Microsoft reignites the PC versus Mac debate

I think you take the fruit analogy a bit too far there.

The bottom line is that a Mac does save time and effort as pointed out by "grrr". I switched to a Mac 2 years ago after decades of wating time on PC's and my only regret is that I didn't do it earlier.

I still run a PC which I use for my son and every time I have to do something on it, it drives me mad - it takes forever to install, update or uninstall apps.

The only benefit I can see that a PC has over a Mac is that it is CHEAP. In every sense of the word.

As a recent convert to Mac, replacing my netbook with an airbook, my PC with a mac, i couldn't be happier. The build quality, the sleek OS, reliablity, the screen looks better, the cool apps, it kinda makes me sad i hadn't made the switch sooner. Most people cannot cope with change and learning something new and they will continue to buying hp's with windows no matter how cheap plastic and dated they are by comparison to mac. But young and smart consumers will prefer mac.

@Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Math vs Maths, think of it as variations in dialect.

Do USians find it difficult to pronounce “maths”, which is why they say “math” instead?

It's odd that MS is going out of it's way to alienate Mac users. The majority of Mac users I know have both Windows and Office installed. Personally I prefer OS X, but it really is handy to be able to run Windows when necessary and not have to have a separate computer in order to do so.

Microsoft as a bigger problem! Virus and scam ware, than infects their OS's so very easily. At least with Linux and Mac OS, this is NOT the case. Why would anyone buy a OS(Microsoft) that gets infected so very easily?

I just bought my parents a spiffy new printer/scanner for their Windows 7 laptop.

Unfortunately I had to spend half an hour first removing the old software and drivers, in the course of which I was asked to reboot the machine 3 times.

And that was before installing anything.

Just looking at the price of the hardware or software ignores the cost of all the time - days, weeks - I have wasted over the years doing the same kind of thing on every version of windows ever made.

I develop on multiple operating systems to have been using Windows, OS/X (+ MacOS) and various varieties of Linux for years (+ Solaris, OpenBSD and others)

I needed a single machine on which I could run (triple boot):

1) Apple OS.X 10.6.x "Snow Leopard"
2) Windows 7 (currently SP1)
3) Ubuntu 11.04 (Linux)

Lets cut through some of the hype/FUD and stupidity.

1) Windows 7 is better than many earlier versions of Windows for security but is still prone to attack - the reason why is that it needs to be compatible with MOST software going back to DOS days. Also most people just 'click through' security warning messages (qudos to MS for actually trying to tighten up on security).

2) Virus scanners give the ILLUSION of security. As soon as a new type of virus is out (unknown to the scanner) - they are useless.

3) Apple took a different approach to compatibility - don't bother to make OS/X (now based on BSD Unix - Darwin) compatible with earlier applications - emulate OS/9 for earlier applications but rebuild all new applications to run on the new O/S. That means that security can be tightened more. Having said all that - binary compatibility has been (mostly) kept since OS/X was released.

4) Since Linux is an open source operating system - applications are (generally) ALWAYS recompiled for the new operating system. The new Linux system is almost NEVER binary compatible with earlier versions - it doesn't need to be! This also applies to other open source operating systems such as OpenIndiana (OpenSolaris) and Open/Free/Net/Dragonfly BSD.

5) ALL of the above operating systems COULD be infected by viruses. The difference is the approach to fixing the problem:

Windows - leave everything mostly the same (to avoid breaking ANY binary compatibility) but paper over security holes by TRYING to detect trojan/virus software before they are executed. The big disadvantages of this are - the scanner needs to know about the evil piece of code in question (and) this slows things down a lot since every piece of executable code has to be scanned EVERY TIME it is loaded from disk into memory.

