Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Switchers, Steve Jobs, Apple, Blogs
Vista beats OS X? Really?
ComputerWorld's Preston Gralla posted a blog entry titled, Five reasons why Vista beats Mac OS X. Clearly, this was link-bait, but you know what, I'll bite. Still, it was impossible to read the post and NOT respond. Let's take a look at Mr. Gralla's arguments and dissect them one-by-one.
1. Vista runs more software
This is unequivocally true, but also unequivocally misleading. Is more software, free and commercial, available for Windows Vista than OS X? Yes, without a doubt. Even more software is available for Windows XP than Vista. But is software ever really about quantity over quality? It shouldn't be. As a long time Windows user, I was pleasantly surprised at not only the number of programs available for Mac, but the number of high quality programs from independent software developers that were free or inexpensive.
The real crux of Gralla's argument seems to be centered around the idea of enterprise software -- and clearly, most corporate environments are running in a Windows world -- well, a Windows XP world. To make the argument that Vista runs more enterprise software than OS X is kind of laughable. Especially given the low adoption rates of Vista among big corporate clients. I have a friend at a large technology consulting firm (one of the largest, actually) who works closely with Microsoft in developing proprietary software for a very, very big client. They don't use Windows Vista on their machines -- they use XP. Employees can install Vista on their company laptops -- but most advise against it, because there are too many incompatibilities with the existing infrastructure. This is true even after Vista SP 1.
Furthermore, Galla argues that virtualization solutions like VMWare Fusion or Parallels causes more problems than solutions. Again, this is absolutely laughable in an enterprise environment, where most IT departments are using some form of VMWare anyway. Making the argument that Parallels can't play Solitaire on a Windows VM because of its lack of DirectX 9 support ignores the fact that VMWare Fusion can and does play Solitaire (and Free Cell and Hearts) very, very well. I know because I play Free Cell while waiting for my VM of Windows XP to download endless Windows Updates every time I open up Fusion to test something for DownloadSquad or hack away at my BlackBerry. Additionally, Microsoft has altered its licensing language in regards to virtual machines and Windows Vista -- making it clear that you can now install Vista on a Mac and get the same support you would otherwise.
That's just the corporate argument. Gralla doesn't address the consumer market. I'm a software nerd, especially for obscure and geeky utilities that serve little or no purpose for anyone outside a very select sector of users. Other than converting my insanely large .PST databases from my decade of Outlook usage, I have yet to come across anything that I have had to do on a PC (or in VMWare) in the eight months since I "went Mac" full-time. Ever since the Intel switch, the software argument is really, really weak, enterprise or not.
2. Vista is safer
Yeah, OK. Keep telling yourself that. I mean, I'm not going to be one of those people that claims that the Mac is more secure than it really is -- like all Operating Systems, it has its vulnerabilities -- but come on! The only argument Gralla can even make is to pull a quote from some guy saying the code from Vista looks better than the Code from OS X 10.4. Yeah, I would hope an OS shipped in 2007 had better built-in security than one that shipped in 2005...
Compare Vista to OS X 10.5, then get back to us. I see the trends in safeguarding computers becoming less and less OS dependent and more and more consumer focussed. Getting people to willingly install scripts or programs that can put information at risk is something that is not an OS-specific flaw -- it's a human flaw. I will say that Mac users need to be educated about what to trust and what not to trust, the same way Windows users have been conditioned for years -- but as far as what OS is more "secure" -- the BSD base of OS X has certainly proved itself over the years and to say otherwise is just a staggering example of either stupidity or arrogance.
3. It's the money, stupid
Oh, right, right -- the whole "Macs cost too much" argument. Granted, we Mac users pay a premium for our shiny white Apple logo. I'll be the first to admit I paid the Black Tax to get my BlackBook. However, to pretend like those options and premiums don't exist for PC users are laughable. First, let's talk about extra software that has to be purchased off the bat -- let's just say $150, and that's a low figure (I used to sell computer systems as well as repair them, I'm well versed in the mark-up add-on strategy that you will see with ANY $400 computer) -- oh, and would you like to get all the crapware off your system? Sure, that'll be another $29.99 if you do it in-store, or $50 if you pay Sony to do it (and VAIO charges the exact same premium that Apple does for laptops and desktops -- the only reason my last VAIO wasn't a less expensive PowerBook was because I needed Windows at the time and it as pre-Intel).
