The Facts

The Apple II was the first mass produced home computer. It was first offered for sale on June 6, 1977.

Microsoft Windows 3.1 was released on March 18, 1992.

The first IBM compatible PC was released in June 1982.

Windows share of the personal computer was 91.8% on January 1, 2008.

Apple Macintosh computers accounted for 7.3% of the personal computer market.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Modern computers all use the same basic components made by the same manufactures. This applies to Macs and Windows PCs. Macs use the same CPU, Hard drive, and RAM as their Windows counterparts. The differentiation in hardware capability comes from features beyond the basics.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Given that both platforms now use the same hardware, availability cannot be compared on failure rate alone. Availability in this case must also consider the repair processes and the length of time required for repair.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  The basic elements of personal computers, in regards to hardware, has remained largely unchanged for the previous 30 years. Both Macs and Windows use the keyboards, mice, video display’s etc in the same manner as for purposes of comparison irrelevant.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  The only true measure of how efficiently the operating system on each platform utilizes the hardware. This can easily be observed by comparing the minimum hardware requirements of the respective platforms.

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  The Windows platform has an apparent advantage in that there are dozens if not hundred of IBM compatible PC manufacturers. Common wisdom says that more brains attacking a problem leads to better results. However there has been remarkably little real innovation by the PC hardware manufactures. The best example of an innovation that has not been matched by the Mac platform is the hybrid laptop/tablet PC. The ability to flip over the screen of the laptop putting Windows into tablet mode is a invaluable feature for many users. The Mac platform however has seen numerous innovations, primarily in their laptop products. Backlit keyboards with ambient light sensors, the removal of legacy ports, multi-touch Trackpads, and the MagSafe power connector have all been unmatched by the PC manufacturers. The Mac platform has also been the first to implement many features PC users now take for granted. USB, Firewire, laptop hard drives with drop sensors all made their appearance on the Mac platform long before the PC manufacturers followed suit.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The repair process for the two platforms is strikingly different. The sheer number of hardware manufacturers and the separation of hardware and software producers on the Windows platforms leads to a repair process that has a very large amount of variance. Both dismal and pleasant repair experiences are common in the PC world. Unfortunately a lack of consistency is also common. To complicate the process the hardware manufacturers are known to point the finger at Microsoft when problems arise. Naturally the opposite is also true. Microsoft is also quick to point the finger at the hardware manufacturers when problems arise. The result of this finger pointing is a greatly extended repair time. Apple however does not suffer from this scenario. As manufacturer of both hardware and software they alone are ultimately responsible. With the addition of the Apple stores repair times from Apple have consistently been lower than their PC brethren. Customer service approval rates are great indicator of the repair process. Apple has lead this metric for the previous 5 years.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  The minimum requirements for the latest version of OS X are a 867 MHz processor, 512 MB of RAM, and 9 GB of hard disk space. The minimum requirements for Windows Vista are 1 GHz processor, 1 GB of RAM, 40 GB hard disk and a video card with 128 MB of RAM. Even taken at face value the hardware requirements of Vista are far beyond that of OS X. The minimum requirements for the latest version of OS X Server are 867 MHz processor, 1 GB of RAM, and 20 GB of hard disk space. The minimum requirements for Windows Small Business Server 2008 are 2 GHz processor, 4 GB of RAM, and 60 GB hard disk. Again the requirements of OS X Server are half of the requirements for Windows Small Business Server 2008.

The Winner

The Mac platform set the standard of the personal computer when it released the Apple II over 30 years ago, a full 15 years before the release of Windows 3.1. Today the Mac platform has produced innovations that have yet to be matched by the PC manufacturers. It is also the Mac platform that has driven the adoption of new computing standards while retiring the antiquated technologies years ahead of the PCs. The repair process for Mac computers has consistently held a higher customer satisfaction rate and a faster turn around than the Windows platform. Comparing the efficiency of the two platforms also reveals the fact that the OS X platform is capable of performing far more with far less. It should come as now surprise that the company that invented the personal computer is still years ahead of the competition.

Score one more win for OS X:
OS X 6 Windows 0

The Facts

Graphical user interfaces are the system by which the user interacts with a computer.

The most frequently used element in both Windows and OS X is the file browser. Finder is the file browser for OS X and Explorer is the Windows files browser.

Aqua, the OS X GUI, was introduced in 2000.

