Subscribe to RSS feedApple machines a "walled garden"
By Martin / Other, Musings / Monday March 15th, 2010 / 5 comments
For years, a dominant debate in the technology world has been the "Mac v PC"* question - that is, whether the products produced by Apple, or those made by Microsoft, are better, and in particular which company's operating system is superior. While I don't think there is an objective answer to this issue, I do believe there are some key differences between the two competing products.
The main of these differences is in the business models by which Apple and Microsoft distribute their two operating systems. While Microsoft works through a licensing model, making the software and then selling it to other manufacturers to place within their computers, Apple directly distribute their OS with their own small pool of hardware.
Users of Apple technology live in a walled garden, a little ecosystem of compatible Apple-approved hardware (and in some cases, like the iPhone's, software) where everything can be said to be "perfect". Components are carefully chosen for compatibility, and often single vendors (Intel, Nvidia) are exclusively selected, to aid the process. What the end-user finally gets is a nice package, that they can set up and use, and which "just works". And that's it.
Of course, the problem with this method is that you don't really have a choice of what you want. You get what you are given, and live with it, until it beocmes outdated - then you have to buy a new machine (unless you buy a Mac Pro, but even thenyou still don't have full access to all hardware components). If you really like OS X for other reasons, but would rather a HD 5770 video card, well, you don't have many options. Maybe many end-users are happy with this - but of course, the people that contribute to such debates as the "Mac v PC" one have personal interests in the state of information technology and are most likely not the sort of person to let their machine's internals lie stagnant.
Once you switch to Windows, you are stepping out into a different world, where you have an unlimited choice over hardware and other components, and are free to construct your computer in whatever way you like. Even OEMs, who recieve volume licenses from Microsoft to put Windows on thousands of machines, still choose a vast majority of different setups for the machines they sell. You get to choose.
However, in that world, problems do happen, and this is why there is a perception that "bad things" happen to Microsoft products more than Apple's. Driver incompatibility and other bugs have plagued many Windows releases, and indeed evidence shows that buggy Nvidia drivers were responsible for almost 30% of Windows Vista crashes - far more than what was caused by Microsoft's own code. And this, for the most part, is why people dislike Windows (apart from subjective UI and method differences) - because it simply isn't as stable as OS X running on Apple's select machines.
In the end, it is all about safety, versus choice - the safety of the walled garden that Apple has created for their operating system, against the endless possibilities of Windows and the inherent danger presented by that. Maybe neither situation is better - but I'm sure there's one that you like more**.
As a note, it is interesting to see that the walled garden model that Apple has applied to the software on its iPhone smartphone, with applications only available through the Apple-controlled App Store, is being adopted by Microsoft for their new Windows Phone series. Hardware specifications will also be tightly controlled (though there will still be more models than what Apples has). Maybe they are getting tired of the endless incompatibility too? But then, the smartphone market is very different.
--
* Funnily enough, now that OS X runs on the x86 architecture, Apple machines are also, for a common definition of the word, PCs.
** That was not a call to flame this article. Civil comments still appreciated.
∎
I hope you enjoyed reading this article. If you wish, you may view some of the other recent or popular things I have written, or subscribe to receive RSS updates. You can also add a comment, or share this article on Twitter or Facebook, below.
5 comments
Alice I enjoyed reading this article, and now feel slightly more knowledgeable with respects to the "Mac v PC" question. Hopefully I can make informed contributions if ever I get dragged into this heated debate. And your analysis of the pros and cons of each is very useful.
:)
Nick Couldnt agree with your opinion more. I personally am a PC man and have had the occasional problem, specifically my wireless adapters recievers very average drivers that aren't compatible with windows 7, causing me to go through a very unnecessary and painful experince every time i start my computer and wish to use the internet. Despite these problems the choice of both hardware and software (specifically games) makes Microsoft the easy choice for me.