Let's also look at how much you can spend getting stuff to actually work. My mom has a very, very nice HP wireless printer. The thing was a PITA to set-up (though that was better than the first model she got -- that one is sitting in a box in my father's office because I have serious nightmares about configuring it, because doing it the first time was such a disaster that even the highest-level HP tech I got on the phone with admitted to me that it scared him too) and I have to reconfigure it every time Windows delivers and update and that breaks something in the firewall with the wireless printer. My MacBook connected to it instantly on the network, installed the necessary drivers, less the software cruft and was printing in minutes. Same hardware. Different results.
Also keep in mind that the vast majority of computer repairs are software, not hardware related. If the software you have works better, runs more smoothly, is more stable -- the chances that you have to call someone like me to visit your house (or bring it into a shop) and pay $60 an hour for diagnosis and repair are greatly, greatly depreciated.
When I budgeted for my current computer, I still wasn't 100% sure I was going Mac -- it was certainly leaning that way, but I wasn't sure. At the time I configured my laptop, it was the same price as an identically configured Lenovo, with the same discounts applied. And adding RAM or a larger hard drive is no more expensive for the Mac than for a PC. I could have had a much cheaper laptop -- but that was never a consideration even if the Mac question wasn't part of the equation. For many consumers, they want something that will last more than a year. For a one-year purchase, a $600 PC is fine -- but if you want to keep something around for a while, the price point is going to be almost exactly the same Windows or Mac.
4. The Mac is closed; Vista is open
Continuing in the same vein as the above argument, Gralla argues that you can't build your own Mac, like you can with a PC. Again, this is true -- and for certain sectors, this is a definite detriment. However, as someone who used to always build my own computers (save laptops), I have come around to enjoying not building my own machine from scratch. Don't get me wrong, for certain projects it is a TON of fun -- and I learned more about computers and software and hardware by building and taking apart my own machines than almost anything else; having said that, the main reason lots of people build their own computers is because they want them to work reliably. The components used in many big-name systems are awful and often not up to spec. You don't end up saving any more building your own dream system than if you had it configured some place else.
With Apple, the components verifiably work with the OS and the software. That's pretty huge -- especially since Vista is still a dog for DIYers wanting to configure their own machine. Oh, and let's talk about price again -- price out all the parts for building your own entry-level MacPro. You will end up encroaching on $2700 US, and you'll have to deal with getting everything to work with Vista. Or you could get a MacPro, that is upgradable, is configurable, and know that it will work with OS X beautifully and also work with Vista or XP or any flavor of Linux you want to try.
In terms of actual open/closed software, both Microsoft and Apple speak out both sides of their mouths. But Darwin, WebKit, Bonjour are just some of the Open Source projects that Apple has either developed or greatly contributes to. Windows? Yeah, not so much.
Plus, the MacMini and iPhone communities are both great examples of the level of creativity and configurability that exists in the Mac community. If you are building your own computer, you aren't looking for official support anyway -- voiding the warranty is part of the fun. You can tweak out your iMac or you MacBook in amazing ways. Overclocking is so 2003 anyway.
5. Two words -- Steve Jobs
Two words: Steve Ballmer.
I mean, how can you even respond to that. Bill Gates is my personal hero -- but every significant figure in the computer industry has some latent (or not so latent) tendencies to go for the jugular. That's business. Using that as a reason Vista is better than OS X is just as sad as writing the article in the first place.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 6)
dombi said 6:09PM on 4-09-2008
And two more....
Apple's Xserve could make inroads in the data center:
http://tinyurl.com/654jh
Uni slashes desktop support demands
http://tinyurl.com/2flnf
Reply
daniel said 6:15PM on 4-09-2008
Nice response to a flawed article.
