Vista versus Leopard
MS Windows Vista versus Mac OS X Leopard
7 January 2009 by Jean De Daumier-SmithThis is how Windows Vista is compared with Mac OS X Leopard in few categories: usability, reliability, security, manageability, and pricing.
Usability
Good usability is usually derived from good design, good human engineering. Modern operating systems, including Linux, suffer from similar GUI design flaws: too complex and too passive. An OS still does not want to be proactive and helpful with all its CPU idling power under the hood, and does not mind to dump on you system messages full of technical jargon. As the consequence, a user must get used to the interface to feel comfortable. Vista is following more predictable, legacy approach to the navigation and information presentation, so novice users can rely on their intuition. On the contrary, Macs with their simplicity require more attention in the beginning, but often perceived better once the user gets familiarized. Vista (and Windows family in general) makes users feel that they have more options to choose and Mac simply offers you to act straight forward, as if you were flying in a tunnel. Hard-core adepts of both camps rarely switch their preferences and usually prefer to stick with accustomed OS of their choice. There is another important keyword here—fashion. Macs are associated with slick and stylish hardware, creating the aura of outstanding design and cool selection. I have to admit that Apple computers are truly well-designed, so it helps a lot create positive image of the system as a whole. Vista is usually well abstract from the hardware. Because of that some people may confuse usability with Macs' charm look. They are not the same obviously, as design is not only about to be pretty, but to be comfortable as well. While both systems can equally irritate, I would say in the conclusion Vista wins in usability, as it is more natural for users even with all its clumsiness.
Reliability
As the both platforms are solid and mature, reliability is directly connected to the hardware–software union. Macs are very well insured here due to the fact that only the approved and limited hardware is allowed to run with Leopard. On the other hand, Vista is exposed to million devices and configurations with all potential incompatibility troubles. Microsoft admittedly made a very good job trying to make Vista reliable with huge variety of modern and not-so-modern hardware. Under normal conditions—patched software, updated drivers, decent hardware—Vista and Leopard are equally reliable, but Microsoft achieved that in worse circumstances and deserves more respect in this regard.
Security
Security nowadays is often misinterpreted with regards to operating systems. Simply due to the tiny market share Mac systems are usually not considered by malware creators, as they need much broader scope, i.e. Windows-based systems. Therefore Windows security has been constantly challenged and new exploits appear every day. From that perspective a Mac user is better protected from viruses "in the wild", but that does not mean Mac is more secure. Targeted threats usually can penetrate any system with any security in place, not mentioning the social engineering methods used by hackers. Mac wins in this category, but this has no particular meaning. If Apple had the same market, Macs would probably suffer even more. And appealing to Unix die-hard security is simply a sneaky marketing move if we remember that nix-based Apache web servers is still the target number one these days. Windows users are having hard times with viruses. Problem is that modern malware is like a sophisticated missile: it is invisible, does its dirty work fast, and eliminates all the traces afterwards. When it appears in the antivirus databases, if ever, it is usually too late.
Manageability
Both systems are equally good in that, but Vista has more choices again. It is not easy to see through advertising hypes sometimes, for instance, what is so cool about Time Machine, if you left your backup hard drive at home?
Pricing
Vista box (retail) version is not cheap, especially in its Ultimate incarnation. Leopard seems to have a fair 129$ value, but there is something to notice. Vista took five years to appear after XP release with free XP service packs in between. For the same period we had few "major" releases of OS X, 129$ each. While Vista was actually reengineered from its very kernel and improved over XP in many core areas (reliability, security, usability, etc.), Leopard seems to be more a "service pack" to Tiger, evolutionary upgrade, rather than truly new system. Again new PC bought these days is most probably coming with Vista on board, and its OEM version is cheap. Windows Vista Home Premium OEM 32-bit version is only ~130$ for example. For the enterprises overall Vista is better suited, simply because it allows deploying bigger hardware and software range. However, in that sense Windows XP is even better than Vista nowadays, having simple economical aspect. But with the time, XP will show its age.
Tags: Leopard, Mac OS X, Windows Vista