Windows released Aero as part of Vista in 2006. Windows 95 through XP all used iterations of the same user interface.

Windows has only one “administrator” account type giving this account full access to the system.

OS X other Unix systems have two layers of administrator access. Root access which is not available to users and the administrator account available to users which contains only a subset of root privileges.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  A capable user interface must allow the user to manipulate the computer and the data within in it. File operations such as moving, copying, deleting renaming are examples. While providing these basic functions does it also protect the operating system from damage, malicious or accidental? Modern user interfaces must also be able to manage multiple windows and applications simultaneously.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The most dramatic test a user interface can endure is an catastrophic error. When a software element crashes is the user interface still available to attempt to correct or mitigate the crash.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  Usability is largely subjective but for purposes of this article usability means the following. How simple is the interface, i.e. are there ten convoluted ways to accomplish a task or one simple method. Is the interface consistent. Are dialog boxes and user interaction requests clear and concise?
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  Last weeks criteria are also applicable to user interfaces. How quickly can the process be completed? How many steps are required? How much interaction with the user is required?

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Both OS X and Windows handle the basics of file manipulation in a similar manner. The difference arises in their ability to handle errors and prevent damage to the underlying operating system. See the Availability comparison for details. The second difference is the prevention of damage. Both systems attempt to prevent accidental and malicious damage by requiring administrative access to manipulate operating system files. OS X users are not given administrative access without a password. Furthermore “root” level access is required and administrative accounts are not in this group. Windows users can acquire the equivalent of “root” access by turning their account into an “Administrator” account. Finally the third major difference is how the user interface handles numerous windows and programs running simultaneously. Although both user interfaces are capable of managing this situation the difference lies in the usability, described below, of each method.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Due to the integration of Windows Explorer, Internet Explorer and the core of the operating system (ask the DOJ for details) a failure of any of these elements can render the system inoperable requiring at best a relaunch and at worst a rebuild. The architecture of Unix in general and OS X in particular provide for true task separation whereby each element is able to fail without taking down the rest of the system. In a Windows environment an failure in any of the three elements can render the user interface unavailable. The same is not true of OS X.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  The Windows user interface is far more complex than that of OS X. It is common that Windows tasked can be achieved by numerous methods whereas the same task in OS X can only be accomplished in at most two different ways. Interface consistency also favors OS X. Although it is not perfect the user interface is far more consistent in OS X than in Windows. This results in a reduced learning curve for users and therefore increased usability. Additionally the number of dialog boxes and user interaction elements that suffer from what I call nerd speak is far less in OS X. The blue screen of death is by far the most striking example. I can’t count the number of times a client has written down the gibberish on this screen and called me for an explanation. The kernel panic (BSOD equivalent) of OS X simply says “Your system has encountered an error and needs to restart.” The information presented in the BSOD only serves to confuse the common user as they are not capable of understanding the data that is presented.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  A failure of the Finder in OS X can be remedied in two steps. Pressing Command-Option-Esc on a Mac presents a dialog box with a button labeled “Relaunch Finder”. In order to restart Explorer in Windows four steps are required and you must know the name of the process, explorer.exe, in order to attempt a repair. The problem here is the common user will not be able to learn this process as it is beyond their comfort level. Viewing all open windows and subsequently selecting the desired window can be achieved in two steps in OS X via expose. The only method to accomplish this same task in Windows is click through every item in the taskbar. The number of steps required increases with every additional open window.

The Winner

The first thing I recall from my undergrad days in Computer Science was the KISS principal. I vividly remember frantically working to get my program working before the due date, only to have points deducted from my grade. When I protested stating the my program worked as required the professor countered with yes it works but it took 100 lines of code to accomplish what could be done in ten. The lesson learned was this. Getting a program to work was the easy part. Making that same program simple was the hard part. This is the philosophical difference between the two platforms in terms of usability. Apple took the time to make the user interface in OS X simple and efficient. Microsoft however seems to be happy with just getting it to work. Although not exhaustive the examination of criteria above demonstrates that OS X is more capable, more available, infinitely more usable, and more efficient than Windows. Although Microsoft made some progress in Vista, this progress is in many ways one step forward and two steps back. But that is an article in and of itself.

Score one more win for OS X:
OS X 5 Windows 0

The Facts

OS X does not have a dedicated software removal program. Software is removed by drag and drop to the trash can.

Windows software is removed through Add/Remove Programs in the Control Panel, which actually launches MSI.EXE (the same application used to install software).

