I often find myself at odds with Paul Thurrot’s opinions. As a Windows guy, it’s appropriate enough for him to prefer windows, but he occasionally says some things about Macs that I find baffling. Imagine my surprise, then, to find myself vigorously agreeing with him.
Paul Thurrot says that Macs are for more technical users. For years, he’s been repeating this line over and over again, and I’ve always dismissed it as pure fantasy. After all, everybody knows Macs are easier to use, right? The big selling point is the whole “it just works” aspect–clearly targeted toward new users and non-techies.
If only it were true. As bizarre as it seems, I believe that Paul Thurrot is right. I was reading this article of his in which he refutes the common truism that Mac and Linux users use their platforms because they want to, and Windows users use Windows because they have to. Thurrot says,
“I disagree.
But I think I see the point he’s trying to make.
…this isn’t “have to” vs. want. The truth is, for most people–like, 99.99 percent of the computing using public–a computer is a tool. What they “want” isn’t a particular OS. What they want is a solution to a problem, or an answer to a need. They want email. They want the Web. They want Office. Games. Digital photos and music.
Anyone who stays up at night worrying about OS platforms just isn’t part of the mainstream. That’s not good or bad, it’s just reality.”
I was all set to yell, “No, you’ve got it all wrong!” until I read those two paragraphs. The truth is, he’s right. Most people are astoundingly non-technical and have no idea how their computer works, or even if it is doing so correctly at all. For better or worse, 99% of computer users do indeed simply want to browse the internet, write papers and emails, play some games, and organize their pictures with a minimum of fuss, entirely regardless of what may be more efficient or appropriate. It’s just not interesting to them.
I can completely understand why someone would be bored by computers. I, for example, am entirely uninterested in cars. Detailed automotive specifications bore me–I don’t care how many Vs my engine has or how many horses one would need to outpace it. I want a vehicle that gets me to my destination with as little in the way as possible. I obviously care about safety, and a built-in CD player would be nice, but beyond that, my needs and interest level are pretty modest.
Most people are this way with computers, and Windows attempts to satisfy them. For example, Windows tries to phrase easy things in terms that non-technical humans can understand. For example, hovering the mouse over Internet Explorer’s icon always produces a tooltip saying something like “Browse the Internet”–a phrase universally comprehensible to everyone who has at least heard of the internet and knows it needs to be browsed. By contrast, Apple’s web browser Safari on OS X has no such labels hinting at its purpose–it’s simply assumed that Mac users know that Safari is a web browser. This assumption displays Apple’s knowledge of the technical bent of its users, and it also answers the otherwise puzzling question of why so many Windows switchers still use Firefox (or, *shudder* Internet Explorer) on their new Mac. There are also plenty of other nods to the differing technical abilities of the the platforms’ user bases sprinkled around. Here are a few:
Close window vs quit application
A convention many Windows users and switchers never learn when they have to use Macs is that of applications not quitting when their last window is closed. The principle behind this decision is that in an app that can open multiple documents or may need to operate invisibly, there is some utility in keeping it running when it has no windows open. For example, if you close the last open document in the Mac version of Microsoft Word, Word itself stays open, waiting for you to open a new one. If you close iTunes’ window, it continues to play music.
Most Windows users are entirely unaware of this behavior, and it’s obvious when a Windows user has been on a Mac because five to ten open applications with no windows will be sitting happily on the Dock waiting for instructions. If they are ever made aware of their “mistake”, your average Windows user will be baffled by the behavior. The Mac user will attempt to explain the “Quit” command and its accompanying keyboard shortcut, and how some applications may need to stay open in the background, but this is nonsense to most Windows users. OS X’s window management system actively takes getting used to to avoid cluttering the system with unused running applications–a departure from the friendlier system on Windows which assumes you’re done with an application when you close its last window. In short, the Mac system requires technical comprehension to understand and technical proficiency to use–both things that few Windows users are interested in possessing or acquiring.
Installing software
Mac users like to point out how easy it is to install software on a Mac. Download the disk image, double-click it to mount it, open the resulting volume, drag the application to your applications folder, then unmount the volume and throw away the disk image. What could be simpler?
Unfortunately, this task is not apparent if you’ve never done it before. For all the derision that Wizards garner in the Mac community, they are good for guiding those unfamiliar with the procedure for something. Installing Mac software requires that you know:
1) That you can drag things to your applications folder
2) That the disk image can be opened (i.e. don’t drag the disk image to your apps folder)
3) That the disk image is not itself the application (i.e. don’t drag the resulting volume to your apps folder)
4) That you shouldn’t run the application from the disk image (i.e. this is the one you do want to drag to your apps folder)
5) That can and should unmount the volume and throw away the disk image when the applications is in your applications folder.