I find it laughable how people thing that it is so expensive to own a mac. In my 3 years of using mac exclusively i have never spent more money owning macs and i have spent less time in the shop getting my hard drive replaced. Infact when i owned a PC i spent a few hundred every 6 month or so going in rebuilding the machine to keep up with the new games i wanted to play and the new things i wanted to do. I have owned my imac for 3 years and my Macbook Pro for about a year and they both can handle everything i want to do and all the new games i want to play with out any issues. I think the whole mac vs pc thing comes down to a personal choice. After many years of dealing with drivers and hardware upgrades I choose not to deal with that anymore and just fork out a little more upfront for a mac that gives me little to no hassle and lasts me many years.
Reply
Zeke said 6:19PM on 4-09-2008
Your post is generally flamebait. As an official noncombatant in the Mac vs. PC wars, I generally won't get into it.
However, your post is completely baseless on the security argument - let's talk specifics instead of marketing mumbo-jumbo and uneducated FUD. (Disclaimer: I do network security for a living.)
Vista and Tiger/Leopard do incredibly well with security compared to previous customer OSes. Currently OS X market share is skyrocketing, and so I anticipate a growth in viruses and attempts to exploit vulnerabilities in Mac OS over the next few years.
As it stands, OS X has more holes and potential exploits than Vista, but this doesn't mean that there are as many in-the-wild attacks as there are for Vista. An educated cracker can easily compromise an OS X system. Don't believe me? Vista lasted over 24 hours longer than OS X in the PWN TO 0WN contest this year. ( http://dvlabs.tippingpoint.com/blog/2008/03/28/pwn-to-own-final-day-and-wrap-up ) And that was a public contest. Imagine the ease of exploiting the OS in the underground community. The only reason it doesn't happen often is because of the relatively low amount of people who would be susceptible to such an attack.
Also, since Apple overwhelmingly is focused on consumer systems, when Microsoft also has huge enterprise workstation and server deployments, it doesn't take an expert to realize who has higher stakes when it comes to responding to security vulnerabilities (when the entire Fortune 500 uses your product, you have to respond to threats.) This is why Microsoft has less unpatched vulnerabilities and faster zero-day response than Apple ( http://security.itworld.com/4940/microsoft-patches-faster-than-apple-080327/page_1.html )
The rest of your article is mostly hype as well, and I honestly expected more than fanboyism from a blog like TUAW. We don't need psychological reinforcement to think we're using the better OS. Both companies are doing quite well, and Vista isn't really the monster that most make it up to be. When I get my MBP, it will be dual-booting with Vista, and in another year or two when Macs are more prevalent, it'll probably be running some pretty heavy Antivirus on the OS X side as well.
Reply
Zimmie said 7:04PM on 4-09-2008
I work in network security, too. The majority of current operating systems cannot be passively compromised. They require some user interaction for a security hole to be meaningful. As long as you have a proper firewall set up with a decent IPS, it doesn't really matter which OS is "more secure", because nothing will be getting in to attack it.
Nathan L. Ross said 6:20PM on 4-09-2008
If you do a side-by-side comparison @ Dell.com, Sonystyle.com, & store.apple.com, I think a lot of you would be surprised at the results. In most cases, comparing a Macbook or a Mac Pro (or to a lesser degree, an iMac) to a similarly equipped Dell or Sony, you'll find the Macs to be *less expensive* in many cases, pretty much the same in other cases, and on limited occasions, *slightly* more expensive.
My father, who likes Mac computers but has always thought them overpriced, was looking to replace his computer recently (the Windows-based PC he owned died for no apparent reason). When I referred him to what I call the "responsible choice" [a Mac], he stated that they were too expensive. I then silently took him to the above sites and invited him to do a side-by-side comparison. When I came back an hour later, he acknowledged that the "Macs are more expensive" sentiment was largely a myth.
Granted, this isn't true in all cases, but it does hold true in many.
Reply
Larson said 6:23PM on 4-09-2008
I agree with everything here. I'd also like to add that when I go to use Windows I feel like someone gave me sleeping pills and strapped a boulder to my legs so I couldn't move. It feels really slow to me. Sure my choice of computer is a Mac so I should work best on Mac anyways but I'm still very skilled with Windows too and I still feel like I'm crawling. The way things are done on Windows is just out of whack and more troublesome than helpful.