The Windows Installer generates the uninstallation sequence during the original installation providing the ability to rollback versions or completely uninstall software.

Windows maintains a database related to all software installations. This database contains version information regarding DLLs and registry information.

Removing VLC, the most robust video player out there, on a Mac took 13.7 seconds. An attempt to remove VLC on Vista took 87 seconds before it came to an abrupt stop. The VLC application was not recognized by Microsoft Installer and therefore could not be removed. The program was installed and functional, there was no way however to remove it.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Software removal mechanisms must perform several functions to be deemed truly capable. The software must be removed from the system while not rendering any of the remaining applications inoperable. The removal must be complete not leaving any trace of the software behind.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The mechanism by which software is removed must be functional when required. How vulnerable to failure is the mechanism itself.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  How easily can the average computer user complete the installation process. Is the process clearly and adequately described? Are any errors experienced clear and useful?
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  How quickly can the process be completed? How many steps are required? How much interaction with the user is required?

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  When removing a program in OS X much is left behind. Preference files, application support files, and plugins are all left undisturbed by simply deleting the application. Although a program (AppZapper) exists to perform this function, it is not part of OS X and cannot be considered here. The Windows installer also leaves behind numerous registry keys when a program is uninstalled. Applications in OS X are stand alone executables that are wholly contained. As such their removal cannot affect the programs that remain. The same can not be said of Windows applications. As they share resources in the form of DLLs, fonts and etc, removing a Windows program can and often does leave another program inoperable.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  As was the case with Software installation on OS X, the ability always exists as it simply a delete operation on a file. Apparently cut and paste is not prone to problems. This is not true of Windows. There are numerous utilities designed to repair the Windows installer both from Microsoft and third parties. In 6 years I have never had the OS X application removal process fail. As I stated last week, I repair the Windows installer on a weekly basis for my clients.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  Again the results here are a mirror image of last week. The main stumbling block that I have seen in removing OS X applications comes from Windows users who expect the process to be more complicated. Although dragging an unwanted Application to the trash is fairly intuitive, Windows users are accustomed to a series of dialog boxes, confirmation requests and countless progress bars. As was the case with software installation, OS X does suffer from error messages during uninstallation. The most common error results from trying to update an application that is currently running. Closing the application and re-attempting the removal solves the problem almost always.

The Winner

As many of the processes required to remove software are identical to the installation process many of the results from last week are applicable. The first time I chose to remove a program from OS X I was struck by the simplicity. I recall thinking “So all I have to do is put the app in the Trash?! The fact that application removal is this simple makes OS X superior to Windows. The implications of this only reinforce this fact. If by accident you or someone else accidently deletes a program from a Mac you can easily restore the application by dragging it from the trash back to the Applications folder. Windows installation process does not allow for this. Recovering Windows applications requires starting the installation process over from scratch. Additionally when a OS X program is restored from an accidental deletion, all of the users settings are preserved. This is not the case with Windows software. If you really need to delete all traces of an application on OS X you can browse to the Preferences and Application Support folders and delete the files that are named after the relevant program. Try cleaning orphaned items from the registry by hand. Just kidding, please spare yourself the heartache. Messing with the registry is more likely to completely disable Windows than it is to result in anything productive.

Score one more win for OS X:
OS X 4 Windows 0

The Facts

Windows utilizes a separate installation program (MSI.EXE) to install all software. This software is responsible for making the necessary changes to the registry and file system that allow the software to run.

Most software installation on OS X takes place by copying the program from the source to the application folder. This can also achieved by dragging and dropping. The notable exception are the programs such as Microsoft Office and Adobe products that rely on propriety piracy prevention measures.

The Windows registry dates back to Windows 3.1 and was designed to replace INI files.

The Windows registry houses the configuration and options for all hardware, the operating system, and third party software.

OS X utilizes “property list” files to store this information. Settings are separated into two groups of files per user and for the system as a whole. These files apply to only to applications and the operating system, hardware is handled elsewhere.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Software installation mechanisms must consider several factors to be deemed truly capable. The software must be verified to be compatible with the platform it is being installed on. The installation must complete and result in a functional program. It must also ensure that all prerequisites, if applicable, are fulfilled prior to installation.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The mechanism by which software is installed must be functional when required. How vulnerable to failure is the mechanism itself.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  How easily can the average computer user complete the installation process. Is the process clearly and adequately described? Are any errors experienced clear and useful?
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  Not applicable for this discussion as this comparison can be adequately addressed by comparing usability.

