Shark Bait

Knowledge Centers

Operating Systems

Networking & Internet

Mobile & Wireless

Security

Storage

Business Intelligence

Servers & Data Center

Computerworld Reports

Industry

See your link here

Preston Gralla

Seeing Through Windows

Five reasons why Vista beats Mac OS X

528 comments

TAGS:Apple, Leopard, Mac OS X, Microsoft, Steve Jobs, Vista
IT TOPICS:Desktop Applications, Enterprise Software & Services, Macintosh & Apple, Operating Systems, Software, Windows & Microsoft

The conventional wisdom, that Mac's OS X is superior to Windows Vista, is flat-out wrong. In fact, despite much belief to the contrary, Vista is a superior operating system. Here are five reasons why.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

By the way, if you're interested in a head-to-head death match about whether Vista, XP, Mac OS X, or Linux is the superior operating system, check out OS Smackdown: Linux vs. Mac OS X vs. Windows Vista vs. Windows XP. As you might imagine, I argue for Vista.

Other Opinions

Email this

Digg this

What People Are Saying

Add new comment

5 short replies

Submitted by LucioBiBi on January 25, 2010 - 5:44 P.M.

Reason #1: Vista runs more software.
Apple runs OTHER more software.

Reason #2: Vista is safer.
Vista is a bigger target.

Reason #3: It's the money, stupid
yeah, it's the money. an hard disk equipped with an accelerometer-based antishock system is safer and more expensive than a 20 bucks hdd.

Reason #4: The Mac is closed; Vista is open.
mac os is TUNED for apple machines. and is not too closed, since apple lets you install windows or linux on their machines.

Reason #5: Two words -- Steve Jobs
three words -- Steven Anthony Ballmer
AND I SAID EVERYTHING.
------------
ALMOST EVERYTHING:

Reason #6: try to sync a microsoft os pc with a microsoft mobile os device via microsoft syncing software and check what happens in few weeks (or few days).
then do the same with an apple pc and an apple mobile device...

Reply | Report this comment

I hated Macs during all my

Submitted by LucioBiBi on January 25, 2010 - 4:41 P.M.

I hated Macs during all my life, since i bought a macbook pro...

Reply | Report this comment

I had pc’s all my life, in

Submitted by Anonymous on January 12, 2010 - 8:30 P.M.

I had pc’s all my life, in fact I was using Windows XP the most and being a die-hard pc fan, I hated Macs. XP and 2000 being the best of the Windows set up I must say, but when you talk Parallels not running games on a native source, you’re not arguing about an actually machine running it, you’re referring to a very new technology that MacOSX has that Windows 7 can barely do. So let’s play the game of MacOSX and Windows running virtual machines and see which on comes out on top. Much we refer to the slogan of Parallels? “Windows runs better on a Mac.” The hardware is designed for it and guess what, you can run Windows on a Mac! Mac is a computer and Vista is an OS, they are Apples and "Lemons" (in literate terms). In fact virtualization made me switch to MacOSX because of the “IRQL” errors. You can’t even base an argument for that. I mean explain to me how that could even have a valid point because you're comparing a virtual machine to a real machine. Now since I have one, I’m not going back to Windows.

Reply | Report this comment

Vista vs. Mac, looking back

Submitted by Mootz on January 4, 2010 - 5:45 P.M.

Now that we have the perspective of history, all the Vista supporters should feel a bit, let’s say, humbled. As far as the expense of buying a Macintosh; if you factor in the productivity, the need for less tech support, the “out of the box” ability to do most anything you need to do without having to buy additional software, and the fact they just last longer Mac’s are much more cost effective.

Vista turned out to be one of the biggest mistakes Microsoft ever made, and that’s no “Over Exaggeration,” as if you could under exaggerate. Most of you out there writing comments should learn a bit more English, and use that spellcheck thing. I noticed most of the bad spelling and grammar came from the P.C. supporters; probably using Vista.

Reply | Report this comment

Totally Agree

Submitted by Anonymous on January 28, 2010 - 10:06 P.M.

That is exactly what i was going to write for a comment thank you soooooo much.

Reply | Report this comment

Vista SP1/SP2 works just fine...

Submitted by Anonymous on January 4, 2010 - 6:28 P.M.

Vista SP1/SP2 works just fine. So much so, that I haven't bothered to upgrade to Windows 7.

Vista's most vocal critics are people who have never used it, and don't know anything about it.

Reply | Report this comment

Ahahahaha! When I read the

Submitted by Fail on December 5, 2009 - 4:18 A.M.

