[JasonParis]

I'm generally pretty anti-Microsoft. But I was in a rush to get a desktop recently, and the Dell I got came with Vistas. It thought I'd hate it ... but honestly, after using it for a couple of months - I have no idea what people are complaining about. I can pretty much customize it to what I want, there are some significant improvements, and it doesn't seem any more annoying than any other version of NT. Sure you need 2 GB of RAM to run ... but if you've got the 2 GB, I don't see any performance issues.

Agreed, I have Vista at home and at work and they both work perfectly.

Admittedly, there's not a huge difference to WindowsXP, but it's marginally better.

 

[Steve_D]

What does this actually mean? Just because you don't see them everywhere does not mean the technology is not "capable."

You're right, I should have said, "not as poplular", or, "does not lend itself to the development of unique or small market applications".

 

[gei]

Vista is by far the best OS I've ever used.... including vs all flavours of linux, mac os, windows, etc.

In the last 7 months I've had exactly 0 crashes. Granted driver support was a bit lackluster at first, but that's hardly Microsoft's fault... it's up to the manufacturer's to develop new drivers.

There is a bit more of a learning curve when upgrading from XP to vista vs previous windows upgrades, but once you get use to the new features, you will find them quite useful.

Also, if you have an older pc, don't bother. Vista definitely needs a more modern machine to run, that's where half of these people go wrong - upgrading older machines with outdated hardware that lacks driver support, and would be painfully slow even if it DID work with vista.

All in all, I'm quite happy. Of course, I didn't pay anything for it so I wouldn't really complain either way. Thank goodness for torrents.

 

[MetroMan]

You're right, I should have said, "not as poplular", or, "does not lend itself to the development of unique or small market applications".

Hmm... I don't want to offend you, but I get the feeling that you don't know much about OS X do you?

OS X is very easy to develop for which is why there are hundreds of thousands of niche applications built for the Mac. Spend a month working exclusively on a Mac and you'll begin to discover these.

My biggest unfounded fear when I switched to Mac would be that I wouldn't find the apps I used on Windows when I moved. Not only did I find those apps, I also found better ones. I couldn't go back to the all technical complexity of the Windows culture after discovering straight to the point simple apps that I found on the OS X platform.

I often attend MacWorld in San Francisco and the type of developers you see there tell the tale. You won't find it difficult to run into a pimple faced teenager who you think is a booth worker but ends up being the developer of a niche application that made it big.

Have a peak here: http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/

Version Tracker has 30 to 60 Mac apps added every day.

Apple's own picks: http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/

 

[afransen]

A lot of proprietary applications are not and probably never will be compiled for Mac OS.

 

[syn]

Depending on what you use your computer for, you may or may not find that the Mac has all the applications you need. Overall though Steve_D is correct - the PC lends itself much more to the development of unique applications. No matter how one wants to look at it, there is far, far more software available for the PC.

 

[gei]

Depending on what you use your computer for, you may or may not find that the Mac has all the applications you need. Overall though Steve_D is correct - the PC lends itself much more to the development of unique applications. No matter how one wants to look at it, there is far, far more software available for the PC.

yup. And lets not even begin discussing games...

 

[Edward Skira]

No matter how one wants to look at it, there is far, far more software available for the PC.

Not sure how you can say that considering Mac's can run all Windows applications as well as everything Mac. Can your PC run Mac applications?

 

[299 bloor call control.]

Macs are obviously marketed to people who get confused if there's more than one cable...a power cord and a network cable would probably send them over the edge.
Too bad Macs aren't very capable. Where are the PCI slots on that thing? How do I get 3 HD tuners into it? Can I install a 32 port Rocketport card?
Why aren't macs used in major production environements? like newsroom systems, or automation systems?

Uhh I know a lot of people in production environments and the vast majority of them use Macs. In particular, the Mac Pro, which is a very superior graphics and video workhorse.

http://www.apple.com/ca/macpro/

And with the Intel processors these days, Ed007 is right: you can easily run Windows in a dual-boot or virtual machine and have equal performance if you had a PC.

I've had my Mac now since 2006. I run Windows for one thing and that's AutoCAD. Everything else has transitioned smoothly, if not improved, since I switched over.

 

[Dilla]

That it is almost necessary that Macs run Windows is not necessarily a great argument for the ascendancy of Macs. It seems more an argument for PCs.

 

[syn]

Not sure how you can say that considering Mac's can run all Windows applications as well as everything Mac. Can your PC run Mac applications?

It could if I wanted to go through the effort. There are a few Mac Emulators available. There's very, very little demand for the use of Mac programs among PC users. If there was I'm sure there would be a popular retail product that would allow it.

Being able to run Windows was one of the things necessary for Apple to have any chance of surviving & growing. Apple has gone through the trouble of making it possible; it's not as if though software makers have gone out of their way to make OS X compatible versions.

Let's face it, if you want to really make money your best bet is to develop for the PC.

