he didn’t even know what they were. I think you might find that THAT is one reason Apple people are so vocal; they WANT people to know that there is a choice, that people don’t HAVE to use Windows a lot of the time – mostly I find that for business, a lot of the time Windows is a requirement, but for home use the choice becomes easier. Especially now that Macs can run both OS X *and* Windows side-by-side.
Back in 2003 though, I dismissed Macs when my friend suggested I should look at them as an alternative to always tweaking my Linux desktop installs. He went with the whole “it just worked” line and I dismissed it as rubbish. I believed that they were “playthings” and “for arty people”, because I’d heard something like that, and because the Macs I’d used back in my school days (for scanning etc) were rubbish and crashed all the time. Little did I know they bear absolutely no relation to the Macs of those days. Finally he lent me his iBook for the weekend. And at the end of that weekend I gave it back and ordered my own.
This has become a bit of a long post I guess, apologies about that. I’m no ranting Mac fanatic, I’m just somebody who has extensively used all three and who has made a decision. If ever I hear of somebody considering their next computer, I will offer to bring one of my Macs along and show it to them. Nothing more than that. But it’s funny, I never had that feeling of *wanting* to do that with Windows or Linux back in the day.
I always try to avoid the OS wars, just as I avoid the camera wars, the cola wars, and nationality wars, the political wars, and the video game console wars. (I am quite violently opinionated in the sports wars — Yomiuri Giants fans can [horrendously gross sexual reference deleted] — but those are competitive spectacles, not computer programs.)
I have been a Wintel user since, well, before the days of Wintel — my first PC was an IBM PC with 64K of RAM and a slow-decay green monochrome text-only monitor. Some things are bred in the bone; I started out with DOS version 2.x, and upgraded steadily from there to the early Windows versions, to Windows 3.1, to Windows for Workgroups, to Windows 95, 98, Millennium Editi#%$@$%&NO CARRIER, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7.
Yes, it’s a pain in the ass sometimes. But so are all software packages. So are all computers. So is life. I ran and administered Debian GNU/Linux servers around ten years ago, and that distro was alternately a scary fire-breathing monster, and a beautiful sight to behold. But Windows is the preferred platform for industrial apps now, so that’s what I run.
To the people who would prefer I use a Mac or Linux or DIE!!!!!!!!111111, I say: Get over it. No OS is perfect. Some are better for certain tasks than others. Windows, for better or worse, is the most widely used operating system in the world, and the majority of office applications are written to run on it. So many of us use it, just like we use the imperfect, imbalanced QWERTY keyboard; the imperfect, lossy 100V AC electric current; and the often catastrophically imperfect magnetic-head hard disks.
People who attach elitist value to such things are simply looking for something on which to project feelings of solidarity. Insecure people wishing to seek out like-minded souls, and make themselves feel superior to someone else. I have no need for such things. I don’t belittle people because of their preferences, unless those preferences are for white supremacist child snuff porn or something. If you want to shoot Canon and not Nikon, wonderful. If you want to sip a grande latte at Starbucks with your iPod and iPhone and iMac, go right ahead. It has nothing to do with me.
If you don’t like the Dragons, however, well then you just suck.
OS X, Ubuntu, Symbian, Solaris, and just about any other operating system released since 2000 will do the same thing with similar results (although Solaris might be quite a bit of overkill)
Not really: Solaris make a darn nice operating system on the desktop.
For the home users, the distinction between PC and Mac is probably moot and the choice probably comes down mainly to price. For power users of multimedia software the integration and workflow of the various Mac tools is probably compelling. I can’t say that I’ve had much time in front of a OSX Mac lately but I daresay that they freeze up less frequently than PCs and killing misbehaving processes seems to be more reliable with a “kill -9″ on a Mac than terminating an app with the Windows task manager.
On the server side, if I were running an Oracle or MySQL RDBMS I would definitely opt for a Redhat Enterprise, Solaris, HPUX or AIX over Windows. In my previous job I have had customers who discovered they had to perform a reinstall when migrating from one level of Windows Server to the next. Of course, if one is wedded to SQL Server then there isn’t much of a choice. I found that many of our newer clients opted for RedHat over Windows, perhaps out of cost considerations as much as anything else.
For large corporations, running enterprise apps such as SAP or Oracle Apps pretty much dictates running Windows if one is to avoid the problem of being able to ensure that your desktops are certified for the release of ERP software you are running. It can be a bit of a maintenance nightmare if you have a mix of Macs and Windows clients when it comes time to upgrade your ERP software. It can take a while for software vendors to certify newer OS releases.
You’re right that servers are a completely different beast from day-to-day desktops and notebooks. When it comes to the machines that do some specific heavy lifting, certain OSes will perform a heck of a lot better than others. This rant here was targeted mainly at the consumer market machines
I must say this is a very fair article, I am a windows user but have also used osx and ubuntu, I think part of the preference comes down to what you’re used to.
I think the main issue is apple promotes and nurtures the flame war, especially with their advertising and general image. If they didn’t have the smug factor things would probably be a lot less heated on both camps.
Smug, like sex, sells. Heck, just look at all the Prius owners
Thanks for commenting, Alex.