I have used Windows since v3.1 to Windows XP Professional for over 12 years doing everything from graphics to programming. I have used Mac during the 9.x days a little here and there for various multimedia stuff. That was it though.

The day I bought my PowerBook G4 17-inch with Mac OS X Panther I completely fell in love. I barely ever touch my Windows box anymore. Of course there will be days I need to boot up my Windows box for certain things.

Anyways, my point is I think the Mac OS X is much nicer compared to Windows XP Professional speaking in general. Just my personal opinion. But hey, I guess it just fits my personal needs better as everyone has their own preferences.

True. It all depends what you do & what you are use to. Tiger has some nice features but now enough for me to switch. Enough for me to think though.

DASHBOARD TIP - Your wish has been fulfilled!
Take a look at the freeware Amnesty. It gives you almost total control over widgets (location--desktop, floating, layered, opacity), and let's you keep the ones you really like always visible instead of calling up the dashboard layer. For example, I keep my most used favorites on the desktop. Check it out... http://www.mesadynamics.com/amnesty.htm

Thought I would get off the usual Mac v. PC battle you've got going.

Ok, let's just get some of these things out of the way:

Jeff Mincey says,"...there are no x86 Macs yet. No Mac applications have yet been optimized for the P4 chip, and all indications are that Apple will not use that chip anyway." Wrong dude. If you go to apple.com and look at the WWDC (World Wide Developers Conference) 2005 you will hear from Steve Jobs that Apple's Mac OS X has been running on x86 processors since 10.0! For the past five version (10.0,1,2,3 and 4) OS X has been compiled to run on x86 processors.

"How do they run Mac software on x86 binary?" you ask. A hidden program called Rosetta which runs in the back ground of the OS. Rosetta takes the mac binary source code and coverts it to run on the x86 version of OS X. You will also hear Steve Jobs say that their latest version of xCode (2.1) will allow developers to compile "universal binarys" for both PowerPC and x86 processors.

In the video the demos in the seminar were shown on an x86 PowerMac. He ran all the dashboard widgets, iTunes, Mac Word and Excel and even Adobe Photoshop. All the binaries for those programs were written for the PowerPC and were interpretted with Rosetta to work on x86. It worked and it worked GOOD.

Jeff, you talk so much about viruses on Mac vs windows. All machines are susceptible DoS attacks and what not, and programs, like firefox, have holes in them where it exploits a weakness in the software which can do harm to the system. Besides that, there really isn't a whole lot of "viruses" that infect OS X compared to Windows.

Also, you see a lot of windows PCs selling for dirt cheap compared to Mac. True, but Windows PCs and the OS doesn't have what Macs and OS X have; Style and ease of use. If you want to get the facts so you won't be so arrogant (and ignorant) watch the WWDC video.

WWDC 2005
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/

Prior to your post above, I had already pointed out that Apple had been running OS X on Intel in its labs but that no such platform had yet been released to the public. (Perform a search on "labs" and you will see this.) As a result, (and contrary to the claims of an individual below), no one is in a position to know how fast it will be. Moreover, all indications are that when Apple does release Mac on Intel, it won't be using the P4 chip -- though we will have to wait and see on this to be sure.

You go on to impute a question to me which I have never asked in any post. I have not said, "How do they run Mac software on x86 binary?" I know all about Rosetta and universal binaries; you don't have to educate me on this nor invent my position for me in order to make it easier for you to respond.

Finally, you instruct me that all machines are vulnerable to DoS attacks and on this you are quite right. In a post below I have already said the very same thing myself. Do a search for "DoS" and you will find it. As for vulnerabilities in programs like Firefox, that is a free-standing, independently running application and I was confining my comments only to OS X itself.

If I come off as arrogant to you merely for expressing my own views and for correcting what I consider to be errors of fact, I apologize. I have no wish to come across that way.

Wow, thank you for your reply AND apology. I sure didn't see that one coming but I accept. I was reading your comments through out the page and for some reason I couldn't finish reading them all because it seemed more like you were on a rant. Some of the questions you were asking made it seem like you didn't know much about apple's products, so that's why I was telling you the information about Rosetta and so on.

Just check out the link if you haven and maybe you'll get a better understanding of what's going on. Oh yeah, I know you didn't ask that question about mac software. I threw that one in there myself :-).

I'm so tired of the claims that the Mac does not have viruses and never crashes. That is baloney. I have seen both on Macs that my friends own. They don't have a lot, but that is because there are vastly more PCs out there. And the new X86 Macs are slower than the old Macs. If they were affordable maybe more people would buy them and they could have more software written for them.

Excuse me, but there are no x86 Macs yet. No Mac applications have yet been optimized for the P4 chip, and all indications are that Apple will not use that chip anyway. It's long been considered a blight even in the Wintel community. Only in Apple's labs has OS X run on an Intel chip and no benchmarks have been taken of this.

As for viruses, the fact is that OS X has not yet been hit by any virus. Neither Symantec nor McaFee registers a single OS X native virus. Of course, the Mac is vulnerable to generic network-oriented attacks of routers and the like, (insofar as it impinges on network traffic or results in DoS attacks); but no native virus has yet to infect OS X.

Security through obscurity is a myth. It's simply preposterous to suggest (whether by implication or otherwise) that all platforms are equally secure and it's only a question of those which are more or less prevalent in the market. If anything, a case could be made that with all the talk of the supposed security of OS X, it would be that much MORE of a target. After all, if it's about bragging rights, who wants to be the writer of the 90,037th virus to hit Wintel when you can claim to be the FIRST to hit OS X?

Even allowing for the market share variation, the Mac platform should have at least 3 percent of all viruses -- and it does not. It has none, (except perhaps for Word macro viruses which only carry over from Wintel).

Having said that, OS X is architected by fallible humans and so it's only a matter of time before a native virus does hit the platform.

agreed

"And the new X86 Macs are slower than the old Macs"

A little pre-mature ejacu-something there. Where do you get your information from? The Future?

Ignorance must be very blissful indeed!

No viruses have been found for OS X yet? HRMMMM

What is this?

http://securityresponse....nc/data/mp3concept.html
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,63000,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

What is that, you ask? It's exactly what it says it is -- a proof of concept rather than an actual virus. In other words, it's a theoretical or potential vulnerability which at the time had yet to be exploited. And in fact that "hole" was closed a long time ago.

Look, no one is saying that Apple never issues security updates for OS X. Apple is very good about keeping on top of any possible point of exposure and plugging the holes. But this is not the question. The question is not whether OS X has ever in its lifespan had potential security holes. Rather the question is whether any of those holes were successfully exploited by a third party programmer of viruses. And the answer to this last question is a resounding NO.

Now will it always be this way? I'm sure it won't. Sooner or later OS X will have some viruses. No operating system is totally bug-free or secure. But I contend not that OS X is perfect or impenetrable but rather only that it is on balance a more secure OS than Windows.

"As for viruses, the fact is that OS X has not yet been hit by any virus. Neither Symantec nor McaFee registers a single OS X native virus. Of course, the Mac is vulnerable to generic network-oriented attacks of routers and the like, (insofar as it impinges on network traffic or results in DoS attacks); but no native virus has yet to infect OS X." Says Jeff.

Wired said, "On Thursday, Intego issued a press release saying it had found OS X's first Trojan Horse, a piece of malware called MP3Concept or MP3Virus.Gen that appears to be an MP3 file. If double-clicked and launched in the Finder, the Trojan accesses certain system files, the company claimed." and Symantec said, "MP3Concept is a proof-of-concept Trojan horse that is targeted at the Mac OS X platform. As this is written, this threat has not been reported "in the wild."

The proof-of-concept program does not contain any malicious payload, such as viral code, ability to email itself, or perform destructive functions like deleting files. This program only contains code to display a message and play a .mp3 file of a man laughing."

Now I say, "It very much so was a virus. It may not have hurt anything but it was indeed a virus."

