I thought about that headline for a long time. Of course it's based on "comparing apples to oranges", but it doesn't quite work. I could have written it "Comparing Apple's computers to Microsoft's computers" but that just sounds lame, so I stuck with a construction that doesn't quite work and looks ungrammatical. Stay with me here; I promise that the article is better than the intro.
Microsoft sometimes compares the Surface 4 tablet to a Macbook Air. I'm not sure that's a valid comparison, though. The Surface is more a tablet with an optional keyboard while the Macbook Air is a notebook computer.
In fact, Apple doesn't have anything that competes directly with Microsoft's line of Surface devices.
In an effort to return some Mac content to TechByter Worldwide, I recently bought a Macbook Pro. That's it on the right. The Surface 4 is on the left. Ask me which one is better and I'll just look at you like you're nuts. Neither is better. Neither is perfect.
Microsoft charges extra for the keyboard, which also doubles as a screen protector. This is simply illogical.
The Microsoft on-screen keyboard is simply abysmal and that makes a keyboard utterly essential. The keyboard is a $130 add-on. C'mon, Microsoft, just increase the price by $100 and include the keyboard.
The Surface 4 is lighter than the Macbook Pro and, because it can be used in tablet configuration, I think it's more versatile.
The Macbook's Retina 13.3 inch display (2560x1600 pixels, or 227 pixels per inch) is fabulous, but it lags a bit behind the resolution of the Surface 4's slightly smaller 12.3-inch (2736x1824 pixels, or 267 pixels per inch).
What disappointed me about the Macbook Pro is its audio. The Macbook is larger than the Surface and it seems reasonable that Apple's design engineers would have been able to use larger speakers than what Microsoft's engineers did. Audio on the Surface, though, is far superior.
To record the computers, I used a Tascam DR-07 digital recorder. Whenever you record audio from speakers, the quality will be degraded, but I did the best I could to get equivalent recordings from both computers. Then I combined the recordings with the Macbook Pro first and the Surface 4 second. The Macbook Pro has a tinny, tiny-speaker sound while the Surface's tiny speakers pump out sound that seems impossible from such small units.
Surface-Macbook Pro Audio comparison
Battery performance is far better on the Macbook Pro than on the Surface Pro 4. After 8 hours running on its battery, the Macbook Pro still had 72% of its charge remaining. Compare that to the Surface Pro 4. After just 2 hours, it was down to 62%, so I reduced the screen brightness to the lowest setting I could tolerate and turned off Bluetooth. After 4 hours, the Surface Pro 4's battery was down to 13% and I had to attach it to the power adapter.
Microsoft claims up to 9 hours of video playback, but with a long disclaimer: "Up to 9 hours of video playback. Testing conducted by Microsoft in September 2015 using preproduction Intel Core i5, 256GB, 8GB RAM device. Testing consisted of full battery discharge during video playback. All settings were default except: Wi-Fi was associated with a network. Battery life varies significantly with settings, usage, and other factors."
The Surface has a 5087mAh battery, which is somewhat smaller than the 5547mAh battery that was in the Surface Pro 3. That was apparently an attempt to make the 4 lighter than the 3 and Microsoft claimed better power management would allow the smaller battery to provide better performance. Although I was unable to find precise specifications for the Macbook Pro battery (typical of Apple), replacement batteries are in the 4200 to 5200mAh range, so it seems that the Macbook battery has about the same capacity as the Surface battery. Both computers use Intel i5 processors.
One possible difference is OSX's ability to allow the user to set a period during which the computer doesn't require a password after entering sleep mode. I set this to 30 minutes. Windows doesn't have a similar setting, so I had to set the sleep timeout to 30 minutes to get similar performance and that clearly uses more power. It's easy enough to disable the login requirement after the computer has gone to sleep, but I consider that to be insecure.
A second test was even more impressive. The Macbook Pro started the day (4am) with 56% capacity. Eight hours later, the battery was still at 32%. This happens because the computer goes to sleep quickly, but it doesn't require a password unless I leave it in sleep mode for more than 30 minutes. The Windows computer, on the other hand, can blank the screen but it stays awake for 30 minutes.
Conclusion: Apple has found ways to use battery power much more efficiently than Microsoft has.
By the way, mAh is the abbreviation for milliampere-hours. It describes the amount of power the battery is able to contain, less the energy required to shut down the device. This number lowers as the battery becomes depleted and also declines as the battery ages.
Both the Surface 4 and the Macbook Pro have some "surprising features" (not to say bugs):
Today's operating systems have more things in common than fans of any system would like to admit. Allthough I almost always have at least one Linux-based computer on hand, it had been a while since I've owned a Mac. My first Mac come home from New York with me in 2000 after I'd spent the week at PC Expo. In 2010, one of my daughters accidentally killed the replacement for the original Mac and I didn't replace it until now because I'm mainly a Windows user and TechByter Worldwide is a Windows-centric podcast and blog.
