I swore recently that I’d adopt a kinder, gentler attitude toward Earth’s computing majority, which knows (and thinks it loves) Microsoft Windows and nothing else. After all, switching operating systems is no easy task, and merely pondering a switch no doubt evokes mostly fear in the gentle Windows folk of this world. Continuing to use Windows, therefore, in the face of overwhelming evidence that it’s bad for your health, isn’t a sign of weakness or weak-mindedness. It’s simply Human nature to loathe and fear change and to cling to the familiar and comfortable. Hence that wise adage, “The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence,” and its close relative, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” All I can say is, Thank goodness I’m a Martian!

However, I never said I was going to be nice to narrow minded Windows bigots who pose as thought-leaders at the head of major technology news organizations. And so, with relish, let me dig in and deconstruct a writer whose ignorance, fear, and envy of Mac OS X have led him to write one of the most glaringly ridiculous and self-contradictory bits of Apple FUD I’ve read in months. The guy’s name is Peter Coffee, and you can tell by the photo that accompanies his latest opinion piece, Will Leopard Out-Vista Vista? that he’s bracing himself to be pounced on by guys like me on the Mac side of the fence. (By the way, it really is greener here, folks.)

MacDailyNews has already had a heaping helping of Coffee’s hide, but there’s plenty left for me.

Let me start by making quite clear my view of Windows-oriented technology writers like Coffee who presume to write about Mac OS X or to compare a Mac with a Windows PC: They shouldn’t. “And why the heck not?” You ask.

Well, here’s the thing. Guys like me who trash Windows for sport don’t do so out of ignorance of that operating system. After all, you can’t really turn 50 and be a professional techhie in this world without having had intimate knowledge of Windows over the course of its lifetime. Me, I started using Windows with version 2.0, and every employer I’ve worked for since then has made me use a Windows system. The only one I kind of liked was Windows NT 4.0, and that was only because it was so much better than the Windows 3.1 I had been using. So, you aren’t likely to find a technology writer who prefers the Mac who hasn’t also spent a lifetime working in Windows.

By contrast, guys like Coffee have no earthly idea what Mac OS X is all about. He thinks he knows about Macs by playing with the review copy he receives from the company, or from the few hours he spent back in 2001 with the first version of the operating system. Or from what he reads, or hears, from other technology writers like himself who have no idea what they’re talking about.

Think of it this way: Suppose you’ve spent your whole life in New York City and really know it well. You know its quirks and its faults, and you know its strengths and special gifts. You know the very best way to get from point A to point B, and you also know that this path is probably not the one that seems obvious to out-of-towners. You are an expert on New York City, and you can really help newcomers—and even many long-time residents—appreciate it more by sharing what you know. This is great, and you are great.

Unfortunately, after many years of this kind of service, you’ve somehow acquired the attitude that you are an expert in any city you visit. The acclaim and praise heaped on you as a New York City expert has made your ego swell to an unnatural state. (Hey, this happens, folks. You’re only human, after all!) And so you spend a weekend in Chicago, come back home, and write an article on the ways in which Chicago continues to trail New York City. Your readers assume you have done your research on Chicago, because you obviously know so much about NYC. Trouble is, folks from Chicago know that a lot of what you wrote is a load of crap. Anyone who had lived in Chicago would have been able to set you straight, but your main objective was to “defend” New York (as if it were under attack) and to boost not only your own ego but those of your loyal readers who had grown to share your parochial viewpoint. Do you care that to the good folks back in Chicago, you reveal yourself as a total fraud?