LXT Agree on some points... but anything I need to do on a PC I can do on my mac, and of course it depends on the needs of the user. Fusion and Parallels are both pretty good options now re. running virtual PC, and of course there's boot camp. Obviously programmers need more freedom etc, but for the average home user, a Mac does the job and is relatively low maintenance. I don't have to waste money on virus/internet protection every year. (Well I do now, as I have a HP and also run Fusion, but you get the idea. Both are currently unprotected because the subscriptions have run out, I'm too lazy to resubscribe and don't have time to look at which are the best options.
Hardware wise, I've never had a problem really. I work with high res documents in photoshop etc, play the odd game, it's not the hardware itself but software compatability which has been the problem in the past - but now that macs have gone mainstream (thank you ipod), this is hardly an issue now. As someone who's always used Apple computers (since before they got popular) and hardly anything Windows based (have never owned a windows computer until a few months ago), PCs have always been foreign territory to me really. I haven't seen or used any other PC that would make me want to swap my imac. Agree with the restrictions Apple place on hardware modifications though, but in a way they make things simpler - a limit of choice means you don't have to worry about those things. If things get too slow, it's time to upgrade.
And pricewise, people complain all the time but in the end you're not just paying for a sexy piece of computer, but the OS and a system that just works.
Again, I suppose it depends on the user and their needs. But for the average home user, I think the mac wins out because really, they just make things so easy to do.
Jing Once one has been traumatised and stressed by the poor functions of a particular PC the consistency of a mac is somewhat reassuring. Although it offers less customization ability and fiddling (both soft and hard), I must say that the elegant mac interface is much less stressful to work with than the windows interface. For the average user (as opposed to the hardcore geek) a computer that solves more problems than it causes is a definite preference.
shadowayex Well, I lean more towards PC vs. Mac due to the lower costs associated with getting a PC. I find Macs that are at least closely configured to a PC I am looking at tend to cost more, so I go with PC.
But, PCs are plagued with unpredictability, as noted in the article. But I find that if you buy from a company who knows what they are doing. Some companies, like eMachines, don't really look at the hardware supported or required for the OS they put on the system. I say this because I found a few different Vista machines that they released with only 512 MB of RAM, half the required and one forth of the recommended for Vista.
That being said, in the Mac field there is confidence. But, I can't seem to afford a Mac that I could even attempt to force to play The Elder Scrolls IV - Oblivion, so I like the PC field.
As for viruses, contrary to popular belief, older Macs can get viruses, there's just no one who wants to build them. Newer Macs are built around the Unix kernel, so in that sense, no one really wants to make an attempt. It's much more worth it to attack PC users, so they do. Nothing is virus proof, but Windows is an easy target so most virus creators target it.
For Windows, I have never paid for an antivirus. I've used AVG Free since version 7.0, and it's worked well enough. if I do have viruses on my Windows machines, they aren't bad enough to do any harm apparently. That said, LXT, I think AVG would be a good choice for you.
But I, myself, *starts putting bulletproof armor on* prefer to use Ubuntu Linux ( http://www.ubuntu.com/ ). I find it is very secure, it's free, and it can run on the lower cost PC hardware, as long as the hardware companies have taken the time to build the drivers or have given Canonical permission to do so. In fact, this message is being sent from one of my Pure Linux machines. My other machines are dual booted, as there is a rare case that I find Windows only software that I can't find a linux replacement for and cannot get to run in Wine ( http://www.winehq.org/ ). I have many applications installed on my Ubuntu that were taken straight from the Ubuntu repositories, so they are guaranteed to be compatible with the Ubuntu. Although in an open source world, you get a lot of interesting products, so although more stable that Windows, your software may not be. But once again, free OS, free software, little threat of viruses (for the same reason as the little threat for Macs), there's bound to be some kind of setback. But most software works fine for me.
Anyway, This comment was kind of off topic, but I do like your comparison a lot. It's a great analogy. Mac is primarily like a green house where all the plants will grow up in a controlled environment with little that could go wrong aside from user error, whereas PC is a gigantic wild forest with many plants to choose from, but any unexpected dangers associated with them.