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  OS X verifies the intended platform prior to installation. Software written for OS X 10.5 will not install on a Mac running 10.4. Windows however will attempt to install any Win32 application without verification. This has led to many problems as the common user often ignores the requirements of the software and will attempt an installation on a non-compatible version of Windows. For an example of the consequences see this article.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Without a way to scientifically test this attribute I must fall back on my experience and one key fact. The key fact is that there are zero utilities written to repair the OS X installation mechanism. Apparently copy and paste is not prone to problems. This is not true of Windows. There are numerous utilities designed to repair the Windows installer both from Microsoft and third parties. In 6 years I have never had the OS X installation mechanism fail. I repair the Windows installer on a weekly basis for my clients.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  The main stumbling block that I have seen in installing OS X applications comes from Windows users who expect the process to be more complicated. In most cases an icon for the program and the applications folders appear, requiring the user to drag the program icon over the application and drop it. Windows users are accustomed to a series of dialog boxes, license agreements and countless progress bars. The number and complexity of the dialog boxes vary by application. OS X does suffer from error messages during installation that can appear cryptic to the novice computer user. The most common error results from trying to update an application that is currently running. Closing the application and re-attempting the install solves the problem but the dialog box suffers from nerd speak.

The Winner

My initial reaction to installing software on OS X after I switched from Windows was “It can’t be that simple”. The fact that applications are installed via drag and drop alone makes OS X superior to Windows. The implications of this only reinforce this fact. When performing a data recovery or operating system reinstall on Windows I have to warn my clients that their software is not recoverable. The Windows installation process does not allow for this. Recovering OS X applications is simply a matter of copying the application from one disk to another. Additionally when a OS X program misbehaves and requires repair, simply deleting the associated preference file via the Finder and restarting the application solves the problem 9 times out of 10. Try deleting items from the registry by hand to fix a problem. Actually don’t, not only is it terribly confusing but you will likely break Windows.

Score another win for OS X:
OS X 3 Windows 0

Certain things in life are unavoidable. The phrase “Death and Taxes” comes to mind. I would add a third item - software bugs. Every piece of software ever written has been imperfect. In fact it now seems that users have become an outsourced quality assurance department for software developers. Both Windows and OS X suffer from this malady. The difference between the two is the software update process. Prior to Windows Vista, the update mechanism for Windows was an Active-X plug-in to Internet Explorer. OS X on the other hand has always used a dedicated program, named appropriately enough, Software Updates. To be blunt the Windows update is a complete POS compared to OS X. You might have already guessed the winner this week, but keeping with the rules here is the breakdown.

The Facts

Windows 98, Me, 2000, and XP receive their updates via Windows Update or optionally Microsoft Update. Both Windows Update and Microsoft Update are simply an instance of Internet Explorer that automatically opens www.update.microsoft.com. An Active-X plug-in then scans your computer for updates for Windows only in the case of Windows Update and then downloads and installs the relevant updates. Microsoft Update adds the ability to update Microsoft Office 2003, Office XP, Microsoft Exchange Server, and Microsoft SQL Server.

Windows Vista utilizes a standalone application by the name of Windows Update to handle all the update process for Windows, Microsoft Office 2003, Office XP, Microsoft Exchange Server, and Microsoft SQL Server.

OS X uses an dedicated application, Software Update, to scan for, download and install updates to all Apple software on your computer.

For purposes of comparison I ran software updates for both OS X and Windows XP on my MacBookPro. The laptop was connected via wireless to my broadband connection. The entire update process for OS X took 3 minutes and 58 seconds to complete. Two updates totaling ~61MB in size were downloaded and installed. Aside from OS X this Mac was also scanned for updates to 9 additional Apple applications.

On this same laptop Microsoft Update running on Windows XP SP2 and MS Office 2003 took 1 Hour 27 minutes..The two updates downloaded were ~67MB in size.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  The update process includes scanning the computer for all relevant updates, downloading any updates, and completing the installation including required reboots. Failure rate should also be considered.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  In both cases updates make changes to both operating system and several key software packages. The key question here is how often do the updates render the computer unusable and therefore unavailable.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  How easily can the average computer user complete the update process. Is the process clearly and adequately described?
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  The key metrics here are the number of clicks required to complete the process, the level of user interaction required and the time required to complete the process.

