Much discussion is going on concerning about which hardware and software is best, or easiest, or allows the most productivity.

I would never dispute the claims of those who happily use their Macs to get lots of useful things done. It is a platform which has proven to be resilient, staying alive, despite the siege mentality of Mssrs. Gates and Ballmer.

If reasons are given for the (limited) success of the Mac, among those given are freedom from viral infestation, and subjection to malware. These are valid reasons, but the most important reasons lie under the surface, almost being forgotten, as they have been there since its inception.

When the Mac was designed, it was a closed system. That is, there was, at first, no software other than that provided by Apple. Whatever the negatives, the positives greatly outweighed them. The interface was consistent. It did not vary from application to application. One could expect to find the same settings and controls in the same area of the menu for each program. This carried across to the OS. Whether it was Jobs or Wozniak, or possibly some others in the overall mix, it is undeniable that the consistent, and logical interface was what made the machine a hit. When Apple started to allow others to develop hardware and software for the platform, strict guidelines were given, and had to be followed. If they weren’t, the blessing of Apple was not given, assuring a failed product sales record.

Windows never used this model.

The interface was ‘lifted’ from the Mac, but to assure no assault by Apple that could stop the momentum, it was not followed that closely. It therefore, never had the same feel as the Mac, which was darn near perfect for most humans.

Windows was built on top of DOS, which was a system that was wide open. MS itself frequently made changes that broke software, and forced the abandonment of certain hardware. Any developer of a program did whatever they could to see their program ran the best it could, with no regard for the other software running on the machine. Game software still does this, albeit to a lesser extent, today.

With each iteration of Windows, a better mix of performance and compatibility has been gained. There are still areas of the user interface that remain completely without explanation why they should be as they are.

Although there have been programs to assure the proper operations of Windows programs, they have neither been as stringent, nor as well enforced, as their Mac counterparts.

In the realm of hardware, so many manufacturers are involved that momentum would cease if every aspect of the hardware was to be scrutinized for adverse reactions. How many pieces of hardware can one Google and find a hundred or more tales of woe regarding difficult interactions? Much of this stems from the BIOS area of the computer, for which there are many revisions, compared to each model Mac, which has one.

So, looking at both systems, it appears one can have a system which is easy for anyone to operate, with few problems, or a system that can [possibly] do more, if one is willing to tolerate certain difficulties with interaction of components and learn the oddities involved.

Also, competition amongst manufacturers has tended to make the Windows platform more affordable. Recently, those differences in cost have come close to evaporating, making the choice for many much easier.

Still, other considerations are there - library of software, retraining period, etc.

(For not completely known reasons, I use several machines, with Windows, Linux, and an older Mac. I see the logic of Mac, but the ‘tinkerer’ in me, likes the experience of making Windows run better. I also like to work on Fords, although they are more expensive to own than Chevys.)

Tags: operating systems, mac, windows, microsoft, apple, google, steve jobs, steve wozniak