OS/X - this has the advantage of the general Unix security model which is to run every application/service on the system with the minimum level of security access necessary to get the job done. This does not mean that you CANNOT have a virus on OS/X (or Linux) BUT it is FAR harder to do. In addition - you FIX the security hole when you discover it rather than trying to paper over the cracks trying to scan for 'evil code'. Having said all that - OS/X has its hands tied somewhat since it supports BINARY ONLY applications (like Windows does) - if a security fix would break binary compatibility then it cannot be done as easily as it would stop some applications working.

Unix/Linux - these systems tend to have a different approach - fix the security problem - even if it breaks binary compatibiity. Unix/Linux systems run code in a 'sandbox' (like OS/X) with minimum possible privileges. You REALLY do not need virus scanners on Linux/Unix systems and indeed they would cause many more problems than they would solve. You ALWAYS fix the security hole.

Linux system often have more patches/fixes than Windows. Many Windows users think this indicates a lower quality product from Windows - nothing could be further from the truth. These patches/fixes are analogous to Windows users receiving virus scanner updates - the difference is that on Linux the actual security problems have been fixed! OS/X tends to be a half way house between the two. OS/X is somewhat more susceptible to viruses/trojans than Linux simply because Apple cannot afford to provide any security fixes that break binary compatibility.

The bottom line is that everybody likes what they know. People who have used Windows for ages will always tend to prefer Windows/put down other systems - since they know Windows well. The same goes for Apple (OS/X) users and Linux users. Generic 'PC' users (Windows or Linux) have the one edge over Mac users since the hardware is not overpriced - although Mac hardware is usually fairly high quality and Mac are pretty robust.

Also the bit about Macs being trailing edge is FUD - the latest Macs have pretty up to date processors and chipsets. Linux users tend to use slightly older hardware since the manufacturers happily write device drivers for Windows (and to a much lesser extent for Windows) but leave everyone else in the cold to write device drivers for themselves. This takes time (especially when there is no documentation) so Linux hardware support tends to be lacking for truly cutting edge hardware although (for instance) Ubuntu 11.04 supports MORE hardware devices than Windows 7 (since it has not dropped support for older devices - except REALLY old ones - and generally you can add it back in if you need it). Hardware support in OS/X is much worse than either Windows or Linux. You have to be VERY careful what devices you buy if you have a Mac - they have to specifically support a Mac.

Now you get down to usability.

Windows has a VAST array of programs available - but many earlier Windows/DOS programs are not incompatible with Windows 7 and you won't know unless you try them. Given the power of modern systems - Windows 7 is VERY SLOW compared to (say) Windows XP on the same hardware - although you can speed things up a bit by switching off eye candy. What slows most Windows systems down is not actually the raw O/S itself. If you run Windows 7 (raw system) - it is pretty quick. When you put the virus/spyware/background services on then it really does slow right down. Games support is fantastic - even better than consoles but many systems have very slow 3D graphics chips on them (like Intel Integrated Graphics). Trying to make changes to settings in Windows 7 is much harder than in Windows XP. The Wizard based approach is useful sometimes but can lead you down a 'dead end' and you then need to make the change in another part of the system. It is far too confusing (and many colleagues with Windows 7 machines - who in general LIKE Windows - think this is the case).

OS/X has considerably less software available than Windows (especially games) but there is a huge number of programs available for OS/X - and many open source applications have been ported over to OS/X as well. Finder is far too simplistic - Windows Explorer and GNOME Nautilus are both better in many ways - but everything is CONSISTANT on a Mac and the polish shows. Application installation/uninstallation is MUCH easier than on Windows - you just drag the application into the 'Applications' folder (as a Linux user I wince and think - ouch - horrid security hole!) and drag it into the waste basket to uninstall it.

Linux also has a vast number of programs to install and they are all available from repositories (think App Store - only you don't pay for them) - you just tick the ones you want and click install - they download and appear in your menu. Ubuntu (for instance) has over 25,000 packages (perhaps 4-5000 actual applications). Software installation/uninstallation is so simple even your Grandma could do it. What - no horrid command line and undecipherable commands? Yup - that is FUD - Linux has moved on in the last 10 years and it IS easier to install/uninstall software on a Linux system than under Windows.