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  In the last week 8 of the 10 Windows computers that I had to update experienced at least one failed update. In four of these cases, both Microsoft update itself had to be repaired. In the last four years of working on Macs I have seen exactly 1 update fail to install. This was remedied simply by clicking the “Retry” button.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Of the aforementioned 10 Windows computers, 1 of them had to be completely rebuilt from scratch to solve a Windows Update problem. This resulted in a 1.5 days of downtime. I have never seen a Mac that required a rebuild due to a failed software update.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  This factor is much harder to compare as it is largely subjective. When evaluating usability I think of walking my mother through the process. As she has owned both PCs and now a Mac I have done this more than once on both platforms. With the Mac it was a 10 minute phone conversation. The same update process for the Windows computer spanned three hours and 3 separate phone calls. Much of the time was spent explaining what Windows was asking for when certain prompts appeared and translating technical jargon.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  To run the updates mentioned above on the Mac took 5 clicks, one password and 4 minutes. The same process in Windows XP took 12 clicks and 1 Hour 27 Minutes.

The Winner

For the average computer user software updates can be an intimidating task. A high level of trust is required when allowing the update process to make changes to your computer at the level the operating system updates operate. The fear is that something will go wrong and their computer will be reduced to a useless heap of metal, plastic and silicon. Unfortunately Windows does not do much to alleviate these concerns. Compared to OS X, the Windows update process is both less efficient and more prone to confusion. To make matters worse the failure rate for Windows updates is astoundingly high resulting in the realization of the users fears. The result in many cases is that updates are not applied. In fact in the business environment installing updates without extensive testing is a huge no-no. The end result is that the Windows computers are left increasingly vulnerable to malware. Take a look at week one for details on the malware problem on the Windows platform.

Again OS X wins this one.For those keeping score:
OS X 2 Windows 0

The heat of summer is once again upon us. Many of us will pass the time at back yard barbecues or lounging by the pool enjoying a cold one. I have another plan. After months of reading comments and articles floating around the net, I have developed my own heat source. I have silently stood by and read the comments of the aforementioned counter culture repeatedly expressing their hatred for all things Apple. Many of these same people talk about the superiority of Windows and Microsoft products as compared to Apple’s offerings. The discussions have all the hallmarks of fanaticism. Unsubstantiated “facts”, boisterous claims with no supporting evidence, and outright name calling are common place. There have been times when these discussions make me wonder about our (American) future as a culture. The Internet has become the mouth piece for the uneducated, lazy and just asinine. Few things get my blood boiling as fast as displays of idiocy and irrationality. My plan is to spark a discussion that ends all of this. Call it my Summer of Mac Love.

The premise is this. The Apple OS X platform is, as a matter of fact, the best personal computing platform currently available. The Windows advocates and apologists are simply wrong. My evidence is based on the following criteria:

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?

Before the flame war (meaning idiotic and irrational comment diarrhea) begins, let’s review the ground rules. Facts require observation and measurable proof. A statement by itself is not a fact unless it can backed up by empirical evidence. The comments will be moderated. I will not suppress any dissenting opinion provided that you can back up said comment with proof, that means including both empirical evidence and references. If you spot an error in my reasoning and objectively prove me to be wrong, I will happily admit my error.

Each week I will offer one element of the OS X operating system that is superior to it’s Windows counterpart. I will also provide the evidence for this assertion. There are eight weeks left in Summer, at least unofficially. For purposes of this series of articles, Summer concludes on the last day of August. So here we go, let’s get started with week one.

The Facts

None of the computer security companies (Norton, McAfee, Grisoft, etc) provide the actual number of Windows malware in existence.¹ However, according to F-Secure estimates, that number will reach 1 Million by the end of 2008. Although the number itself does not give us a number for today, it can give as idea of the scope of the problem.²

As of May 2008 there are 764 Windows viruses in the wild.³ Meaning that these 764 viruses are in active circulation. This figure is for viruses only. Meaning that spyware, which is more prevalent, is excluded.