Operating systems seem almost to be more about attitude than technology. Windows wants users to do things its way, but (sometimes grudgingly) allows the use of other tools and methods. Apple (unless you know the ways of Unix) smilingly refuses to do anything that's not the way Apple wants it to be done. Linux is like a friendly neighbor who'll happily loan you the tools needed to install a new 220-volt outlet for your new stove and assume that you know enough to shut off the power first.
And I've seen operating systems compared to toasters. The Windows toaster looks great, but sometimes it just won't make toast. Then you have to unplug the toaster and plug it back in. The Mac toaster has no settings or controls. It looks very stylish, but it can use only bread bought from Apple dealers at ten times the cost of regular bread. The Linux toaster requires you to enter the command
toast -verbose -breadsize 50132 -eject -o z3321 > /dev/toast
but when you do, the toast is perfect.
I'm sometimes amused and sometimes disheartened by the silly OS wars. In discussion groups with both Windows and Mac users some Mac fan invariably posts "Get a Mac!" when somebody describes a problem with a Windows computer and also invariably some Windows user posts "Get a real computer!" when somebody describes a problem with a Mac. Every operating system has its own idiosyncrasies, be it Windows, OSX, Linux, Unix, Open BSD, AIX, Solaris, Android, IOS, or (historically) Novell NetWare, IBM 4690, OS/2, Xenix, RSTS/E, DOS, Amiga, Atari TOS, LDOS, QNX, CP/M, or any of the dozens of other current or past operating systems.
Operating system wars are exercises in futility, but to get back to the topic of what's available now ...
All three have graphical user interfaces.
Microsoft's operating system has 80% or more of the desktop market, so you'll find one or more applications for Windows regardless of what you want to do. Windows was introduced as a graphical environment for DOS in the mid 1980s and became a true operating system in 1995.
Because there are so many Windows users, you can always find someone who can help with problems. And starting with Windows 7, the operating system has become more secure and offers numerous built-in functions and utilities.
Apple's Macintosh OS dates to the mid 1980s. Surprisingly, at late as System 9 (the precursor to OSX), Apple's operating system had extremely limited memory management. OSX is based on Berkeley Software Distribution Unix, which means that it was network ready from the beginning and offers strong file and directory security.
Another advantage of OSX's Unix heritage is evident when installing applications. A self-contained application file is copied to the Applications directory. Windows, on the other hand, copies some files to the Program Files or Program Files (x86) directory but also has dependencies on dynamic link library (DLL) files. At one time, DLLs made sense because they saved disk space by allowing multiple programs to use the shared DLLs.
Today, with disk space being cheap, DLLs no longer seem like a good choice, but Microsoft needs to continue to support them to maintain backward compatibility. The problem isn't as bad as it was 5 or 10 years ago, but Apple's approach in OSX is much easier to support.
Linux is free, so you can download, modify, and redistribute it without cost. Linux is based on Unix and was written in 1991. The majority of servers that power the internet run Linux, but it is more complicated to set up and manage, in part because there are dozens of Linux variants. In general, commercial software doesn't run on Linux systems and open source applications that perform functions similar to those provided by commercial software usually aren't as robust.
All three also have command line utilities. Windows has two. Linux has several variants of the shell. OSX has the Unix shell, but only if you know how to find it.
Many people equate command lines with antique operating systems such as Microsoft's DOS or Digital Equipment Corporation's long-running RSTS/E, but command lines continue to be useful in an age of graphical user interfaces.
Windows has the CMD window and Windows Powershell. Powershell understands all of the old CMD terms and adds lots of its own. Traditional command utilities such as ipconfig return information such as the IP address of the computer.
Powershell commands are usually more complex. The one shown on the right here (get-service) is a simple command that returns the name and operational status of all system services.
More complex Powershell commands may look like this:
Mac shell commands can be simple (ls -la, for example displays a list of all files in the current directory) or complex.
ls -R | grep ":$" | sed -e 's/:$//' -e 's/[^-][^\/]*\//--/g' -e 's/^/ /' -e 's/-/|/' lists all directories, but not any of the files contained in the directory. The long command can be associated with an alias so that typing the alias, perhaps something like "directory" would initiate the longer command.
Linux commands generally will work exactly the same way commands work on the Mac. Here I'm illustrating the same command that I used on the Mac. The same ability to create an alias exists here.
All three operating systems offer a wide variety of command line tools that an experienced user, or even an inexperienced user who merely takes the time to seek out information, can use to great advantage.
