Five Reasons Why Vista Beats Mac OS X (and Why They Are Mostly Wrong)

On 8 April 2008, Preston Gralla wrote an article on Computerworld.com making the claim that Windows Vista beats Mac OS X. He provided five items to support his argument. He is mostly wrong.

[quote=Preston Gralla]
Reason #1: Vista runs more software

Mac OS X is a very pretty operating system, but beauty runs only skin deep. An operating system by itself is a poor thing — it’s the applications that run on top of it that matter. And here’s where Mac OS X falls short. It can’t run much common software, including enterprise applications and games.

Virtualization software like Parallels Desktop for Mac won’t solve the problem. Parallels can’t run even the most basic Vista games such as FreeCell, Hearts, Pinball, Solitaire and Minesweeper, because it doesn’t support DirectX 9. And virtualization software creates big problems for enterprises with regard to volume licensing, technical support, creating standard enterprisewide images and so on. So it’s no good for running enterprise applications either. Vista beats OS X here, hands down.
[/quote]

Mac OS X has never been marketed to gamers or the enterprise. There are some obvious shortcomings for OS X when we are talking about these two spaces, and the fact remains that the enterprise is still held tightly by Microsoft. While Mac OS X will run many games, it cannot run them all, as not all popular games have been ported to the platform. However, I think Gralla is simply overstating the lack of games here in order to make his point. This is not necessary.

But let’s be honest here. Most software that users will want to run is available for Mac OS X, and, if it isn’t, you’ll find an application by a different name that will perform the same tasks. Games are another story. I will say that the games I have on my Mac run smoothly and I have found no differences between them and their Windows-based counterparts.

[quote=Preston Gralla]
Reason #2: Vista is safer

As I’ve written before, Vista is a more secure operating system than Mac OS X. Mac OS X was easier to crack in a recent hacking contest. And security researcher Dino Dai Zovi had this to say about Vista versus Mac OS X when it comes to security:

“I have found the code quality, at least in terms of security, to be much better overall in Vista than Mac OS X 10.4. It is obvious from observing affected components in security patches that Microsoft’s Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) has resulted in fewer vulnerabilities in newly-written code.”
[/quote]

Given the number of security vulnerabilities in every OS to come out of Redmond, this argument is laughable, at best, and given the fact that antivirus software isn’t even present on most Mac OS X machines (because they do not currently require it), this statement becomes more wishful thinking and less fact. Not a single OS X virus has been discovered in the wild. Not one. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Windows. Some may argue that this is because OS X has only 7% of the market share, but I’ve always believed this argument to be misleading because it assumes that those who write malicious software are not interested in the huge amount of press they would get for being the first to write malware for OS X and release it into the wild. Given that most of those who do this are looking for notoriety, being the first to infect OS X with your shiny new virus or worm would certainly bring one a great deal of publicity. Considering that those of us who run OS X are said to be “arrogant” and “uppity” when we proclaim that we do not have to run antivirus software, do not think for even a second that there are not those out there who would love to take us down.

Regarding the recent hacking contest that Gralla mentions, the Vista machine was also hacked. The Linux machine was the only one to survive. Neither Vista, nor OS X, had anything to be proud of that day.

[quote=Preston Gralla]
Reason #3: It’s the money, stupid

If you’re got a lot of extra spare cash laying around that you don’t care about, then by all means, buy a Mac. But if, like most of the world, you’ve got to work for a living, then you’ll find that a Vista machine is far less expensive than a Mac.
[/quote]

The same argument could be made for, say, an automobile. Watch, I can do this as well…

“If you’re got a lot of extra spare cash laying around that you don’t care about, then by all means, buy a Ferari. But if, like most of the world, you’ve got to work for a living, then you’ll find that a Honda is far less expensive than a Ferari.”

The argument that Macs are more expensive than computers running Windows is an old one that the Windows fanboys trot out every time they are losing the Mac vs. Windows war. It completely disregards the fact that some people are willing to pay more for a product that they see as being better. It simply does not take into account the following question that every consumer should ask herself: Which of the two products offers more value for my money.

It’s not the money. It’s the value, stupid.

[quote=Preston Gralla]
Reason #4: The Mac is closed; Vista is open

Any person or company who wants to build a PC with Vista on it, and either sell it, or use it themselves, is perfectly free to do so, as long as they buy the operating system. Try to do that with a Mac, and you’ll be spending some face time with Apple’s attack dog lawyers.
[/quote]

It is true that Apple controls which machines can run their operating system. This is a decision that Apple made when Steve Jobs returned to the company in the mid-nineties. You cannot build your own computer and install Mac OS X on it (at least not “legally”). But to whom does this really matter? My mother certainly doesn’t care, and neither do most of my friends. Most of the people I know would not build their own computer and install OS X any more than they would do the same with Windows Vista. For those that enjoy building their own computers, I suppose this argument works, but for the vast majority of users out there, the argument will be met with a shrug of the shoulders, followed by a “who cares?”

[quote=Preston Gralla]
Reason #5: Two words — Steve Jobs

There’s no doubt that Steve Jobs is a master marketer. And he also knows good design. But he’s also vindictive, sends his lawyers after people who report leaked information about Apple products, and has hypnotized Apple users into drinking the true-believer Kool Aid. Don’t reward him by making him richer.
[/quote]

This argument implies that Apple is alone when it comes to sending lawyers after those who leak information about their products. While I do agree with this practice, I reject the argument entirely because it means nothing at all in the context of this conversation. Further, Bill Gates and Microsoft are no saints when it comes to their business practices. Running a huge, anti-competitive and illegal monopoly (according to both United States and European Union courts) doesn’t make me want to throw money at them either. But all this is useless when trying to win an argument for or against either company. The question is not “who is a nicer company with which to do business”, it is “which operating system is better for me”. If either company were funding terrorism, or selling babies on the black market, I would most-certainly boycott them, but Gralla’s reasons for disliking Steve Jobs are a lot of hot air and no substance.

My arguments for using Mac OS X are numerous, and I will not go into them here. What it comes down to, for me, is which of the two operating systems, Vista or OS X Leopard, I prefer to use, given my needs and what I expect from an OS. Since 2005, Mac has always come out on top for me, and I have not had any regrets.