This is why Peter Coffee and thousands of other tech writer like him are so embarrassing to read. Prominent writers who bash Windows, on the other hand, really have “been there, done that.” They’re sophisticated computer specialists who probably know more about the inner workings of Windows than most tech writers like Peter Coffee. They choose to spend the majority of their time—and probably, all of their personal time—using a Mac because they know the difference. Most of us bash our heads against the stone wall of explaining the Mac’s virtues to Windows folk not for ego fulfillment, but honestly out of a desire to share what we know. I’m not going to get a commission from Apple if someone reads one of my articles and buys a Mac. Heck, I’m not even getting paid for writing, period! On Mars, the truth is the Truth, and we don’t waste time trying to convince each other to believe things that aren’t true.

This is why it’s usually wrong to say of someone, “He’s biased against Windows.” The word bias means:

prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair

The key word in that definition is “unfair.” To be “unfair,” an opinion needs to be “unjustified,” which likewise means that its source is ignorance rather than knowledge. To say that I think Florida beaches are better for vacationing in the spring than North Carolina beaches, and therefore I will take my family to Florida then doesn’t make me biased against North Carolina. It’s just a fact that Spring temperatures aren’t usually warm enough for swimming at Wilmington in March.

Similarly, if I were to say, “I don’t like to vacation in North Carolina because the beaches aren’t as good as in Florida,” that opinion could either reflect a bias, or it could be an honest opinion. On the one hand, if I had vacationed 8 times at 3 different beaches in Florida but only twice at one beach in North Carolina, then my opinion is a bias. Clearly, there’s something else going on in my brain that makes me prefer Florida at this point, because I don’t really know enough to have an opinion. On the other hand, if I had vacationed 6 times at 3 different beaches in Florida and 8 times at 4 different beaches in North Carolina, my opinion would be worth more, because it was formed from great overall experience with both States. In this case, it would be hard to say that I am “biased” toward Florida, wouldn’t it? (To you bean counters out there who wonder if this is really some sort of put-down of NC, let me share the facts of my past: I’ve vacationed in North Carolina at 3 different beaches over 20 times, and I’ve vacationed in Florida more than 10 times at 5 different beaches. I like both places but prefer Sanibel Island, Florida, except in the summer. )

Most Windows tech columnists who claim that Windows is superior or even equal to Mac OS X are quite simply biased against either Apple Computer or the Mac itself. It’s fair to call these kinds of writers “prejudiced against Mac OS X” because they don’t honestly know the operating system well enough to even have an opinion to offer. Like our New York travel writer who wrote about Baltimore, these folks should just stick to writing about Windows and not attempt to compare Windows with Mac OS X, or a PC with a Mac.

When they do so, they’re fair game… Don’t you think?

Peter Coffee’s editorial is a reaction to Steve Jobs’ light-hearted jab at Microsoft at Apple’s annual World Wide Developer Conference (WWDC) last week’s, when he said, ” . . . ”

Wait, Jobs never actually said what Coffee claims he said. Now, it’s true that Apple had its usual inflammatory, playful banners flying and making sport of Windows, as they have in the past. (Last year, one banner read “Redmond, start your photocopiers”) This year, the one that Windows apologists love to hate was “Introducing Vista 2.0″. That really got ‘em up in arms!

So, now that I’ve bored everyone to tears with an over-long explanation of why I’m writing this, let me run a few of Peter Coffee’s statements and “opinions” up the flagpole and wave them around for a minute or two.

1. Coffee:
   

   We feel obligated to ask: What should enterprise and other mainstream system buyers expect to get from Vista 1.0 when it ships at about the same time as Leopard, and is it remotely plausible for Jobs to suggest that Leopard will be a left-of-decimal jump ahead within the same quarter of next year

   You know, I’ve read the entire article at least twice, and Coffee doesn’t actually answer this question! So, I guess the answer is, “Yes.” It’s “remotely plausible.”

