The Mac OS/Vista Debate: Readers Have Their Say

Following our recent review comparing Apple's Mac OS X with Microsoft's fledgling Windows Vista, we asked readers to weigh in with their opinions.

Well, you responded in force. The Vista proponents are out there as, of course, are the Mac proponents. The opinions of both sides are presented here. You can click through the links at the bottom of this page, or follow the navigation chart to the right and that's included on all pages.

Readers raised important issues in the debate: Which platform is more open? Which platform is more supportable? Which platform is more likely to keep IT workers employed?

Comments are sorted by broad topic category and reader positions. Read on.

Vista's The Enterprise Answer
I've been a Windows developer for years, but I've also been a business owner/user and to quote my saintly (and really obnoxious) federal accountant father, "You smarmy pommy bastards promised me a paperless office 35 years ago... and I'm still waiting."

Your review was great. I won't say unbiased, but very detailed and fair.

Vista gets my vote. Not because it's looking more and more like OS X with every iteration, but because it supports (or at least is moving closer to) an enterprise class business solution with more consolidated tools. Look at some of the collaborative workspace utilities built in and supported and do your review within the context of Microsoft's overall strategy for what they refer to as BI.

I make my money from the Fortune 500s. And as long as manpower costs go up and efficiency is the driving force, then I'm afraid I'm going to lean to the side of the OS that best supports feeding my family.And who knows in 35 or so years, I may be able to report success back to my old man. I really don't care what label is on the box.

-- Gone walkabout
Original blog comments

Vista All The Way
I know a ton of people that would prefer Windows over Macs. In fact, until my current job (advertising, lots of Mac heads) I had only met two people that preferred Macs over Windows.

Mac users love venting about Windows... Any company that calls their techs "geniuses" thrive in forums like this. They think they are "cool" and "hip," they don't care about the fact that they have to reset the permissions and turn on Appletalk every five minutes.

Windows Vista all the way. If Windows sucks soooo much, how come more people are familiar with it than Mac OS X? Last time I checked, Windows wasn't just a business operating system. Tons upon tons of people use it and like it.I can't wait until the first Mac Virus hits... I want to see how cool Mac OS X is then.

-- MacsRNotIt
Original blog comments

OS X Less Stable But Simpler
I've been running Vista on a MacBook for about five months. I have to support both systems for my job.

I like Vista a lot, and I think it is better than Mac OS X. Personally, I think Mac OS X is less stable but simpler. Windows doesn't have font issues, changing permissions on the fly, and disk errors every so often. With Vista's heightened security, you can't argue that [point] anymore.

The only thing I hear from Mac people is the computers look nicer. Personally, I don't care how nice they look. (Nice, have you seen the Acer Ferrari??) Mac OS is simpler, but to me it looks like a little kid's toy with the icons. You can run all the creative applications just as well on a PC. I once had a user tell me how bad iTunes looks on a PC. They look exactly alike. They think their system is sooo cool and hip, and then they have to bring it to the Genius Bar in the Apple Store.Vista really looks like you want to do business with it. Yes, they did steal a few things from Mac OS X, but it still doesn't look as silly. I have nothing against Apple -- that iPhone is awesome and I have an iPod. The computer battle belongs to Windows hands down, though. If you want to just surf the Internet, buy a Mac. But if you want to do that and a whole lot more, more efficiently, stick with Windows.

-- Jonathan

Original blog comments

Supporting The IT 'Miracle Worker'
Like most Mac users who work, I use Macs at home and PCs at work. To be blunt, I find it very frustrating. There have been many times where I wished I had never used a Mac before because then I wouldn't know any better.

My fellow employees have the same PC issues I do, mostly mystery crashes and lock-ups, spyware, and the occasional virus that gets through our defenses. My coworkers just shrug when their system locks up or they lose four hours of work for no reason; to them, these events are just the way life is. But these daily events drive Mac users insane because we know it doesn't have to be that way! For the most part, the only time my Mac system is ever even rebooted is when I have an OS update to install. As for lockups and crashes, I have never had OS X crash on me, and when individual programs do rarely lock up, 90% of the time it is MS Office that has the problems!

