or both of the latter choices, with Mac OS X?
or both of the latter choices, with Mac OS X?
New PDF Resources: Tips for Switchers (Windows -> Mac) and Reasons I Prefer Macs
Do you use Windows or Macintosh? Linux? Which is better? These questions can quickly polarize a group of people into separate camps and invite passionate exchanges, or for the non-computer users in a group, invite revealing responses like "Huh?" Why do many people feel strongly about the computer operating system they use, and have strong feelings about operating systems they don't?
An analogy to languages is appropriate here. What language is better: English or Spanish? Russian or Chinese? Unless you are fluent in both languages, you are unqualified to answer. The same logic applies to computer operating systems. The fact is, however, many people know as much about the "other" operating system as the guy who can just say "taco," "enchilada," and "sopapilla" knows about Spanish.
If someone has grown up just speaking English, it may be difficult for them to conceive of a language that would be easier to speak or be more effective at communicating certain things. Yet, some language experts contend that very thing. Bilingual music artist Luis Miguel insists that Spanish is a more romantic language than English, and that is why he still prefers to sing in Spanish. (According to his statements in a Spanish radio interview in 2000.)
My point is that when you ask someone about what operating system they think is better, you are not going to get an informed answer unless that person is computer literate in all the computer platforms you want them to compare. Most of the information technology (IT) personnel working in business and educational fields today are familiar with just one "client" platform: MS Windows. Many of them are disdainful of Macintosh computers-- but their attitudes (and sometimes arrogance) are often borne from ignorance. It is like the "ugly American" who insists speaking English and eating McDonalds hamburgers are the only ways to go. They certainly are not! And depending on your perspective, they may not even be the most desirable "ways to go," even if many vocal people in the world seem to think so!
A HUGE fallacy exists concerning computers today that goes something like this: "If over 90% of computer users own the Windows operating system, then it must be the best operating system for me." (Or "for my school," or "for my business.") This is analogous to saying "If over 75% of the people visiting nightclubs in Latin America smoke, then smoking must be a good social decision for me while I'm visiting Mexico." Put another way, succumbing to the cultural peer pressure of "buying a Windows computer" may be about as smart as the teenager who chooses to drink alcohol underage or experiment with illegal drugs. Following the crowd does not necessarily equate to making a wise decision.
Not too many years ago, Macintosh users had a lot of problems sharing files with Windows users. Microsoft made some Macintosh versions of their software, but many would not "play well" with their Windows counterparts. Not so today. The Macintosh division at Microsoft continues to create solid products like Word and PowerPoint which are almost completely cross-platform.
When people are using standard productivity applications (software), there is normally not a great deal of difference between Windows and Macintosh computers. Like foreign languages, you can use either platform to communicate a similar message. Yes, printers are configured differently, you switch between applications differently, and some other differences exist, but by and large the "application" environment is very similar. The differences emerge when there are problems with your "system," you need to install new software or hardware, or another technical issue arises. Then, thanks largely to the fact that Windows95, Windows98, WindowsNT, and even Windows2000 and XP are built on the command line legacy of DOS-- the suffering for Windows users often begins. Differences also emerge when multimedia software is used. The abilities of Macintosh computers to render and transform graphic file formats, including digital video clips, is dramatically better than on comparable Windows computers. In fact, the phrase "comparable Windows computers" is almost an oxymoron. Just watch or read about a MacExpo demonstration comparing relative Mac and Wintel computer abilities in Adobe Photoshop.
File compatability is even less of an issue today with the newest Macintosh operating systems, which allow native networking connections to Windows servers and printers without any extra software. (In the past with Macintosh operating system 9 and older versions, commercial software like DAVE was required to make native networking connections.) CUPS and Gimp-Print (free UNIX functionality) make printer connections even easier for Mac folks.
How many of these questions can you readily answer and proficiently demonstrate solutions for? As a computer user and teacher rather than a technician, I would prefer to not have to know the answers to any of these questions.