It's ok to be wrong once in a while. You just have to take it with stride and learn from it, that is what makes you a man. (or a woman)

Gawd21 says, "Now I say, 'It very much so was a virus. It may not have hurt anything but it was indeed a virus.'"

I make my share of mistakes and I'm quite happy to acknowledge this, but what you cite above is simply not a virus. Someone just identified a potential security hole in OS X -- and I have never suggested that OS X was airtight. Quite the contrary, I say that all operating systems are imperfect and flawed, and it's only a question of degree.

So where does that leave us. Well, the question of holes is one thing; the question of whether these holes have been successfully exploited is quite another thing -- and it's the latter measure which defines a virus, and OS X has to date had none.

This prototype or proof of concept was not self-replicating and was not in the wild. These are essential measures of a virus and thus again what you cite fails the test.

So then why is it listed as a virus?

http://www.macinblog.com/2004/04/mp3virusgen.html

Come now they even use the word VIRUS in it's name. MP3Concept (MP3Virus.Gen)
I am not going to post every link here, just do a Yahoo search for it and you will find it called a virus on every site. Your opinion vs. the fact are two different things. I am not trying to be mean but the fact is it was a virus. Point of view: From what you are saying is that every virus and ad/spy ware on Windows is due to an exploit and that they aren't viruses.

Well, since I already acknowledge that OS X has had vulnerabilities in the past -- albeit ones which were never exploited -- I see no point in belaboring this. However, let me just say that the example you cite above is at most a Trojan Horse and not a virus. Here's the definition of virus from Symantec itself:

"A parasitic program written intentionally to enter a computer without the user's permission or knowledge. The word parasite is used because a virus attaches to files or boot sectors and replicates itself, thus continuing to spread. Though some viruses do little but replicate, others can cause serious damage or effect program and system performance. A virus should never be assumed harmless and left on a system." -Symantec

Viruses by definition self-replicate. Trojans do not. As corroboration, I offer this url from the University of Texas:

http://www.actlab.utexas...mpsec/virus/whatis.html

And here is more from the glossary of the Symantec web site itself:

A virus is a program or code that replicates itself onto other files with which it comes in contact; that is, a virus can infect another program, boot sector, partition sector, or a document that supports macros, by inserting itself or attaching itself to that medium. Most viruses only replicate, though many can do damage to a computer system or a user's data as well.

A worm is a program that makes and facilitates the distribution of copies of itself; for example, from one disk drive to another, or by copying itself using email or another transport mechanism. The worm may do damage and compromise the security of the computer. It may arrive via exploitation of a system vulnerability or by clicking on an infected e-mail.

A Trojan Horse portrays itself as something other than what it is at the point of execution. While it may advertise its activity after launching, this information is not apparent to the user beforehand. A Trojan Horse neither replicates nor copies itself, but causes damage or compromises the security of the computer. A Trojan Horse must be sent by someone or carried by another program and may arrive in the form of a joke program or software of some sort. The malicious functionality of a Trojan Horse may be anything undesirable for a computer user, including data destruction or compromising a system by providing a means for another computer to gain access, thus bypassing normal access controls.

http://securityresponse.....com/avcenter/refa.html

Sorry to get nitpicking with you on this...

computer virus
n.
A computer program that is designed to replicate itself by copying itself into the other programs stored in a computer. It may be benign or have a negative effect, such as causing a program to operate incorrectly or corrupting a computer's memory."

http://www.tfd.com/computer%20virus

I am done after this. We will be able to post links after links trying to prove our side, I fear neither will prevail, so I accede.

I'm going to surprise you here -- I agree with the definition you posted. In other words, viruses replicate themselves. In the case of the MP3 proof of concept example you provide, there is no self-replication. Instead the user must manually download the file to his computer in order to run the risk of executing unauthorized code, and even then, once the file is on the computer, it cannot later replicate itself to any other computer. As a result, it does not qualify as a virus because it cannot spread on its own.

Anyway, I'll say one last time -- OS X is not perfect; it does have vulnerabilities. No doubt about it. The question is only whether it is no more secure than Windows or Linux or other operating systems or whether in fact its architecture is such that it is less vulnerable to third-party exploits. And I think you know where I side on this question.

Actually, the most secure OS in the world is probably VMS.

Wow, that was a long argument between you two. I have to agree with Jeff Mincey in this one though, due to the incredible amount of times gawd21's definition applies to Microsoft/Windows. The Mp3 "virus" must be downloaded to the computer and manually run, and the security hole has since been fixed. Its intent is to do something other than the purpose(play music), but it does not/can not spread to other computers.

A simple batch file in windows though could be incredibly more damaging without a script-checking program. Just imagine a simple batch file designed to "help run" a confusing command-line zip program for someone.

It runs it, but it also deletes every file on your computer, and can propagate to any number of computers across a network. The security hole is still wide open in most Windows OS's(most people login as admins...)

So by your definition....Text documents are viruses under windows. :/

While I know it is actually possible to crash windows and delete files using a simple text file, I just can't see how this "exploit" can be considered a "virus", since it was never released, doesn't spread, doesn't do anything malicious, and the security hole has been filled.

Also, there are no real current Mac malware because it is so hard for one to proliferate. If there was a cross-platform virus, Macs would definitely be hit as well. Imagine spamming millions of e-mail addresses with a Mac-only worm. A huge waste of resources, with little return (unless of course it's using Windows machines first). If your OS can run anything, it can be affected by viruses (aka purposedly malicious code).

How about this as a definition: It has been posted at www.sarc.com.

What were you trying to say? What is posted there? I see nothing more than a few names and they are listed as viruses and then some found exploits.

Spell it out flatly : too much warez on a PC that doesn't exist in MAC. So, why bother do the switch.

shhhhhh

Folks, not only does the Mac not have any viruses or spyware or crashes or freezes, but more importantly is the INTEGRATION of all of Apple's applications. This is something that Microsoft can only DREAM of doing, and has NEVER successfully accomplished in the history of their company. Apple's Pages & Keynote programs seamlessly talk to iPhoto, iMovie, & iTunes (and produce documents that could never be produced on Windows). Meanwhile, iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes & iDVD all talk to one another beautifully, and Apple's Mail talks to iPhoto & iChat... and vice versa. It's truly unbelivably amazing what Apple has done... and you will never get to appreciate it unless you're a Mac user. It is a true nirvana experience, from start-to-finish. Windows users will never understand what Mac users are privileged to experience, unless they were to switch to the Mac themselves. Plug things in and they just work without drivers. Create amazing multimedia documents with ease. Never experience any error messages nor crashes/freezes. Publish complete websites with ONE MOUSE CLICK using your .mac account. Shall I go on? It's unbelievably amazing to be a Mac user.

The only reason Microsoft fails at integration is because every time they try and succeed people criticizing them for being a monopoly and "forcing" things on us.

Here's a suggestion .....how about making Mac's affordable? If I had my choice between a $299.00 Dell with Windows vs. a $299.00 Mac I would take the Mac in a heartbeat!

You will never see a Mac as cheap as the cheapest Wintel box for several reasons. First, Apple is not an assembler which just takes pre-fab parts off the shelf. Second, Apple has developed its own operating system -- and this costs 100s of millions (in US dollars) to do from the ground up. Companies like Dell and HP pay royalties to Microsoft for Windows but it's nowhere near the same as to develop an OS on one's own. Third, whenever people compare the Mac pricing to Wintel, they always pick the very cheapest Wintel box -- as if there are no expensive Wintel models to be found. The Mac doesn't compete with the bargain basement lowest level Wintel -- no more so than Sony does.

Fourth, many Macs ARE price competitive -- especially in the laptop and server line. I would like to see the Mac prices come down a bit in the high-end consumer desktop area as well as in the professional desktop level, but in evaluating the price, people need to be mindful that some components or features which are "extras" in a Wintel configuration are included with the Mac. Data show also that the serviceable lifespan of the typical Mac platform is at least one year longer than that of the typical Wintel counterpart.