All this said, I believe Windows is here to stay for the foreseeable future, no matter how far behind it is or how bad Microsoft makes it. Why? Because Macs would make IT managers and the techs that work for them less important and more invisible to the companies they work for. IT likes having everyone else think of them as "miracle workers" and enjoys being the savior for people when they have problems. With Macs, people could help themselves most of the time. And thats no way to build an empire.-- Frederick Maywald

No Reason To Switch
Here's my view on the debate. I used to be a MACbigot from 1984 to 1993 until I was forced to useWindows at work. After getting used to Windows, Isaid to myself, "there really isn't much difference." Oh, the UI is a little different. It took me a whileto get to know all the differences, but after a while,I got to like Windows. I really like the right mousecapabilities of Windows.

The one thing that always puzzled me: Why didn'tApple make its OS available on the Intel chip andsell it to PC users back in the 80s? After a while,it became too late. Industry had deployed so many PCswith Windows, would they ever switch to a Mac OS ifthe advantages aren't that great? So now Applefinally has an Intel version but only sells it fortheir hardware. Why don't they work with PCmanufacturers to allow their OS to be compatible on thePC? This would give PC users options and even allowthem to upgrade their current PC from Windows to OS X.

I don't want to buy a new PC just to get the Mac OS. But I may be willing to buy OS X and upgrade to itfrom Windows. Unless I don't understand something,why doesn't Jobs try to capture a piece of the OSmarket and become a software company instead of just a hardware company with a pretty good OS and a smallmarket share?

My final comment is, I don't want to be on an OS with10% of the world when I can talk to 90% and help them, learn tricks from them, and get help when I need it. Unless the Mac OS allows me to do something significant that I really want to do but can't do with Windows, why would I switch?-- Al Huizinga

IT's 'Dream'
All I know is that Windows (any version) is an IT dream. Just check for how many companies can exist just by offering Windows support. There is a big market for this on Windows, but not on Mac. So, how can they give up on their existence?

-- Goncalo Fonseca
Original blog comments

Vista's Strong, But My Mac Stays
I work for the original (and best) microprocessor company in the world. With that said, I have run both Windows-based machines and Macs in my home for some time. I have four laptops, two eight-way servers and a desktop running Windows and now, the new Vista product. On my other machines, I run Mac OS X.

As a huge music lover and part-time musician, I love my Mac. Period. It's easy, intuitive, basically bullet-proof, and has absolutely great tools for any media work. I don't want to just put it into that box though. It's also great at most other things you would do with a computer -- e-mail, research, even office-type functions. It boots extremely fast and in a word, it simply works.I also love the new Vista product from Microsoft. They simply got this right. It's so much closer to what Mac had originally accomplished, which is natural computing. I still have issues with my professional edition, such as the Media Service won't load, most of my audio gear and my Creative Board has no drivers (yet), but I know that will sort out in due time. The interface is SO MUCH better this time around. Still carrying some legacy user-centered design overhead they could have dropped, but this is a winner for sure.

But it won't force me to throw out my Mac either:)

-- Drummer Al
Original blog comments

Intel Move Is A Winner

This is in response to your request for comments on OS X vs. Vista. I have been using PCs since 1982, starting out with a Commodore 64, then an Apple II, then an IBM. For business reasons, I ended up purchasing and using machines with the Microsoft OS for many years. In the 80s and 90s, the Mac was overpriced, not used by businesses, and had limited software, especially games. I haven't used Vista, but I have read what others have said. So far, I am not impressed.Recently, several things have changed from my perspective. The most significant is that Apple has started using Intel processors that can run Windows through either Parallels or Boot Camp. This gave me the peace of mind I needed that I wouldn't be stuck if a program I required was Windows only. The second thing is that I used to use my home machine for both business and personal use, but I find that I now use my laptop for business and my home system for personal use. This is significant in that the Mac excels for personal use. iLife is perfect for manipulating video, photos, and music.

I made the plunge in August, within a week after the release of the Intel Mac Pro. There was a short learning curve, but as I used the system, I found everything in OS X made more sense to me. After about a month, I found I hated using a Windows machine to the point that in November, I switched my work laptop to a Macbook Pro. I now run everything on the Mac, using Parallels for only a few programs such as the Avaya Site Administrator and the Dell Remote Console. I go into Windows only once a week or so.

Here are some of the things I really like about the Mac:

- The BSD code base means it was built to multitask from the start, and it takes advantage of multiple processors/cores better than Windows.

- Since it is BSD based, the command line is powerful, allowing me to use scripting, symbolic links, chmod, sudo, and other things that aren't easily available in Windows.- I like that firmware updates are performed just like OS patches. The system lets you know when a firmware update is available, and you just download and install it. I used to look for firmware updates by searching the Web periodically to see if the manufacturer had a new update; now I am always on the latest firmware.