   Seriously, though: Since when does Microsoft use any left-of-decimal (LOD) numbers in its software? Heck, how long has it been since it’s used right-of-decimal (ROD) ones? Coffee’s question further assumes that when Apple uses a ROD number, it’s the same as when Microsoft uses it (if they ever do). In fact, Apple has been sneakily using RODs since Mac OS X was released the same way they use LODs elsewhere in their software product lineup (when they do). Apple’s doing this because the company really likes Mac OS X as the name of their operating system, and if they ever went from 10 to 11, the OS could no longer be Mac OS X. Mac OS XI just wouldn’t cut it. So, Windows guys—and even you Mac guys who haven’t realized this yet—here’s the true evolution of Apple’s operating system since the dawn of Mac OS X, as translated by Mars:

   • Mac OS 10 beta: Cheetah, Mac OS X 10.0 (March 24, 2001)
   • Mac OS 10: Puma, Mac OS X 10.1 (October 25, 2001)
   • Mac OS 11: Jaguar, Mac OS X 10.2 (August 24, 2002)
   • Mac OS 12: Panther, Mac OS X 10.3 (October 24, 2003)
   • Mac OS 13: Tiger, Mac OS X 10.4 (April 29, 2005)
   • Mac OS 14: Leopard, Mac OS X 10.5 (Spring 2007)
   Problem is, Windows fans have been lulled into a false sense of comfort by thinking that Apple was still doing “point” releases of Mac OS X.
   
   Wrong. Apple’s just using a coded numbering system for marketing purposes. While Microsoft has been stuck at Windows XP since October 2001, the same month Mac OS X 10 was released, Apple has steadily moved on, adding numerous powerful and innovative new features to its OS year after year. I also love the way these guys talk as if Windows Vista was already out the door. (Don’t they wish!) The sad truth for Windows fans is that Vista will only partly catch Microsoft up with Apple’s Tiger operating system (Mac OS 13), and that’s why it’s perfectly reasonable to talk about Leopard (Mac OS 14) being Vista 2.0.

2. After then launching into a tirade against Microsoft and its inept handling of the next version of Windows, Coffee states
   

   What’s now promised for 2007 is a radically de-featured Windows XP upgrade with only two major selling points remaining.

   I had a little trouble figuring out what those selling points were, but I think they are (1) Substantially improved security, and (2) An opportunity for OEM’s to make a lot of money as Windows users have to dump their old hardware in order to run Vista. OK, so that’s all Microsoft is offering in Vista. *Yawn* Wake me up when Microsoft Windows Horizon is released. (Or perhaps they’ll call it Windows 2010.)

3. But wait! Coffee isn’t saying Vista will be the equal of Tiger, but rather that it will be the equal of Leopard!
   

   it’s hard to argue against the proposition that the company is promising mere parity between its Vista and Apple’s Leopard.

   Cognitive dissonance! Didn’t Coffee just say that Vista had only two major benefits, and wasn’t one of them security—the only benefit to actual users? Well, of security, he also says, “With User Account Control, Microsoft finally gets to a point that Apple reached years ago…” So… Huh?

   First off, I don’t think anyone has ever proposed that Microsoft Vista will be anything more than the equal of Tiger, let alone Leopard. The kindest reviews from Windows fans indicate that Microsoft will almost have caught up with Apple’s Tiger OS, so any features Apple brings to the table in Leopard (which we just glimpsed a week ago) will likely be features Vista won’t have. Hence,

   var Tiger;
   var Vista;
   var newOSfeatures;
   function upgrade(OS){
        newOS=OS + newOSfeatures;
        if (OS=="Tiger") {
             newOS.name="Leopard";
        } else {
             newOS.name="TooSoonToKnow";
        }
        return newOS.name;
   }
   var Vista2=upgrade("Tiger");
   	

   Really pretty simple, there, Pete.

4. Coffee:
   

   Microsoft also promises that Vista will offer dramatically more convenient backup tools, a prospective play that’s been somewhat trumped by Apple’s elegant and apparently well-conceived Time Machine.