In general - Linux is MUCH faster than Windows and neck and neck with OS/X although 3D games can be faster under Windows (better optimized drivers) and both Windows and OS/X is faster at running flash (since flash on OS/X supports CUDA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA and equivilents on AMD chips).

There are not as many games available for Linux as there are for Windows but have a look at http://www.happypenguin.org/ and http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxgames/ (payware - not free).

Again plenty of FUD around - you could have HUNDREDS of games installed on a Linux system. Lets be honest - you won't get the very latest titles - since the manufacturers only target Windows (or consoles) - but an amazing number of Windows games will run under Crossover Games, basic Wine (http://www.winhq.org) and a few commercial titles have Mac and Linux versions as well.

Bottom Line - this is no longer a two horse race - nomatter what Windows and OS/X fans would say. The 'PC' does not just belong to Microsoft :)

Brilliant move.

I didn't check all of the systems displayed there, but the ones I did all stated that they come with Windows 7 Home Premium.

OS X isn't restricted in the ways that Windows 7 Home Premium is.

And the wheel goes back round. Shame Microsoft didn't put some better machines on the site though. Pitching a Dual Core against a Mac quad core seems a bit of an unfair match which I hope most people would notice. Its not like Quad Core PCs are not available. Well I switched from a Mac to a PC last year (although Im running Mint) and have to say I am very happy. Perhaps if the apple built quality went back up I would switch back. They are seriously suffering from the Dell effect at the moment - selling on a name, just making more money from it :)

You are right, Mac OS X is a far superior OS, despite the fact that some people prefer a Micky Mouse OS.

The hardware is not the same though. Apple consistently uses trailing edge hardware because it make good business sense for them. They get away with it because Mac OS X is not the resource hog that Windows is, i.e. Windows needs more horsepower.

I wish I could choose my own SSD in MacBook Pros though :-)

I think this time they come very close.

As from hardware point of view, they are just the same, intel x86 PC. The Power goodie has gone! So only the OS can be comparable.

And as for the OS, no doubt, *nix wins.

@Morely the IT Guy
Please read up on what viruses is. There have been 0 viruses on any UNIX/Linux/OSX system. You have to understand how a virus work. The examples you have is malware. The program asks for Root password to the machine. A virus gain administrator rights without you knowing it and spreads. That is why there is no viruses on *nix based platform. They have to have root access and you cant get it without the user typing in the password.
On PC most users are logged in as administrators. They click an .exe file and the computer is infected. The virus dont ask for a password.
Internet explorer with activeX downloads and installs viruses without any password and so on and so on.
So.. Please use the next PC argument: "PC is 90% of the world thats why no one makes viruses for *nix". There are almost 250 million *nux machines out there. The Scene has every month a competition on who hack most servers. Windows systems gives 1 point and *Nix systems gives 10 points. The security level on *nix is on a totally different level then windows and this is just a fact.

I love it how one guy can't install the Mac OSX and his lack of computer skills is the company's fault. It's only you Scotty.
Our company has about 200 Macs and 600 Windows PC's, and 90+% of the support calls and problems are with the Windows machines. Since Apple adopted BSD as it's gutts it's been really stable. Of course Macs don't integrate into a Windows server culture more because Microsoft refuses to improve interoperability. Macs need more remote administration and network integration tools. Windows works well and has great tools, but IMHO you need a factor of 10 more support staff.

And we've never had a Mac virus or trojan or anything ever, so stick that in your proof of concept. :-) Windows PC's get them every week even with AV and anti-spyware.
One of the big reasons why Macs don't get viruses is because Macs don't use Internet Explorer. Thankfully, MS abandoned it years ago. Lucky for us all.