That’s a lot of stuff to learn, and a lot of ways to fail if you don’t already know. Once you get the hang of it, the advantages of the Mac way become immediately apparent, but there’s no way to figure it out besided trial and error, being taught by another Mac user, or if the developer of the software has kindly put instructions in the disk image, like so:
However, this is only helpful if you’ve already opened up the disk image, and doesn’t tell you anything about what should be done once you’re done dragging it to the right place, nor does it provide an easy way to locate the Applications folder (though many do, helpfully enough).
Skype on OS X vs Skype on Windows[1]
The Skype people understand the audiences of the platforms. As a cross-platform app, Skype has client programs that run on all three major OSs, but the most striking difference is between the Windows and Mac versions. Skype on Windows is very easy to figure out. All the buttons are prominently labeled, and common tasks are clearly spelled out in obvious places. My favorite example is the video chat interface. If a usable camera is present, a button entitled “Start My Video” appears. If the video is currently up and running, the button changes to “Stop My Video”. This is 100% obvious and extremely easy to figure out.
On the Mac version, however the video button is entirely unlabeled. Instead, it’s just a little symbol. Mac-heads will immediately recognize the symbol because it’s the same symbol used throughout the OS whenever video is present or possible. But for those unfamiliar with the convention, the button is cryptic. These people may well never figure out how to start up the video and wind up extremely frustrated.
The Skype team knows that Mac users will figure out that the tiny unlabeled symbol means “start video”. Does this mean that Mac users are smarter than Windows users? No, it simply means that they can count on Mac users being more technically inclined and more likely to experiment if the solution isn’t immediately obvious. That the Windows version of Skype involves more hand-holding speaks more to the technical ability of Windows users, not their intelligence.
The truth is, Mac users and Windows users really are different. Typical Windows users want their tasks done with a minimum of fuss, usually on the cheapest machine possible. Typical Mac users want and expect quality and luxury in their computers.[2] Mac users understand the value of paying a premium for premium tools. They want systems and machines that “just work” not because they are unable to fix irritating technical problems themselves, but because they understand that doing so is a waste of their time. They constantly want more from their computers because they comprehend the value that smoothly functioning computers can add to their lives in the form of increased efficiency, productivity, and communication. They use their computer skills to create content for others to enjoy–in 1997, when Apple was floundering and suffocating under poor business decisions, around 64% of all websites were found to have been made on Macs.[3]
Why then, do Macs have the reputation of being easier to use if their primary audience doesn’t need such ease of use? The answer is twofold: first of all, Mac users like things that are easy to use. They’re not fond of wrestling with their machines to get them to work; they’d rather be doing something fun or interesting or productive. It just so happens that Windows’s primary audience likes things that are easy to use as well. The second reason is that though Windows tries to hide technical complexity from its users, it often fails gruesomely. Windows users have come to expect that random failures, virus infections, lost data, and inscrutable configuration boxes are sad facts of life that one must put up with if one wants to accomplish things with a computer. For many of these people, life on the Mac side where things are promised to be easier is quite appealing.
The nature of Mac users and their expectations explains the difference in Apple’s product line and that of all other major manufacturers. Apple’s cheapest Laptop costs $1100, and it comes with the same version of OS X as all other Macs, as well as the same premium software. By contrast, Dell’s cheapest laptop is under $600, comes with Windows Vista Home Basic, and is preloaded with all kinds of nagware and spyware used to offset the ridiculously low price. If one wants “luxury” features like a version of Vista that supports the major features (Home Premium), enough RAM to support that version of Vista, a hard drive that doesn’t start out half full, Microsoft Word, and Antivirus, the cost has ballooned to around $900. Without these “luxury” features, the PC is almost useless; with them, the cost is reasonably close to that of a Mac that already comes with most everything necessary, and the PC still doesn’t come with a built-in camera or a FireWire port, and it’s a pound heavier and half an inch thicker.
The major manufacturers prey on the sensibilities of Windows users who do not believe that they need quality, convinced that because they perceive their needs to be modest, their computer should be the same. These are people who buy sub-$1000 computers, only to throw them out two to three years later when, through no fault of their own, their systems are overrun by spyware, adware and viruses and run as slow as molasses. They are simply unaware of superior alternatives or the advantages of using them, or are hesitant to try them out of fear of leaving their Windows comfort zone.
It is a shame that rather than nurturing and supporting these non-technical people who have no desire to become technical, Microsoft and PC manufacturers have set the standard to computers that often break down, fail to work, and in spite of everything, require significant technical knowledge to keep up and running smoothly. The appeal of Macs is that despite the fact that some technical knowledge is preferred, the baseline of quality will support the most non-technical users for a long time.
