More of my sites

WinInfo Daily News
SuperSite for Windows
Windows IT Pro Magazine
Connected Home
Thurrott Dot Com
Windows Weekly at TWIT

About this site

For six years, the Internet Nexus served as my technology blog, but I've since started blogging at the SuperSite Blog instead. If you're looking for the blog, please head there. --Paul

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Mad as hell, switching to Mac

Network World:

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.

The WinTel platform represents the greatest violation of the basic tenets of information security and has become a national economic security risk. I do not say this lightly, and I have never been a Microsoft basher, either. I never criticize a company without a fair bit of explanation, justification and supportive evidence.

I want my computer to function every time I turn it on. I want my computer to not corrupt data when it does crash. I use a handful of applications: Microsoft Office, e-mail, browser, FTP client and some multimedia toys. Regardless of format, they should work without crashing.

In the WinTel world I need an assortment of third-party tools to try to keep my PC alive. That's just crazy.

Why does WinTel have these problems? I have heard all sorts of explanations, and I don't subscribe to any of them.

Here's my answer to the WinTel problem: We need an open Simple Operating System (SOS) that meets the needs of the majority of people who buy PCs for everyday home and enterprise tasks. Get rid of the complexity and simplify the interface between SOS, BIOS and hardware. In other words, KISS. You know what it means. KISS SOS.

Because SOS doesn't exist yet, my company has given up on WinTel. We have successfully moved to Mac in less than two days. Think about it: a security-friendly alternative that works and doesn't require gobs of third-party utilities to safely perform the most mundane tasks.

Interesting.

And I understand where he's coming from. Windows can be frightfully stupid. However, his list of reasons why WinTel will "hopefully" fail is childish:

1. Windows is complex, trying to be everything to everyone. This complexity comes at a terrible price: downtime, help desks, upgrades, patches and the inevitable failures.

Windows is complex, that's true. However, Mac OS X, arguably, is just as complex, and is based on a system that is even older than Windows. Much older, actually. That said, Mac OS X is more streamlined than Windows, because it's aimed at technical users only, and not everyone, as is Windows. If you're an advanced users, and can live with OS X's many limitations, it's certainly an option.

2. When a new operating system or service pack is released, there are tons of changes to the functionality.

And... what? That's often true of OS X as well, actually, though Apple uses different naming techniques. As I've documented on this site, Apple releases many, many OS updates for OS X too. Some of them are more easily digested than others.

3. WinTel machines use different versions of BIOS. They are not all equal, nor do they all have the same level of compatibility.

I have no idea where that's going.

4. Some Windows software applications are well written; others take shortcuts. Shortcuts may work in some environments, but not all, and ultimately the consumer pays in lost time, availability and productivity.

Again, this is true of all OSes. Some apps are just better written than others.

5. Hardware. There are hundreds of "WinTel-compatible" motherboards, each claiming to be better than the next. Whatever.

Again, not sure what his point is. There are more PCs types too. More peripherals. More software. There is more of everything on the PC. That is the platform's greatest strength. If you want less choice, the Mac is certainly a great option.

6. Memory. Not all RAM is equal. Some works well. Cheap stuff doesn't.

This is not Windows/WinTel specific at all.

7. Hard disks. Same problem: cheap or reliable. Your call.

Ditto. This has nothing to do with WinTel.

So let's recap. Of the 7 issues he raises, only one or two are Windows specific. He has switched the Mac, which is fantastic. For him. But it's unclear how this experience relates to the rest of the world. Most people have different needs than this guy. And if he was serious about security, he'd be busy making sure he was experiencing what others experience, so he could actually help them. The ivory tower stuff he's doing is both uninformative for whatever readers he has and non-applicable to most of his clients' real-world issues. What was the point of this experiment again?

I'm not dumping on the guy's decision per se, just his need to make it seem like what he's done is something everyone can do. In many ways--more than you may realize--I wish I could "switch" to the Mac. But I can't. Too many applications I want are PC-specific. Too many of my readers use PCs. Too much of my technology investment is PC-based and non-reproduceable on the Mac. Heck, I'm even more productive on a PC than I am on a Mac. And so on. The real world has a funny way of getting in the way when you try to make a point, or do the "right" thing. I can't honestly say the Mac is "better" than Windows for most people. I can say that it is an excellent alternative in certain situations. That's a lot more honest than this Network World baloney.

Just a thought.

[ Posted at 8:23 PM | Permalink ]