It's rare that I would argue against someone's opinion. After all everybody is entitled to their own. But when somebody is so uninformed as Preston Gralla, he deserves to be confronted. Read his infamous blog post about Five reasons why Vista beats Mac OSX. Now, if this post would've appeared on randomperson.blogspot.com I would not bother to comment and categorize him as a deluded but entertaining person, but he is a contributing editor for Computerworld, and the author of more than 35 books, yadda yadda. So, his opinion sort of counts, right?

Before reading the article, I was hoping to find out about some cool hidden features of Vista that I haven't heard of before. They probably exist, but the author didn't bother to look them up. He brought up some really tired arguments that were maybe somewhat true in the distant past (in technology and internet time), but certainly don't stand true today.

Now, let's look at his 5 points!

Reason #1: Vista runs more software

Mac OS X is a very pretty operating system, but beauty runs only skin deep. An operating system by itself is a poor thing -- it's the applications that run on top of it that matter. And here's where Mac OS X falls short. It can't run much common software, including enterprise applications and games.

Virtualization software like Parallels Desktop for Mac won't solve the problem. Parallels can't run even the most basic Vista games such as FreeCell, Hearts, Pinball, Solitaire and Minesweeper, because it doesn't support DirectX 9. And virtualization software creates big problems for enterprises with regard to volume licensing, technical support, creating standard enterprisewide images and so on. So it's no good for running enterprise applications either. Vista beats OS X here, hands down.

This is his only argument that may have some merit. However the way he supports the statement as being beneficial to the user is wrong.

The sheer number of applications isn't important to the user. There may be more apps running on Vista than on OS X, but it's not the number that counts but the quality and the availability of software for a given task.

You can find a software for every imaginable task for OS X and the quality is as good or probably better on OS X. Quality is of course subjective but, but if you look at the main tasks people do, the ease of use and quality of the iWork and the iLife packages supersede apps that are available for Vista by far.

Certainly you will find applications that don't run on OS X and vica versa, but who cares as long as you can find an application for every need you may have.

Reason #2: Vista is safer

As I've written before, Vista is a more secure operating system than Mac OS X. Mac OS X was easier to crack in a recent hacking contest. And security researcher Dino Dai Zovi had this to say about Vista versus Mac OS X when it comes to security:

I have found the code quality, at least in terms of security, to be much better overall in Vista than Mac OS X 10.4. It is obvious from observing affected components in security patches that Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) has resulted in fewer vulnerabilities in newly-written code.

I'm not a programmer, so I can't tell how good the code is, although I doubt Vista has better code than Mac OS X that has a Unix core. However, when it comes to security as a user I know that unless I put on anti-virus on a fresh Vista installation the system will be full of viruses within days. And, apparently 80% of all Windows (not Vista) installations have viruses, so this is not an isolated case of mine.

The first Vista viruses appeared when the system was in only Beta in 2005. Now, compare that to 0 (read zero) viruses on Mac OS X since the very first version of OS X since 2001. I never had to use a Virus protection software on Mac OS X. Try to do that on a Vista machine.

Reason #3: It's the money, stupid

If you're got a lot of extra spare cash laying around that you don't care about, then by all means, buy a Mac. But if, like most of the world, you've got to work for a living, then you'll find that a Vista machine is far less expensive than a Mac.

Here the article is really getting entertaining. A guy who wrote 35 books confuses hardware with software. Even if a Mac costs more than a Dell with the same specs, we are comparing operating systems, not hardware right? And, while the different versions of Vista go from US$200 to US$320 for the full version. OS X Leopard costs only US$130. So what the hell is he talking about?

Reason #4: The Mac is closed; Vista is open

Any person or company who wants to build a PC with Vista on it, and either sell it, or use it themselves, is perfectly free to do so, as long as they buy the operating system. Try to do that with a Mac, and you'll be spending some face time with Apple's attack dog lawyers.

Again, are we talking hardware or operating system software here? And if we ARE talking Vista vs Mac OS X, I think there is no difference between the Mac or OS X. They are both closed, unlike Linux. And, if we are talking about hardware anybody has the right to sell their Mac or their PC box the same way.

You can't install OS X on a PC legally, but you wouldn't want to do it anyway as OS X isn't built for a random PC configuration. It's been designed to run on Apple hardware. So, it's like saying air travel is bad because it's illegal to bring your elephant on board. Well, passenger planes are not made for elephants, of course it's illegal.

Apple's dog lawyers? Are they any worse than MS's lawyers? Well, MS's lawyers are certainly not that good as MS has to pay billions of dollars every year in fines for different reasons. Again, as a user why do I care about this anyway? Nobody is coming after us that's for sure.

Reason #5: Two words -- Steve Jobs

There's no doubt that Steve Jobs is a master marketer. And he also knows good design. But he's also vindictive, sends his lawyers after people who report leaked information about Apple products, and has hypnotized Apple users into drinking the true-believer Kool Aid. Don't reward him by making him richer.

This is complete BS of course. Again, the same lawyer argument, which has nothing to do with users. Leaked Apple product info and such is indeed illegal and Apple has the right to fight it. Does the author has problems with the legal system?

I admit, I'm a huge Apple fan, but I'm the biggest critique of Apple's strategy and products as well. I can't talk for other Kool Aid drinkers, but I don't take everything for granted that Steve says. However, it's not hard to see what system is better for my everyday job and entertainment and I'm not shy to admit it. There is nothing fanatic about that. I think fanatics are those who despite obvious arguments stick to their opinions. I'm not.

Don't reward Steve by making him richer? What kind of reasoning is that? Typical mistake from a person who runs out of arguments. He becomes personal instead of stying with the facts. Apple users are deluded and Steve is too rich? This point simply makes the whole article ridiculous!

And, to answer the point regardless how irrelevant it is — I do think if somebody like Steve Jobs works hard and produces good results he should be rewarded well, just as all the other Apple employees. They bring great products to life that make our job easier and our free time more enjoyable. They deserve every appreciation.