Binary Rescue

Summer of Mac Love - Week 6 - Hardware

August 15, 2008 – 4:36 pm

Last week I covered the differences between the user interfaces of OS X and Windows. A computer platform consists of two major components. The operating system (software) and the hardware. In the past 5 weeks we have covered many of the smaller differences between the Windows and Mac platforms. When comparing the hardware of the two platforms the underlying philosophical differences become apparent. Microsoft has traditionally, ignoring the XBOX and the Zune, been a pure software company. Apple on the other hand has always designed and sold their own hardware and software.

The Facts

The Apple II was the first mass produced home computer. It was first offered for sale on June 6, 1977.

Microsoft Windows 3.1 was released on March 18, 1992.

The first IBM compatible PC was released in June 1982.

Windows share of the personal computer was 91.8% on January 1, 2008.

Apple Macintosh computers accounted for 7.3% of the personal computer market.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Modern computers all use the same basic components made by the same manufactures. This applies to Macs and Windows PCs. Macs use the same CPU, Hard drive, and RAM as their Windows counterparts. The differentiation in hardware capability comes from features beyond the basics.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Given that both platforms now use the same hardware, availability cannot be compared on failure rate alone. Availability in this case must also consider the repair processes and the length of time required for repair.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  The basic elements of personal computers, in regards to hardware, has remained largely unchanged for the previous 30 years. Both Macs and Windows use the keyboards, mice, video display’s etc in the same manner as for purposes of comparison irrelevant.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  The only true measure of how efficiently the operating system on each platform utilizes the hardware. This can easily be observed by comparing the minimum hardware requirements of the respective platforms.

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  The Windows platform has an apparent advantage in that there are dozens if not hundred of IBM compatible PC manufacturers. Common wisdom says that more brains attacking a problem leads to better results. However there has been remarkably little real innovation by the PC hardware manufactures. The best example of an innovation that has not been matched by the Mac platform is the hybrid laptop/tablet PC. The ability to flip over the screen of the laptop putting Windows into tablet mode is a invaluable feature for many users. The Mac platform however has seen numerous innovations, primarily in their laptop products. Backlit keyboards with ambient light sensors, the removal of legacy ports, multi-touch Trackpads, and the MagSafe power connector have all been unmatched by the PC manufacturers. The Mac platform has also been the first to implement many features PC users now take for granted. USB, Firewire, laptop hard drives with drop sensors all made their appearance on the Mac platform long before the PC manufacturers followed suit.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The repair process for the two platforms is strikingly different. The sheer number of hardware manufacturers and the separation of hardware and software producers on the Windows platforms leads to a repair process that has a very large amount of variance. Both dismal and pleasant repair experiences are common in the PC world. Unfortunately a lack of consistency is also common. To complicate the process the hardware manufacturers are known to point the finger at Microsoft when problems arise. Naturally the opposite is also true. Microsoft is also quick to point the finger at the hardware manufacturers when problems arise. The result of this finger pointing is a greatly extended repair time. Apple however does not suffer from this scenario. As manufacturer of both hardware and software they alone are ultimately responsible. With the addition of the Apple stores repair times from Apple have consistently been lower than their PC brethren. Customer service approval rates are great indicator of the repair process. Apple has lead this metric for the previous 5 years.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  The minimum requirements for the latest version of OS X are a 867 MHz processor, 512 MB of RAM, and 9 GB of hard disk space. The minimum requirements for Windows Vista are 1 GHz processor, 1 GB of RAM, 40 GB hard disk and a video card with 128 MB of RAM. Even taken at face value the hardware requirements of Vista are far beyond that of OS X. The minimum requirements for the latest version of OS X Server are 867 MHz processor, 1 GB of RAM, and 20 GB of hard disk space. The minimum requirements for Windows Small Business Server 2008 are 2 GHz processor, 4 GB of RAM, and 60 GB hard disk. Again the requirements of OS X Server are half of the requirements for Windows Small Business Server 2008.

The Winner

The Mac platform set the standard of the personal computer when it released the Apple II over 30 years ago, a full 15 years before the release of Windows 3.1. Today the Mac platform has produced innovations that have yet to be matched by the PC manufacturers. It is also the Mac platform that has driven the adoption of new computing standards while retiring the antiquated technologies years ahead of the PCs. The repair process for Mac computers has consistently held a higher customer satisfaction rate and a faster turn around than the Windows platform. Comparing the efficiency of the two platforms also reveals the fact that the OS X platform is capable of performing far more with far less. It should come as now surprise that the company that invented the personal computer is still years ahead of the competition.

