Another look Mac v. PC in the Leopard and Vista age
Feb 18 '08
The Bottom Line Currently the pendulum favors (rather heavily) the Mac, though either a Mac virtual machine for Windows or a change in Apple's licensing could once again level the playing field.
About two-years-ago I looked at the relative merits of Apple's OS X Tiger and Microsoft's then-current Windows XP, both in terms of the actual software, and the hardware that uses it. At that time, I found that both platforms had advantages and disadvantages, but were largely interchangeable.
In 2006, and still today, it really doesn't make much difference if you work on a Word document in Word for Windows or Word for Mac, ditto Photoshop, or just about any other type of document you wish to create. Just like in 2006, Apple gives you more useful software on your new computer (iLife is terrific, currently with a new 2008 version), while Windows Vista has vastly improved iLife-like applications as well, though they still fall short of Apple's. Of course, there are plenty of free or low cost alternatives that work on both platforms. I'll give Apple the nod, though not a strong enough incentive to make one switch platforms.
What has changed since 2006 is that virtualization has arrived in a very polished and almost invisible way. With products like Parallels Desktop 3.0 and VMWare Fusion 1.1, a mac owner can not only install Windows and thus Windows applications on a Mac, but those Windows applications can share freely with the Mac applications and Mac system's resources.
For example, Macs include decent PDF creation abilities out of the box, but nothing compared to Adobe Acrobat Professional. Now you can buy Acrobat for Mac, lets say you already own it for Windows and just don't want to spend the $190 it would cost for another copy. Running Acrobat Professional in either Parallels or Fusion makes it behave very close to what a Mac version would behave like. No, it doesn't look like a Mac program, but it does reside in its own window (Windows style) on your Mac desktop, and you can cut and paste objects and text freely between it and yoru open Mac applications.
This is more significant for specialized corporate applications that may have been created ages ago and never ported to the Mac, or to functions that just work better on a PC. For instance, I have a Microsoft Exchange server at work, and while Entourage 2004 Mac works fine, it pales in comparison to Outlook 2007 for Windows. Now I get to use Outlook 2007 for Windows on my Mac, just as though I was using it on a PC, fully integrated with my Mac applications. For instance, imagine you send me an email with a link to your website and an invitation to a meeting. I can click on the meeting invitation and Outlook 2007 does what it does in Windows; adds the meeting to my calendar. If I click on the URL, however, it will open in Safari, my default Mac web browser. This can work the other way too. Suppose I'm on the Mac and receive an email in Apple's Mail.app with a Word 2007 document. I click on the attachment and it opens in Word 2007 for Windows, or whatever other application I decide to set as default, on either platform.
That is a very powerful feature that at present only exists on Macs. Its like having both platforms, at the same time. Using Apple's Boot Camp you can even run Windows natively, at full speed, with all of Apple's nifty hardware (iSight anyone?) fully supported. Very cool. Currently it is impossible (without serious geek-tinkering) to run OS X on a Windows machine and there are no virtualization programs that you can buy and install OS X on. If you only want Windows or a Unix variant, any PC will do. If you want OS X, Apple is your only choice.
That isn't to say that there aren't real differences and a steep learning curve to switching platforms. I've used both platforms continuously for 20 years (Windows) and 15 years (Mac) respectfully, and honestly have little to no trouble switching between them. Windows tends to be a bit more responsive, with applications opening quicker and an overall sensation of speed when the mouse interacts with objects. This is only perception, as actual work gets done in about the same time, usual depending more on the user's familiarity with the system than any actual system performance differences.
The other elephant in the room when comparing Mac and PC is malware. Simply put, there are well over 100,000 viruses, trojans, worms and other nasties floating around for Windows, and NONE for Mac OS X. Sure, there are plenty of Mac malware applications, perhaps dozens, but these have all been "Proof of Concept", which is to say developed and demonstrated in a lab with the sole objective of scaring Mac owners into buying antivirus software. Windows, on the other hand, is exposed to very real threats in the wild, while OS X is, so far, perfectly safe.
Now the malware threat is a big deal to people who click on every attachment, insist on playing free Elf-Bowling games during the holidays or enjoy x-rated websites, but for most PC users, running a decent antivirus program (I use AVG Free Edition) and practicing safe computing, something Mac users should also do, will keep your Windows computer free and clear. I've got a 9-year-old ThinkPad 600E that is still running smoothly on its original Windows 2000 installation. This computer is still on the internet frequently and with the exception of the tracking cookies that I regularly clean off, remains virus-free.
Personally, I find OS X, currently at version 10.5.2, to be a much more polished and intuitive operating system than Windows Vista (Business). Both had some early bugs, though Apple seems to have been more aggressive at cleaning them out. Vista Service Pack 1 is due any week now and will very likely be a significant improvement to Vista.
Of course, there are a few Windows features that I cannot live without. Offline files is a big one, and so far my only solution is to just run it in Windows on my Mac, which is not as intuitive as using it as a part of the OS. There are 3rd party alternatives, of course, and I use one called Chronosync, but Windows has had this for years, and OS X needs to add this great feature, especially since Apple is selling so many laptops these days.
Equally important is the hardware, and here PCs have far more variety, while Apple, with few exceptions (ThinkPad for laptops, Shuttle for desktops) has the edge in design. Apple computers, with the possible exception of the massive Mac Pro, are typically minimalist designs, with smooth edges and a lack of doors, buttons, lights and gizmos that are festooned all over the typical desktop or laptop PC.
My new MacBook, for instance, looks more like a giant iPod than most of its PC competitors. Apple isn't the only company with excellent design, but it is the rule rather than the exception with them. Other examples are certain high-end Toshiba and ThinkPad laptops, and the previously mentioned Shuttle desktop PCs, which also are very clean and uncluttered compared to the typical PC you'll find in retail stores.
Of course, some of those missing details actually have a function that is less convenient in their absence. For instance, many PC laptops have an actual mechanical switch to disable wifi. This is great when you are flying or otherwise just want to conserve battery power. With a Mac, you can only disable wifi by using the mouse and turning it off in software, which is far less convenient.
In conclusion, where I found the platform debate more a matter of personal preference two-years-ago, this year I find that Apple's Mac platform is a clear front-runner and Microsoft Windows more of an also-ran. That said, I still am forced to use both in my daily work, though with Mac-only virtualization, I now can use both platforms from the comfort of my Macintosh.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
lawman67
|
 in Computer Hardware |
 - Top 200 |
|
Member: Andrew F
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Reviews written: 208
Trusted by: 63 members
About Me:
Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl but she doesn't have a lot to say.
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.