Do Macs run Windows better than Windows PCs themselves?
That’s the claim by Steven Frank in his article on the subject. OK so he’s even more of a Mac-addict than myself and he’s completely biased on the subject - this quote says it all:
“It’s important for me as a Mac developer to use Windows once in a while, because it’s a fantastic lesson on how do absolutely everything wrong when designing software.”
Despite this, the article is worth a read, for both Mac and Windows fans - Mac fans to nod “I agree” at the end of every line of the rant, Windows fans to desperately disagree with every dig he makes against their beloved virus-infested, crash-prone pile of junk. Anyway….
While surprising it may be, it’s probably true. Mac hardware is expensive but it is quite incredible. I read in a computer magazine I’m subscribed to, PC Advisor, that Windows enthusiasts don’t even need to make the switch to Mac OS X and could stay with Windows on their Mac hardware using Boot Camp, but implying that they would use Windows as the primary operating system.
This begs the question, why?! Windows is full of bugs - even the updates that are supposed to fix bugs create even more themselves. Windows supporters fire back by saying that Mac OS X has a way smaller market share and that if it had the equivalent, it would have the same problems. While this may be, Mac is increasingly compatible with Windows, but still very secure, and it doesn’t have such a large market share so it just doesn’t have the problems.
Basically, you can do most of what you do now on a PC on a Mac, but with far greater confidence that you’re not going to open a web page and have your computer invaded by parasites. This isn’t about “if” Apple had the market share Microsoft does, it’s just it doesn’t and is therefore more secure to use.
He concludes:
XP on my Mac though? Smooth sailing. *smacks lips* Is that the delicious taste of irony? I think it is!
Get a Mac - it just works! 
September 26th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Two things stand out as needing attention:
* Windows is buggy, unreliable, crap code. But magically it runs perfectly on a Mac? His conclusion is the twisted logic of someone who drank the LSD Koolaid.
* I keep hearing that Mac uses superior hardware. But I don’t understand what this means? To my knowledge, a Mac is a system running an Intel CPU and an ATI GPU. Identical sounds more appropriate than superior?
September 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
John, you’ve probably got much of what you said right there! Although:
* Windows is generally rubbish and as I think my blog post makes clear (hope so), I wouldn’t run Windows on my Mac unless I HAD to - it would probably muck stuff up.
* I don’t know the technical differences but from my experience, the hardware seems to be more reliable than the junk in the 3 PCs I’ve got in the house!
September 27th, 2007 at 7:51 am
I think it is the operating system that makes the hardware work so well. For example, with Windows their OS is licensed to Dell, Sony, IBM, and other company companies. They all box it, meaning they slap in some hardware and ship it off.
With the Mac OS, the OS is built for the hardware it is running. So yes, it might be the same hardware, but our OS is built for the system. So you don’t experience as many problems. Plus, you have to consider you guys are using DOS, which was built by Jesus…and NTFS which slows everything down.
I would recommend you doing some research, and then just do it. I used to use PC’s about a year ago, and then got my first Mac. I was worried that I would hate it, but I can honestly say…”I will never buy another Windows computer again!”
As most Mac users say…”Once you go Mac, you’ll never go back!”
September 27th, 2007 at 11:00 am
But if the CODE that runs Windows is rubbish, it would be rubbish no matter what hardware it runs on. Even a Magical Mac wouldn’t be able to transform a horrible program into wonderful.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I would agree with that. It probably doesn’t turn Windows into anything great, but I’d expect it to work a bit better than on other hardware
March 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I definitely appreciate the aesthetics and design of both the hardware and software layouts of Macs. As a custom PC builder, I enjoy researching hardware configurations and compatibilities, and building the system from the ground up. In doing this, I’ve built some of the fastest and most stable systems I’ve ever used. I would like to make it known that I’ve used Macs extensively all through university (studying fine arts /digital media, sound, video, photo, 3d modelling/rendering, music, all on the most recent mac platforms of the time). That said, I’ve never been on a Mac that runs as stable and fast as my PC’s (given similar spec sheets). I also have spent many many hours - mostly through trial and error - configuring windows XP to be efficient and intuitive (you would be correct to assume that I’m insinuating out of the box it is NOT efficient and intuitive).
The moral of the story: If you’re a total geek and willing to spend 50+ hours researching, building, and tweaking, you can make a computer faster, more stable, and (arguably) more aesthetic than a Mac. This is totally unrealistic for the majority of computer users, even enthusiasts. I enjoy it as a hobby. For every other application, Mac is far superior in nearly all respects: Clean design, intuitive interfaces, integration of all Mac hardware/software, reliability, cutting edge technology, compatibility.
On a side note, just got my Windows-based pocket PC phone. Although it may be functional, its one of the nastiest interfaces I’ve ever seen. Again mac wins hands down with the iPhone
April 24th, 2008 at 1:23 am
MS, will surely get find out the resolution for the same, as they are serving the best in the IT field.