Home >
A Note About Bias
Bi·as (n.): A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
It's not surprising that the issue of bias comes up regarding this site. But after all the effort we put into eliminating bias from our assessments, we were quite surprised when we saw the high emotional charge that this site sparked among posters to various message boards (including this site's own board), and the sheer volume of posts implying that this site was biased, if not outright accusing us.
Occasionally, newly-written content in a comparison may lack a thorough examination of the topic at hand. Such potential/perceived biases don't remain long, since they are quickly dealt with by our active community on this website's discussion boards. For that reason, it is fair to say that this site is about as impartial a comparison of these two operating systems as can be found anywhere.
Routing out bias
The following are some clues or ground rules to help detect when bias may be present in a discussion:
- Is extremely forgiving of the failings of one, yet extremely harsh with the failings of the other
- Changes the subject to reinforce a position
- Quantity or quality of hardware (processors, peripherals, etc.)
- Cost
- Third-party software
- Makes apologies, justifications, or exceptions for poor operating system experience
- Expects the user to conform to "how the computer does things," rather than expecting the computer to accommodate different user styles
- Confuses "right/wrong" behavior with personal preference
- Blames the user for undesired outcomes
- Omits crucial content that could alter the conclusion
- Exaggerating an issue to strengthen your case
Ex. A user who claims Windows XP is an inferior operating system because it crashes on them, yet makes up excuses whenever their Mac OS X system crashes or blames it on their own error. Or vice versa, of course.
This is not a Mac vs. PC or platform shootout — this is an operating system shootout. That is all. This is not a shootout about:
Etc., etc. Discussing these topics on our message board is fine, but don't use these as reasons for why we should change a section's score or add/remove/modify existing content. As stated in our site scope, these factors are excluded from our comparisons.
Similar to point #1 — treat all operating systems equally!
Ex. "Of course Mac OS X doesn't tell you when a new device is successfully set up — it's just supposed to work!"
Ex. "Why would you click "Cancel" after clicking "Apply"? It's obvious you've already applied the settings."
This can also look like saying one "prefers" reduced functionality:
Ex. "Who cares that iTunes doesn't support WMA? Nobody uses it anyways."
Leave personal preferences aside and recognize poor support or implementation when you see it.
Remember, the operating system works for you, not the other way around. You shouldn't have to put up with shortcomings just because they are there.
Ex. "What are you doing trying to put slashes in a file name? You can't do that! Use underscores instead."
Ex. "Why are you putting in the blank CD first? Wait until the computer asks you for it."
Ex. "You can't connect the new device until you've installed these device drivers."
It's okay to prefer drag and drop to cut and paste. It's okay to prefer using the trackpad as a mouse button. It's okay to prefer navigating the filesystem via the keyboard. Etc., etc. These are issues of personal preference, not issues of which method is universally "better."
The word "idiot" has no place in usability conversations. Not everybody is a computer expert. And you shouldn't have to be to use either Mac OS X or Windows XP. You should be able to easily interact with computers as you would expect to do with people (please, no cracks about people being difficult to interact with). No operating system is close to this point yet, but when a user clicks a button and the wrong thing happens, 9 times out of 10 there is a user interface design solution that could have prevented the undesired outcome.
In order to improve all operating systems, we need to place the blame of usability problems on the user interface, not the user. True, it's very difficult to design a user interface that simultaneously accommodates the needs of novices while still tailoring to the needs of power users. However, just because it's difficult to do doesn't mean that it's impossible, or that we should make excuses for a user interface that doesn't live up to the task.
True, there are plenty of aspects of these two operating systems we haven't yet covered on this website. However, these omissions are strictly due to the fact that there aren't enough hours in the day to be 100% thorough. We've tried to include all of the most crucial elements of an operating system experience, and we'll continue to add topics as time goes on.
Here are some comments (word for word) that have been posted on this website's discussion boards:
"I'm paying 300% more for this Apple brand product than I would if I were to buy a comparative product from another manufacturer!"
When pressed for facts, the author of this statement backed it up by finding some third-party RAM that costs roughly 1/3 of Apple-branded RAM, thereby making his statement technically true. Of course, Macs can use third-party RAM, so Mac users aren't forced to pay for extremely overpriced parts as the statement implies.
"There are about 1000 times more software for PCs."
At the time this particular post was made, Apple claimed that there were about 6,000 applications written for Mac OS X (as of April 2006, that number has doubled). 6,000 * 1,000 = 6,000,000, so that means there are 6 million applications for PCs! Incredible! It's also about as outrageous of an exaggeration as can be made.
Furthermore, this claim is unprovable since there is no real data on how many applications there are for PCs in general. However, since this website is about Windows XP specifically and not PCs as a whole, the statement becomes even more questionable. Microsoft, for instance, has not disclosed the total number of applications in the Windows Catalog with "Designed for Windows XP" status.
Remember, these aren't guarantees of bias, but rather suggestions of what to look for when you suspect bias is present. In such a complex debate — and especially in one where people have strong emotional investments in their decisions — it's easy to miscommunicate your intended message. That's when you inquire, get clarification, and move on.
What's with the scores?
At the bottom of every comparison, you will notice a score that rates how well each operating system supports the discussed features and tasks. Scores are derived directly from our investigation of said features/tasks and are completely unaffected by our personal preferences.
Both Mac OS X and Windows XP are far from "perfect." Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Our scoring system is an attempt to quantify these strengths and weaknesses. Treat the scores as a starting point for discussion, not as unquestionable "proof" of one operating system's superiority over the other.
Visit our Final Score page to see a summary of each comparison's score, as well as the final score tallies for each operating system.
Remember: there is no one, true operating system that's "perfect" for everyone. Choose the operating system that works best for you, not what others say is the best for them. We provide the facts, but it is you, the reader, who ultimately draws the conclusions.
Back Introduction | Next Site Scope