Score one more win for OS X:
OS X 6 Windows 0

Posted in Apple | No Comments »

Summer of Mac Love - Week 5 - User Interface

August 8, 2008 – 12:53 pm

Last week I covered the differences between the software removal processes of OS X and Windows. Now that we have configured the system to our liking it is time to examine actually using the system. This week we will compare the user interfaces of OS X and the Windows platform. User interfaces are a science in and of themselves. For the purposes of this series I will forgo the highly technical and focus rather on the elements that affect the everyday user.

The Facts

Graphical user interfaces are the system by which the user interacts with a computer.

The most frequently used element in both Windows and OS X is the file browser. Finder is the file browser for OS X and Explorer is the Windows files browser.

Aqua, the OS X GUI, was introduced in 2000.

Windows released Aero as part of Vista in 2006. Windows 95 through XP all used iterations of the same user interface.

Windows has only one “administrator” account type giving this account full access to the system.

OS X other Unix systems have two layers of administrator access. Root access which is not available to users and the administrator account available to users which contains only a subset of root privileges.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  A capable user interface must allow the user to manipulate the computer and the data within in it. File operations such as moving, copying, deleting renaming are examples. While providing these basic functions does it also protect the operating system from damage, malicious or accidental? Modern user interfaces must also be able to manage multiple windows and applications simultaneously.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The most dramatic test a user interface can endure is an catastrophic error. When a software element crashes is the user interface still available to attempt to correct or mitigate the crash.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  Usability is largely subjective but for purposes of this article usability means the following. How simple is the interface, i.e. are there ten convoluted ways to accomplish a task or one simple method. Is the interface consistent. Are dialog boxes and user interaction requests clear and concise?
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  Last weeks criteria are also applicable to user interfaces. How quickly can the process be completed? How many steps are required? How much interaction with the user is required?

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Both OS X and Windows handle the basics of file manipulation in a similar manner. The difference arises in their ability to handle errors and prevent damage to the underlying operating system. See the Availability comparison for details. The second difference is the prevention of damage. Both systems attempt to prevent accidental and malicious damage by requiring administrative access to manipulate operating system files. OS X users are not given administrative access without a password. Furthermore “root” level access is required and administrative accounts are not in this group. Windows users can acquire the equivalent of “root” access by turning their account into an “Administrator” account. Finally the third major difference is how the user interface handles numerous windows and programs running simultaneously. Although both user interfaces are capable of managing this situation the difference lies in the usability, described below, of each method.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  Due to the integration of Windows Explorer, Internet Explorer and the core of the operating system (ask the DOJ for details) a failure of any of these elements can render the system inoperable requiring at best a relaunch and at worst a rebuild. The architecture of Unix in general and OS X in particular provide for true task separation whereby each element is able to fail without taking down the rest of the system. In a Windows environment an failure in any of the three elements can render the user interface unavailable. The same is not true of OS X.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  The Windows user interface is far more complex than that of OS X. It is common that Windows tasked can be achieved by numerous methods whereas the same task in OS X can only be accomplished in at most two different ways. Interface consistency also favors OS X. Although it is not perfect the user interface is far more consistent in OS X than in Windows. This results in a reduced learning curve for users and therefore increased usability. Additionally the number of dialog boxes and user interaction elements that suffer from what I call nerd speak is far less in OS X. The blue screen of death is by far the most striking example. I can’t count the number of times a client has written down the gibberish on this screen and called me for an explanation. The kernel panic (BSOD equivalent) of OS X simply says “Your system has encountered an error and needs to restart.” The information presented in the BSOD only serves to confuse the common user as they are not capable of understanding the data that is presented.
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  A failure of the Finder in OS X can be remedied in two steps. Pressing Command-Option-Esc on a Mac presents a dialog box with a button labeled “Relaunch Finder”. In order to restart Explorer in Windows four steps are required and you must know the name of the process, explorer.exe, in order to attempt a repair. The problem here is the common user will not be able to learn this process as it is beyond their comfort level. Viewing all open windows and subsequently selecting the desired window can be achieved in two steps in OS X via expose. The only method to accomplish this same task in Windows is click through every item in the taskbar. The number of steps required increases with every additional open window.