Consider operating systems as airlines. These analogies have been around the Internet for a long time and there's no way to tell who created them initially or who modified them along the way.
So no operating system is really "better" than any other operating system. The right operating system is the one that's right for you. If you're a programmer, Linux could be the best choice. Game creators often prefer Windows machines and Windows is found throughout businesses, large and small. Graphic designers generally prefer Macs, but Windows systems compete well in this area.
Google's Chrome OS is a simplified operating system that's little more than the Chrome web browser, a few desktop applets, and some browser apps. Other than Chrome and Chrome apps, there's nothing else.
Chromebooks are small, light, and inexpensive. If all you need is email and a web browser, Chrome could be a good choice. Security is good on these systems, too, and some desktop-like applications are available for word processing, spreadsheets, and the like. Just keep in mind that a Chromebook can't run desktop programs.
Windows 10 will be a year old next month and users will receive an upgrade to the anniversary version. Key word: Users. If you haven't yet upgraded for free to Windows 10 and decide later that you want to upgrade, you'll have to pay. Please don't say you weren't warned.
For more than a year, Microsoft has been trying to get users to upgrade for free. They're even offering to upgrade your computer for you if you'll just bring it in to a Windows Store. There's one near me, but I've been running Windows 10 on all of my Windows computers since before Windows 10 was released.
One irony, though, is that I saw the latest upgrade offer on a Macbook Pro.
Because the Windows 10 anniversary upgrade will be released in August, you have to upgrade before the end of July. Not interested? OK. Please don't complain later that you've been left out in the cold.
Microsoft's replacement for Internet Explorer (Edge) will finally be able to accept a (modest) range of plug-ins. If you're already a Windows 10 user, you've probably looked at Edge, but maybe you've stayed away because support was lacking for plug-ins. Really, it's a pretty good browser. Firefox and Chrome are still my choices, but I have to acknowledge Edge's polish and performance.
Look at the bottom of the screen. Clicking the clock on the Task Bar will open a list of upcoming events in your calendar. Finally, users will be able to select multiple audio outputs. (I have been waiting a decade for this!)
Cortana continues to evolve. She (it?) is able to understand more plain English questions.
I've mentioned this one previously: Windows Hello is a cool feature that allows users to log in by looking at the camera. This works only with some cameras, by the way. Now users will be able to log on to websites if you're using Edge and if you allow Windows to manage your credentials. Cool, maybe, but I'll probably stick with LastPass to handle credentials.
The anniversary update will, at last, allow more control over which applications display notifications.
Overall, there's a lot to like in the coming update, but even though the Start Menu continues to evolve, the anniversary update will feature more "promoted apps" (read: advertisements) that will take you to the Windows Store. Ugh.
Bottom line: More good than bad. If you haven't yet upgraded to Windows 10, you're going to be left out in the cold.
Just last month, Symantec announced a plan to pay more than $4.5 billion to acquire Blue Coat Systems, another company that provides protective applications for computers. Now Avast has announced plans to buy AVG for nearly $1.5 billion.
Both Avast and AVG were founded in the Czech Republic around 1990 and began selling internationally after 2000. Avast says that the acquisition will allow it to grow, improve its technological depth, and position the combined company to take advantage of emerging growth opportunities in internet security.
The combined organization will have more than 400 million users, of which 160 million are mobile. The more users a company has, the more "endpoints" it has and those endpoints become de facto sensors that provide feedback about emerging malware.
This transaction has been unanimously approved by the boards of directors of both Avast and AVG.
Another change that may be coming: Intel is reported to be considering the sale of its Intel Security business, which is better known as "McAfee" antivirus software.
Computer break-ins have increased the demand for security software. Gartner, the research firm that specializes in the tech industry, says that spending on security software will reach more than $90 billion this year. Some tech experts, though, have begun warning that security applications don't always make systems more secure. Because these applications must have the highest possible system permissions, any flaw in the protective applications present a severe threat.
The chief executive officer of AVG, Gary Kovacs, says that joining forces with Avast supports the growth objectives of both companies. AVG is a publicly traded company; Avast is privately held. Kovacs says the change is in "the best interests of our stockholders."
The transaction is structured as an all-cash tender offer for all outstanding ordinary shares of AVG at a price of $25 per share in cash. Avast plans to finance the transaction using cash balances on hand and committed debt financing from third party lenders. Avast has received a financing commitment of $1.685 billion from Credit Suisse Securities, Jefferies, and UBS Investment Bank. In addition, Avast has contributed $150 million in equity investment to fund the transaction.
The transaction is expected to close sometime between mid September and mid October, depending on the timing of regulatory review.