Reply
Danny Mendez said 6:32PM on 4-09-2008
Preach it sista!
Reply
Tony said 6:39PM on 4-09-2008
The original blog post was Vista vs OS X right?
#1 - Discussion about number of 3rd Party apps, not the OS itself.
#2 - Compares Vista with 10.4, an unfair comparison.
#3 - Discusses price of HARDWARE! As a price comparison of Vista vs OS X then only Vista Home Basic upgrade wins out.
#4 - OK, lets continue that discussion on hardware :o)
#5 - Finally we'll round of this post comparing operating systems with a discussion on Steve Jobs.
Reply
Michael said 6:47PM on 4-09-2008
Good rebuttal from Christina. But maybe she was even over-generous to Preston Gralla despite putting him down factually (to say nothing of being over-generous to Bill Gates).
That Preston Gralla piece was amazing (and I don't mean that kindly).
I sense a disturbance in the force. Maybe there is a Roughly Drafted "Zoon Award" heading his way from DED.
LOL
Reply
john said 6:49PM on 4-09-2008
sorry I am not going to argue coke and pepsi,I am apc user that knows enough about both systems one has strong points and another has nice points but as far as I know we were always told that intel chips were inferior to motorolas you know the ones that the original superior macs used ,they now use intel chips ,the same as PC ,they also use the same graphics cards ,and the same memory,and I am supposed to switch to mac and be extatic that I can run windows on a mac ....and every 18 months or so pay for a new operating system on mac,remember service packs are free,or better yet by a laptop with no dvd drive or extra battery option or you know were this is going ,buy what you want and shut up ....I bought a cadillac and lexus is better who cares buy what you want .....superiority is not black and white.....marketing people into a frenzy is an art and most of you have fallen hook l;ine and sinker
Reply
Macskeeball said 1:13AM on 4-10-2008
OS X's equivalent to service packs (ex: 10.5.0 to 10.5.1) are free as well. The OS X upgrades that cost money (ex: 10.4 to 10.5) are very significant upgrades.
perfecthill said 6:54PM on 4-09-2008
As for building your own Mac:
http://lifehacker.com/348653/install-os-x-on-your-hackintosh-pc-no-hacking-required
Reply
Cycomachead said 6:57PM on 4-09-2008
So cost: It's really too close to say on over the other. I might have to lean toward the PC due to options, but that's it.
4: openness: you can install any program you want provided it's for OS X and you meet the system requirements. Many parts of the OS are even open source - and Darwin (OS X's core) is too. The same story goes for Vista minus some of the open source stuff.
Now, if we're (once again) talking about hardware then:
the mac being closed is a good thing for stability. But really both use essentiality the same parts. The 2 main things you can configure are the CPU and graphics card. But otherwise you can use any RAM and HD you want that fits your computer. and those are the 2 main problems for consumers.
DIYers count for less that a couple percent of computer users and many of those use Linux. The cost can be the same if not more than having it built, but it's a project and it's fun.
5: steve(s): unrelated. and will second the balmer comment.
So, a lot of the debate wasn't really Vista v. Leopard. I use a Mac because I prefer the OS over Vista and the hardware design is a bonus. However there's not much that one can do that the other can't these days; it's mainly personal preference and exposure.
Using the Dock over the desktop isn't exactly easier or harder: it's just slightly different.
ALSO: Although Windows NT is designed like OS X where one app can't take down the system (like OS 9 or Win 98) I find it happens more. And I rarely ever see a kernel panic - around twice a year.
Reply
Rick D. said 7:09PM on 4-09-2008
umm which OS got hacked first at Can Sec West again?
BTW i love my Macbook Air
Reply
chillin said 7:22PM on 4-09-2008
I have to take issue with the "1. Vista runs more software. This is unequivocally true"
BECAUSE IT IS PATENTLY FALSE!!!