The Winner

The first thing I recall from my undergrad days in Computer Science was the KISS principal. I vividly remember frantically working to get my program working before the due date, only to have points deducted from my grade. When I protested stating the my program worked as required the professor countered with yes it works but it took 100 lines of code to accomplish what could be done in ten. The lesson learned was this. Getting a program to work was the easy part. Making that same program simple was the hard part. This is the philosophical difference between the two platforms in terms of usability. Apple took the time to make the user interface in OS X simple and efficient. Microsoft however seems to be happy with just getting it to work. Although not exhaustive the examination of criteria above demonstrates that OS X is more capable, more available, infinitely more usable, and more efficient than Windows. Although Microsoft made some progress in Vista, this progress is in many ways one step forward and two steps back. But that is an article in and of itself.

Score one more win for OS X:
OS X 5 Windows 0

Posted in Apple | No Comments »

Summer of Mac Love - Week 4 - Software Removal

July 31, 2008 – 6:16 pm

Last week I covered the differences between the software installation processes of OS X and Windows. Over time some of our software outlives its usefulness and has to be removed. This week I will examine the process of removing software from both OS X and Windows.

The Facts

OS X does not have a dedicated software removal program. Software is removed by drag and drop to the trash can.

Windows software is removed through Add/Remove Programs in the Control Panel, which actually launches MSI.EXE (the same application used to install software).

The Windows Installer generates the uninstallation sequence during the original installation providing the ability to rollback versions or completely uninstall software.

Windows maintains a database related to all software installations. This database contains version information regarding DLLs and registry information.

Removing VLC, the most robust video player out there, on a Mac took 13.7 seconds. An attempt to remove VLC on Vista took 87 seconds before it came to an abrupt stop. The VLC application was not recognized by Microsoft Installer and therefore could not be removed. The program was installed and functional, there was no way however to remove it.

The Criteria

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  Software removal mechanisms must perform several functions to be deemed truly capable. The software must be removed from the system while not rendering any of the remaining applications inoperable. The removal must be complete not leaving any trace of the software behind.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  The mechanism by which software is removed must be functional when required. How vulnerable to failure is the mechanism itself.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  How easily can the average computer user complete the installation process. Is the process clearly and adequately described? Are any errors experienced clear and useful?
• Efficiency: Does the tool perform the job with as little effort as possible?
  How quickly can the process be completed? How many steps are required? How much interaction with the user is required?

The Results

• Capability: Does the tool perform the job?
  When removing a program in OS X much is left behind. Preference files, application support files, and plugins are all left undisturbed by simply deleting the application. Although a program (AppZapper) exists to perform this function, it is not part of OS X and cannot be considered here. The Windows installer also leaves behind numerous registry keys when a program is uninstalled. Applications in OS X are stand alone executables that are wholly contained. As such their removal cannot affect the programs that remain. The same can not be said of Windows applications. As they share resources in the form of DLLs, fonts and etc, removing a Windows program can and often does leave another program inoperable.
• Availability: Is the tool available and working correctly when it is needed?
  As was the case with Software installation on OS X, the ability always exists as it simply a delete operation on a file. Apparently cut and paste is not prone to problems. This is not true of Windows. There are numerous utilities designed to repair the Windows installer both from Microsoft and third parties. In 6 years I have never had the OS X application removal process fail. As I stated last week, I repair the Windows installer on a weekly basis for my clients.
• Usability: Is the user able to intuitively work the tool?
  Again the results here are a mirror image of last week. The main stumbling block that I have seen in removing OS X applications comes from Windows users who expect the process to be more complicated. Although dragging an unwanted Application to the trash is fairly intuitive, Windows users are accustomed to a series of dialog boxes, confirmation requests and countless progress bars. As was the case with software installation, OS X does suffer from error messages during uninstallation. The most common error results from trying to update an application that is currently running. Closing the application and re-attempting the removal solves the problem almost always.

The Winner

As many of the processes required to remove software are identical to the installation process many of the results from last week are applicable. The first time I chose to remove a program from OS X I was struck by the simplicity. I recall thinking “So all I have to do is put the app in the Trash?! The fact that application removal is this simple makes OS X superior to Windows. The implications of this only reinforce this fact. If by accident you or someone else accidently deletes a program from a Mac you can easily restore the application by dragging it from the trash back to the Applications folder. Windows installation process does not allow for this. Recovering Windows applications requires starting the installation process over from scratch. Additionally when a OS X program is restored from an accidental deletion, all of the users settings are preserved. This is not the case with Windows software. If you really need to delete all traces of an application on OS X you can browse to the Preferences and Application Support folders and delete the files that are named after the relevant program. Try cleaning orphaned items from the registry by hand. Just kidding, please spare yourself the heartache. Messing with the registry is more likely to completely disable Windows than it is to result in anything productive.

Score one more win for OS X:
OS X 4 Windows 0

Posted in Apple | 1 Comment »