First off, I apologize for the inactivity of the past month+.  Part of that was busyness (lots of traveling over Christmas break, and other preoccupations), and another part laziness.  I think I’m going to shoot for a more reasonable blog schedule…as in, once a week or so.  Hopefully…

This week’s topic is Apple vs. Microsoft (particularly their competing computing platforms).  Yes, it’s been debated to death already, but as a Computer Science major who’s fairly familiar with the subject of computer platforms and OSes, I thought I’d write something about it.

Personal Bias

Before we get into some of the fundamental differences between the two computer companies and their strengths/weaknesses, I think it’s important to point out what I think fuels a lot of the bickering between Apple fanboys and PC defenders (specifically, Windows PCs): familiarity and personal investment. 

One reason I run Windows machines and prefer to work with them is that those are the computers I grew up using.  From Windows 3.1 to 95, 98, 98 SE, ME, XP and now Vista, I’ve grown up with Windows and am familiar with where most everything is located in Windows.  Thus, I am pretty efficient at configuring my PC to do what I want it to do.  I’m also accustomed to using a variety of 3rd party applications which run in Windows, many of which aren’t available for Mac.  So naturally, I’d rather run an OS I’m used to and don’t have to learn all over again.  It’s for this reason that I tend to get frustrated whenever I use a Mac.  It’s not because it’s necessarily worse, it’s just different and not as intuitive to my Windows-trained mind.  I think this is why a lot of Windows people don’t like Mac, and why a lot of Mac people find Windows frustrating. 

The other fuel for the fanboy fire is personal investment.  When I broke down and got a Playstation 3, I suddenly became a blu-ray advocate.  It wasn’t because blu-ray was necessarily better on a fundamental level, or even because they had more movies I like (although that turned out to be mostly true).  I had simply invested in the platform, and naturally wanted to know that I made the right decision.  Since I have a nice PC, I’d like to believe that Windows is the best and that I made the right decision.  It doesn’t matter if the facts tilt the other way, I don’t want to have to admit that I’ve been wrong.

Fundamental Differences

With that touchy-feely bit out of the way, it’s time to compare the pros and cons of the two competitors.  Obviously both are in similar areas of the high-tech market and vying for profit through the sale of their computing products.  Both are heavily invested in the areas of desktop, laptop and mobile computing devices, as well as peripheral fields such as portable music players and home theater solutions.  But that’s largely where the similarities end. 

Microsoft

Microsoft is primarily a software company and designs most of their programs (particularly their Windows operating systems) to be compatible with the vast majority of third-party hardware configurations.  Windows runs on computers by Dell, HP, Sony, Fujitsu, etc. as well as custom machines designed by the end user.  Now, it is true that they rely upon the third-party manufacturers to handle a lot of the driver programming, etc., but the bottom line is that Windows is a practically universal OS that nearly any PC can run in some flavor or another.  The same is true of more specialized devices like phones, where Windows Mobile runs on phones by a variety of manufacturers.

Now, this universality has its drawbacks, the primary one being stability.  Windows has long had the reputation of being a crash-prone OS, from the infamous BSOD (blue screen of death) to seemingly random periods of unresponsiveness.  Although the OS’s stability has improved immensely over the years (Windows ME crashed all the time, whereas Vista has yet to crash for me, and XP very rarely does), it’s still not uncommon to have to kill an unresponsive program.  Broad support also means that Windows applications can’t take much for granted and must specify certain minimum requirements for performance, which may vary greatly from system to system.  It’s a two-edged sword, but Microsoft chose the path of customer options at the expense of some performance and robustness.

Apple

Apple, on the other hand, is both a hardware and software company, and consequently has much more control over the design and manufacture of their products.  They don’t have to support hundreds of motherboards by multiple companies, or worry about being compatible with a cornucopia of third-party video cards or RAID controllers or network cards, etc.  They choose what goes into each Macintosh machine, and thus can focus on developing a more robust software platform that is designed for the hardware it’s running on.  Sure, there are third-party peripherals for Macintosh, but very few PCs can run the OS because it is so proprietary.