Ever since Mac went *nix, the platform was open to using the enourmous base of software that compiles on *nix platforms. Actually, OS X is UNIX now (SUS), so I don't know why I'm using *nix. Once Apple adopted a UNIX platform, the difference in the number of titles that run on Windows and OS X has grown smaller. In fact, it is arguable that OS X runs FAR MORE software than Vista or XP. Windows platform only runs Windows software. But OS X runs much more than just OS X software. UNIX, Java, Perl, Ruby, PHP, Python... all in there right out of the box!
Furthermore... OS X runs all Windows software too!! Using Parallels or VMWare or CrossOver, or WINE (DarWINE), OS X truly does become the platform with the most software titles EVER. Vista or XP hardly comes close.
So please... get your facts straight.
OS X has way more software than Vista. No contest.
Reply
Dave said 3:30AM on 4-10-2008
So you're running Windows on top of OS X to run Windows software? So what you're saying is you need to run Windows to run Windows software, but it's really OS X compatible because OS X is running the VM? These kind of arguments are ridiculous. It's not OS X compatible. You'd have to own Windows anyway. It just so happens that Windows isn't obnoxious and lets you run it on a VM.
Why doesn't it work the other way? Because Apple is incredibly closed minded regarding their software/hardware (or they're horrible programmers who know allowing the VM developers to get their hands on it would expose all sorts of issues). The only way they were able to gain any marketshare was by becoming more like microsoft and broadening their hardware base. The next time you claim you're an open source advocate be sure to remember how much of a hypocrite you are when you say you like Apple.
Plus, if they ever get a large enough user base, you can kiss all of these advantages goodbye as the hardware vendors yell, "MONOPOLY!"
Matt said 7:27PM on 4-09-2008
I really want a Mac. I really do. But right now I am leaning toward a 3.0 Ghz HP desktop with a 22" LCD. Here's why:
• Drivers. One of the things I want my new computer to do is 3D graphics simulation. It's a well known fact that the Radeon HD card in the iMacs is hobbled by poor drivers. I am hoping that Apple will upgrade to Nvidia cards in the iMacs, like the Mac Books.
• HDMI. I want to output my computer's screen to my plasma via HDMI, and the PC has that (with 5.1 sound, I might add). iMac does not. At least, not easily (iMac uses a DVI plug with no sound).
• 3.0 Ghz. No iMac is at 3.0 Ghz yet, and that's a 20% increase over the base 2.4 Ghz.
• Price. Yeah I said it... Once I get MS Office ($129), that is less than iWork ($79), Parallels, and Windows XP for Parallels.
I plan on getting Vista 64-bit, since that is the way things are headed, and I have checked about 64-bit drivers and all apps have them available. I really wish that iMac could do the above things... Please Apple, upgrade the iMac to 2.8 Ghz base model with Nvidia graphics and an HDMI port. I'll buy in a heartbeat if that was the case.
Reply
mavidal said 9:46AM on 4-10-2008
I have been it this business for over 30 years and have seen all this grow from nothing. Each OS has there own place, and Microsoft did a good thing in enforcing something of a standard when they did not exist. Remember when you could not interchange floppies from the same manufacturers PC but different models?
The biggest weakness still for me with Vista is the darn registry. Get a registry corruption and try to get your machine working again, even with the backups. Not so with a MAC and it's unix base.
Now Vista, I'm sorry to say has become the equivalent of Win ME but in an XP variant. I have been able to bring it to it's knees with drive by's and trojans just by doing what any typical user out there would do, say yes let me install this stuff because I want to see the web page.
Try this in a Mac (and I have), nothing bothers it. This is one of the major reasons I am switching myself totally to MAC and just run win apps in parallels for those specific win apps that I need.
MV
Reply
Mr. Cheeks said 7:51PM on 4-09-2008
Great post, but you messed up the title! It should have been, "Vista beats OS X? ORLY?" Because then it's funny like lolcats.
Reply
Chris Turpin said 7:52PM on 4-09-2008
Let's remember John Gruber's rule.
"A good rule of thumb, by the way, is that the more a writer attributes the actions of Apple, an enormous corporation with thousands of talented employees, to Steve Jobs, who is just one man and neither an engineer nor a designer, the more likely the writer is an idiot, a hack, or both."
Reply