Finally, price is overblown as a factor in purchases. If price were the overriding concern, then the $299 Lindows (now Linspire) computers would have been flying off the shelves at Walmart in the last two years. And yet they have done no such thing. People use many criteria in evaluating computers -- price is but one. Other considerations are stability, security, ease of use, quality, support, etc. Expecting a company which exerts design control over both hardware and software to equal the price of an assembler is unreasonable.

Wait for Intel based macs!

You could sell a $99.00 Linspire box and people still wouldn't buy it. The average joe hears the word Linux and freaks. Now myself I would have one in every room. The Apple name is on different playing field then Linux. I still say Apple should make one low range priced model to get a "foot hold." I'm always in a market for a Mac but my wallet isn't. I got champagne taste on beer money. But you have brought out some good points.

I understand what you are saying but there's a point at which ultra cheap computers actually become very expensive -- because of the use of inferior parts, the poor support, the breakdown rate, etc. There IS a limit. If you have a spare keyboard, mouse, and monitor around, then I suggest you give the Mac Mini a try -- at $499. It's the lowest-end Mac available and as such it is the slowest. And yet it still has performance acceptable for many consumer uses. Just don't try to run a resource-intensive game on it and expect it to perform well.

At least this way you can have some experience with OS X and with UNIX in general and if you find it's not your cup of tea, you haven't spent a fortune on something which wasn't for you. On the other hand, if you find you like it very much after all, (as you gain experience with it), then you can always wait a couple years, save your money, and get one of the new Intel-based Macs which can dual-boot OS X and Windows (as well as Linux). Then you should be in computer heaven at least a third of the time you use that machine.

Intel means it will be just as lame as Windows then and not worth having.

"The average joe hears the word Linux and freaks."

I remember the days when the word linux made me cringe in fear of the thought of anything outside my little point and click Windows world. Some where along the way my curiosity got the better of me although I wouldn't have a Linspire Box if they paid me to take it. Dunno what it is but after working with distros like Suse, mandrake and mepis I wouldn't take Linspire on a bet.
But anyway back to what I was saying i let my curiosity get the better of me and now i'm running 2 soon to be 3 linux machines. Now I don't know as much about it as some mind you but i'm learning. I guess that's one reason I decided to take the leap into Linux. If I don't meet a new challenge every once in a while I get bored (if that makes any sense) and Windows was boring me. I see linux as another challenge for me to knock down.

Finally someone else that makes some sense in this mishmash of opinionated garb. I may just do as you say and get a Mac Mini. Then if I like it, when the intel Macs start coming out I'll invest in a better machine. On the other hand If I hate it I haven't lost anything because there are always PPC Linux Distros out there.

Care to attempt to back that up at all? Oh, wait, that's tight...you can't. Sorry.

Just take a look at the preformance stats for Intel and then look at the PPC. I don't need to say anymore.

Mac's - They just work. Truth!

Most of the time, My schools macs crashed more then my Windows XP SP2 laptop. Boy the teacher did not like that :)

School computers, no matter what OS they run,crash constantly. They are not usually updated well, have inexperienced admins, and students doing strange things to them all the time. The IT dept at my university crash their website, network and classroon systems constantly, and they use windows, mac, and novell.

They work because Apple doesn't let anything run on it besides Apple products, Adobe products, and Microsoft Office/IE... oh yeah, and QuarkXpress... and expensive hardware sold by guess who-- Apple.

And it's a damn good thing they do work 98% of the time, because the 2% of the time they crash--- you're **** out of luck trying to troubleshoot it or recover things that were lost.

That's just nonsense, and clearly a coment made out of ignorance and/or bias. There are thousands of third party apps out there from a host of vendors--including many alternatives to the names you mention--and a growing number of Unix ports. As for hardware, I buy generic RAM and hard drives. System crashes on a Mac are generally less frequent than on Wintel equipment, and are no more catastrophic than any other Unix type system, which is to say not. My own PowerBook, on which I typically keep 12-14 apps running all the time has been up for over 11 days. There have been several application crashes, but those were uneventful, and all files were recovered on the applications' next runs. In fact, Tiger now has some very impressive troubleshooting and recovery tools built in that are activated when apps or the OS crashes, and they are nice. Physical failures of the equipment are no more catastrophic than any other equipment. Hard drives can be recovered, and Apple tech support is pretty good at phone troubleshooting. And for in person support, there is nothing like an Apple store. Much better than the last Dell store I went to. Wait, there is no Dell store. Our company is 98% Wintel, most of it Dell. Ask our IT staff if they wish they didn't have more Macs to support. They do. Ask our employees if more of them wish they weren't using my brand of hardware. They do.

After Christmas (2004) I decided to buy the Mac Mini and once I started using the Mac I was hooked. I don't use iTunes and don't use photos because I'm not into that stuff, however I do use the internet a lot and the fact that spyware and virus are rare on Macs. On my XP windows laptop I always have to run viruses checkers and all the windows security update fixes.

Well... i dont have a mac, but i have been after one for a while! i must admit they are costly! but then the features they entail are amazing! the airport idea is great! and there ease of use really interests me! uther than that, the overall style of apple products is amazing, who is there designer? I think ill be switching to a mac very soon!

Possibly a lot more people will start to use OSX and *nix rather than Microsoft. With over-bloated software and unused services Longhorn and its followers will be a flop.

The same happened to Lotus when MS Office expanded their compatiblity. MS could open Lotus documents, but Lotus couldn't quite open MS's - so people went to MS Office.

If the XP/2003 compatibility issue comes out too much, then people are going to be forced to look for alternatives... or maybe not. For now I'm staying with Windows98SE; after all, there's no drastic need to change. Besides, installing XP or Win2K-SP3+ gives MS the right to hack in to your system.
http://www.radsoft.net/news/20020905,00.html

May the optimised-source-code be with you.

Man....I always wanted to kill that media player too. Now I have a reason.

That is the most ignorant web site I have ever been to, and that's saying a lot since I visit a LOT of sites.

It's all very nice, but we'll all (90% or more, that is) end up using Longhorn. Why? Because there's a lot of win32 legacy crap to support, developers will continue to target the largest market, and Microsoft will drop a huge, suffocating pile of 50 billion smackaroos in marketing and slashed prices if Apple dares to make a run at them, not to mention cutting off the air supply to Mac Office, turning the platform into nothing more than an unproductive, shiny toy.

I think we all know that Microsoft has the overwhelming market share and installed base and that this is somewhat self-perpetuating. But marketing has not helped them much vis-a-vis Windows XP. A lot of corporations have stuck with Windows 2000 instead and Microsoft is having a hard time convincing many corporate IT people that Longhorn will add enough value to justify a costly migration.

The never ending (and indeed ever increasing) malware problem is leading some corporations to take a look at alternatives (where possible). It's also leading some organizations to look at TOC (total cost of ownership) instead of getting sticker shock and not looking at the backside of the equation.

When Apple switches to Intel, the idea that one could run OS X and Windows on the same box, (and thereby facilitate a weaning process) will be increasingly appealing. Some vertical market applications run only under Windows and Macs of the future will be able to run such software natively (without emulation), while offering an OS virtually free of viruses and other malware.

Windows XP is wizard-happy and pop-up happy and very much "in your face." OS X in contrast gets out of your way and lets you focus more on your work. We shall see how Longhorn compares with Leopard, (which is the name for version 10.5 of OS X scheduled for release in the first quarter of 2007).

Has anyone credible said that the new Intel Mac's will actually allow running Windows or dual booting? (other than with Virtual PC) If it were true and the price was right, I'd probably buy one, but it sounds unlikely.

Edit: Hmm, the rumors are saying this could happen. Very interesting. If Apple continues to make neat looking hardware and allows dual boot, they may have won themselves a new customer (again, if the price is right).

