Today's article comes courtesy of Gizmodo, a gadgets and tech blog. Now, I will paraphrase the article (really a stub) so that I don't unintentionally take away any traffic from their blog. In commenting on a user survey of Windows 7 they noted that 80% of Mac users stated they would recommend Windows 7 for their friends and family. Afterwards, the poster analogizes:
Of course, just 'cause I tell my mom this minivan would perfect for her doesn't mean I'd actually drive one.
Regardless of how one feels about Windows v. Mac (I personally like both and would like to dual-boot it on my netbook some day), this is a perfect example of how an otherwise appropriate analogy does not "work" in this context. Remember that one of the core talking points of MacOS X is its user-friendly and hassle-free experience, epitomized in their Mac and PC Guy ads. By contrast, the common understanding of the Windows experience is that it subjects users to a litany of problems, from viruses to BSODs.
Comparing the 80% recommendation to telling your mom that a minivan would be "perfect for her" therefore fails because it strangely implies that Windows 7 is better geared toward non-computer-saavy users than Macs. A minivan screams "usefulness," especially for a mom who may have to shuttle kids around, carry large amount of groceries, or just want the safety of a larger-mass vehicle.
What would this poster "actually drive," and how is it different from a minivan? Are we comparing this to a sports car or a motorcycle? If so, the analogy still only partially works. Even if we give the benefit of the doubt that MacOS X provides a smoother, flashier experience, it still ignores the core problem in distinguishing Windows 7 as the useful, everyman's OS from Mac OS X as meant for power users or the statistical outliers of computer users. What a strange world we live in now if this is true.
No comments:
Post a Comment