Windows or Mac?

My quick answer as to which operating system I prefer between Windows v. Mac v. Linux v. UNIX....

YES

There really is no simple answer to the question because the answer really depends on what it is that I'm trying to do or accomplish. You really have to ask a lot of questions to find the answer to this and even then the dynamics can change and the answer may not be the same in 6 months. I've been working with and supporting Windows desktops and servers since 1993, Macs from 1988 - 1992 and again from 2003 on, Linux and UNIX since 1998. It's funny though, as someone who uses a Mac at home it's often expected that when someone asks me computer advice that I'll automatically recommend them to get a Mac. The truth is that people who use Macs typically are pretty enthusiastic about them and they have a greater brand loyalty than Windows users. I believe the choice is one that requires some questions be asked before a definitive answer be given.

In general I can say a little about my opinions on each of the operating systems.

Windows--obviously Windows owns the desktop though there are some minor shifts moving toward Macs but it's still small (well under 10% overall). In a large enterprise environment where enterprise mail and file services and applications are necessary to be managed, it's hard to find a solution more elegant than Microsoft's Active Directory and one of the better management suites (i.e., Altiris, LANDesk, etc.). In a smaller business environment you could make an argument for Microsoft's Small Business Server (which is a bargain) but you could as well for a Mac desktop with Mac server. In many regards it would come down to what applications you need to run and if they have any operating system dependencies. In a small business you could actually run a Mac server as your authentication (logon), file/print server and be quite happy. It could actually be a little cheaper too. As the industry moves toward more browser-based applications we'll see less dependency on a particular operating system so many things can change quickly.

One thing that has surprised me is the negative press that Vista has received. Every new operating system has its growing pains and teething but Vista seems to have received more than its fair share. But in my experience with it, which includes 3 beta versions and the production version were that it was quite stable and the aesthetics were great. Usability wise, you eventually become numb to the security reminders (though I guess that can somewhat defeat the purpose) but the most challenging things for me were trying to find stuff that I needed to service on a regular basis (network connections, for example) and lack of driver support. Microsoft and some of its key partners made a lot to do about the quantity of drivers built in but I found it to be sparse.

Mac OS X--the Mac operating system, UNIX-based as it is, has undergone some big changes since its inception at the beginning of the millennium. I personally hadn't touched Macs since I left college where I worked in a computer lab and supported the Macs. I really didn't have much interest in the Macs running the OS 8 or 9 since so much was happening with Windows at the time and Active Directory made its debut on Server 2000. When I got to my job with the University of Nevada, I heard from the Mac user community (representing nearly 20% of the campus) that the support for Macs was abysmal. Since they were using UNIX at the core and I had been working with Linux and UNIX for 5 years at that point, I would give it a try. I purchased PowerBook laptops for all of my staff at the time (the new aluminum G4 PowerBooks had just come out and they were quite fashionable). In fact, I splurged and bought a PowerBook 15" loaded for personal use as well. It took me a long time to 'get it' and would spend hours trying to figure out what I needed to do to get my job done. After a few months I overcame the hurdles (figuring out how to use Microsoft's Remote Desktop on the Mac helped a lot too) and started to see the elegance of the Mac. At the time the hardware was definitely expensive for the performance compared to the Intel/AMD options. Once the shift to Intel processors came around, I was all sorts of happy. In powerful desktops and servers the Apple machines were often quite a bit cheaper than the Dells and considering that they could run Windows natively, it was quite attractive. For my home use, and probably most people's, I think a Mac is a more enjoyable computer experience. Photo editing, surfing, music management and creation, video editing, and video chats are all easy and fun with the Mac. For me using a Mac makes the stuff I want to do with a computer happen. The hardware is generally very elegant and in fact, the low-end laptops, so long as you don't need big video gaming power, are a bargain. For about $1100 you get a Core 2 Duo Santa Rosa processor, 1 GB RAM, remote control, 80 GB 5400 RPM drive, Wireless b/g/n, Bluetooth, and a great web cam, not to mention a good suite of consumer software.

Linux--I really like Linux and most UNIX distributions for servers. They tend to be remarkably stable and one of my favorite things about them is that updates almost NEVER require a reboot. Mac and Windows servers seem to require a reboot about every 2nd or 3rd update session. Linux on the other hand can almost always stably update kernel-level items without reboots. Even on my home Linux server I would have uptimes limited by power outages and physical moves--even then extending past 6 months. The catch though for many people is keeping your Linux/UNIX server up to date on all the applications. Often times there are core applications that don't have any sort of automatic updating or notification routines and as a result it's up to the systems administrator to keep an eye on them manually to look for updates. One solution is to use a bundled Linux distribution such as SuSE or Red Hat which have the ability to update the applications through a core update mechanism. Of course, if you choose to manually install applications you are back in the same boat as doing a 'roll your own' variation. The big down-side to the bundled distributions is that you probably won't be using the latest version of the applications because those tend to be upgraded infrequently. I also don't care for the fact that the bigger bundled distributions now require registration.

As a desktop though, I would be reluctant to recommend Linux. I've tried multiple iterations of KDE for the desktop and Gnome. None have really been a good alternative to the Mac OS or Windows--things are just too patched together. For me it was an uphill battle, as much as I wanted to make it work. Of course you then get into the fact that so few applications exist for the Linux desktop.

So, there it is, for home use I personally prefer Macs for what I do (video chat, photo editing and library, music, and video encoding) but for larger businesses, it's hard to argue against Windows, at least until more applications are cross-platform, which is happening. I don't know that Linux will ever gain critical mass on the desktop but it will continue to evolve as a server OS and the fact that the vast majority of hardware embedded operating systems are based on Linux is hard to ignore.