The price would be even more right if they used a cheaper and more efficient AMD processor. ;)

This is not a rumor. Officials at Apple have indicated Apple will not seek to defeat the ability to install Windows on future Macintoshes based on the Intel chip. So you could indeed have a dual-boot configuration in that event.

What you dont understand is that Apple is already makeing a run at them. OS-X is kicking a** all over the place. I have clients that have whol departments running Macs and the IT department said lets replace it with Windows boxes. Then OS-X hit the stage. The Macs are FIRMLY in place and spreading.

With the dump of OS-9, lots of doors are opening up wide. As it has been mentioned, just about the entire Open Source palatte is there and OpenOffice is comming along quite nicely.

Microsofts days are numbered. I may indeed be a relatively high number, but they are numbered. More and more of the silly asses in corporations that pretend to know something about computers and then go out and make platform decisions are starting to see that Windows as a platform is getting more and more expensive to deal with, in terms of nasty licensing pratices, Viruses, Spyware, version insanity, etc. etc.

The run has started, its moving forward and its gaining momentum, its just a matter of time.

- FG

Yeah, sure...until they ran out of 'em.

AMD can barely keep up with it'sown production demands, much less adding the demands of Apple to the bag.

Apple chose Intel because of their capacity and their roadmap. I'll admit, AMD has been ahead of Intel's roadmap for a while now..and may stay that way for some time, but their capacity is nowhere near that of Intel.

There's still a need for a fast and free OS.
Fast as in fast GUI and free as in freedom.

"The fourth revision of the operating system..."

Fourth? It's the fifth, unless for some reason you're ignoring the original 10.0 release.

I think maybe Ed was using 10.0 as the baseline and speaking purely of the revisions to the 10.0 line.

Easier for you maybe. I choose my hardware and o/s based on value for money across the board, not on how spiffy it looks on my desk. (although my PCs look pretty damn cool anyway)

This Article is extremely biased. They take plenty of time telling you how great the new OS X is. They never mention the compatibility issues mac customers have had everytime the upgrade the OS. They never mention the slow file transfer speeds in Safari. The list goes on. I think BetaNews should really do a side by side of the negative and positive of each OS. It is obvious the writer is new to mac, he hasn't been around to experience how Apple treats it's customers

You nailed it on the head... Apple is the kind of company that treats you with a thank you by maiming your memory on a rom update and then denies that it happened. Apple/Steve "took a dump" Jobs are leaches that thrive on your loyalty they pay you back with a lawsuite by having their logo on your web site. I used to work for Apple and can honestly say "No thanks, I would rather build my owne system than get a Mac".

I retract my comment due to Jeff Mincey's elightening reply to my post. I also appologize for my misguided/informed opinion.

Article?...."Perspective". There's always going to be someone that has a horrible time, or a great time, just like I'm always going to have problems with Outlook Express and IE. They just don't work with me, and do weird s*** like jump to the menubar every 3 seconds because of the speed I type at. No one else has the problem, but I do....so I choose not to use either.

To those who say Apple treats its customers poorly, how do you account for the fact that in the last several years Apple repeatedly rates at the very top of the customer satisfaction surveys -- and this includes the question of technical support and customer service? Apple is consistently rated number one. Dell is usually number two or three.

Does this mean Apple has NO instances of dissatisfied customers? Of course not -- no company is perfect. There will always be a percentage of customers who are not satisfied or who are not well treated. No company is exempt from this. But on balance Apple excels in this regard.

Hmmm, not just a little bias shining through in that comment. I have been a PC user for 20+ users. I have been a Mac user for 18 years. I will take Apple's treatment of me as a customer, as an associate, etc. any day over my experiences in the rest of the PC world. Anybody can find horror stories to tell about any company. You really think MS is any better? My wife thinks I am great; my ex-wife hates me. The Radio Shack where I bought my first Tandy 1000 treated me great; the second one did not. Big deal. What does any such story prove? NOTHING. Please, try using some rational analysis. Your bias from your personal experience has nothing to do with what the author wrote about, along with those here who are so clearly defensive against the opinion expressed here that someone might see some advantages in a competitive offering, is just amazing. How about an open mind? How about instead of attacking the author, and the big bad boogeyman Apple, try _listening_ and actually doing what the author did: try it out. Reading and interpreting and attacking without independent experience is not research; it's just armchair quarterbacking. Thanks Ed Oswald for actually trying out the other side. Is it perfect? No. Do I like it? Yes, and it so happens that I've beeen using both side by side for about two decades, through all sorts of ups & downs. Your final sentence says it all: you are making a decision based on a personal bad experience, and it has forever foreclosed for you any objectivity about that decision. Why should anyone listen to you?

Dear Volcanpoas,
Why should anyone listen to me? Because I advise Many, Many people out there that's why... probably more than who will listen to you. 20+ years of use means nothing unless you have the breadth of knowledge that others have. The mac is just a Bad alternative... you can't build/fix and get parts for/ let alone / customize like you can with an intel/amd box... If someone wants to get a mac... so what, I don't care... but if you ask me I will tell you that a mac is an insane choice to make.

Seconded!!

I wish to amend my post above to say that the customer satisfaction surveys I speak of are confined to Apple's service and support in the United States. Whether its customer satisfaction ratings are as high elsewhere in the world I can't say or confirm. I know that some Americans tend to think the USA is the whole planet and I definitely don't want to be guilty of that, and thus I offer this clarification.

Still, to a great degree, the basic point stands. It's always unfortunate for any individual to have a bad experience with a company, but anecdotal experiences are not instructive of general trends, and drawing sweeping conclusions based on them is very problematic.

So just because you "advise Many, Many people", we should listen to you?

Hell, I could say the same thing. Advice is great. I give it all the time. Does that make me an expert? Hell no. Just an opinionated SOB. :P

That "customization" of hardware you're so fond of is why Windows will never be as stable or reliable as MacOS. Many, *many* people look at that and would much rather take reliability over customization any day of the week.

Just as in cars, the tuner-crowd is still the minority. (Though with cars, that seems to be s***ing)

Speaking for myself at least, I see no need for an apology for what you call a misguided or misinformed opinion. Being incorrect is no crime -- otherwise I would be serving a life sentence in prison. It's only the mistreatment or abuse of others in a forum that might be worthy of an apology.

This is all about an exchange of views and we all learn from each other -- and in this I'm no exception of course.

I feel the same way. I just figured I better do that before someone comes along and flames at me. I dislike having to deal with people like that so I try my best to avoid them. I see a lot of people that enjoy doing that on here as I go from forum to forum. I see no need in it myself it serves no purpose but to waste space on the page that could be used for constructive comments such as the ones you have made on here.

When they cut (hopefully) production costs with the switch to intel, Apple has a big opportunity if they choose to take it. If they cut prices, there are many users who can live without PC only apps and games and could switch if they felt it was a good value. If Apple did this and gained market share, in the long run many of the missing apps and games would come out for Mac, and even more people could switch if given an attractive product.
The success of iPod is "getting their foot in the door" to make people consider Mac. If Apple cuts prices and thereby someday increases compatibility, they have a real chance to explode their market share.
I hope it happens. More competition would be a good thing.

The statement that there is not enough software for mac is fiction. Sure there are some, but there is always an alternative.

For example: I was given a Windows XP machine recently, so I decided to pass it down and make it my daughter's game/learning machine. I've been looking all day for a kid's web browser that compares to BumperCar(OS X), KidsBrowser(OS X), but all options are really bad. I'm just going to have to add some kind of parental control to Firefox, but I would have rather had BumperCar.

"You can do anything on a Windows box you could on a Mac. The difference? Mac does it with style."

And with reliability, functionality and innovation.

i'll wait a little bit more till apple starts with intel processors (hopefully soon)

Spotlight, probably the most talked about feature of Tiger. Unlike MSN and Google Desktop Search, Spotlight goes farther than just being a nice little search box on your desktop. You can access it from file open dialogs, within programs such as Mail and Address Book, or through a Spotlight dialog box in the menu bar. Search has become an integral part of the UI.

