Slashdot Mirror
Ground Rules for the Windows vs. Mac War
FreshlyShornBalls writes "The New York Times is running a story that I think needs to be seen by everyone on both sides of the on-going Macintosh vs. Windows debate (i.e. just about everyone who posts on Slashdot): Some ground rules for the Windows vs. Mac War." From the article: "Last week, I wrote about some of the changes Microsoft has in store for the next version of Windows, which is slated for the end of 2006. Interestingly, very few of you responded to that column, probably because so much may change in the next 19 months. But a few of you fired off diatribes about how I'm either a Microsoft 'shill' or an Apple 'apologist' (or maybe it was the other way around). It's not just me, either; it's a running sardonic joke among tech columnists that you can't even USE the word 'Apple' or 'Microsoft' without getting hate mail from somebody or other."
It's not just me, either; it's a running sardonic joke among tech columnists that you can't even USE the word 'Apple' or 'Microsoft' without getting hate mail from somebody or other."
/., its been a constant that I can always count on; rabid fans of both spouting broken record thoughts about how poor the other is.
I certainly hope no one thinks it will be any different here. In my several years reading
Seems to me both have their uses, both have their faults.
Neither of them is the perfect solution to every problem (and no, neither is Linux or any other OS). I work for an art and design college, and our labs are split about 50:50 between Windows and OS X, depending on the academic program (interior/industrial/furniture/jewelry design classes use Windows, fine arts/illustration/digital media/print media use OS X). My own home network contains multiple Windows, OS X, and Linux boxes.
So when people come to me with problems or for advice, I don't preach from the Gospel According to Steve or the Revelation to St. Bill (or the Epistles of Linus). I listen to what their needs are, and I suggest whatever offers the best solution for them.
Both OSes suck.
The Spinning Pizza Wheel Of Death is bloody annoying.
In true Slashdot style though, I can't imagine much worse than Windows.
Linux kinda sucks too, manufacturer support would be nice here, though there'd still be suckiness left.
I'm not intentionally trolling, it all sucks to varying degrees. Otherwise we wouldn't care.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Well, you're right, but:
19 Month is a lifetime is IT, so STFU
Are you trying to prove his point? The "so STFU" was utterly unecessary, and only served to detract from your argument and make you look immature.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You're describing zealots of all kinds there. Swap "Mac" for "Windows", "Linux", "GNU", "closed source", "open source", "Java", "C", etc etc and you can have exactly the same kind of story.
Zealots are the problem, not Mac zealots.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
If everyone abided by this idea, about 95 percent of all the Windows-Macintosh diatribes would evaporate overnight. But here it is: If you haven't tried something, then you really have no basis to comment.
That 95% -- probably more like 99% -- of Windows fanboys have never tried a Mac, I can well believe. But the reverse? Uh-uh.
Windows is everywhere, and unavoidable. Anyone who uses a Mac, or Linux, or any other OS that's not Windows, almost certainly has made an informed decision to do so based on harsh experience with Microsoft's crap.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The problem is, if we /don't/ go ahead and make this comparison, then Microsoft has lost on all accords, or has won on all accords, depending on which side of the fence you are on.
.Net 2, buzzword after buzzword, but no real evidence of anything. This means that either a) Microsoft's ideas are SO advanced that they're YEARS beyond us, or b) Microsoft has nothing. I know which side I'm on if you're looking at it from this perspective.
/now/. Microsoft has a fancy alt-tab skin.
If you don't make the comparison to future software, Microsoft can claim anything in the world, as they have been with Longhorn to date. WinFS, Avalon,
So what if 19 months is a long time. _Both_ companies have 19 months, and as I recall, the release cycle of OS X has seemingly hit that miraculous 18 month interval, meaning that when Longhorn actually does come out, so will Mac OS X 10.5.
At this point, we can only compare what exists, and what doesn't. Dashboard and Spotlight exist
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
I don't know anyone who's ever claimed to pick a favorite platform just to stick it to another platform's fans. Sure - people get offended or puzzled by zealotry. But who puts down chunks of cash just to upset that know-it-all fat kid?
I never went down the Mac road because I liked the commodity hardware direction happening with the IBM PC compatible crowd. And I think you'll find that is the same reason that Macs ended up in a niche market.
Great point. Keep in mind that, as others have pointed out, this should be applied to anywhere there is a coroporation (and even where corporations aren't directly involved). No specific platform or technology has a monopoly on zealotry (whether you call it that or not). And nobody is beyond criticism.
2. No condemning something until you've tried it.
If everyone abided by this idea, about 95 percent of all the Windows-Macintosh diatribes would evaporate overnight. But here it is: If you haven't tried something, then you really have no basis to comment.
There is an interesting corallary to this, which to this day amazes me. The token zealot (on either side) appears to believe that the world is divided amonst though who don't have either "competing" product, those who own A, and those who own B.
Apparently, the notion of owning - and perhaps more importantly, enjoying - both products is so counter to the agenda of your garden variety fanboy, that it is anathema to their very dogma.