   Duh. Notice Coffee’s use of the adverb “apparently.” Here’s a guy who obviously gets his fingers dirty actually trying out software rather than just reading about it or watching a video. Very impressive. Microsoft’s Automated Backup for Windows is, I’m sure, a welcome feature. According to this Windows site, the automated part will not be included in the version of Vista that nearly all home users will receive. Besides, if users have to suffer through the usual annoying Windows windows, tabs, and panels to get it to work, I’m sure no one will bother. If Time Machine works, on the other hand, it will do so for all users equally and without users having to follow any wizard that leads them around Robin Hood’s barn for the umteenth time. From what I’ve read and seen, the two aren’t even comparable (unless you need them to be).

5. Coffee:
   

   Vista’s speech recognition options, along with its Sidebar and Gadgets, likewise aim at targets that Apple has already hit—but that we have yet to find of more than brief value until they’re exploited by inspired development talent. As mere platform features, we don’t find such things compelling.

   Again, what the heck is Coffee trying to say? His emotional point is clear: It’s a put-down of Apple. But what does this have to do with Leopard versus Vista? Heck if he knows. And what is a “mere platform feature,” anyway? Oh… wait! It’s coming to me, now. He’s saying that until a feature is added to Windows, it doesn’t count. Well, there’s no bias in that, is there? Obviously, to Coffee, Windows is the only platform that matters. If so, why does Apple even bother? Coffee certainly wouldn’t bother learning why for himself, and he hopes you won’t be tempted to, either. Cause, you see, he’s a Windows expert, not a Mac expert. If his readership were to switch to the Mac, he’d have to switch to drawing food stamps.
   I really like the notion of OS platform features having only “brief value,” too, by the way. That’s very meaningful. I guess it means, “Wow, that was cool while I was watching the presentation with these other thousands of guys. But what good will it be to me when I get home to my crappy old Windows computer?”

6. Here’s one of my favorites. Coffee:
   

   Pervasive and largely automatic search, dubbed Spotlight by Apple and Instant Search (with Search Folders) by Microsoft, has likewise failed to transform our manner of using our machines—although future generations of users, not forced to develop their own schemes of folder naming and other such hierarchy-oriented behavior, may find otherwise.

   Pete, can you hear me from here? Speak for yourself, buddy! Of course, he has no idea how Spotlight has transformed the work habits of the millions of Mac OS X “Tiger” users out there. How would he? He hasn’t used it long enough himself to know.
   For that matter, he probably has no idea that search on Mac OS X was “instant” long before Tiger. When exactly did that feature show up? I’m not sure right now, but I want to say it was Jaguar. Spotlight’s innovations over “instant search” were that (1) the search index was continuously updated from changes in the file system, (2) the index could include the full text of all your files, not just the top-level metadata, (3) the index could include any kind of file on your system and could be incorporated into any Mac OS X application, and (4) smart folders could save your searches for later retrieval. Oops! Sorry, Pete, I didn’t mean to get technical there and actually introduce some facts. Hope I didn’t lose you!

   Oh, and I don’t think Apple “dubbed” Spotlight “Spotlight.” It just was Spotlight. The correct way of putting this is that Microsoft is dubbing Apple’s Spotlight “Instant Search.” Thanks for passing that along.

7. Coffee then launches into three bits of FUD that only reflect how far removed he is from the experience of average Mac users. Coffee:
   

   Apple has lately tarred itself with the brush of intrusive (though perhaps inadvertent) spyware with some of its efforts to make its iTunes even more helpful to users.

   Hey, Joe! Does Apple look like it’s tarred itself with iTunes? No, this is just wishful thinking on the part of a guy who’s probably still resisting getting an iPod. (Hope for a decent music player built around Microsoft’s proprietary media formats springs eternal!) Petey, I know you’ll enjoy reading my blog article about one of those shameful incidents Apple brushed itself with earlier this year: Some Bloggers Jump The Gun By Labeling iTunes 6.0.2 “Spyware”. I’m sure it will answer any lingering concerns you may have.