-------------------
Desktop Search Value is what type of documents it can index and search, how fast it is, how good preview panel works, and what type of query we can do.

Your review is totally screwed and bias because it compare 2 systems on wrong dimensions; You can praise MAC on style but not functionality and application. Dont try to lie your self anymore.

"Spotlight clone" (Nightly build #18)
http://www.aqua-soft.org...21&page=1&pp=20

The coolest mod i've found yesterday! It retrives your GDS db on-the-fly, virtually adding the power & look-n-feel of Tiger's Spotlight to your Windows XP . Enjoy~!!! :)

Twice here you've made comments that have made absolutely no sense, which I have decided respond to as you are completely off base.

You claim I only talked about style of programs, yet never mentioned functionality and application.

"With just the operating system alone and no installed third-party applications, I could view my Word documents, PDF files and pictures without a problem." Seems I am talking about functionality there.

I then go on to talk about how easy it was to use these features, such as easy creation of online photo albums, and the like.

There are other portions of this review that talk about functionality and application as well, but they have seemed to be ignored.

In a previous comment you also say this review somehow lowers the credibility of BetaNews. This review was based on my experience with Mac OS, which overall was very positive. That's why we called it a "Perspective". Someone else could have a totally different response.

I highly suspect that if you sat down with Mac OS for more than a few minutes, you'd probably come to some of the same conclusions. There are many things that the Mac OS does which, at least pre-Longhorn, are more intiutive and easy for computer users.

Some people are extremely too quick to make calls of bias.

You've obviously never used Spotlight, as most of the negative posters here have obviously never used Tiger. More MS Stockholm syndrome.

Impressive... thanks for the link.

Try this link to understand the power of Google Desktop Search.
http://desktop.google.com/plugins.html

Remember GDS is a less advanced DS search software compared to YahooDS, MS DS, Copecnic DS or X1 DS.

Also Desktop Search like Copecnic DS, X1 search are existed already here for years.

Ed Oswald!

Your review try to make impression that MAC OS is better than Windows from every aspects: networking is better, mail is better, search is better, etc.... there is no mention of what you called perspective. Read your articales again, it's not about "Switching to Mac Easier Than You Thin" but about comparing MAC to Windows.

I'm not MS fan. I use best product available here: FireFox (not IE), Yahoo Desktop search (not MSN desktop search), Google (not MSN search), Yahoo MyWeb (not Google search history). And I'm not the only one here claim about your bias.

About "You claim I only talked about style of programs, yet never mentioned functionality and application.", my english was so bad that make you totally missunderstand my point.

p/s. My english is not good enough to write nicely, so my word may seem to harsh. I'm sorry for that.

Dude calm down

KOOOOL!!!

It's easy to focus on the cool parts, the look-and-feel, fit-and-finish, and the extras, when the rest just stays out of your way and works. It's very hard to get people to understand that. I think so many people (90%+) are so used to the constant hassles, reboots and re-installs they can't even fathom that there can be a better way. When things work so well, you have more time to notice and appreciate things like style and convenience.

As a Systems Administrator, I work daily with Windows (NT/2K/XP/2K3), Linux (RHE/Fedora/Debian) and Mac OS (9/10.x). I run Debian on my primary workstation at work because it allows me to "safely" test and manage my Linux and Windows systems in a sandboxed environment (VMWare) without fear of compromising my own workstation.

I also now have a 15" Titanium G4 PowerBook that allows me to manage ALL my OS'es. I can use ARD for managing my OS9/10 Servers and Clients. I can use X11 and SSH for my linux Servers and Clients. And I can use Remote Desktop to manage my Windows Servers and Clients all from a single, reliable, virus-resistant, portable platform.

With around 20,000 users I often experience the "compatibility" issues between platforms and OS versions. Most of these seem to be related to misunderstanding or confusion, rather that a real technical incompatibility (ie. Mac users forgetting to add .Doc to the filename so PC users can open it, etc.)

Because we deploy so many versions of so many operating systems, I wind up using most of them, in one way or another, daily. As such I'm in a better position than most to determine the relative merits of each, although this does not make me thee final authority of what is best for *you*. If you are a die-hard gamer, or work in an Exchange-based, highly-collaborative, Windows-only environment with a lot of proprietary IE-only web apps, then Windows is without a doubt the best choice.

On the other hand, if you just need to do word processing, email surfing the web, arrange your photos, organize your music, make your home movies into DVD's, video-chat with your friends, play UT, WoW, Splinter Cell, Jedi Academy, Quake, C&C, and other popular games, read-and-write Office documents, mount SMB/AFS/FTP/WebDAV/NFS, etc. shares, print to Windows/Linux print queues, connect to your building's Citrix server, run a secure web and database server and develop cross-platform software, the Mac will do just fine for you. All this without the constant hassle of viruses, spyware, adware, etc.

For the record, I've moved all my computers at home (currently 6) to Macs running Panther and Tiger. I constantly get strange looks from people when they visit. They make comments which basically iron out to "I thought you were a computer expert... Then why are you using a Mac?" Hey, I work solving computer problems all-day, every day. When I get home I just need things to work. I don't like fixing computers. I don't like messing with them when I need to get something done.

I'm not one of those geeks who gets off on building his own boxes at home. I'm a busy professional with a family and a life. I need my family to be able to just do their work without constantly bugging me to fix their computers. In fact, In the last 2 years, I've spent more time constantly fixing/re-installing just 1 friend's Windows XP box than I've spent on all my computers at home and all my mac-using friends' computers combined. I know this is just anecdotal, but it really opened my eyes when I stopped to think about it.

So, for *me*, the choice was easy and I've never once regretted it, have never looked back and I haven't missed running Windows once. For those of you who have used a mac "back in the day", try Tiger on some new hardware. There is no comparison. It's literally like going from Windows 3.11 to XP. I hated OS 9 and for the longest time equated Macs with toys because of it. Windows users deride Mac users for constantly comparing their OS to problems that haven't been an issue since Windows 98. Well, now it's time to grow up and start looking at Tiger as a whole new beast and stop comparing it to that Mac Classic or LC III you had in high-school.

And just to poke a little fun at all my old Windows friends: http://www.geekculture.c...ch/joyarchives/652.html

...and Eoswald, welcome home.

NtroP, very well written and organized post. You make a very convincing case in a pragmatic way, sans dogma, ideology, blind advocacy, etc.

"More MS Stockholm syndrome"

That's a good one.

Very well said. If more articles were written like that I'd be a very happy reader.

Put down the bong sir.

Ahh, A nice biased review, no mention of the compatbility problems, or lack of software for MAC OS. Sure, MacOS is perfect if all you use your PC for, is web browsing, email, office apps, some multimedia playback

If you use your PC for anything else, moving to MacOS would be a BIG mistake.. Gamers would be left out in the cold, developers would be pretty hard done to find a good development enviroment...

Agreed, I tried the new Mac version. It has some nice stuff, which windwos does not have. But there is not enough there for me to switch.

Agree. This type of review only creates over-expectation, what result in bigger disappointment when user tried MAC, and finnaly back fire. Also it could lower the credibility of BetaNews.

How about reading the entire column before jumping to conclusions? This isn't a "review" it's one user's experiences making the switch. Here, I'll paste the part you didn't read:

"However, Mac OS X does suffer from a lack of software applications. Gaming on the Macintosh platform is nowhere near that of Windows, and while most applications do have an Apple counterpart, in some cases -- such as America Online -- the software is an afterthought and leaves much to be desired.

Despite the lack of choice, I quickly got accustomed to the applications on Tiger; most Mac software is just as -- if not more -- capable than its Windows equivalent."

I did read all of it. My point was, the review was based on the flawed assumption that everyone uses their PC for the same purposes as the reviewer, which is untrue. Macs are fine if you fit in that 40%, but the reast of us, having a MAC would cause problems...

