I'd like to think I'm completely over this debate of what is better, OS X or Windows, and for the most part I am. However, when I came across this article today, I was driven to respond. I find it to be one of the worst posts ever written in terms of accuracy and common sense. Ugh, and now I have to take his claims point by point and respond.

Reason #1: Vista runs more software
This always makes me laugh a little until I pee. Even if this were true and even if this were provable, what benefit would there be when both platforms already run so many apps? Does the user really care if they can choose between 950,000 or 1.2 million available applications? "Oh, fuck that Mac shit, I think my killer app is going to fall in those extra 300,000 shareware apps that were made for Windows 95 in the early 90's." First off, with the built in X11, Macs can run a huge number of Linux apps that Windows can't touch. Then of course there are the Mac only apps and the fact that you can run Windows apps by paying $79 for Fusion or Parallels. That's "if" your company runs some Visual Basic app made by a kid fresh out of trade school.

The truth is, most of the apps we rely on are on both platforms or have equivalents that match nearly every feature. Think about it, video editing, graphic design, audio production, web development, email, productivity, etc... It's all pretty much the same on both platforms. Even though I believe there are better quality options for the Mac, that's just an opinion.

Reason #2: Vista is safer
Absolute lunacy. Preston uses a recent hacking challenge to support this claim. But the details of that challenge don't really represent anything scientific. In fact, if you look at the challenge, they eased restrictions on day 2 and the first person to sit down at the first computer was at a MacBook Air. He hacked it in a few minutes and no one else attempted any hacks on the other systems after that because the contest was over. So we have no idea what would have happened with the other systems. Preston then sites a statement by a security expert who mentions 10.4. Which of course is an older version of OS X. Now I don't know if 10.5 is more secure or not, but the point is that his sources are hardly thorough on the matter.

The most important thing to bring up here is not even mentioned by Preston. His claim is that Vista is safer. But in the real world, that's fatually untrue. Blame market share, blame anything you want, but it is a fact that you are "safer" running OS X than it is running Vista in the real world. Period. I've seen arguments on both sides saying "Oh, but Vista is actually more secure" or "OS X is actually inherently more security focused because of its Unix core" etc... None of that matters. What makes an OS "safe" is how likely you are to have your machine infected or compromised while you use it. There's no doubt that Vista is less safe than OS X in actual use.

Reason #3: It's the money, stupid
Oh boy, the worst of all the arguments anyone can make against a Mac. Instead of regurgitating ramblings from my past, I'll simply defer to this very thorough article I wrote on Zerologik a while back. It outlines two very thorough examples over nearly a year that prove this statement is a misrepresentation of the facts. ( Mac Haters )

Reason #4: The Mac is closed; Vista is open
This point is all about building your own computer and putting Vista on it. Why is an OS running on anything better than one running on hardware it was made for? This is all about preference and Apple has never tried to or claimed to serve this kind of user. If you want to build a computer and put your own OS on it. Use Linux or Windows, definitely. This comes with its own set of problems though. Because Vista tries to support so much hardware, drivers are often poorly written and used to be the cause of most BSOD situations. That's certainly been reduced since MS got smart about catching those things and making driver requirements strict, but I prefer having the OS maker control the drivers too. Don't get me wrong, I see the argument for either, but it really is just preference, nothing more. There's nothing inherently better in either approach. Just a series of tradeoffs.

Reason #5: Two words -- Steve Jobs
What kind of reason is this? Does Steve show up at my house with my Mac and slap me in the face? Preston's point here is that Steve is vindictive and sues people. Uh, have you heard of Microsoft? There was a whole scandal among developers (which I am) where Microsoft sued a dev who made an extension to their Visual Studio software. The guy used their free version to make the patch and MS claimed that was impossible and that he made a free patch with paid software which was a violation. The dev then proved that he did what he said he did (all online) and MS sued him anyway. Look, these are corporations. They sue. They suck. I don't buy Apple products because I drank the Kool Aid. I buy them because they work better.

If you're happy with your PC, keep it. I don't give a shit. And if you're buying anything because of the spokesperson or the "cool factor" then you're an idiot. I don't do that, and most of the people I know who work on Macs don't either. I can site very specific cases where Macs work better for me than a PC. That's all I need.

Hopefully this puts the issue to rest once and for all? Oh who am I kidding.