The Great Vista/Mac showdown: Hardware is where customization begins and ends
Summary: Today, the configuration of the computer hardware has everything to do with what you want to get done most efficiently or, in specialized applications, with the greatest flexibility in the software and resulting work product.
Today, the configuration of the computer hardware has everything to do with what you want to get done most efficiently or, in specialized applications, with the greatest flexibility in the software and resulting work product. It’s no longer the case that one computer is just like any other, because what people do with them has exploded the old idea of data or word processing, turning the device into something as personal to its owner as their own mind, which is itself analogous to the hardware-and-software system we depend upon to do our work.
The other change, at least when considering the Windows and Macintosh operating systems is that it is no longer the case If the MacBook Pro is a 911 Carrera, then the ThinkPad is a BMW 7 Series that any executive would want to be seen in.that Mac hardware is inevitably more expensive than a PC. Hardware parity makes the choice of operating system all the more important, because it shapes the possibilities of the work or play you’ll do with the computer.
To the hardware, then, for a couple of postings, because it is important to understand why we need to think about the hardware-software system.
The two systems selected for this Vista/Mac OS X comparison are virtually the same price as configured, the Lenovo X60 tablet ringing in at $2,586 and the MacBook Pro 15-inch at $2,499.
The MacBook Pro delivers higher performance—an Intel Core 2 Duo running at 2.33GHz with a 4MB Level 2 cache compared to the ThinkPad’s Intel Core Duo 1.83GHz with 2MB Level 2 cache—but is a far less flexible system, because the ThinkPad is both a laptop and a tablet that can be used while walking around at a weight of only 4.3 lbs. or docked with a slew of additional ports.
Comparing them by price alone misses the relevant point: They are both excellent high-end systems. Each has strengths that make it more appropriate for certain kinds of work.
The Mac is still the best system for working with media. Dedicated video memory, dual-link DVI output, Firewire 400 and 800 ports, and optical/digital audio input and output make this the system most prepared to be set down at a recording session, video shoot or anywhere you’ll need to take media from a variety of devices. The simple fact that Apple’s core media subsystems are able to isolate their processes from background tasks conducted by the operating system makes it a better choice for any live media recording.
Vista has introduced a new audio engine that relies on Intel’s High Definition Audio technology to, supposedly, dedicate system resources to audio processes to avoid the dropouts when recording. I am told this has not resolved the problem of losing data as the OS runs its background tasks by Microsoft employees and I will be testing this in detail later in this comparison. Suffice to say for now that Windows still isn’t as friendly to media as it needs to be.
The ThinkPad is the system I carry when I am traveling, taking a Mac along when I am going to be working audio or video. As a business system, ThinkPads are simply the best solution because of their light weight, rugged construction and connectivity. Both systems sport 802.11a/b/g and the new 802.11n Wi-Fi, as well as Bluetooth, but the ThinkPad is a better citizen when roaming. New X60 systems can be configured with a Wireless Wide Area Network (WWAN, using EV-DO service from Verizon), though I use a Sprint PC EV-DO card.
The MacBook still does not enjoy reliable support from wireless carriers. The ExpressCard/34 slot will probably resolve this in the near future, but there is a tax on users for Apple’s early adoption of this new PC card spec, because it will be necessary to buy a new card for the MacBook Pro.
Finally, the tablet features of the ThinkPad are unique in this comparison. Apple does not offer a tablet, which is a surprisingly useful thing in many situations, from the middle seat of a plane to sitting and playing a game of chess with my kids. The fact the ThinkPad X60 is convertible from normal laptop use to tablet use makes it, essentially, two different computers that can be chosen based on where and how one is working.
That dual character is where the OS returns to the forefront. Vista’s Home Premium, Business and Ultimate editions include tablet support. Windows' support for the wide range of cards and peripherals used by various PC makers makes it the more flexible of the two systems out of the box. Vista enables a broader range of computer use cases, though most of those depend on peripherals and hardware configurations that aren't sold by computer OEMs. Eventually, however, I believe the computer will be so dependent on its configuration for the individual—much more than today, as customization will involve unique combinations of hardware and software offered to buyers who do not want to assemble their computer working environment themselves—that the number and variety of configurations assembled by the OEM will boggle the mind.
In that world, which is already emerging in the breadth of models and configurations offered by PC makers, Apple's end-to-end user experience will continue to be treasured, like a Porsche is today. But if the MacBook Pro is a 911 Carrera, then the ThinkPad is a BMW 7 Series that any executive would want to be seen in. There are plenty of cheaper PCs analogous to commuter cars, as well as SUV-like systems that are big, bulky and powerful but generic. These two systems are designed for the work we do.
Apple will eventually have a tablet, too, but this will mean a new set of stylus-controlled system functions that may not be ideal at first. The recently announced iPhone’s finger-based interface is not going to work on a tablet for the simple reason that we don’t write with our fingertips. Nor will it work on an existing MacBook, which doesn’t have the ability to fold the display back on the keyboard/CPU to allow handwritten input.
