Mac vs Windows and the Rain Man

schneb · 02-05-2004, 10:46 AM

As a cross-platform user of both the Windows and Macintosh operating systems, I have often had novice computer users honestly ask, “What is the difference?” My answer is usually bracketed regarding what they wish to use a computer for and offer my suggestion on which platform would be best for them. Most ask just to understand what makes the Macintosh so different from Windows. My favorite answer comes with a comparison to the 1988 Barry Levinson film “Rain Man”.

If you remember, “Rain Man” was based on an actual autistic-savant portrayed by Dustin Hoffman. To me, the average PC is like the autistic-savant, genius at crunching numbers quickly but tends to freak out without notice or cause extreme frustration. Watching the brother, Charlie Babbitt, rant in pure frustration reminds me of many days of screaming at my computer monitor. An autistic-savant is best cared for by professional technicians even though, in life, they are harmless people.

The Macintosh is more like Dustin Hoffman. He cannot crunch the numbers like a real autistic-savant yet he can play one through emulation (i.e. Macintosh can emulate the Windows operating system via software programs such as Virtual PC). Yet try to ask the autistic-savant to act like Dustin Hoffman and you will be very disappointed (i.e. Windows cannot emulate the Macintosh OS).

Dustin Hoffman is an artist in real life, and the Macintosh is a platform targeted for the right-brained types. Windows is a platform made for the left-brained wizards but still, as an OS, a cause for some frustrated outbursts.

Apple’s new OSX platform has officially destroyed my wonderful analogy. The Unix core is like remaking the Rain Man movie only replacing Dustin Hoffman with someone like a Laurence Olivier.

I'm sure my analogy is flawed, but fun nonetheless.

Phil St. Romain · 02-05-2004, 12:14 PM

Schneb, I've never understood the point about the Unix core changing everything. The overwhelming majority of Mac users don't know squat about Unix and didn't know much about the old system folder. They just used their applications and enjoyed the Mac interface. I think the same is true today, although with a different interface, only now the Unix core makes for a much more stable OS--which Mac users appreciate, I'm sure.

cudaboy_71 · 02-05-2004, 11:22 PM

alright mr. analogy, i'll play.

i have several hobbies i enjoy, not the least of which are working on and restoring classic muscle cars and tinkering with computers. i'd say i'm about on the same technical level in both arenas. that is, i'm no programmer, and i'm no hardware engineer--but, when a computer dies, i usually have enough of a clue to track down the culprit be it hardware or software. i may not be able to repair the broken part, or program a workaround. but, i can replace a part and/or start removing software until i find who's corrupt or conflicting with another.

same analogy applies to cars...especially old ones....more than one thing can go wrong at once which can mean big headaches.

when people (usually computer noobs) ask me what the difference between macs and pcs are (windows vs. macos) i've got a lot of room to 'talk cars'.

"you like working on cars? if your car broke down on the side of the road, would you pull up the hood and stare blankly or would you have a clue about how to read the symptoms that led up to the breakdown to make a diagnosis? if you think you might want to build your own p.c. youre headed down the same path. it seems easy from the outside--snap a few parts together and follow some instructions you found online. but, if you are not familiar with the parts you assemble, how the work together, and what they do as a whole, you will be staring at a pile of wires and metal when it breaks without a clue as to what went wrong."

o.k. so, that usually answers handrolled vs. a namebrand. now, i get the 'why is apple better than p.c.' question.

"hardware-wise nothing really. i mean, theyre different--as different as a gas powered engine vs. a diesel powered engine. they work on different principles--but, if the hardware is sound they both run the roads fine."

so...what's the difference then?

"operating system mainly--the os is the 'soul' of the machine that makes all the parts run. p.c. parts are a commodity. anyone in the world can manufacture p.c. parts that will work in any p.c. box. the windows o.s. is responsible for making all of these parts work together. this is like a car company outsourcing all of its part manufacture to different vendors. it would be like having to have a build sheet for your specific car to be able to work on it. you wouldnt just go to the auto parts store and say you need brake rotors for a 2004 chevy corvette-- those could have come from any number of vendors and may even be different sizes or operate with a different technology. windows does a more than admirable job at corralling all of these different parts from different places in to a working system. but, you can see that there is potential for a lot of conflicts between hardware that was never forseen. on a windows box, this comes in the form of trying to install new hardware and being bombarded by obscure, ambiguous error messages and hardware conflicts as windows tries to create an operating system that can control all these different parts."

and, apple???

"well, they build the whole widget. roughly, this means that the apple o.s. knows what's under the hood of the car. when you hear apple users say 'it just works', this is why."

well, the p.c. computers are so much faster right?