- The Mac is faster, far faster in some cases and certainly more responsive. There are some pauses in Windows that are inexplicable. For example, when I would need to change directories by using a pull down, Windows would pause for quite awhile as it searched for what was available to switch to.

- Mac programs are more consistent in design. For example, program preferences are always in the same place on the menu and always named the same.

- System shortcuts are better such as drag and drop text and images between many programs, especially e-mail. Clicking on text once puts a cursor in the text, twice highlights a word, and three times highlights a paragraph. I use this all the time, and then the ability to drag that text to another program enhances the functionality further. Other shortcuts include the F9, F10, and F11 keys for changing how you view running programs.

Things I dislike about Windows/Microsoft:- Windows is a bloated OS for which each new version requires faster hardware. From talking to Mac users, you can run OS X on older hardware without issue. I don't believe Microsoft does any code cleanup to improve the performance of the OS.

- Microsoft only enhances things in response to competition, not due to a sense of pride in their work. I believe Apple is an innovator and prides itself in new ideas and doing things "right." Examples of Microsoft waiting to respond to competition include their lack of enhancements to Internet Explorer until Firefox started taking market share.

-- Norm Pollock

Easy To Use, Regular Upgrades

After years and years of struggling with Windows in every version since the beginning, I finally bought a Mac. Yes, I switched before even considering Vista. My new Mac Pro is such an incredible improvement over MS Windows in so many ways it would take a dedicated forum to discuss it in detail.

I do need to give a few examples: Updating the operating system and application software is simple and quick... "really quick" as compared to MS Windows, and also painless. System hangups and reboots are a thing of the past. If I need to reboot Mac OS X (for a firmware upgrade or hardware upgrade, for example), the whole process is so quick that I am back up and productive in under 30 seconds. Yes, seconds! Adding a second disc drive to my Mac Pro took less than five minutes, including shutdown, opening the case, drive installation, rebooting, disk formatting and creating a file system, and adding the new disk volumes. That was simply amazing... they're setting a new standard for serviceability.For years, PC users have been fighting the tidal wave of issues with Microsoft Windows. We have endured a veritable flood of malware attacks, activation nightmares, an unending stream of mandatory updates and security patches with reboot after reboot... all of which were constantly robbing us of productivity.

In the five or six years since XP was released, Apple has quietly done good science with frequent, meaningful, operating system releases. In the process, they have both refreshed their entire line of hardware and made the Mac Operating System on the new Intel-based Macs truly "business ready."

I have the ability to run Parallels Desktop virtualization on my Intel-based Mac. If I choose to do that, I can run Windows concurrently with Mac OS X. Since I use Microsoft Office for Mac 2004, it allowed me to postpone installing Parallels Desktop even though I bought a copy. One key application that worried me about switching to the Mac was Lotus Notes. IBM Lotus now supports Mac OS X with Lotus Notes v7... that is necessary Business Strength software... What more do I need for a powerful, stable, and secure e-business client platform?

After my experience, I firmly believe that every IT shop in the U.S. should buy at least one Mac with OS X v10.4 (aka "Tiger") then seriously evaluate it as an alternative to Vista. Note it is an alternative that is ready to go to work today. In a few months, before Vista will have gotten its first service pack, when v10.5 (aka "Leopard") is released, a head-to-head comparison with Vista should remove all doubt that Apple Macs are "Open for Business" and offer a suitable and, for many users, a superior alternative.

-- Robert J. "Bob" BurkeBiased, But Accurate
I hate to tell you this, but your critics are right about one thing. John Welch is a shameless Mac partisan, and that shines through his entire discussion of Vista versus OS X.

However, even a stopped clock is right twice a day and Welch's conclusion is, IMO, precisely correct. OS X is superior to Vista. Of course, Vista is so thoroughly wrong-headed, I'd take CP/M over Vista.

-- Rick Cook

OS X Is Next Gen

I've been a devout Windows user for all of my practical life. Not too long ago, I bought a MacBook as a gift for the family and have been pondering a switch for some time. Well, yesterday my MacBook Pro arrived and I can really appreciate the advantages the system has to offer. If I had a choice at work, I would switch to Apple this instant. I just have to say that OS X, on the right hardware, is really next gen. I will be installing a copy of Vista in a few days on my home-built PC , but one has to wonder: With all of Microsoft's resources and money, what took them so long? That said, even if Vista is on par with the current version of OS X, how will it fare vs. the next upgrade from Apple? Also, why doesn't Apple just sell OS X separately? If they did, I think we would start to see a sea change in user preferences and Microsoft's dominant market share.