Granted, the Darwin kernel is open and the Mac easily programmed, but the tight control on the user experienced exerted by Apple makes its garden walls higher, albeit more exclusive and luxurious-seeming, than that of Windows. There is no Linux distro that provides support for tablet computing with built-in handwriting recognition that I am aware of, by the way.
The OS can only do so much, so we must turn to the libraries of third-party applications, widgets/gadgets, Web services and everything else we can throw into the pot to cook our own computing experience. Both Vista and Macintosh will have an application to support almost any need (here is a list of Vista-compatible applications and Universal Mac applications), but both are in the midst of changes that have challenged developers to upgrade their work to take full advantage of the OS—Vista is a substantial rebuild of the OS that developers have only begun to address while the Mac community is still transitioning to Universal application support for Intel systems.
So, we have two machines whose strengths will come through as we explore the OSes and applications they run. I carry both, depending on the tasks I need to do for my companies and clients.
Previous entries in this series:
Before the starting gun
Unboxing the ThinkPad X60 and MacBook Pro
Note: Thanks to several readers for pointing out that I'd mangled the name of the ExpressCard/34 in the original version of this posting.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Where This Series Will Inevitably End Up
In picking a Vista laptop/tablet and a MacBook Pro, Ratcliffe has set this train on a track that inevitably end up where the showdown's conclusion will be "depends on your needs".
-The typical businessperson will want the flexibility of the Windows machine, with its tablet functionality and its long line of business-oriented applications.
-The media editor/producer will want the Mac for its performance edge in these areas.
-The gamer will take the Windows, but like the general user, probably has no business choosing either of these laptops (albeit for different reasons). A gamer will take a Windows laptop with the raw power required for the latest games, and won't need the tablet functionality or expense.
-The general user won't need the raw power of either machine, and can go with a model with a bit lower specs. Now, will that laptop be Vista or Mac? [u]That's[/u] the blog series we need.
(P.S. No offense to Mitch. His series have, in the process of its writing, lay out a great deal of Vista and Mac in a practical application, something that has great educational value. I just can't imagine the conclusion being in doubt)
Not exactly....
which is the better OS for general application. This hardware makes the
decision an "it depends," because that is where we have arrived when it comes
to high-end systems which are being designed increasingly to serve personal
rather than generic work needs. As I said at the outset of the column, I need
to get that out of the way first. Hoepfully, I'll end up at a point where the
many different reasons for choosing one of the OSes over the other will be
clear.
Your hardware conclusions suspect, so far
specs that match a $1300 MacBook to a $2500 MacBook
Pro and found them roughly equal. I cannot think of any
conclusion you can come to that isn't suspect, given that
start.
Tablets are cool, sure, but the main reason so few of
them are produced is they just aren't all that useful. I
suspect this partly due to the compromised design
taken by the "Tablet PC" makers, based on laptop
designs with a swivel. The early "Pad PCs" were much
more functional than the tablets, and the external
keyboards quite a bit better when you sit down to use
the machine as a desktop; I don't know why the industry
abandoned this approach. The customers replied with a
huge yawn, unless you're an insurance adjuster or a
form-filler in the local hospital, you don't need and
probably won't have a Tablet PC.
So I think I'd save that $1200 to spend on software, or
perhaps a bigger screen, faster CPU, more memory, or
even better yet a new mainsail for the boat.
What does the title have to do with the article?
And if customization begins [i]and ends[/i] with the hardware, there's really no need for a follow-up, is there?
So they both run on nifty high-end hardware. Whoop-de-doo. But if there's a take-home message anywhere close to relevant to the title, it's that OS X runs on [i]Apple's[/i] hardware, while Vista runs on [i]everybody else's.[/i] At that point, any comparison of customizability wrt hardware is over. Apple forfeits.
=====
The real question is, how do the software features and user experience compare? The only question where hardware is relevant here is whether it's sufficient to deliver that experience. Once you've delivered a similar user experience, what hardware did it take to do that? [i]Then[/i] you can look at the price and determine the relative value of the systems.
For instance, if the current comparison were to conclude that you get a similar overall experience from these two machines, then a reader may conclude that Vista is the better choice, in that it took about 27% more horsepower to deliver that experience on the Mac. Or... if Vista were to fare poorly he might wonder how the comparison would have gone if the hardware were similar in more than price. The comparison is of a 12.1" display to a 15.4" display, so even Aero will look cramped by comparison. Conversely, the Thinkpad has a fingerprint reader, so what are the security implications for the Mac?
I know the above sounds like Vista bigotry, but that's the point. The way this comparison is being set up, there's simply no way it can be considered an equitable test by either side, regardless of the outcome. Just prepare for Spin City as this series continues.
re: What does the title have to do with the article?