If you answered "YES" or can provide the correct answer to all of these questions, then you are probably qualified to compare Macintosh and Windows computers. No one, of course, "knows it all" in technology, and it is difficult to provide an exact list of questions that would serve as a good "test" for those qualified to make platform comparisons. Most computer users don't want to deal with the vocabulary and technicality of questions like these: they just want to use the computer. Inevitably, technical questions arise, however, and someone has to fix the problem. Whether the problem would be easier to resolve on a different platform (or couldn't even exist, like DLL errors on a Macintosh), can only be evaluated by someone with a thorough background on multiple platforms. (BTW, steps for doing a lot of the tasks in these questions are contained in my Technology Information Exchange site.)
And what about Linux, the free, remarkably stable operating system created by Linus Torvalds in use on a majority of the web servers in operation all over the world? For someone to generalize about Linux in comparison to Windows or the Macintosh OS, they would need to be able to answer the above questions about Linux as well.
When making platform comparisons, only the opinions of people with a thorough knowledge of the computer systems being compared should be valued. Otherwise, you're listening to the equivalent of an "ugly American" gringo that only knows English, telling you what an inferior language Spanish is. That's not an opinion worth valuing, or even listening to.
As someone intimately familiar with both the Macintosh and Windows operating systems, there is absolutely no question that Macintoshes are far easier to support and maintain. I work with both Windows and Macintosh computers on a daily basis, and can answer all of the questions included in the section above, "Who is qualified...." without hesitation. I started using computers running DOS, migrated to Windows 3.1, discovered the Macintosh OS, and was compelled to learn Windows 95/98, a bit of Windows NT server administration,, and a bit of Novell server administration. Now I work with Windows 2000 and XP clients, and Windows 2000 servers. I do NOT know it all or have all the answers. I do, however, know enough to say without reservation Macintoshes are vastly simpler, more user friendly, and easier to maintain than Windows computers.
Put another way, because of my insight into the technical side of computing, it seems evident that "certain" companies in the Fortune 500 are part of a very profitable and selfish conspiracy, to continually compel computer users to upgrade for new features they likely do not need and will not use. "They" also seem (on the Windows side) to make technical support more difficult and complicated, when the opposite should be true: it should become easier and more straightforward, even as system capability grows.
A good way to summarize my viewpoint is:
I know more about the Windows operating system than I ever wanted
to know. I have financial resources at my disposal which would allow
me to purchase and use virtually any consumer level computer
available in the world today. With an extensive knowledge base in
both Windows and Macintosh computing environments, there is not even
a moment's hesitation for me: I must choose a Macintosh every time
over a Windows computer for the power, simplicity, and
ease of use it affords me. And these benefits are not just
available to intermediate and advanced level computer users like
myself, they are available to beginners as well.
The only reservation I have about using a Macintosh at the time of this update (Jan 2003), is that Microsoft has still not released a native Mac OS X version of Outlook, which I am required to use by my current employer. Rumor has it that a native OS X version is in the works, however, and I am hopeful it will offer the same, speedy functionality of its Windows counterpart, Outlook XP.
It absolutely boggles my mind to witness the headlong rush of many school districts to "transition to Windows," when I know the unnecessary headaches and problems with which that path is fraught. It is unfortunate that many school boards, who support these "transitions" away from Macintosh computing environments, are possibly not being counseled by individuals "qualified to compare platforms" as described above. It is so easy to be intimidated by technology, unfortunately, and equally easy to succumb to a fallacy like "over 90% of computer users have it, so it must be right for us....."
One of the biggest problems contributing to this situation is ignorance, on both the part of the policymakers and their advisors. Most schoolboard members are not well informed about Macintosh computers and their comparative advantages. If board members have a computer, they probably have a Windows computer and know that most other computer owners in the world do too. Information Technology people who advise policymakers (the ones with pocket protectors that love the DOS command line and speak a techno language most of us can't understand) are usually very familar with Windows computing environments, but no little or nothing about Macs.