-- Marcus
Original blog commentsEasy For Non-Techies
Over the years, I've grown from supporting desktops and the data center to managing them both. I've worked with VMS (remember that?), UNIX, and the various releases of Microsoft's OS since the beginning of DOS. For the majority of that time, I have viewed Apple's offerings with scorn.

My wife and I have two PCs and a laptop, with a server in the basement, and everything runs Windows. The laptop is the newest machine I own (an HP about three months old), and I recently installed Vista on it. More about that in a minute.

My wife (not a techie) got a new job a month ago with a company that uses Macs, so I broke down and bought one for her so that she wouldn't have to switch back and forth.

There was a power cord, a keyboard, a mouse, and a network cable to plug in, and she was done. (In fact she could've skipped the network cable because the iMac has wireless networking built in.)

When she turned it on, it asked her a couple of questions, and within a minute or so she was up and running. It then offered to get any updates from Apple that were available and, other than the download time, it was a simple and straightforward process.In a million years, she could never have set up a PC, but here was this iMac up on the network and fully functional. It detected my server and the other clients on the network as well.

My experience with Vista was less than ideal. I wholeheartedly agree that Windows is incessant about letting you know what it's doing. It drives you nuts with the do this, do that, what do I do now behavior. I may be unhappy with it, but it's amusing my wife.

Windows is a pig. Out of the box it's slow (particularly the new aero interface), so I wouldn't recommend running it on anything but the latest hardware. After a month of pain, I've reloaded XP on my laptop.

We shouldn't have to think about the OS.

If you need Internet access and Office productivity apps, I recommend that Mac. My wife loves iTunes and iPhoto as well, and once I get an interface for my guitar, I'll be giving Garage Band a trial run!Now that Macs run Unix on Intel processors, Microsoft's only savior is their market share. It's too bad about that because the Mac is a superior platform. I don't think I'll ever buy a PC for home use again.

-- Kevin
Original blog comments

Better Security, Reliability
I agree that comparisons of this type are valuable. As a business technology consultant, it is important to know the critical technical differences as well as the aesthetic/visual user differences highlighted in the John Welch article.

For example, the robust design of OS X, FreeBSD, and its relative GNU/Linux makes it significantly better than Windows Vista for minimizing intrusion in security configurations, and the superior reliability with the established ability to scale in clusters makes these *nix operating systems a no-brainer for choice as compared to the really terrible quality of Microsoft products.

My clients are not concerned, nor should they be, about popularity or market share when deciding on the best technical/business ROI criteria for computerization.I have never been able to get Microsoft XP/2003/Vista supporters, either in tech publications or corporations, to factually or sensibly make the argument of Microsoft products being worthwhile, other than for clueless emotional reasons.

-- W. Anderson
Original blog comments

Great Software, But Hardware Issues

I switched to the bright side four months ago. I bought myself a MacBook Pro. I love the OS, boy what a difference! I had two crashes in the last four months, and these were related to Parallels and some external device I was working on. My device has an uptime of two to four weeks at a time!

Ask me about Apple hardware, though, and you will get a different response! I have been at the Apple store numerous times with various hardware glitches. My MBP was replaced four times already. What a shame! I feel Apple has been cutting some serious corners with the first generation MBP. I feel they pushed the product too early on QA. I was really disappointed on that part, REALLY!

I have been involved with IT for almost 13 years now, so I have seen and worked on a wide spectrum of hardware. Mac OS X is by far superior to Windows XP and Vista together. There is no doubt in that. Hardware, though, that's a different story.-- Mac OS X, ask me about hardware, though
Original blog comments

Apple Retains Control
It is interesting to read the perspective of Windows users, but they seem to have a confused view of the Mac. Windows is more open in the sense that it works on literally hundreds of platforms. That is both the good news and the bad news and is likely why there are so many compatibility issues with Windows and hardware. Apple retains more control over apps and hardware interfaces. The view that the Mac is closed to outside vendors, though, is very wrong. Apple just created a clear set of guidelines for developers to so the UI was more consistent and thus easier for us to use.