More accurate: OSX runs on Apple's intel hardware. Vista runs on all intel hardware. Linux runs on ANY hardware.
Backwards?
I'm confused. Apple's hardware runs OSX, Vista and Linux. The IBM in question can run Vista or Linux. And your conclusion is that the IBM is more customizable?
Yeah, Backwards.
What I said -- that [b]OS X[/b] runs on Apple's hardware, while [b]Vista[/b] runs on everybody else's -- IS the take-home message (with the caveat that we're talking Intel hardware).
And yes, Apple [i]does[/i] forfeit, to the extent that they don't even [i]attempt[/i] to play the compatibility game. They write Apple software for Apple hardware and customization is not a priority.
Not totally
Apple does have Quicktime and iTunes for Windows and the iPod is Windows-compatible.
As it is, as anti-trust evidence revealed, Apple was "threatened" by Microsoft to "kill the Quicktime baby" (ie, leave mutlimedia on Windows to MS) or MS would kill Office for Mac.
So Apple is damned (and threatened) if they do, damned (and criticized) if they don't.
...
Context
As far as the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" observation... you're right. But I don't think they'd be roundly criticized for making OS X available to other OEM manufacturers for inclusion in their hardware. Frankly, if Dell were to offer a choice of Linux, Windows, or OS X I think it would be hard to credibly call that a bad thing.
"Their OS is written specifically for their hardware"
They are not nor do they need to be a software company. When you buy an Apple computer, you buy a computer, not the OS. If you want the OS, then buy their computer.
So the saying goes.
Lots of folks have substituted "Microsoft" for "Apple" in the above quote. Both companies will always draw criticism for any move they make simply because of who they are. Now [i]that's[/i] damned if you do, damned if you don't!
But from a user's perspective
My point was that most of us are not OEMs, we're users. From our point of view, the products offered by Apple are the most customizable, at least in terms of OS availability.
From a user's perspective
However, as a user, if I want to run OS X then I must buy from Apple. From the user's perspective there is no choice of vendor. It is available from one and only one source. I run Apple software on Apple hardware, supplied by Apple.
So I find it incredibly odd that you would claim that Apple's products "are the most customizable, at least in terms of OS availability" when they are most emphatically and demonstrably [b][i]not.[/i][/b] Not from the hardware vendor's perspective, and not from they hobbyist's perspective, and not from the average consumer's perspective, either.
The choice that Apple gives you is an alternative to [i]everything else.[/i] Once that choice is made the for the most part you can pretty much forget about worrying your pretty little head about further choices. I'm not saying that's a wrong, bad, or invalid choice... I'm just point it out for what it is.
OS choice?
Apple's products "are the most customizable, at least in
terms of OS availability" when they are most
emphatically and demonstrably not."
My MacBook runs Mac OS X, Windows Vista, FreeBSD,
and Ubuntu Linux. All at the same time if I need.
Dropping Solaris in there would take 30 minutes, I just
haven't dug out the discs yet. Can't do that on a Lenovo
or a Dell.
Where I misspoke
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression with my imprecise language. When I used the phrase, "Apple's products", I should have used the phrase "Apple's hardware". As is obvious, Apple's hardware is the most customizable, in terms of software availability, both operating systems and programs to run on those OS's. No, Apple's OS is not a customizable product, as you note. But then again, Apple is a hardware company, and their hardware by far offers more software choice than any other on the market.
The Apple Advantage
The only drawback I see is upgrading hardware. Can I upgrade the video card?
At the same time do I decide to save money and go with not being able to run OSX? I probably will but then again maybe I won't. Depends on the savings and what the Apple hardware can do.
re: The Apple Advantage
[i][b]The only drawback I see is upgrading hardware. Can I upgrade the video card?[/b][/i]
And that's sort of the crux of customizability, isn't it?
Um you do realize that "buying" hardware and building
(something you can do with Mac's as well as PC's) and in certain Mac models like
the Mac Pro line you can even change or add cards so video upgrades are
possible. However I degress you do realize that doing that stuff only appeals to a
small sub set of users. I know..I know we all here on the tech end of things think
we are the typical user but we are NOT nope most people want to buy a computer
system like they would a toaster buy it, don't fuss with it, just get some use out of
it and when it is worn out get a new one.
Pagan jim
Different Cruxes
That's part of it, but not the whole story. Software is also something one can customize, and the Mac offers you the widest array of choices.
As far as the hardware goes, other than the motherboard, Macs use pretty much the exact same standard parts as other PC's. Granted there are a few Macs where the form factor makes hardware customization difficult (the Mini, the iMac, perhaps the laptops, although that's true for any laptop).
skipped some MacBook Pro features
has a magnetic powercord that easily disconnects if the cord is yanked, and includes
an iSight camera in the bezel for videoconferencing out of the box. It can also run
windows in either native mode or virtualized.
These features might be important to a business user.