"..all you use your PC for, is web browsing, email, office apps, some multimedia playback"

HA HA HA! Um, yeah, you mean like, besides games, the primary uses for a computer. You got games, pal, that's it. You guys just can't admit that your PC is basically a $3000 X-Box.

...because we like to play games on our PCs.

"...not enough for me to switch"

...because we like to play games on our PCs.

"This type of review only creates over-expectation"

...if you use your PC primarily for games.

No, it is because I do video work. Compiling videos I finds takes long on the mac then it does on my windows machine. Plus my windows machine was $600 cheaper then the mac.

Then there are no PCs at all. Use PS or X-Box. No need to use PC then at all.

It takes longer? Are you sure? Are you using the same encoding program/version, and do you have your windows computer set up with RAID-0?

A RAID-0'd Windows will pwn most macs into the ground. All it takes is a nice AMD processor faster than the Mac's, and the 200mb/sec harddrive access from those hd's to get that sweet sweet speed.

The review wasn't "based on any "assumption," but YOUR thinking is. For the seemingly millionth time...the article was based on one person's experience. He shared his insights and he shared them accurately and fairly. The fact that you didn't like the message doesn't make that message "flawed."

BTW...I play games, including Doom3, on a MAC and find it a great gaming experience. You should give it a try.

I don't know what kind of mac or windows machine you're using, but I have never seen a windows machine compile video faster than a mac. In fact, I have seen macs with lower processing power and memory get the job done faster.

I have an Intel 3.6, don't like AMD. 200GB SATA Hard Drive. Video Card was ATI "Radeon X850XT PLATINUM EDITION 256MB AGP". Both Machines had Ulead Media Studio Pro 7. The PC was custom built and obviously the mac had to be bought at a store. The PC does not have raid

The Mac was bought 3 months ago. The PC was made 6 months ago. Both had 1G of memory. THE PC had DDR2. Don't recall what the Mac had, I returned it to the mac store, and told them my Windows PC was better. Boy those guys did not like that. You could see the smoke coming out of their head.

You say you returned your Mac to the Mac store on grounds that "Windows is better." This casts doubt on your veracity, I'm sorry to say. Most stores I know of don't accept returns on that basis. Something has to be defective with your Macintosh -- and even then defects are covered under warranty. There are very strict criteria under which you can return a computer -- and "preferring Windows" is not one of them.

Also, video editing relies heavily on floating point operations, and in this respect the Mac's G5 chip has generally been superior to Intel/AMD. The Altivec floating point processor is vastly superior to Intel's SSE offering. In contrast, on integer performance, Intel is the equal of the G5 if not the superior to it (by some benchmarks).

About 5 years ago I would agree with you, that the macs had to be used to do video. But I find not any more. Now I have to agree that there are some nice things on the MAC OS 10 tiger (not enough for me and any of my friends and customers to switch). Bot Windows and MAcs have there advantages and disadvantages, but for me not enough to switch. Any way I don't know why but from personal experience I find the PC of today does a better job. Even some guys that have mac and do video work, were surprised that it out beat the mac, and would not believe it if they did not see it for them selves.

---pulls out $637.83 receipt--- Yep, that's what I thought... I paid well under $3000 for my AthlonXP 3200+ w/ 1GB of RAM, 80GB Hard Drive, and DVD+/-RW Drive... and I don't game at all, I do web publishing/design and host a web site, email services, and the system isn't rebooted except for once a month for Windows Updates.

Well, it seems that your only criterion for what constitutes the best platform for video work is speed -- and you haven't really made a convincing case that Windows is faster for video applications. What OTHER reasons do you have for preferring Windows for video? What software are you using and what software did you try on the Mac for video editing? If you tried only iMovie (which comes bundled), that is a consumer application only not intended for professional use.

I'm concerned that you didn't really give the Mac platform a fair try, but to each his own. In any case, it soon will become moot once Apple migrates to Intel.

Ulead Media Stuido 7 Pro on both Windows and Mac.

Who's "we"? I don't.

I'm sorry, but you are simply not telling the truth. This product does not run on the Macintosh platform.

http://www.ulead.com/msp/sysreq.htm

Oh boy. I'd love to see some of your "web designs". Which WYSIWYG editor do you prefer? mwah ha ha ha...

Idiot.

Go spam somewhere else.

It DOES SO RUN GO TRY IT!!! I have bee using ulead for 8 years now and it DOES work on a MAC

The company which develops this software disagrees with you -- did you not check the link I provided? Here it is again:

http://www.ulead.com/msp/sysreq.htm

The only way this can run on a Mac is through Windows emulation, which means you are still running the software under the Windows OS -- only at a much slower speed yet. It does not run natively on the Mac platform -- and I get this straight from the manufacturer of this product.

No emulator. It installed without any problems.

Nice review I ever wanted to know about Mac. Actually, there were times I've searched for a tests using music creation, video montage or photo building software, and compare the MS vs Apple. And times Mac was faster is outside now. Only GUI and software for user on a plate.

To Apple: Slash your price, your mkt share will roar tremendously!

Lookin fwd to my Intel / AMD inside Leopard MacBook(?!)

With Apple jumping ship and switching over to Intel I would say right now is ther worst time to switch to OS X. True Longhorn might be a good 18 months way but then again so are the new macs right now. Yet another opportunity Apple gave up with the switch...

2 comments as a recent switcher.. or should i say adder of a mac powerbook I thought there was a lack of apps for the mac too.. BUT and thats a big but after a few months I have discovered there is a huge number of high quality apps for anything i could think of and them some.
As for wanting your widgets do a search for a free app called "amnesty" it is in beta still so not perfect and i have 2 widgets embeded in my desktop as you wanted.
1 other app every user should try is pathfinder.. if you are a power user and or you are not to keen on finder the apple file manager pathfinder beats every other file manger (and more) hands down.. that includes any windows app i have seen.. give it a go. I bought the Mac for audio recording studio work and loved it so much my PC is gathering dust at the moment. I have found no need to go back to it though it is there if i need to

My Uncle recently got a mac, and asked me to come over and set it up. It was incredibly easy. The only thing he couldn't have done on his own was figure out what "DHCP" meant, and some ISP password related stuff. He figured out how to transfer his email though, so bravo to him.

Anyway, my point. I've seen what the Mac is like, and I must say that it is what Microsoft is trying to make Windows become, except it works. I personally don't think I'll be switching, but do think it's a really great and well designed OS. I could tell immediately that it was user friendly to people that were just learning computers.(Which btw is helpful if you're switching over) Just little things that a person in windows would be stumped over. But like I said, I won't be switching, and here are my reasons...

Windows is filled with lots of crap and bloat for the most part. I just installed Win98 on an old computer, and was amazed to see the astounding harddrive usage of 150mb. If I had installed XP that would probably be closer to 1.5gb upon first boot. I don't think I'll be upgrading to Longhorn. I haven't upgraded to XP, and about the only thing that will get me to upgrade is a "Lean and Mean" version of windows with NO CRAP in it. Something incredibly small, maybe 200mb, supporting the latest DirectX, games, programs, but not having any crap in it(including backup drivers, extra drivers, system restore, themes, useless colour schemes, extra icons, sounds, WMP9 and WMP Classic, and anything else Microsoft has been trying to embed in the system).

If they succeed in that, then I will upgrade. If they do not, I will upgrade to Windows Server 2003, in 2 years. The reason behind this? I found an old crap laptop that was 100mhz and had 98SE installed on it. It browsed folders quicker than any 3.0ghz computer I've seen with XP to date.(such as my Uncle's - before it died)

Bravo Kramy - if I could give your comment a score it would be perfect 5. Right now I'm using Win98SE and won't upgrade to anything else due to security reasons.

However, I did manage to get Windows2000Pro installed within a 800mb partition on this 450Mhz 64MbRAM box; and that would be the absolute latest OS if I needed something with NT+ capabilities.