Keep in mind, every OS has things it's good at.
Most OS's get two of the following:
Cheap - The combination of operating system, hardware, running software and updates is below or on par with the other choices.
Easy to setup/maintain - You average inept home user can shove a disk in, follow basic directions and expect to end up with working apps, sound and video and peripherals. If any problems arise they might be able to stick in a disk that came with a piece of hardware and remedy that problem without in depth knowledge of system editors. Updates should be easy to find and nearly automatic to install. Choosing and running updates should require little to no knowledge of computers. Joe user should also be able to walk in to the nearest wally world, pick up a slide scanner take it home and get it running without calling their family computer geek.
Stable - Would you want this OS controlling a robot doing eye surgery on you? Well you probably wouldn't want that in any case but you get my drift. Will this system do that it's intended to do without failure? Can the system be easily compromised due to minor operator oversight or ignorance?
On my desk sits a Mac to my left, an XP box to my right and a FC3 box straight ahead.
What the Mac does, it generally does well. Looks are obtained at the cost of speed but not so much that it makes the experience painful. It's very stable but it lacks good apps without a lot of money invested.
The Mac is the business guy in the tailored suit, a professional but he doesn't come cheap. He isn't really any better than anyone else, but he looks the part. He's pleasant to be around and if experience matters more to you than money, he's your man.
The Linux box is Fast, what it does, it generally does well. What it doesn't do by default requires endless toil and RTFM. It's rather stable and you can force it to do just about anything if you have enough time. Once you have all the stuff in the right places it's not hard to use but getting it to that point on all but the most generic hardware/software requires an experienced hand.
The Linux box is the genius teenager, You can dress it up, take it out, it's a cheap date and very able. It lacks refinement and organization but makes up for it with flexibility and low expense. If you can figure out how to motivate it, minimal investment can prove a staggering return.
The Windows box is pretty fast, fairly cheap but it takes a lot to keep it in proper condition. There's a large collection of free software that does a descent job though there's a large collection of expensive software that arguably does the job better. The biggest problem is that it will continue to work if it's not kept up to date. Eventually it will be struck down through it's unpatched insecurities. You can't leave it alone. If novices understood how important patching and not running too much cheesy third party software was, the competition would have a hard time holding on. Windows has great flexibility, unfortunately that usually comes at the cost of stability. It's all in how far you take it.
Windows is that lazy uncle that never seems to get things right. If you keep on him he's ok (if not pretty good) at what he does, just not very trust worthy if left alone. He's pretty cheap to impress and can be dressed up, you can let him house sit, but you don't trust him with your china. Whether it's society that makes him that way or his own shortcomings is irrelevant. If you need to deal with him, keep him in his place everyone will be OK.
With the exception of marketing gimics and minor tweaks in the product lines, Mac will continue to make moderately expensive hardware that gets combined with moderately expensive software with the main goal of providing a fantastic user experience to the unknowing public and a fair amount of flexibility to the experienced public that can afford the platform.
Windows will continue to be reactionary to the markets needs. They will continue to create ne
Irony: you're currently modded insightful.
;))
(Now, anyone who mods me insightful, don't - it's funny
Well, as a fairly laid back apple fan boy, it's been my observation that Apple's fans are also some of its harshest critics. For example, when Aqua was first announced, plenty of hardcore apple websites were nitpicking it to death, despite the fact that their own exposure to it was a webcast of a demo that Steve Jobs did for a half hour.
.doc compatibility issues, and a million other things seemed to be doing their best to take the fun out of computing, even when I consciously avoid MS software.
They just tend to get really defensive when "outsiders"(meaning windows users) start criticising the mac. Partially because windows has been such a POS operating system. It's like someone driving an old rusty noisy car driving up to my cleaner, well kept vehicle and giving me crap because he doesn't like my hubcaps. Maybe my hubcaps could be better, but if you're not offering me something superior, then you're wasting my time.
Secondly, there's been a lot of bitterness because MS and their windows monopoly has made things a lot tougher for other OS'es. Their breaking HTML,
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
The polite explanation for this might be Stockholm Syndrome*. The impolite explanation is pig ignorance.
you had me at #!
Criticizing Microsoft for its market dominance is off the table! We should just focus on the gadgets and forget political issues like Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly status. Nope, can't criticize Microsoft for putting insecure machines in thousands of homes, diminishing the internet for everyone. Gotta get our thoughts in line with our overlords.
We're not supposed to comment on something until we've tried it. I guess I'll just have to stop advising friends until I've tried every last piece of equipment. Gotta keep those newspaper advertisers happy -- tell the masses to buy, buy, buy or shut up. (I am confused about one thing though -- if I'm not supposed to draw conclusions without trying something, why should I bother reading tech reviews?)
Schools shouldn't buy Windows becuase its what their students will encounter in the workplace. Seems like a pretty good reason to me, especially since not all students are in kindergarten -- some of them are on the verge of graduating into the job market. But I guess I must be wrong.
How do idiots like this presume to tell people how to think?