Why I switched to Macs (Part 1)

Yes, I am now what Apple fans call a "switcher". As of November 2007, I am the owner of a brand new Apple MacBook Pro which is now my main working computer (I'm already running out of disk space lol). Since November, several of my friends have asked me various questions such as "Why switch?", "What are the advantages?". So far I have given one line answers because my real answer would require an understanding of my past 20 years of living and working in the trenches of the computer world war for brand dominance. Today is your lucky (or unlucky) day, for today I reveal the real answer to why I switched to a Mac.

Before I begin, let me state unequivocally that while I admit I am a technically inclined guy who occasionally take note of Apple related news, I am not an Apple fanboy. For the sake of disclosure, I have to mention that the very first computer I used 20 odd years ago as a 5 year old boy was an Apple ][+. You know, the one that contains a 1MHz processor, 5¼" floppy drive and green monochrome monitor. Anyway, my dad switched to an IBM PC XT clone some years later and that was the end of my relationship with Apple computers. I have been using Microsoft operating systems (DOS and Windows) ever since.

A Little Bit Of History

Here goes. One of the main reasons why I switched to a Mac is because I have a beef with the way Microsoft operates. A large part of this comes from Microsoft doing things for their own self interest rather than for the interest of its customers, business or consumer. A secondary but more personal beef is that Microsoft's tendency to think it has superior engineering and research capability when in fact the opposite is probably more true (or perhaps its engineers and researchers have been ignored by management needs).

The first time I discovered this was with my attempts at writing multitasked programs in the 80s. I will try not to be too technical in my explanation, but I have to offer my apologies as some technical know-how is still required. Multitasking basically enables a computer to simultaneously run more than one program and is a key feature that people cannot live without these days. It was first invented in the 1960s and by the 1970s most business operating systems such as Unix have multitasking. For the more technically inclined, when I say multitasking, I am refering to pre-emptive multitasking and not cooperative multitasking.

Yet, multitasking on Personal Computers were unheard of even in the 1980s. There were several reasons. The first reason was that multitasking required a multitasking enabled microprocessor that had very specific features. The first Intel PC microprocessor that could theoretically multitask was the 80286 released in 1982. There were some issues with the implementation so the 286 actually couldn't multitask. In 1986, Intel resolved this issue with the 80386 microprocessor that could multitask. At this time, the dominant operating system used on PCs was the DOS operating system, and of course DOS does not support multitasking.

So in 1990, Micrsoft released the now infamous Windows 3.0. Unfortunately, it did not come with multitasking support. I suppose, Microsoft could argue that the 386 is still a relatively new microprocessor so very few personal computers had the capability to support multitasking.

In 1992, six years after the 386 was sold, Microsoft released Windows 3.1 yet again without multitasking support. In fact, it took Microsoft nine years to add support for multitasking with the release of Windows 95. While Microsoft and its customers herald the arrival of a new era in cutting-edge computing, I was wondering why it took 9 years to do what I could do by myself 5 years earlier (granted, it was a much streamed down version).

This incident was the first in a series of incidents that I have had with the way Microsoft works. Thus, it came as no surprise to me when Microsoft was tried and judged guilty of using its monopoly over operating systems to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other companies. In fact, the Microsoft style of operating has become so infamous that in tech circles we have given names to Microsoft's tactics. One of them is the so called, "Embrace and extend" tactic that Microsoft uses to toy with classic computing standards as well as international standards.

One example is that long before there was even a Microsoft or Windows, there were already standards for remote login, file and printer sharing across a computer network, even remote windowing (using the graphical desktop of a remote computer as if it were right in front of you). Yet, Microsoft decided for various reasons to totally reimplement these in a proprietary way. This created a barrier where, for nearly a decade, non Microsoft systems had a lot of difficulty sharing files and printers, login remotely nor do remote windowing. This Microsoft tactic is so well known that it even has its own Wikipedia page, titled "Embrace, extend and extinguish".

In case you think that Microsoft has changed its ways after being judged guilty, think again. Despite Microsoft Internet Explorer's leading position as the most used web browser, it is still one of the least standards compliant and Microsoft has no intention of changing that. Even worse are the recent stunts Microsoft has pulled in order to get its Open Office XML or OOXML standard fast-tracked by the International Standards Organization (ISO). Granted there is currently no substantial evidence, but there were enough anomalies to suspect foul play.

What About Linux?

Suffice to say, I figured it is time to switch to another product that does more for me as a customer. Over the past two years, I have installed and looked at several options, including Open SUSE, Ubuntu and Fedora Red Hat. They each had the features I was looking for, standards compliant, availability of software that I need (especially good if there's an open source version), large userbase (to ensure longevity as well as support), compatible with Unix (this is a work related criteria). However, they all lacked one thing, usability. I have to say, simply having a windowed graphical user interface does not guarantee a usable interface. The open source community really needs to rethink how their applications are designed for end-users.

Having eliminated all other popular operating systems, I was left with one choice I hadn't looked at in a while, Mac OS X. In the next article, I will explain why I finally settled on the spotted cat as my operating system of choice.