Nearly all personal computers today have a version of Microsoft’s Windows or an iteration of Apple’s Mac OS installed. Even those who know next to nothing about computers are aware Microsoft dominates when it comes to the usage share of non-server operating systems.

As of September 2010, only 6.42 percent of all web client computers are running Mac OS X, while Windows commands a staggering 86.56 percent. The remaining percentage points go to versions of Windows older than XP, Linux, older versions of the Mac OS and the iOS — used on the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad.

There are plenty of anecdotes that describe awful experiences with Windows, and there are horror stories about how terrible it feels to use a Mac. Yet when one discards the “Apple gadgets are hip” mentality — handily enforced by a carefully constructed and pervasive marketing scheme — and approach the two platforms rationally, the distinctions are clear.

Macintosh users often propagate a wide assortment of myths that assert their platform is handily dominant compared to machines running Windows. One such short-sighted assertion is: “Macs are more efficient and reliable than Windows. Windows crashes so often that it can severely affect productively.”

Macs are not intrinsically more efficient or reliable; they do, in fact, crash. Yes, Microsoft’s now 20-year-old kernels were prone to folding in on themselves, but that was largely due to how many different hardware configurations Microsoft had to support. Fortunately, Microsoft has learned from its missteps — Windows Vista notwithstanding. Today, when someone encounters an infamous “blue screen of death,” it is usually his or her own fault. The only instances in which I, and many other computer experts, have ever been greeted with the blue screen of death while running Windows 2000, Windows XP or Windows 7 was while performing beta software tests or other activities not intended to be performed by average users.

Apple never had to suffer through the “adapt to a multitude of hardware configurations” phase because the company maintained, and continues to maintain, a policy wherein anything not branded by Apple cannot run the Mac OS; at least, not without some hacking. Consumers are left with an abysmally limited range of hardware; there are a handful of overpriced laptops, a handful of overpriced desktops and the iPad if you would like something akin to a netbook. That’s about it.

From a hardware perspective, Macs do not boast superior graphical ability. Non-Apple machines have always had more clout in that department, and short of a complete policy change from Apple, it will stay that way. Gamers and on-the-ball graphic designers should be well aware that bleeding-edge hardware comes to Apple’s builds long after they show up in other computer manufacturers’ builds; to say nothing of the availability offered by online computer hardware retailers, like NewEgg. Many high-end graphic cards from nVIDIA and ATI are not available in Apple’s builds, nor are the latest improvements in processor technology without a preposterous markup. Always behind a hardware generation, Apple is left to perpetually play catch-up.

Benchmarks demonstrate that the Mac OS delivers a horrendous 3-D performance, largely in part because Apple’s draconian restrictions prevent graphic specifications — specifically OpenGL — from being updated. Some advances have been made in this area, notably Valve’s decision to port its games to the Mac platform, but the almost comical cost of a gaming-capable Mac combined with OpenGL’s age and inefficiency make viable Mac gaming the subject of ridicule.

It is often claimed that Macs are immune to viruses, spyware, adware and other bad software. With Windows making up such a huge percentage of the market, statistically, of course, it will look like Macs are doing better. More virus coders write for Windows because of its sheer popularity; if per-capita calculations were available, we would see that Windows is not really much more virus-prone. In terms of vulnerabilities, computer security services report that the Mac OS is hardly better than Windows.

Nearly all software applications and video games are programmed on Windows or Linux, not Macs. Linux annihilates the server market share, and Windows commands the desktop and laptop domain. These tendencies are facts for good reasons. I would like to note that I do not like Microsoft or Apple as companies. They are large corporations whose only goal is to turn a profit, and writing about them only serves to again bring my attention to the specter of capitalism. However, when comparing the products they release on the merits of hardware availability, cost-effectiveness and graphical ability, Apple loses hands down.