Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux: A Difference in Paradigms
Ah, yes. The age-old debate that’s gained new traction in the last 10 years and will likely persist to the end of days. This, my friends, is the old “Super Nintendo vs Sega Genesis” debate for grown ups.
Awe crap. Not another <blank> rules post
If you do a Google search for operating system comparisons and opinions, you will find more baseless garbage than can be found in the entirety of the series “Sex and the City”. And I, for one, am not looking to add to that steaming pile. I am more than capable of creating my own personal steaming pile!
The goals of operating systems
There’s an old saying in the programming world: “You can ask a man to change his religion, but never ask him to change his text editor”. I believe this same saying can be applied to power users and their operating systems of choice.
And it is from people with the strong preferences that you will hear many thin arguments that basically translate to “Your operating system sucks. My operating system rules!” But what these people forget is each one has its own set of operating goals.
Mac OS X
Goal - Provide stability and ease of use via proprietary control of the hardware and software.
It’s not often that you will hear a Mac user complaining about driver issues or system crashes. That’s because the strength of Apple products are that “they just work”. And for most of us, that’s about all that matters. When your boss or professor is expecting a report to be completed, they will have very little interest in your .ini file typo or printer driver conflict. All that matters is the final product.
In exchange for this protected environment, there are certain restrictions on what users may or may not do. While the options have been growing over the years, Apple still, for the most part, keeps the user on a protected path.
Linux
Goal - Provide stability and flexibility to the power user.
This free and open source OS does a great job of accomplishing it’s goal. It can do just about anything that can be done on a commercial OS (sometimes more). And due to it’s limited amount of fluff, often times, it can do it better and faster.
The draw back to this is the lack of fluff. It’s much like a chunk of meat with no fat: very dry, very little flavor, and gets caught in your teeth. While this may be ideal for the health nut, the average person would demand to know where they would be able to find a bucket of grease to flavor this bad boy up.
And this leanness is not necessarily a bad thing. Personally, I’m not a fan of the bubbly interface trend of modern day applications. Linux provides me and other tech-head’s a retreat from the large cutesy-wootsy worlds of OS X and Windows.
Windows
Goal - Provide balanced ease of use to the general user and flexibility to the power user
Ah, the largest, and therefore the most targeted of the operating systems. This idea of being “everything to everyone” is what I believe has garnered so much resentment towards Microsoft over the years. Linux is largely geared towards geeks. Mac has traditionally been geared towards the general user (though, in recent years, it’s been working to appeal to power users).
But in the case of Windows, it’s just always been there. And as long as it works, we as users are, for the most part, happy. It is not until we run into problems that we make the change. The general direction of market share traffic is from Windows to another platform. This makes it statistically easy to find anti-Windows bias among these crowds. Not very many are raised with a Mac or Linux and transition to Windows
That being said, the question remains “does Microsoft accomplish it’s goal?” In my opinion, as of XP, the answer was a definitive “yes”. However, I think, it’s been well established, that they dropped the ball with Vista. Despite this failed product, the overarching goal of the “Windows” brand remains the same. With this current iteration, we can say “Vista is broken” and cite several specific reasons, but we cannot make the blanket statement “Windows sucks”.
Aligning with your needs
It is important that a person selects an operating system based on what tasks need to be completed and how well it helps you accomplish these. Unfortunately, there are many OS zealots out there (on ALL sides) who simply need a finger jab to the eye.
What these rabid masses need to understand is that when it comes to a selection of operating system, there are different fits for different people. And though that time won’t come soon, hopefully you will be one less person touting the “your OS sucks!” rubbish.
One last thing…
This post didn’t leave me too many opportunities for bad jokes. So I’ll leave you with a picture from FrenchFriends.info of a guy hitting another guy’s knee with his crotch…
Man... Looks like the guy in red is in pain.
No related posts.
Good summary, David. I think you succeeded in your aim of providing a fairly unbiased overview of the big 3 OSes.
I personally am increasingly seeing a need for all 3… At work I use Windows as I am a .NET developer. At home, I love the extra flexibility of Linux (Ubuntu) and just the myriad of stuff it can do that Windows generally can’t (Compiz is just so damn cool and helps making using your PC fun). And whilst not yet a Mac user, I hear wonderful things, and am considering maybe getting a Mac laptop. At any rate, I think they’re the undisputed king for creative types.
But you know what I think? I think that part of Linux and Mac users’ “My OS is better than yours” crap is motivated by “elitism”. It’s part of the appeal of being a part of the minority. You tend to think of yourself as “special”, “enlightened”, or knowing and understanding something that most don’t.
I think it is the same for me with my love of metal music. Part of the appeal is that the vast majority of people think it is “senseless noise”. I like the knowledge that I just know something they don’t, and see value in something otherwise unloved. Of course, metal has many merits of it’s own, but I cannot hope to convince the Britney Spears fans of that.
Would you agree, sir?
That’s a great point. Elitism is definitely another component to the whole puzzle. And it is, in fact, something that we all are guilty of to some degree, even if we do not express it in such an abrasive manner.
By the way, high five as a fellow “senseless noise” lover!
Nice post, but as you can probably tell I am one of the Elitist that you speak of and am Mac obsessed. This affliction started when I purchased my first computer way back in the 1987. It was a Mac knock off that had no hard drive and worked solely off of floppy drives and RAM. It had 512K’s of RAM and once you turned off the computer it was all gone. Saving to a floppy was a necessity if you wanted to keep your work. This was the beginning of my love of all things Apple. In the middle nineties I moved up to an Apple Performa 636 that had a read/write cd player and was amazing. Over the years I have owned the original Bondi Blue iMac, indigo iMac, 15 inch Flat Panel iMac, 17 inch Flat Panel iMac, indigo Clam Shell iBook, 20 inch iMac, Power PC iBook, intel iBook, original Mac mini, the current Mac mini, Apple TV, every version of the iPod and iPhone’s. I am sure that I have forgotten one or two along the way. In the end all of them worked and all of them gave me and my family great pleasure. As you said earlier Apple products simply work all of the time and for someone who is not as technologically capable as yourself that is what makes me a “fanboy” of Apple.
By the way nice site and that in no way has to do with you being my nephew… ok maybe just a little.
Great article.
Personally I’m a mac convert. I like that it’s easy most of the time. No wasting time installing drivers 90% of the time. AND if I want I can go into terminal an modify certain aspects - something some linux elitists don’t seem to know.
Ubuntu, for me, sucks ass. The time I spend learning to use it, would be better spent working. I tried it once. It cost me a day to get it working properly, and I’m not totally tech illiterate. Fine for a power user, not for someone who could spend that time printing documents and making money that way.
While windows IS reasonably easy and stable (the latest XP anyway), I’ve never been a fan. It’s easy because we’re accustomed to it. Same with Office. The main reason I use M$office however, is because it has a decent spell check. Unlike open-office, which will never be able to compete. Also, open office can’t handle .doc formats well. It changes them slightly in complexer documents.