8. Coffee:
   

   [Apple] has started to cross the line from bold innovation to proprietary isolation in its handling of (admittedly, wildly successful) downloadable content offerings.

   Wait! You mean, Apple hasn’t been in “proprietary isolation” all along? I guess I missed the point you Microsoft apologists have been making for years—you know, that Microsoft did it the “right way” by licensing its operating system (of course, Microsoft never made hardware, so it would have been hard to make money otherwise) to hardware vendors with “commodity” hardware, whereas Apple insisted on making both the hardware and the operating system, which therefore became proprietary. Oh wait, he’s talking about the iPod, isn’t he? And what exactly does that have to do with Vista versus Leopard? Zilch.

   There… you see? He almost led me off on an unrelated tangent.

9. Coffee:
   

   And security problems that once left Apple untouched, thanks to a completely different processor instruction set, may soon become more all-inclusive.

   Well, this is just so mindlessly off-point and ignorant I can’t bear to smash it yet again.

   But oh, what the heck!

   Security problems in Windows have zero to do with the microchip’s “instruction set,” Pete, and everything to do with the leaky, creaky* operating system Microsoft has pieced together with bits of tape and dabs of glue. Does Coffee seriously think that if somehow Windows were running on another kind of processor it would be immune to viruses, adware, etc? Well, it’s child’s play to trash that notion. Pete, try installing Windows XP using Virtual PC on a PowerMac G5 and see what happens if you connect to the web using Internet Explorer “unprotected” for 10-15 minutes. Then come back here, and let’s talk again. Oh also, here’s your homework assignment for today: Read my recent tome on Windows security myths and the Mac, Protecting Windows: How PC Malware Became A Way of Life. There’s be a test tomorrow at 2:00. Closed book!

   * I can rewrite that as “achy, breaky” if you prefer.

10. While still waiting for Coffee to actually address the question he raised at the beginning, I noticed this additional Apple put-down from Coffee:
    

    … Apple can no longer maintain, however, any notion of fundamentally better hardware…

    He makes this “point” in the midst of an attempt to compliment Apple on “doing the nearly impossible for a second time—that is, for moving a user base and application portfolio to a completely new processor architecture with astonishingly little pain or even discomfort.” Where he’s going is the notion that, you know, a brick is a brick is a brick. Apple has no chance at all now, since they are using the same basic parts as a Windows PC. Before, after all, they were using different parts, like the processor and video card. Yes, I’m sure it’s the look and feel of the processor and video card that made reviewers ooh and aah over the original iMac line, or about the PowerMac G5, or the Mac mini, or the new iSight iMac model, etc. Now that Apple is using Intel, Apple Macs will start looking just like PC’s, and when that happens… why pay more for a Mac?

    Only trouble is, Pete, you no longer pay more for a Mac, or hadn’t you heard? Do the math on the latest models, and let’s go over your figures after tomorrow’s test.

    For extra credit, I want a full report on why Apple’s Mac models looked so much like PC’s during the mid-1990’s, even though they weren’t using x86 chips. Yeah, the monitors looked pretty much like Windows monitors, too, even though Apple was using different video cards. Here, for example, is a 1997 PowerMac. Now that’s innovative!

You know, last year eWeek published a column by an equally clueless writer called John Rizzo, comparing Apple’s just-released Tiger OS with Microsoft’s vaporware OS recently dubbed “Vista:” Apple’s Tiger vs. Windows Vista: Who Comes Out Ahead? It makes amusing reading. Rizzo should be happy I missed that one the first time around.

You folks who regularly read eWeek and rely on it for technology news need to be aware that both of these articles are total crocks that resemble something a sports writer might scribble together in an attempt to fire up a losing team’s fans. Only, computers aren’t sports teams, and operating systems aren’t strategies. If you care about the computer you use and what it can or can’t do, I guess you should steer clear of eWeek until they can hire some writers who are telling it like it is rather than like they want it to be.