In fact, even with my first Mac Plus (a very closed system) I was still able to add an external hard drive, printer, etc., that did not have to be Apple's, and the first programs I ever bought for it were MS Word 1.0 & MS Excel 1.0 back in '85. Even then, the Mac could read DOS discs, so the Mac has been "interoperable" since the beginning. Windows has only recently become a little more interoperable. Since OS X was released in the mid 90s, I have been able to run Mac OS X, Mac OS 9, any Windows OS, Unix, and Linux AT THE SAME TIME... and could easily switch between them with one click. If you really want interoperability, you only have one choice -- you must use a Mac. Windows is NOT that open. All major applications are available on both platforms, and data is completely interchangeable. It was in Windows 95 that MS finally allowed some of the interchangeability that has been with the Mac since the beginning.

Thanks for the feedback from those who seriously use both systems. The consensus seems to be that Apple is on the right track, and this has certainly been my experience as a Mac user. The few times I needed to use a Windows app (a specialty banking program), I just opened Windows on my Mac. Every other app seems to be much easier to use on the Mac OS.All I can say is -- Good Luck with Vista!

-- Confused Mac Guy

Original blog comments

Apple's Better Integrated Apps
One can go through a lengthy, detailed, feature by feature technical comparison (which is what most Windows advocates would do), or one could simply look at how each OS aligns with how non-techies (the masses) think and work (which is what most OS X advocates would do). After all, using a computer should make what you do easier and do it seamlessly.

Windows was written by techies for techies. OS X was written by techies for everyone. Windows promotes the idea of having many developers write apps and is more open in that respect, which can cause lack of consistency, integration, quality, etc., in the apps. OS X is less open in that respect, more controlled, has fewer apps available, but the apps that are available are more consistent, integrated, and, one could argue, of higher quality. OS X cut its ties to prior OS versions so it could move forward; Windows has not. Vista isn't the answer for Microsoft, it's only an interim solution that people are going to be forced to adopt.

-- Dan
Original blog commentsApple IS Open
Huh? Less openness of Mac OS X? Uh, not really...

Apple supports a number of open-source projects and has built the backbone of the system (and many of its applications) on open standards. Has Microsoft? NO. Instead, they create their own standards and force everyone to adopt them or else. How is that open?

Also, Apple's developer tools are freely available to anyone who wants to create applications for the Mac. Along with the devtools, you get a complete reference library (available as HTML or PDF) and Apple's Human Interface Guidelines, which is what helps developers build Mac applications with a consistent look and feel.

As a user -- both at work and at home -- I prefer to use a Mac because they're easier to use. And aside from games, there are plenty of applications for the Mac, most of which outperform their counterparts on the Windows side.

Mac OS X for me, thankyouverymuch!-- Chuckdude
Original blog comments

OS X More 'Open' To Improvement
On almost any technical point that anyone would care to compare, save installed base and marketing muscle, Mac OS X ranks superior to Vista and is more open to improvement. Mac OS X has stronger underpinnings and looser couplings.

Contrary to the comment that Vista was written by techies for techies, the reality is that Microsoft's competence must surely be called into question constantly for the shoddy quality of the delivered code. If it wasn't branded "Microsoft" and part of a monopoly, few people would use it. I use MS Windows all the time, but because of the after-effects of the illegal monopoly, not the laughable quality of the product. Ask Mac users how often the operating system crashes. Face it, the Emperor of Redmond has no clothes.

Apple is once again missing out on a huge market by lacking the fortitude to compete in the operating system marketplace. Vendors are already on record as saying that they would drop MS Windows if Apple would make OS X available for their hardware.

-- Anon E. Mous
Original blog commentsKeep Me Out Of The 'Walled Garden'
Over the years, I have purchased DOS/Windows personal computers from Dell, HP, and IBM.

With OS X, your only personal computer hardware choices are Apple, Apple, and Apple.

I have no interest in participating in Apple's walled garden. It's Vista for me.

-- John J
Original blog comments

Make The 3% Play With The 97%
All of this "my OS is better than your OS" banter doesn't really solve the most important issue of all "- interoperability.If John Welch wants to write an article that really helps the industry as well as the masses out there, he should drop all this loaded comparison talk and start focusing on what either Apple or Microsoft is doing to make their systems interoperable.

Those who work in a Windows shop and, for whatever reason, need to use a Macintosh should easily be able to integrate your system into that environment (authentication, file sharing, Web-based applications, etc.) without a lot of difficulty. The same should be true for a Vista user who needs to function in a Mac shop.