Ahahahaha! When I read the first one that Vista has more software I almost pissed myself.
Windows software is absolute crap, you try finding cool apps like 'grand perspective', 'istat', 'appfresh', 'concept draw' and so many thousands more! Yeah go windows users, go find good apps like those which actually work!
Windows has plenty of software....

but 95% of it doesnt work, or is useless because of the effort it requires to actually get it working properly.

Reply | Report this comment

I think a lot of mac-only users like to over exaggerate ...

Submitted by Anonymous on January 1, 2010 - 11:33 P.M.

I think it's funny how a lot of mac users must over exaggerate how bad they think windows is in order to feel like they are right. Windows would have to be pretty horrible and unusable for me to want to pay double the money for a machine that has 1/2 the power to get important tasks done. For example, rendering video, something a mac should excel at is usually far slower than it would be on my pc. Why? Because there is a range of PC's from crappy to great in a range of prices and as the OP said, there are choices that apple doesn't give you. For example, my i7 based pc at 3.6ghz, with ddr3 mem, 1.5TB HD and quick gfx card would pulverize a typical $1600 IMac because it's more than twice as fast. Who wants to wait for things to finish? I don't. In PC land, universe of choices, I got my system for $850 by shopping around. Yes there are cheaper ones that suck, and more expensive ones that aren't so great, but the choice is up to the buyer. However, all these choices are not available from apple.
Not important? Well very recently apple has finally decided to include i7, ONE solid year AFTER you could buy a pc with one. But then raised the price to $2000. At stock speeds, it's $2000 vs $830. That's without me touching anything in the settings. And you're thinking, well the apple harware is of such higher quality so it's worth the extra $1000. BULL! An imac IS an Intel PC! Also it takes quality parts if you want to raise the clock. My clock at 3.6ghz makes it faster than a $2000 imac and a $2500 mac pro! It has solid copper heat pipes and is all about quality. There's nothing to smugly laugh at. It's the truth. I showed this to my friend who has a mac and he was a bit shocked when he saw how fast it was, yet impressed.
Need more proof? I then hackintoshed, or loaded OSX leopard into my pc then showed my friend a mac twice as fast as his mid 2009 mac. He was sick, but thought it was cool, lol. So if I was able to run leopard on an $830 system far faster than a $1600 mac, or even a $2000 i7 mac! So then where did $800 to $1170 go? It's either for hardware, or osx. I know people reload their same osx disk and brag about it being only $30 for an upgrade etc. So if apple isn't charging you $1000 for software, then it's for hardware.
But I only loaded osx to show what could be done. And what about the malware talk? That is about the only point for mac, and a weak point at best considering most windows systems aren't crashing all day long as some of these posters would like to believe. And since vista, most malware is socially engineered to fool the user into downloading bogus software. That has nothing to do with security if the user agrees to run it. And this can happen on mac or pc. It's just that again, pc is the bigger target. Nothing to be proud of as if osx magically wards off these attacks because it doesn't. That's why apple issued a statment asking it's users to run anti-virus. Only to retract it in embarrassment later since they always hint that it's only the PC's that get badware. It's also why leopard and snow are seeing more security patches being downloaded. And it's also the reason when you type, "My mac has a virus" it's a reality in searches.. But this is only a small part of the picture when you
consider that it's easily possible to have a clean, stable system. Especially with windows 7. If you are a big mac fan and laughing at windows 7, I wouldn't laugh too hard. I've used both extensively and it's be a liar if I din't say I thought windows 7 was better. If you want to peer into my room and wait for windows to crash, you are going to have a long wait. I also haven't had one malware on windows 7, even though I'm aware it's a possibility. If you want to believe it's horrible to use, you're sadly mistaken. I have a recording studio and edit video just fine. I also trade stocks with tradestation. Something that a mac won't run, unless you turn around and load windows. Now, if it were true that windows was THAT horribly bad. I would run mac all day. But instead, my experience has mostly been great. For me. Going with mac would mean spending double or more for less speed. And not being able to run the software I want to run. It seems 90% of the promac posters here are exaggerating how bad they think windows is in order to feel better about their purchases...

Reply | Report this comment

Um Hello?

Submitted by Anonymous on January 28, 2010 - 10:22 P.M.

Did you ever think that the average American doesn't know how to "Mess with" a Windows computer in order to make it run faster than a Mac? So how would average people make their machines run faster unless they PAID someone to do it?

Reply | Report this comment