Before the introduction of Macintosh operating system 10 (OS X), I could not make a qualified generalization about Linux and Windows, or Linux and the Mac OS, because I didn't know enough about Linux. I do know several people whose knowledge of Windows OS computers makes me look like a preschooler in graduate school, who fervently believe Linux is the holy grail of operating systems currently available (for both client and server computers.) Now that I have worked full-time in OS X for many months, I must agree that UNIX/LINUX is an amazing, wonderful environment in which to work-- covered by the elegant and powerful GUI (graphical user interface) of the Macintosh. I am amazed at the stability of OS X on a daily basis: after hundreds if not thousands of hours working with up to 10 programs open simultaneously, my computer has almost never crashed. That was NOT the case with OS 9 and earlier Macintosh operating systems.
If you have an application that requires the use of Windows, my recommendations are:
One of the more frequent refrains I hear from Windows users who will not consider using a Macintosh is that they like to "right click," and don't want to use a one button Macintosh mouse. At both home and work, when I connect an external keyboard and mouse to my laptop, I can and do right click with a two button mouse. When I am using the laptop keyboard, I hold down the control key and click on an item to right click.
I right click using a USB compatible two button mouse at home and work. Windows98 or XP in Virtual PC runs just like Windows98 or XP because it IS Windows98. (Of course, it also can crash like Win98....) Virtual PC runs equally well on iMacs. The main thing you may need to upgrade is memory: Windows98 wants at least 32 MB of its OWN memory (preferably more), so you'll want at least 64 MB of RAM if not 96 MB when you run Virtual PC. Even more for Windows XP.
I look forward to the day when someone (maybe the creators/adapters of Linux?) create a simple, yet powerful operating system that will make the complexities of computer support discussed here irrelevant and unnecessary. Until that time, there is no question in my mind about what operating system is better: it's Macintosh! Whether you are a beginning computer user just wanting to send some email, surf the web, and use a word processor (like a majority of computer users) -- or a 'power user' wanting to create dynamic, web-enabled websites or publish a variety of multimedia including animations, streaming video, etc.-- Macintosh is the platform of choice. You disagree with me? That is fine, but my first point probably still stands: how well do you know both the Macintosh and Windows platforms to be able to make a valid comparison? Take it from someone who knows both more intimately that I would really like (I hate having to do things at the DOS command line, but still do when required)-- on balance, I'd take a Mac any day over a Windows computer for its simplicity, power, and effectiveness.
Of course, just because a technology is better in the mind of some experts, the majority of the world is not necessarily going to act accordingly. Many thought the Beta video technology was superior to VHS, but for a vareity of reasons, it was eclipsed and went the way of the 8 track as VHS became 'the standard.' Microsoft has acquired a formidable and, in the short term, apparently defensible monopoly (for practical purposes) on the desktop operating system market. This was not because Microsoft designed better products than everyone else (although they certainly have designed some great ones). Their rise to market dominance had a lot to do with the initial contract Gates and Co. made with IBM to license MS-DOS, and their effective adoption (often buyout) of successful competing technologies and applications, and integration of those into Microsoft products. Microsoft has definitely proven themselves a resilient and adaptable company (not to mention profitable, which goes without saying). They are NOT, however, the 'gods' of technology and do not deserve uncritical adoration. My forthcoming article on Microsoft, Anti-trust, and Educational Technology will delve further into these issues. A link to that article will be provided here when it is available online.
For more of my perspectives on platform issues, read "Wagging the Dog in Educational Technology." and "Affordable and Efficient: The Cody Model of Technology Deployment."
Feel free to send me your opinions. (Opinions invited, not flames!)
-Wesley Fryer
Return to the homepage of the Texas KANSAN
Contact me using this webform.
This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons License.