Unfortunately, this article (and other Macintosh advocates like John Welch) seem to want to encourage the division of camps between Macintosh and Windows and drone on endlessly about how much better they like OS X. The best example of this kind of closed-minded mine-is-better-than-yours nonsense comes from Apple itself, with their brain-dead "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" advertisements.

To Apple and John: How about dropping this useless argument and talking about how you are making your wonderful OS work well in an environment that includes something other than your utopian field of Macs? Show the world what you are doing to make your 3% of the desktop market work with the other 97%, and you'll be on to something.

-- Interoperate, please?
Original blog commentsApple Support Aggravation

The inference made that Macs are for users and PCs are for techies is amusing. Shall we look at history and glean the reasons why WinIntel PCs own the hardware and software market today, and why Apple PCs do not?

I work in an environment supporting both, and believe me that when it comes to troubleshooting problems with either, the WinTel boxes are hands-down less aggravation than the Apples.

OS issues aside, Apple found that it couldn't compete and keep pace with the Motorola architecture. Apple has yet to learn how to make a decent commodity price-level computer. Their software has always been good, but the marketing department has never figured out that they are charging 30% to 100% more for the hardware than what it's worth. Ergo the white box dominance in the marketplace.

Apple should have learned the lesson that IBM learned years ago with the PS2 and OS2: The majority of users don't want to be beholden to one manufacturer for the whole ball of wax -- hardware and OS.

Question: Apple will one day wake up and realize that their market is to become a dominant desktop OS and NOT the dominant desktop hardware. Others can build the boxes cheaper and possibly better. It made Bill Gates a billionaire.-- Steve S.
Original blog comments

Apple Slams Monopoly Door
People talk about Apple as if they were an open company, when their actions betray even the most general openness. Hardware? Sorry, you have to buy theirs. Even something as simple as [digital rights management] is Apple-only devices, with only Apple-based subscriptions services for them. Think you are going to be able to run all kinds of cool software on your shiny new iPhone? Sorry, the Apple monopoly door has been slammed shut on that, too.

Mr. Welch compares how easy it is for a client to get their IP address on the Macintosh platform vs. how easy this is in Vista. If we could post screenshots in this review, I would be happy to provide a tutorial of how to get your IP address in four easy and intuitive clicks in Vista. But then, that's not really the point. His example focused on a help-desk worker who was asking for the client's IP address for the purpose of providing support. Mr. Welch, how about trying out Windows Remote Assistance instead? Rather than forcing your client to dig up obscure things like IP addresses, why not just ask to use this simple tool, which permits the help-desk person to view exactly what's happening on the client's screen, or if necessary (and with the client's permission) take control of the remote computer and fix the client's issue? How many clicks did you say that function takes on your beloved OS X? If you really want to compare user experience features, then let's compare them.

-- SupportGuy

Original blog comments

Linux=Affordable
From the business world, I tend to find the Mac vs. PC, Apple vs. Microsoft arguments a bit tired and a bit off point.

Why? Fifteen years ago, many of us said something like, "there will never be Windows-based machines in my shop," or similar. A few years later, we had Windows. Now we're saying (or at least I'm saying), "I can't wait for a viable Linux-based Office suite."

A viable Linux-based Office suite may or may not come to pass, but I am definitely not looking to go from an expensive Windows-based environment to an expensive Apple-based environment.

The debate on the business side relates to cost. Windows = expensive. Linux = affordable. I really couldn't care less about the Mac vs. PC, Apple vs. Microsoft battle. I care about the bottom line. For me, the bottom line is [hopefully] cheaper desktop solutions on Linux. Apple is simply a distraction.

-- Devmngr
Original blog commentsLinux Is Only Reasonable Switch

Mac is pretty, PC is utilitarian. PC is the choice for business.

Since my interest is business, and I am interested in function over form, I would switch to Linux if I were to switch to anything.

Given that we have OpenOffice and you can run most Windows applications in Linux, the switch is looking attractive.

What prevents the switch is that I use applications that only run on Windows, and I develop for the Windows platform.

-- R. Lawson
Original blog comments

Right Apps For The Right Platform
For many people, it is about the applications. For example, Photoshop is just about exactly the same on both platforms, so for someone that spends many hours in Photoshop the OS is almost irrelevant. If I want to play Half Life, I have to be on Windows; if I want to use Final Cut, I have to be on the Mac.

-- HXY
Original blog comments