 

[Steve_D]

Hmm... I don't want to offend you, but I get the feeling that you don't know much about OS X do you?

Hmmm..no offence taken, I'm quite familiar with linux based operating systems...are you?
Don't want to make you look foolish, but operating systems don't really have anything to do with the comment I made about hardware.

Spend a month working exclusively on a Mac and you'll begin to discover these.

It can take a month to find what you need? No thanks.

I couldn't go back to the all technical complexity of the Windows culture after discovering straight to the point simple apps that I found on the OS X platform.

Thanks for making my point for me

 

[Steve_D]

Uhh I know a lot of people in production environments and the vast majority of them use Macs. In particular, the Mac Pro, which is a very superior graphics and video workhorse.

Uhh, production environment doesnt necessarily mean video or graphics production....which mac excelled at...about 10 years ago....funny how Avid doesn't market a mac product anymore.
Where's AutoCAD for OSX?
Why can't I run any software or firmware development software on a mac?

I run Windows for one thing and that's AutoCAD.

LOL.....wonder why.

 

[Brandon716]

The key selling point for Apple's MacOS these days is usability, reluctance to virus infections, and cohesive interaction with Apple customized hardware. Even with Vista's far superior driver security interface PC hardware can still be far less fun to connect and use under certain circumstances, the only thing about Apple is that much of the hardware add ons are smaller and there's far less availability. So you really get two choices: more ease of use or more selection. That's what it narrows down to.

Speed really isn't an issue today, ten years ago Apple's selling point was as much about the increased speed of a RISC based PowerPC vs Intel's "aging" x86 architecture as much as it was an issue of usability.

Today Macs run on the exact same Intel chips all Windows based PC's use.

There is a price to pay for the premium of using MacOS: Apple's computer products are considerably more expensive for similar hardware under a Vista environment.

Really its all about what the end user prefers: a more customized operating system that has less possibility of viruses and worms and trojans infecting the unit, or a more open system that is lower in cost with much more software availability.

I used to own Macs in school growing up, but have exclusively owned Windows based PC's since 2001 when I was 19, out of high school, and didn't have a need for a Mac. I think both platforms have practical uses, but hardly think either are far superior to one another.

Personally I've never understood the PC vs Mac wars over the years.

 

[MetroMan]

Hmmm..no offence taken, I'm quite familiar with linux based operating systems...are you?

I am, but why are you bringing Linux into this? It's irrelevant to this argument. You're evading the key point here: You are not familiar with OS X and you're demonstrating it by stating that Macs are difficult to develop for, that there are few applications for Mac, etc.

I think I reinforce my argument by saying that I'm familiar in detail with both systems. I worked 2 decades on the DOS/Windows platform and have been using a Mac for nearly 10 years.

How can one claim to make a sensible argument without knowing about the object of the argument?

Metroman said: I couldn't go back to the all technical complexity of the Windows culture after discovering straight to the point simple apps that I found on the OS X platform.
Steve_D said: Thanks for making my point for me

I don't know what your point is then. Technical complexity of the Windows culture is actually a negative and will probably prove its downfall in the consumer market in the coming years (we're already seeing it).

I see where we differ in opinions here and that's fine. You're probably a power use who likes to tinker with the OS. Apple has a lineup of computers for the consumer level user who prefers to see a computer as an appliance unlike a TV or a radio. You turn it on, you get your stuff done and you don't have to worry about constantly managing it to get it to simply work.

What I like about OS X is that you get a machine that's very easy to use , works cohesively with the hardware (because Apple provides the entire user experience, not just the OS) and provides you with a productive environment where you don't have to worry about the technical aspects of the computer.... however, should you want to delve in further, the UNIX based terminal is at your disposal.

Metroman said:
Spend a month working exclusively on a Mac and you'll begin to discover these.
Steve_D said:
It can take a month to find what you need? No thanks.

Perhaps I should have been clearer on my point: Spending a few hours on the Mac won't qualify a person to begin seeing all the potential out there. Within a month, you'll be immersed in the culture and discovering all the little niche apps out there.
Of course, it will take you just a few seconds to Google an OS X application that you're looking for.

The bottom line (and trying to get back on track with the topic of this thread) is that Microsoft once again failed to provide an ease of use OS that could allow it to maintain its lead in the computer market. Comments from Microsoft's own demonstrate that quite clearly.

We're beginning to see traditional Windows PC manufacturers (ASUS) bringing computers to market without Windows such as the EEE PC. Linux is beginning to peak through into the mainstream. Mac's are as popular as ever.... and when you have Windows enthusiasts looking for salvation in the form of Windows 7, I think that we can see that Windows Vista missed the mark and I'm not quite sure Microsoft will able to catch up by maintaining the Steve Balmer culture.

Microsoft has been able to do something very well: X BOX. Get whoever's responsible for the success of MS's gaming division and put them in charge of the OS.