KRAMY you sure refer to your uncle alot, do you even have a computer of your own? And it seems you have to comment on every article in beta news. WOW what an authorian, it must be nice to know everthing about everything.

I'm sorry, but your last two paragraphs make no sense -- either that or I misunderstand you. After citing a number of advantages of OS X over Windows, you say you will nevertheless not make the switch to OS X and you cite as your reason for staying with Windows the fact that it is filled with a lot of "crap" (to use your word) and is guilty of great bloat.

Care to run that by me again?

Back to slam me some more KSzostek? Never gets old, eh? :P

Comments are made for opinions. People post their opinions and ideas about stuff. You post insults.

I don't own a mac. My Uncle does. If I acted like I knew lots about macs then I'd be lying, so I mention stuff like where any experiences I've had with them come from.

Hmm...not really, you pretty much got it. Pretty much the only thing that's stopping me from getting a mac is the quick to respond interface(something linux has, but OS X doesn't have by default).

Sure sure, I could just learn how to use OS X and figure out how to change it, but then I'd have to buy a new computer - I'd rather wait a few years and see how their x86 processors and longhorn perform.

Macs are purdy, there's no doubt about that. I wouldn't mind getting myself an IMac. But I can find a Windows application to match just about any Mac application, and then some.
(ie. Dashboard=Konfabulator)

You can do anything on a Windows box you could on a Mac. The difference? Mac does it with style.

And usually costs more as well when compared to the PC.

People pay more for style all the time.. Look at the Lexus. It's a friggin' toyota with some added trim.

Ed, good review. I was a switcher back in November. I was just like you where I thought I would still use my PC for things. To be quite frank, I only use it for SQL Server admin and beta testing games.
I am glad to see that your switch was a successfuly one.
Also, on an IM note. You mentioned you are currently using Adium X. I tried that myself and I liked it but there were some things it was missing. I use a combined chat program too and it is called Proteus, you can download it from http://www.defaultware.com/proteus/. I like it a lot better than Adium. Anyway, thanks for the review!

I would seriously like to try out a Mac, basically just to get away from windows but I just can't justify the price for one of those G5 machines. It's cheaper, even if i were to get one of the comercially disributed distros od linux, to build my own computer. Maybe once they make the move to x86 they will lower those prices some but until then I just can't justify switching to Mac.

If the question is what is the superior operating system, the answer could very well be Linux. The problem is that both Windows and Mac OS are developed primarily in a proprietary software environment. Linux, Apache and other opensource software have been steady gaining in market share, but still has some catching up to do in ease-of-use.

Article about the disadvantages of proprietary software:

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/32648.htm

"Linux, Apache and other opensource software have been steady gaining in market share, but still has some catching up to do in ease-of-use."

I'll agree with you on the ease-of-use issure. Linux still has a ways to go before it can compete with Windows and MacOS on ease. I don't know much abour Mac but from what i've seen so far working with Linux it is clearly superior to Windows as far as stability in particular.

You say, "Linux, Apache and other opensource software have been steady gaining in market share, but still has some catching up to do in ease-of-use."

The extensive use of open source software does NOT distinguish Linux from OS X. Quite the contrary, OS X is built on the open source Darwin operating system which consists in part of the Mach-based kernel and elements of FreeBSD and NetBSD. Every copy of OS X also comes bundled with Apache, ssh, sendmail, Postfix, MySQL, PHP, Python, PERL, Java, X Windows (X11), the GNU utilities, and MANY other open source applications and tools.

You can even run the KDE and Gnome desktops and window managers under OS X.

People forget that OS X is essentially a variant in the UNIX family (from the BSD branch). Linux shows promise but for years now it has been trying to move to the desktop market and it has failed in doing this -- for a number of good reasons. Despite all efforts to the contrary, Linux today remains a server OS or a geek's OS. This may change one day but for now this remains true.

Meanwhile, OS X has all the consumer and office productivity apps PLUS the full suite of UNIX command shells and it appeals to bit twiddlers as well as to novice consumers. No operating system bridges this gap more effectively than OS X does.

To Ed Oswald: I enjoyed this article (above) very much -- thanks for writing about your experience with OS X. I suspect most of your critics have not even USED OS X or have only played with it for a couple minutes on a showroom floor -- and thus they are only repeating the standard myths about the Mac platform and essentially don't really know what they are talking about. In contrast, virtually all Mac users have much experience with Windows because it dominates in the market. Thus I tend to give more credence to the opinion of the experienced Mac user because it is based on experience with BOTH platforms and not just on recycled cliches.

Thanks again.

Yes, it's extremely stable. A program we just ran today on my Uncle's computer "froze" it. Nothing was responding. I looked on the Icon-Bar and noticed a "Restart Finder" option, which immediately fixed everything. Under windows I'd have had to reset, reboot in safe mode, run scandisk to fix those corrupted files it created, and then reboot again and wait for Windows to sort out the problem.

I don't criticize Mac OS, I can't because I've never used it. Al I've seen of the OS is like webcasts and demostrations on tv. It wouldn't be right to criticize something i've never use would it. Part of the fact that " haven't used it is the cost of the machines. On the other hand, if I decide I don't liek MacOS I can rest assured that one of the Linux distros that i've worked with has a Powe PC version that I can download and install.

Yes, there are several Linux distros which run on the PPC chip and which also can run side-by-side with OS X on a dual-boot Macintosh configuration. Yellow Dog Linux is one common distro which supports PPC, but there are a number of others.

I vastly prefer OS X to Windows, but your comments regarding the stability of these two operating systems aren't entirely fair -- UNLESS you are referring to Windows 95, 98, or ME (which are indeed much more crash-prone). Both OS X and Windows NT, 2000, and XP support protected memory whereby each application runs in its own memory partition wholly separate from that which is used by the system itself. If a rogue application should crash, lock up, or hang, it can (under both operating systems) be force-terminated without having to shut down and restart the whole system itself.

Under OS X, the "Finder" is simply a running application for file browsing, access, and invocation. As such, it can be terminated or restarted without compromising the OS X kernel. And so it goes with Windows as well. As for system crashes themselves, these are increasingly rare for both operating systems, but when they do occur, they bring down the entire system and in that event it's advisable to run disk diagnostic and repair utilities to ensure no file system corruption occurred as a result.

Ok...well then I have amazing luck with WinXP - I managed to kill totally within 14 minutes by trying to install antivirus(AVG) after a fresh install. :P After rebooting the FileSystem was corrupt and it wouldn't boot into safe mode.

Interestingly though, installing on 98SE was fine and it works like a charm even today.

You'd call that amazing luck? :lol: Of the er...bad variety?

Try it on XP again. I bet it'll work. Sad but true. Ran that little test hundreds of times. XpP is flaky and each instal, even on the same hardware, can be vastly different from another.

I'll never figure that one out.

Quite often I've found the bad RAM or a bad HD can cause slight clitches with XP installations. For a long time I was having problems with XP, and had to do a couple of reinstalls, even with XP running games would crash unexpectedly, and certain games wouldn't even run. I eventually upgraded my RAM from one 512 stick to a 1 GB of dual channel RAM. Once the RAM was in place XP ran just fine.

Just in case you're wondering, I did test the old RAM in the system a few times with a couple utilities, yet no problems were found.

Now I can't say for sure if this ties into Windows XP not working while Windows 98 does, but XP draws upon more resources than 98 and clitchy hardware can be less of a pain under less of a processing load.

Just my thoughts.

If you had problems setting up a windows network...maybe you should not be working for betanews. jk :)

But seriosuly, mac is a good OS..but as far as networking I dont see where it is any easier or harder to set up than windows. I have set up MANY windows based networks and never had a problem detecting wireless networks.

Windows XP pre-SP2 had endless problems with wireless networking. The "Repair" functionality was horrible, and would lock up the system for minutes. If your DHCP server was fickle (as many cable operators are), Windows would frequently run into problems.