It was rotten. Overpriced, crashes and always after more money. Buy a decent windows machine and wipe off or dual boot to Linux the best of the main 3 os.
Think about it, should use an os so insecure you have to have a anti virus app to keep it safe.
Plus don't forget all the DRM and other crap.
Yes apple looks nice, they have that part down but and OS X is nice but there propitiatory software sucks.

Overpriced, proprietary as a Mac, underpowered, and coming from the company that used consumer aduio CDs to infect their customers' PCs with rootkit viruses back in 2005. Not ot mention their apparently slipshod network security at PSN and SOE.

And for those who claim that Macs don't get viruses: You're either lying, or ignorant. Take your pick. See http://modmyi.com/forums/mac-news/752520-new-trojan-confirmed-apples-mac-os-x.html for one bit of proof.

Mac OS X versus Windows. No contest.

Nuf sed.

on a couple of the computers it's actually better to buy the Mac.

For example: iMac 21.5" compare to the SONY VAIO (All-in-One)

price: same ($1199)
Mac: quad-core i5 at 2.5 Ghz
SONY: dual-core i3 at 2.26 Ghz

The two other HP computers uses much older processors (Athlon II X2 and Pentium dual-core).

On the MacAir: it's compared to Atom netbooks. And if you click to buy the HP with the AMD Fusion the actual price is $549 and not $349 listed.

Right after apple releases a computer with several <strike lightpeak</strike thunderbolt ports is not the best time MS.

If you take security as the most important aspect, then of course Windows will be wiping the floor at the bottom.

However, viruses is only a problem under the hand of imcompetent users visiting dodgy sites, running programs of questionable origins, have weak passwords, open random e-mail attachments, lack general knowledge of digital security.

I have never really had any virus or adware. With a free AV offering even (Avast), with firefox + noscript + adblock, I never even need to install spyware removers such as Malware Antibyte. This I only used to remove malware from my family and friend's PC lol.

There are no totally incompetent OSes. The downfall of any given OS is how badly it exposes you to the perils of viruses (rather, a lack of security). Though the Mac has some serious issues and Steve Jobs' crew doesn't seem to put as much import on security as the rest of the industry, Windows isn't a prime candidate either. The costs associated with the Mac (as in maintenance of all kinds) is far less than that of a Windows box.

I'm a Linux user but I'll say that at least the Mac is based on Unix and has a modicum of strength of security. The Windows platform on the other hand seems written for the purpose of being broken into. Even Win7 machines are falling left and right to viruses/rootkits.

The math is that the Mac costs more to start (with Windows being cheaper, and Linux being moreso), but the Mac doesn't fall prey to every attack. Linux certainly doesn't. That means the numbers are in favor of Mac over Windows, by a long shot.

I CHANGED MY LAPTOP INTO TRIPLE-BOOT HACKINTOSH. IT HAS GOT WINDOWS 7 + OSX + UBUNTU. I FEEL LIKE SUING APPLE FOR WASTING HOURS OF MY PRECIOUS TIME, BECAUSE I NEVER USE OSX - IT DIDN'T LIVE UP TO THE HYPE, BY A LONG SHOT.
(AND SAME WITH UBUNTU).

Given that you can run windoze on a mac, your point is?

And runs much faster also under Linux.

PC (which stands for Proper Computer) is a much more logical choice over a Mac. Why? A Mac is designed to sit there are look pretty, but functionality wise for the typical user its pretty mundane. A Mac is functional as in just using a web browser and the occasional media document, or playing of a video in a crap included player, but to do anything else...

It comes back to the old saying, 'An Apple a day keeps the doctor away'. This is very true, if you buy an Apple you won't have anything left for private health ;) (okay, so you do have public health), but that just comes back to the Apple snobbery 'they never get viruses'!

I guess you could also say Windows lasts a long time, as long as you respect it and keep it clean. An apple on the other hand may look like it can take a few knocks, but it quickly bruises and goes rotten, upon which time they bring out a new 'variety' and you just 'have' to but the new one.