Good explanation of the difference between Windows, Linux, and Macintosh

I found a link on a friend's blog about the changing graphical user interfaces (GUIs) in Microsoft Windows. As is typical, people started debating (through comments) about the supremacy of Mac, or Linux, or Windows. One of the comments, from the user "rapsod" (close to the bottom of the page), was very interesting, and I think very accurate (aside from a few grammatical and spelling issues). S/he basically points out that each have different levels of configurability and different purposes. Linux is great for people who know a lot about their computer, and who are willing or have the desire to muck around with a lot of things in the OS. Mac is great for people who don't want to tinker with much of anything having to do with their computer, but just want to get something done. And Windows is good for people who are in between; they want some control over their system, but can choose to go from knowing relatively little to customizing their OS using more complicated tools and processes.

He also points out that a lot of security problems arise from how people run their machines. I don't know much about Mac and Linux, but have used Windows for years. Most of the security exploits take advantage of the fact that people run their systems under adminstrator accounts, which of course has control over everything. People don't have to run as administrators for most things, but it's not always possible to run as a non-administrator account. MS has done some nice stuff with Vista, though, with a new feature called User Account Control (UAC), previously referred to as the Least-privileged User Account (LUA). I have to admit that when I first started using Vista, the prompts really ticked me off but over time I've come to appreciate them. It's a more in-your-face approach than before, for sure, but it's a heck of a lot better than a virus or other security problem. The article I linked to for UAC is a really good reference for more information about UAC in Vista.

In any case, I thought that the comment was good for remembering the purpose and target user of each OS. I know all kinds of people who prefer different systems for different reasons, but they all pretty much boil down to those points. No matter how much my overly techy friends love Linux, my mom is never going to switch from her Mac. They're just different kinds of users and they want different things out of their OS.

Me? I'm a Windows girl, hands down. I actually started on Macs, but got frustrated with the limitations in configuring them. I don't know what they're like now b/c once I switched, I was there to stay. Some people point to better fonts, design, layout, whatever, on Macs but I honestly can't tell much of a difference. Maybe to people who are really into that stuff, like some people are really into the subtle differences and flavors in wine, that makes a difference, but it doesn't to someone like me. When I use my mom's Mac to try and help her figure something out, I'm constantly looking for things that either don't exist on a Mac to configure or that she just has no idea where to find on her Mac so that I can configure it. Luckily, she rarely calls me because she knows it's usually futile to ask me for help on her computer.

And Linux? I played around with a friend's computer once and found it to be way too complex. I want to be able to customize my computer, but I don't want to have to configure everything. Plus, I find all of the open-source resources to be so limitless that it's hard to know what I actually need, what I want, and what's just fluff. I find some guidance to be helpful, so I just get overwhelmed by everything available in open-source land. How do you know if something is good or complete crap? And the people who are really in-the-know with regard to open-source software seem to me like people who are really in-the-know about underground indie rock bands or something. They all talk about software with obscure names that tell me little or nothing about what the thing is or does. The more obscure programs you can talk about, the more street cred you have. It's all just too much obscurity and complexity for my little pea brain.

In the end, I want something that looks polished and professional, that works, and that I can configure but not within an inch of its life. Windows gives me that ability, so I'm happy using it. There may be updates along the way, but I'd rather use software from a company that tracks issues and then puts out fixes for them than a company that didn't. It just seems to me that as we exist in a very complicated world, with ever changing technologies, it's just never going to be perfect. There will always be something else around the corner, whether that be bad or good. And we just need to figure out the best ways to learn and go on from there.