While this design approach limits consumer options to whatever Macintosh decides to develop, it does allow them to finely tune the user experience and sell a consistent product.  In many ways, it’s like a game console.  Sony’s Playstation 3 (just like Microsoft’s Xbox 360 and Nintendo’s Wii) is a proprietary platform.  Sony doesn’t let gamers design their own PS3; they develop a single system with a single hardware configuration (excepting minor variations like data storage capacity) and an operating system and interface that is designed to work with that precise setup.  And, as a result, every PS3 can play PS3 games as well as any other, and the lack of flexibility means it’s hard for the user to screw up the system.

This philosophy, combined with their focus on slick and accessible interfaces, is what makes legions of Apple fans so loyal.  They see a Windows machine bog down because of a poorly designed application or insufficient system specifications, or they are turned off by a garish case design and cheap build quality, and understandably conclude that Windows sucks and that Apple is the rightful god of their digital lifestyle.

My Choice

I’ve discussed what I think are the primary differences between Apple and Microsoft and their computing platforms, and shown what I believe to be the primary benefits and drawbacks of each.  Sure, if you wanted to get technical you could compare everything from OS GUI designs to memory management and show why one is better than the other.  But from a user experience standpoint, the issue boils down to this:  A Windows system provides greater computing freedom and a wider variety of hardware and software options.  A Mac system offers consistent performance, ease of use and a strong lineup of first-party applications that allows average users to painlessly do most everything they want to do.

So it all depends on your priorities.  If you want a solid PC to do normal things like browse the web, listen to music, watch movies, edit video or photos, organize your life, etc, an Apple is an excellent choice.  It’s probably a bit more expensive than an equivalent PC, but the overall quality of the system may be worth it in the long run.  On the other hand, if you like knowing (and choosing) exactly what’s in your computer, want to be able to upgrade your system in the future, play a lot of games or are picky enough about your software that you need lots of options, a Windows machine is a more appropriate choice (and depending on the machine you need, could be a lot cheaper).

For me, it’s all about choice and customization.  While I can’t deny that Apple products are sexy, stylish and generally hassle-free, neither am I willing to buy a prebuilt machine with the equivalent specifications of a PC I could build for less.  Nor am I willing to give up the ability to play any computer game I want, nor accept crippled, delayed or non-existent versions of programs and plugins that I use regularly.  Finally, I’m willing to go to a bit of extra work to configure my machine so that it runs well, and I’m even willing to reinstall Windows every couple years to keep it running smoothly.  In my opinion, Apple machines are either for people who aren’t very tech savvy and need a computer that’s hard to mess up, or for technical people who are willing to spend a bit more on a machine that can perform everyday computing tasks with consistency.  I wouldn’t mind having an Apple as a secondary computer (say, laptop) for those reasons.  But for my main machine, I choose Windows for the hardware/software options and highly configurable OS.  And because it’s what I’m used to.

Sidenote

Of course, I left out a whole other family of operating systems that some would say is the best of both worlds: Linux.  There seems to be a flavor of Linux that can run on just about anything, it’s free, and it’s generally stable.  It’s also a highly customizable OS that can be very small and basic or large and full-featured (and everything in between).  I use Linux daily at work and while I think it’s great for a lot of things (web servers, embedded systems, some software development, etc.), I still don’t see it as a viable alternative to Windows or Mac OS for day-to-day use.  Yes, there are Linux applications that are capable of doing just about everything Windows or Mac can do, and they’re free.  But I just have not found the OS to be as user-friendly for everyday tasks, as hard as it tries.  And while open source software is great because it’s free, it’s often inferior to the commercial equivalent.  Gimp is much harder to use than Photoshop, in my opinion.  I prefer MS Office over OpenOffice.  I’m not aware of any free equivalent to Adobe’s video production suite.  And although Linux is a good software development platform because of its many built-in compilers, I still find MS Visual Studio to be best for large programming projects.  In short, Linux is great at a number of things (and again, free), but I still don’t think it’s on par with Windows or Mac OS for common everyday tasks.