At last count the number of Mac OS X malware in the wild totaled 5.⁴

According to SANS a Windows PC connected to Internet will be infected in less than 50 minutes. My Mac has been connected for 270,720 minutes (and counting) without infection.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  It is common for malware has been known to reconfigure settings on the computer disabling functions such as web browsing. Malware can achieve this by performing redirects on all outbound traffic. As web browsing is by far the most common use of a computer, disabling this feature definitely makes the computer less capable.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The more destructive malware has also been known to delete files such as documents or operating system files leaving these documents missing or crippling the operating system. For many users, a malware infection will require repair by a technician rendering the computer unavailable while it is under repair.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  In this case usability is not applicable as malware does not affect how the user interacts with the computer, rather it affects the outcome of this interaction.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  A sudden loss in efficiency is one of the most common symptoms of a malware infection. Malware by definition infiltrate a computer and perform tasks without the users permission. The accumulation of unauthorized tasks generated by malware can quickly consume a large portion of the available resources of the computer leaving legitimate tasks with less resources and subsequently slowing them down.

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Browser redirection is one of the most common results of a spyware infection on a Windows PC. Examples include Trojan.DLoader/LX, Zlob.Downloader, and so on. RSPlug.A will perform the same trick on a Mac. However this virus requires the user to download, extract and enter the admin password to install the virus in order to infect the Mac.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Three of the Mac viruses (PokerStealer, MacSweeper and Imunizator) will provide a method for deleting files through ssh access. Numerous malware infections (Nyxem, W32/Nopir-B, etc) on a PC will delete files. Although both systems are vulnerable, the Windows PCs have far more attack vectors than the Mac. Fewer attack vectors means that protection is far simpler for a Mac.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  In this case usability is not applicable as malware does not affect how the user interacts with the computer, rather it affects the outcome of this interaction.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  As previously stated the number of malware programs for the Windows PC is well into the hundreds of thousands. A large majority of these can be considered resource thieves as their main function. Mac OS X again has but according to Symantec it is not very prolific, in fact they cite less than 50 infections.

The Winner

Although OS X is not immune to viruses as some claim, the fact remains that there are only 5 malware programs that infect OS X. Compared to the fact that malware programs for the Windows PC number in the hundreds of thousands, the Mac is the clear numerical winner. Obviously Anti-Malware programs for both platforms can mitigate this problem. However the key issue here is the affect on the user. Anti-Malware software on a PC requires far more resources (disk usage, CPU cycles, RAM, and etc) to scan for all of the Windows malware. Given that Mac anti-malware apps only have to look for 5 things, far less resources are consumed. Although not recommended, Mac users can get by without installing anti-virus software. I have never installed any in the four years since I switched and I have never been infected. This saves the Mac user both money (no software costs), time (no time spent waiting for the computer to complete a scan) and repair costs. Although malware for the Mac is likely to increase, it must be considered that Windows malware will also increase at the same time. This fact will preserve the resource advantage as the Macs will not likely catch the Windows platform in the number of malware programs. That is unless everyone gets rid of their Windows PCs and switch to the Macs all at once. Given that scenario, the Mac would eventually bypass Windows.

OS X wins this one by a long shot.

1: According the PR office at Symantec this changes too frequently for them to keep track. This seems more than a little fishy. We all know they maintain a database in the form of their virus definitions. Querying this database for a total would be trivial. I suspect that they are motivated by other reasons not to make this number public. Draw your own conclusion….

2: I use this number as it was the only one provided by any of the AV companies. A reasonable conclusion of the number of viruses in existence today can be inferred by comparing the numbers that they do provide.

3: Wildlist is monitoring group, see their website for details. 764 is likely a very conservative number considering the criteria upon which they generate the list.

4: These would be PokerStealer, Imunizator, MacSweeper, RSPlugA and Oompa-LoompA as per Integoa Mac anti-malware vendor.

Apple left a large percentage of small businesses without a push services solution. Push services ( for those who missed it ) is the ability of the iPhone to synchronize calendars, contacts and email over the airwaves with intervention. For anyone who works from the field this would be a God send. You would be able to make appointments while out of the office and be sure that your secretary hasn’t booked something for the same time. Email would arrive without having to manually hit the send and receive button or wait a preset amount of time. Contacts could be updated from the office in real time. Anyone who has forgotten to sync their phone and missed an appointment would know just how valuable these features really are.

My definition of small business may differ from the mainstream. I consider small businesses to be companies owned and operated by less than 10 - 20 people. Some would label this group the Small Office/ Home Office crowd. Whatever label you choose to apply, a push email, calendar, and contact solution was not presented for this group. I work with this group on a daily basis, see the about page for details, and I can state for a fact that most of them will not be able to use the push features of the iPhone. I can think of only one that uses an Exchange server. This group consists of lawyers, realtors, independent artists and other creative industry businesses. They are by nature small businesses, but a disproportionate amount of them ( compared the MS and Apple market shares ) use Macs.

