I've been an IT professional since the halcyon MS-DOS days of 1986, and I have had plenty of experience with desktop computers of all varieties. I believe some debunking is required in response to this article.

The author wrote:Your Windows computer crashes more often than your Mac computer

This is popular mythology. Windows machines have become extremely stable since the advent of Windows 2000, mac's have zero advantage in this department. Based on my observations, I would say that Windows machines are slightly more stable than their Mac equivalents (at half to one-third the cost!) Neither platform is particularly susceptible to "crashing" per se (BSOD's and Sad Mac are pretty scarce lately. I miss the Mac bomb of yore.) but either one can become unstable and require a reboot to regain performance.

And why is your PC glutted with viruses and spyware? The same openness that makes a platform attractive to legitimate developers makes it a target for illegitimate ones.

First, the author is misusing terminology. A Mac is a PC, as is a Windows machine. The acronym stands for Personal Computer, which a Mac most definitly is. They even both run on the same Intel hardware these days (although you'll pay a hefty premium to run MacOS on the same intel hardware.)

Second, properly configured Windows machines are not susceptible to spyware or viruses. None of the machines that I care for are infected. This is not a difficult goal to achieve.

Thirdly, and most important, the reason that more spyware and viruses exist for the Windows platform is due to the success of the Windows OS and that the vast majority of computers are Windows machines! If Mac OS was to become the de facto standard that Windows is, then spyware and viruses would be written for Mac OS. Windows is the popular target for malware because of its success, not its openness.

Apple is an extremely greedy and small-minded company, obsessed at the highest levels with a pathological need for control. This pervasive control-freak attitude has hobbled the company for decades now, and shows no sign of abating. The Macintosh platform will never realize its full potential for success due to this attitude, and I think that the Android phone will eat the iPhone's lunch in very short order (and probably, again, at 1/3rd the cost.)

Disclaimer: I do not work for Microsoft, or own stock in the company. I am not a Windows fanboi, in fact I prefer the ULTIMATE example of openness - linux.

Having worked IT support and later systems engineering from '94 through '02, I agree with everything you just said. Even NT 4.0 was pretty rock solid, but 2k and esp. XP are almost impossible to "crash" if properly maintained, no matter the load thrown at them. I can't remember the last time one of my own personal machines has "crashed"--it certainly hasn't happened in the past few years, despite constant use (including a XPsp3 workstation/server left up 24/7).

The various Macintosh OSes were typically more stable than DOS/Win 3.x and 95/98/ME, but once MS moved its flagship OS to one built off NT and not DOS, the tide turned. Having extensively used and worked on literally thousands of Macs and "PC"s of all manufacture, including self-built models, it is my impression that XP (and yes, even Vista now) is in fact a more stable platform than Apple's offering--and yes, for about 1/3 the cost, and supporting hundreds or thousands of times as many programs. Depending on the specific machine or component manufacturer, I often find the hardware build quality and durability vastly superior to Apple's as well. As for AV or spyware, again, you're completely correct. I guess installing a $20 AV program (if even that is required, they're often preloaded nowadays) and grabbing a free version of the ubiquitous Spybot is too much to ask of some people. If so, it's a wonder those people can figure out how to put gasoline in their cars after whatever was in the tank when they drove off the lot is used up, because there is no real difference in the complexity of those two respective tasks.

This writer is a notorious Mac fanboy (it was more pronounced when he was on salon.com, but the trait still rears its ugly head from time to time), so I guess some typically lazy, ill-informed stereotyping is to be expected. I did laugh out loud though when he suggested that having to support different hard drive manufacturers was in any way responsible for any stability issues one way or the other, so props for the comic relief.

Machines are machines. Some of us use them as such, others seem to construct our identities or self-esteem around our ownership of them. Mac fans are generally bigger fettishists than any other group of consumers ever constructed, but I guess when you want to derive your sense of self-worth from a thing, having to settle for a chintzy compute--and not, say, a sleek, roaring Porsche 911 Carrera Turbo pussy magnet--means that perhaps some overcompensation is unavoidable.