OS Critique: Mac

We visited Best Buy last night to check out Macs and netbooks. MacBooks are sleek, though that can be taken multiple ways. For some it means smooth and pretty. For others it means slippery. As more and more people adopt Macs, it makes sense to take a look at the ups and downs of their OS and interface. A lot of people are enamored with the Cupertino Kid, though a friend of mine remarked that a computer whiz he knows has become “measurably dumber” since becoming a Mac user. Let’s take a look at what the virtues and vices of a Mac.

Stability

Truth be told, Macs are reasonably stable. I edited HD video on a G5 running Tiger one summer, and after ten weeks, the machine had only crashed a half-dozen times or so. I have matched that statistic in a couple of days with Windows trying to edit standard definition video. In both cases the problem was likely corrupted video files, which, in my opinion, should not cause the system to crash. Frankly, I don’t think it should even cause Final Cut to close, but I have high expectations when it comes to operating systems.

The fact remains, however, that Macs crash less often than Windows machines. I would not, if I were you, believe claims that Macs never crash, though some exaggeration is permissible.

The reason that Macs are so stable is based on how much control Apple retains over what customers put on their computers, which brings us to my next heading.

Restrictions

The typical iPhone user can only add applications from the App Store, and there have been more than a few stories about Apple refusing to grant approval to certain programs. Last summer “I Am Rich” was pulled because it was expensive and relatively pointless, but when Apple pulled it from the App Store, everybody spoke up for the right of rich people to have it. Some apps have been rejected on the grounds that they have “duplicate functionality” with Apple products. In tech news recently was the approval of RSS Player, which had been rejected by Apple when it went by the name Podcaster because it competed with the built-in iTunes application.

Every App Store debacle illustrates how much control Apple wants to have over its products. It’s understandable why Apple wants so much control: they want to make sure their system is stable. A friend of mine commented that if Macs tried to run as many different programs as Windows does, they’d crash just as often, and he’s probably right. The question before consumers is whether they would rather have a system they doesn’t require frequent restarts or a system lets them put whatever they want on it.

The Hobby Machine

A lot of people have claimed that Macs are for artists, but that may be because the only programs readily available for the Mac are artist-oriented ones. I know Office can be put on it, but yesterday at Best Buy, all Apple advertised in the demos was iLife, iPhoto, iMovie, iWeb, iTunes, and GarageBand. (And by the way, I’d be just as happy if they’d stop prefixing new products with ‘i’. I still refuse to use my Google Homepage now that it’s ‘iGoogle’.)

Notice that, of all the programs Apple advertises, none of them are serious, business- or research-oriented programs. I know those programs are available, but Apple doesn’t seem to. They seem content to sell people machines with nothing but hobby programs. When it comes to Windows, you can get all sorts of learning software, accounting software, computation software, and almost anything else you can think of.

My point is reinforced by the fact that almost every Mac user I know has a virtual machine so they can run Windows programs. How many Windows users install a virtual machine to run OS X? Besides the fact that it’s probably illegal, the truth is that Windows users have a world of software available to them. Mac users have to use virtual machines to access that world of software because it isn’t available natively for their machines.

Conclusions

So far, you may think that I have a problem with how much control Apple retains over their OS, but believe it or not I appreciate it. There should be a computer for people who don’t want or need to install hosts of programs. As a computer person, I appreciate that Apple has put out a product that people don’t have to ask me for help with — it just works.

At the same time, I do not have much of a temptation to switch over to a Mac. The number of programs in my Start Menu is a testament to that. My iPod Touch got me interested enough to visit Best Buy’s Apple desk, but once I saw Leopard live and in person, I was reminded of what I thought when I first used a Mac years ago: This is Windows.

Both Windows and Mac fans will probably hate me for saying that, but my summer using a Mac for video editing is what solidified my interest in interface design. I hadn’t used a Mac since first grade, and my expectations were high. I was disappointed to learn that it did not really offer any serious innovations. Everything was all drop-down menus, desktops cluttered with icons, and resizable windows. There was really nothing new.

To end with a car comparison, Macs are like mid-size sedans. They’re pretty and they do what you want, but don’t ask them to do any more than what they were designed for. Off-roading is not an option. Other than that, they drive the road just like trucks, minivans, and semi-trucks. Steering wheel, pedals, gear shift, retractable windows, air conditioning, and radio are all standard. Macs are by no means flying cars — they’re regular cars designed to look pretty and be quiet.