Simplicity vs Power in Computing.

Post Reply

Which is your preferred computing experience?

Simpler (but more restricted and less configurable)
4
67%
More open (but somewhat more complex and riskier)
2
33%
 
Total votes: 6
Captain Picard's Hair
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 4042
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:58 am
Location: Right here.

Simplicity vs Power in Computing.

Post by Captain Picard's Hair »

This is meant to be a general poll on attitudes as opposed to a referendum on specific vendors, though it's obviously a theme which has played a major role in the age-old Mac vs PC debate. The poll is set up as a binary option to weigh our preferences, which isn't to suggest that intermediate states are impossible (Google in some ways is between the two).

I'll try to keep these comments as succinct as possible. This issue is relevant to all players in the computing space, from the dominant market player based near Seattle to it's fruity competitor and the company which turned search into an ambition to index all known information, and all the smaller players. The general association between security and software design isn't quite as simple as open=insecure; simpler=safer. After Bill Gates wrote his "Trustworthy Computing" memo in the heady days of Windows XP, the fundamental security practices at Microsoft have become widely respected among security experts. A modern Windows PC has a secure foundation, while Apple products aren't invulnerable to malware or other PC issues.

Confounding the efforts of all coders is a variable totally out of their control: the end user. If a user chooses to bypass the restrictions imposed by MacOSX, or jailbreak an iOS device to install apps from outside the Apple App Store, the work of Apple engineers is rendered moot to an extent. On the other hand, being that today's greatest and commonest threats are socially engineered, a Windows PC will run smoothly and securely in the hands of a careful user. Similarly for Android users, though Google doesn't place as many restrictions on third party app downloads as Apple, those who stick to the Google Play store have minimal chances of downloading a malicious app (some occasionally slip past Google's vetting process though they tend to be kicked out quickly). Put me down in the category of safe Windows user.

So it comes to a point where the issue of how much to restrict user choices in the effort to protect them from themselves is still being worked out in real time. It's said that a completely secure computer would be trivial to build, but such a computer would be locked down to the point of utter uselessness. A mechanical analogy might be the perfectly safe vehicle, which can't actually move.

Apart from security, there's some debate on the issue of complexity of use. I find that the difficulty of use attributed to Windows is sometimes overstated (though I can be biased since I'm relatively savvy), while Apple products do not always "just work" either. Some prefer a more appliance-like model, with few virtual knobs and dials to adjust. If a Mac doesn't suit their fancy (or wallet) they may find a chromebook perfectly suitable. Others wound find these devices too limiting in some way or another. Windows has tended to be a favorite of "power users," tinkerers, gamers, or those who just like to assert their own control of what they own.

From a hardware perspective, the most open platform is a traditional desktop. Apple doesn't offer much here anymore, as even the current model of Mac Pro has become a more appliance-like device from the perspective of modularity and the ability to change components. The more mainstream iMac desktop, like most All-in-one PCs, is no more configurable than a laptop. Linux desktops are technically an alternative to Windows, though compatibility is more limited here. For a user building a DVR system to record footage from security cameras from a PC base (as an example), a traditional desktop tower with capture cards and accompanying Windows software added is the only choice.

For the companies behind the warez, there are other considerations. Apple has had a tendency to break compatibility with older software or Mac hardware in the interests of advancing their technological base. They've abandoned somewhat older Macs while older PCs can be kept up to date (with perhaps more memory added or other hardware modernizations). The company can get away with this in part due to their relatively small installed base, and the fact that the base is predominantly consumer based. For Microsoft, with an enormous existing base of PCs, software from third party vendors, and significant ties to big businesses, backwards compatibility is a much higher priority. This has at times been a thorn in their side: a lot of underlying work done to the guts of the much maligned Vista was actually necessary. Much of Vista's early problems were related to changes made to modernize and secure the base of the OS (which introduced compatibility issues with some hardware and software), which third party developers were slower to adopt to than Microsoft would have liked. However, the unpopular Vista laid the foundations for Windows 7 and beyond. Windows 8.x, unpopular due to it's interface changes, was generally solid and secure at it's base.

Additionally the fact that while Apple ties it's software exclusively to it's own hardware Microsoft supports every possible combination of hardware components available entails some amount of software complexity is required for Microsoft which Apple can largely avoid.

That just illustrates that these vendors don't operate in a vacuum, and can't (and don't) always simply design strictly in accordance with what their coders feel is optimal. However, the new software development model introduced for Windows 8 Store apps was an effort by Microsoft to being Mac-like attributes of simplicity and security through restricted privileges to Windows. The fact such apps are only made available from Microsoft's store doesn't just get the company a slice of the profits but lets them vet apps for compatibility and security. This effort hasn't made much headway since their store remains a third-place contender to the Apple and Google stores (partly because it had such a large base of existing Windows desktop programs to compete with). Alas, at least one prominent developer has publicly pushed back, insisting Microsoft make it's new app model and store more open (like traditional desktop software). He's been accused of missing the whole reason why MS introduced the new model in the first place.
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wonderous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross... but it's not for the timid." Q, Q Who
User avatar
Reliant121
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 12263
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:00 pm

Re: Simplicity vs Power in Computing.

Post by Reliant121 »

I'm not so sure that the overall public are as bothered about open and free vs simple and restricted; more their own experiences with them. We have had two desktop Macs that were both middle to upper range models and were both terrible (due to slow down after a few months, general lack of supported products, various screen faults). I have had a better experience with a Macbook Air which was brilliant but, IMO, unjustifiable for the cost. I tend to prefer windows products just cause I refuse to spend the sort of capital involved with Apple machinery.
Captain Picard's Hair
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 4042
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:58 am
Location: Right here.

Re: Simplicity vs Power in Computing.

Post by Captain Picard's Hair »

Reliant121 wrote:I'm not so sure that the overall public are as bothered about open and free vs simple and restricted; more their own experiences with them. We have had two desktop Macs that were both middle to upper range models and were both terrible (due to slow down after a few months, general lack of supported products, various screen faults). I have had a better experience with a Macbook Air which was brilliant but, IMO, unjustifiable for the cost. I tend to prefer windows products just cause I refuse to spend the sort of capital involved with Apple machinery.
There is an element of truth to that, certainly. For the purposes of this simple poll though it doesn't matter whether the preference is motivated by philosophical or practical concerns. People don't form opinions in a vacuum either; that is, one person might have a circle of mac-using friends who want a device to "just work" while someone in the PC gaming world would be pulled into a Windows environment. When it comes to bad product experiences, they happen largely randomly and afflict all types and brands. God may be said to have perfect quality control when it comes to making atoms but when those get combined into more complex forms all bets are off. I wouldn't entirely write off philosophical motives either, due to the complexities of human development and personality two technologically inexperienced persons newly introduced to the same devices may come away with different impressions of them. If asked they may not conceptualize it as a preference of the form given here but however it's stated, it boils down to a preference for one sort of environment over another.
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wonderous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross... but it's not for the timid." Q, Q Who
Post Reply