Apple’s announcement detailed the ability of the push features through Exchange and MobileMe. Exchange servers are typically used in the upper end of the SMB market as they can be quite costly to maintain. MobileMe will be used by individuals and it is a great solution for them, but the inability to use a company domain name will be a deal breaker for the aforementioned small businesses. So where does that leave this group. Apple also briefly mentioned that a new version of OS X Server named Snow Leopard will be released next year. As detailed on their website and a couple press releases this server version will provide for push services, but it is not due to be released for another year. Almost everyone of my clients now uses Google Apps as an Exchange replacement. I am holding out hope that in the near future Google will come to the rescue and provide push services. Until then you can count me as one of the outsiders looking in.

Here is the best part:

Here’s what White figured out: When Mr. Walling bought his new Windows Vista machine, he initially used the installation disc that came with his Dell 942 All in One printer that he had been using with his previous PC. That disc was meant for Windows XP. The problem: Dell’s printer driver for Windows XP did install on Windows Vista. But it didn’t work. And it couldn’t be easily removed.

So not only did Vista happily install software without doing any kind of compatibility verification, it also forgot where it put everything. Kudos to them for caring enough to send someone of this level to the customers home albeit it took several trips. However - rant begins - I expect more from a software company of the size and stature of Microsoft. They have been releasing operating systems for almost 15 years. By now they should be more than capable of preventing issues like this from occurring in the first place. They call it quality control - look into it! And FYI - we ( your customers ) are not your testing department.

The whole situation reminds me of raising children. As any parent can attest a small child will pick up anything and everything and promptly put it in their mouth. Their parent has to tell the child that whatever they are attempting to devour is not compatible with their digestive system and remember to put said object where the child can not reach it. What strikes me as funny is the fact Microsoft, a company with 79,000 employees sells a software product that has all of the intelligence and an functionality of a toddler.

Apple initially took an apparently insurmountable lead with the Apple II. It was the first useable PC to be sold to home users. However Apple built their hardware and software in-house and refused to license their technologies to anyone else. The Apple II was a run away success. They delivered a computer that was compact enough to sit on a desk, it was cheap enough that families could purchase one, and it had features that beat even the mini-computers being sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. However Microsoft took another strategy, they developed their software to work on the emerging IBM compatible or clones that were being manufactured by hundreds of companies. Economies of scale drove the cost down, resulting in a cheaper computer than the Apple. Developers flocked to the platform as there was money to be made. Over time Apple’s less aggressive strategy allowed Microsoft to become the behemoth it is today and damn near killed Apple.

Flash forward twenty years and extend the sports metaphor even further. Think of your favorite team. Now think of the stars of that team say 10 years ago. Think Bird & McHale or Magic & Kareem. Now imagine that the management of their respective teams made a decision. Work with me here - I know it’s not practical - just meant to illustrate. The team decides that the pair is so popular with fans that they should keep them around indefinitely. Can you imagine Magic & Kareem playing into their late 40s? There is no way they could keep up with the younger players in the league.

This is precisely what Microsoft has done. Windows 3, 95, 98, 2000, XP and even Vista have clung to code and architectural design decisions made in the DOS era. Underneath the new jersey is a 45 year old basketball star whose body is so run down that it cannot keep up. To make matters worse it does not appear that they have learned their lesson. It has been argued that Windows Vista was pretty much a re-write of Windows, and even though all of the incompatibles it introduced would seem to support this, I remain unconvinced. Too many similarities remain. For an example see this post. Pay attention to the part where it is stated that Windows XP software will run ( maybe limp is a better choice of words ) on Vista.

My point in is this. Starting over is tough. We hang on to things for sentimental reasons, laziness, stubbornness and whole host of other reasons. It takes a lot of guts to admit you were wrong, especially for a company as successful as Microsoft. A single design flaw is all it took to sink the Titanic. We can all agree that Windows has at least one. Maybe it’s time for Microsoft to rethink their position. What they did in the past was great. Windows brought computing to the mainstream. But maybe it’s time to start over. A little company named Apple traded their team in for a new one. A look at their growth since 2000 should tell you that Apple’s new team is doing quite well.