"depends. you mean the processor speed? a geo metro redlines at 6500RPM...so does a Ferrari. just 'cause the engine is spinning real fast doesnt mean its doing the same work. now, put a properly built balanced and blueprinted engine on a properly designed suspension, aerodynamically effecient body, the right tires, wheels...well you get the point. p.c.s can be built faster than apples--but, there's a lot of geo metros out there too--and, its not as easy as reading the sign at the front of the dealership. in my experience apple has done a very good job at optimizing their machines...definitely porsche-class hardware. simply put, you get what you pay for."

in the end i just say that as a hobby, i like working on cars and computers. when i want to spend some wrench time...i work on old cars and on tinker with my p.c.s.

when i need to get to work, i take my new car..and when i get there i use my apple. it just works.

robot_guy · 02-06-2004, 01:04 AM

Quote:


	The Macintosh is more like Dustin Hoffman.

I'm surprised you didn't take the analogy one step further.

Steve Jobs is Tom Cruise, bringing his mercurial brilliance to the role of Charlie Babbitt: summoned from a kind of self-imposed exile to take control of the barely-remembered brother he loved so much, so many years ago...

schneb · 02-06-2004, 12:59 PM

Bravo to all of the above--thinkers all...

Phil St. Romain:
The Unix core changed the analogy. It is no longer Dustin H. playing the role, it is someone who does not walk off the set when he runs into a line he does not like (pushing the analogy, DH never did this). The stability and memory management of the new OS has really made the Mac shine. The fact that it is old BSD means quite a bit to the science and internet service folk-- agreed?

Cudaboy:
Yes, cars do make a much closer analogy, hardware-wise. I look at PCs as souped up 65 Chevys. Old technology, fast, noisey and gas-guzzling. Macs are more like a Lexus. Everything is designed to work together perfectly--always use factory parts! However, when talking to those who are not car-savy, the analogy is too confusing. Most can relate to movies.

Robot_guy:
"Absolutely brilliant addendum!! LOL!

gsparks · 02-06-2004, 04:28 PM

Sometimes the person asking the Mac v. PC question doesn't want a lot of detail, just a quick response to satisfy their curiosity.

My response:

"People usually work on PCs because they have to. People work on Macs because they want to."

The usual response to this comment is "why?", to which I answer:

"A PC is like a Yugo you can soup-up with lots of extra add-on parts. A Mac is like a Porsche that comes loaded from the factory."

And you can probably imagine the conversation from there...

GS

yellow · 02-06-2004, 04:59 PM

Quote:


	Originally posted by gsparks "People usually work on PCs because they have to. People work on Macs because they want to."

I like that..

02-05-2004, 10:46 AM	#1
schneb MVP Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Redlands, CA Posts: 2,300	Mac vs Windows and the Rain Man As a cross-platform user of both the Windows and Macintosh operating systems, I have often had novice computer users honestly ask, “What is the difference?” My answer is usually bracketed regarding what they wish to use a computer for and offer my suggestion on which platform would be best for them. Most ask just to understand what makes the Macintosh so different from Windows. My favorite answer comes with a comparison to the 1988 Barry Levinson film “Rain Man”. If you remember, “Rain Man” was based on an actual autistic-savant portrayed by Dustin Hoffman. To me, the average PC is like the autistic-savant, genius at crunching numbers quickly but tends to freak out without notice or cause extreme frustration. Watching the brother, Charlie Babbitt, rant in pure frustration reminds me of many days of screaming at my computer monitor. An autistic-savant is best cared for by professional technicians even though, in life, they are harmless people. The Macintosh is more like Dustin Hoffman. He cannot crunch the numbers like a real autistic-savant yet he can play one through emulation (i.e. Macintosh can emulate the Windows operating system via software programs such as Virtual PC). Yet try to ask the autistic-savant to act like Dustin Hoffman and you will be very disappointed (i.e. Windows cannot emulate the Macintosh OS). Dustin Hoffman is an artist in real life, and the Macintosh is a platform targeted for the right-brained types. Windows is a platform made for the left-brained wizards but still, as an OS, a cause for some frustrated outbursts. Apple’s new OSX platform has officially destroyed my wonderful analogy. The Unix core is like remaking the Rain Man movie only replacing Dustin Hoffman with someone like a Laurence Olivier. I'm sure my analogy is flawed, but fun nonetheless. __________________ Tour Israel and Jordan via CD-ROM

02-05-2004, 11:22 PM	#3
cudaboy_71 All Star Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: sacramento, ca Posts: 874	alright mr. analogy, i'll play. i have several hobbies i enjoy, not the least of which are working on and restoring classic muscle cars and tinkering with computers. i'd say i'm about on the same technical level in both arenas. that is, i'm no programmer, and i'm no hardware engineer--but, when a computer dies, i usually have enough of a clue to track down the culprit be it hardware or software. i may not be able to repair the broken part, or program a workaround. but, i can replace a part and/or start removing software until i find who's corrupt or conflicting with another. same analogy applies to cars...especially old ones....more than one thing can go wrong at once which can mean big headaches. when people (usually computer noobs) ask me what the difference between macs and pcs are (windows vs. macos) i've got a lot of room to 'talk cars'. "you like working on cars? if your car broke down on the side of the road, would you pull up the hood and stare blankly or would you have a clue about how to read the symptoms that led up to the breakdown to make a diagnosis? if you think you might want to build your own p.c. youre headed down the same path. it seems easy from the outside--snap a few parts together and follow some instructions you found online. but, if you are not familiar with the parts you assemble, how the work together, and what they do as a whole, you will be staring at a pile of wires and metal when it breaks without a clue as to what went wrong." o.k. so, that usually answers handrolled vs. a namebrand. now, i get the 'why is apple better than p.c.' question. "hardware-wise nothing really. i mean, theyre different--as different as a gas powered engine vs. a diesel powered engine. they work on different principles--but, if the hardware is sound they both run the roads fine." so...what's the difference then? "operating system mainly--the os is the 'soul' of the machine that makes all the parts run. p.c. parts are a commodity. anyone in the world can manufacture p.c. parts that will work in any p.c. box. the windows o.s. is responsible for making all of these parts work together. this is like a car company outsourcing all of its part manufacture to different vendors. it would be like having to have a build sheet for your specific car to be able to work on it. you wouldnt just go to the auto parts store and say you need brake rotors for a 2004 chevy corvette-- those could have come from any number of vendors and may even be different sizes or operate with a different technology. windows does a more than admirable job at corralling all of these different parts from different places in to a working system. but, you can see that there is potential for a lot of conflicts between hardware that was never forseen. on a windows box, this comes in the form of trying to install new hardware and being bombarded by obscure, ambiguous error messages and hardware conflicts as windows tries to create an operating system that can control all these different parts." and, apple??? "well, they build the whole widget. roughly, this means that the apple o.s. knows what's under the hood of the car. when you hear apple users say 'it just works', this is why." well, the p.c. computers are so much faster right? "depends. you mean the processor speed? a geo metro redlines at 6500RPM...so does a Ferrari. just 'cause the engine is spinning real fast doesnt mean its doing the same work. now, put a properly built balanced and blueprinted engine on a properly designed suspension, aerodynamically effecient body, the right tires, wheels...well you get the point. p.c.s can be built faster than apples--but, there's a lot of geo metros out there too--and, its not as easy as reading the sign at the front of the dealership. in my experience apple has done a very good job at optimizing their machines...definitely porsche-class hardware. simply put, you get what you pay for." in the end i just say that as a hobby, i like working on cars and computers. when i want to spend some wrench time...i work on old cars and on tinker with my p.c.s. when i need to get to work, i take my new car..and when i get there i use my apple. it just works. Last edited by cudaboy_71; 02-05-2004 at 11:26 PM.

02-06-2004, 12:59 PM	#5
schneb MVP Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Redlands, CA Posts: 2,300	Bravo to all of the above--thinkers all... Phil St. Romain: The Unix core changed the analogy. It is no longer Dustin H. playing the role, it is someone who does not walk off the set when he runs into a line he does not like (pushing the analogy, DH never did this). The stability and memory management of the new OS has really made the Mac shine. The fact that it is old BSD means quite a bit to the science and internet service folk-- agreed? Cudaboy: Yes, cars do make a much closer analogy, hardware-wise. I look at PCs as souped up 65 Chevys. Old technology, fast, noisey and gas-guzzling. Macs are more like a Lexus. Everything is designed to work together perfectly--always use factory parts! However, when talking to those who are not car-savy, the analogy is too confusing. Most can relate to movies. Robot_guy: "Absolutely brilliant addendum!! LOL! __________________ Tour Israel and Jordan via CD-ROM

02-05-2004, 12:14 PM	#2
Phil St. Romain Site Admin Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Wichita, KS Posts: 2,350	Schneb, I've never understood the point about the Unix core changing everything. The overwhelming majority of Mac users don't know squat about Unix and didn't know much about the old system folder. They just used their applications and enjoyed the Mac interface. I think the same is true today, although with a different interface, only now the Unix core makes for a much more stable OS--which Mac users appreciate, I'm sure.

02-06-2004, 04:28 PM	#6
gsparks Major Leaguer Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 461	Sometimes the person asking the Mac v. PC question doesn't want a lot of detail, just a quick response to satisfy their curiosity. My response: "People usually work on PCs because they have to. People work on Macs because they want to." The usual response to this comment is "why?", to which I answer: "A PC is like a Yugo you can soup-up with lots of extra add-on parts. A Mac is like a Porsche that comes loaded from the factory." And you can probably imagine the conversation from there... GS