It's not about complicated, it's about things just not working properly. SP2 improved things immensely but the ease of wireless setup on the Mac still blows Windows out of the water.

So only betanews writers have problems with Windows? Is this why most of betanews reporting is negatively skewed against Microsoft in favor of mac? I set up my network between two Windows, one laptop, and three Linux machines once and haven't had a single problem. Could it be the user? Maybe. But by god if a betanews reporter had trouble, then they run to the rooftop to shout: "Microsoft sucks!"

It's just too predictable is the problem.

Microsoft makes great stuff. Windows XP may be 4 years old, but it does the job, and hopefully Longhorn will bring the innovations everyone has been waiting for.

The hard part about being unbiased is you have to accept faults on both sides - nothing is perfect. As a Linux user, I'd think you would be the first to understand that, but it takes a few years I guess.

Are you so arrogant that you can't understand that other people may have problems with their computers even if your experience has been perfect?

Betanews is absolutely not anti-Microsoft. I'm glad you have a couple of computers and they all work ok, most of us have hundreds so you can surely understand that you haven't seen every problem out there because you obviously don't have the experience with computers that most of us do.

Not anti-Microsoft, maybe, but it sure seems nothing Microsoft does is good and everything Apple does is what Microsoft should be doing. Apple released OSX 10.4 with huge gaping security holes and then had to release 10.41, but the BetaNews crew didn't think that was a big deal. If Microsoft had done that... Also, how about recently when BN wrote a title article on Apple's security, but when you read the report, it trashed Microsoft? It seems when any other company screws up, BN somehow twists it as Microsoft's fault. It's so predictable that it's now cliche. Here's a perfect example dissected:
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000786.html

>> If Microsoft had done that

Microsoft DID do that - for a decade. Give Apple until 2010 to fix all their OS X bugs.

Bull! BetaNews articles are well balanced and truthful. Programs are reviewed for their good points and bad. As a windows/linux/mac user I find articles here that are informative and unbiased in all areas. The article we are discissing here was well written, fair, and stated good and bad aspects of the OS. If mac software seems to get more favorable reviews, perhaps it is simply because they work well. Certainly there are many, many other programs here with highly positive reviews for the very same reason.

So just to get this straight: now your claiming Apple is no better than Microsoft? So you're disagreeing with Ed's article altogether? Maybe by this reasoning you're right; that because Microsoft sucks, now Apple sucks just as bad. Right?

If MicroSoft had done that?!?!?!?!

_EVERY REALEASE_ of anything from MS has been SO full of security holes SO big you could drive an Abrhams tank through them!!!!

I have been a programmer and network type since 1981, more then likely before most of you were out of diapers.

MS has been releasing HUGELY bloated software, software they have purchsed and then really screwed up, Software they have written in house and its just as bad.

It only took them 15 years to get an interface that comes sorta close to that of the Mac.

Yeah windows is cheap, and ya know what, you get what you pay for.

IE : Bloatware, slow and full of bugs and security holes.

IIS: Slow buggy and full of security holes.

.NET: OH MY GOD! Uhmm Knock Knock.. Who's there? Big ol' binary code object. I have a "trusted" signature, please let me link into your server kernel and run? OK since you "say" your OK, go ahead. CRASH!

True Confessions Time... I have been making my living writing windows software for the last 20 years. When you start getting down deep into windows guts, its like trying to figure out the dead sea scrolls. Its a nasty smelly job.

I can blue screen ANY flavor of windows for 4 lines of code. Pass a bad pointer to the windows media player frame buffer ( it runs in ring 0 ), and its good night ladies, reboot time. And yet for some strange reason they default install it on their SERVERS!!! Servers were not meant to be toys for people who can't admin a system without pretty pictures! Servers are meant to be lean, mean, bit crushing machines.

The last thing that MS did that had any sort of promise was NT 3.51. It was rock solid but it wasn't "pretty", and well most of its guts were based on OS/2, which turned into WARP, which died from lack of attention, but it was still a great server & Desktop OS.

MS has one thing and one thing only going for it, and that is a butt load of cash with which they can spread FUD, Snapping Marketing and trickery, and the only reason they have that cash is because IBM gave it to them.

- Nuff Said.

You make some valid points but you are mistaken that Windows NT 3.51 was based on OS/2. It was instead based on DEC's Mica project (which at the time was supposed to replace VMS). Dave Cutler, the architect of the NT kernel, took one look at OS/2 code and considered it an abomination. (Cutler himself had little respect for Microsoft in general and in his book refers to the company as Microslop.)

I stand corrected, or at least mostly corrected. Yes the kernel was based on the Mica project ( damn fine bit of work that was ) but a lot of the network stack, file system and stuff had lots of OS/2 code in it because of expiediency. A lot of it was later replaced by the DEC team.

- FG

Not sure what you're doing on your computer, but I know what not to do to avoid security problems. Once again, you're saying it's just fine as long as Apple screws up, but it's a death penalty offense if Microsoft does so. If you're so smart, why not offer your brilliance to Redmond and fix it since it sounds like your systems are always screwed up. Or is the case rather that you don't know how to fix it once you broke it?

I reiterate: if Apple is SO GREAT, how come all you Apple guys scream like a banshee about Microsoft until your lungs bleed? I'm dying to know why Apple people have to justify the greatness of their OS by trashing Microsoft. We all know the reason: only suckers buy that overpriced Apple junk.

Who's screaming?

Oh, it's YOU!

;-)

No...but if it takes them another 5 years, THEN they'll be no better than MS.

I'm not an apple lover. I said I wouldn't be buying a mac, and don't use quicktime. Get your facts straight, you're coming off like an a$$.

"...I cannot tell you how many hours I wasted trying to keep my network working correctly -- and this was on computers all running Windows."

Ed, by your own admission, you need a mac. Windows too complicated, or did you refuse to RTM, mate?

Couldn't get ours working. No idea why. We formatted, reinstalled, and it worked after that. Just make sure you have multiple harddrives to s*** the data from one to the other until it installs right.

I've got a card that in XP every time you insert it you have to re-configure it. I have another that just plain quits sometimes and doesn't come back until you reboot. The problems go away when the cards are moved to new machines, or even swapped between machines that are having these sorts of issues.

It's not that it's complicated, sometimes it jsut doesn't frigging work. How the hell is RTFM going to help with this?

You obviously don't work in the IT industry.

> Microsoft has left the door wide open for somebody else to take the reins. And Apple is taking full advantage of it.

Ed, I personally think that has been Apple's strategy for quite a while. I share the same feelings about OS X as you (I reviewed it back when it came out in April at http://www.pcnx.com/revi...asp?reviewid=2005040003) and I think even though the move to x86 will lose customers who want to upgrade, but in the long run, it will position Apple in the right place to compete.

Again if Mac can support Software Developers the way Microsoft did; giving the developers all the necessary tools. For example can I've C#? or at least Delphi on Mac?

It is the marriage of the OS and the Developers that is the EDGE.

Don't you think so?

Mac does care about its software developers; it's where Xcode comes in.

Delphi is by Borland, a big Microsoft supporter. I think they're responsible for developing Delphi support for the Mac.

C# is a Microsoft language designed to compete with Java. It's all about COM+ and web services.

Just as Carbon and Cocoa is to Mac OS, C# and Delphi is to Windows/MS.

Dell has made offer to Apple for their operating system. But, Apple rather stay a a very small hardware company selling expensive IPods rather than selling their operating system and become giant like Microsoft!!

if this operating system came to the Pc i would purchase it the same day. i do not like the way Microsoft works. theres so many process running in the background In xp that its stupid. i have 90% of the proxesses shut down because theyre simply not needed. If apple announce MAC OSX is coming to pc ill sure be @ my computer store that very day its released to buy it.

Dell has not made an offer to Apple. Michael Dell simply made an off-the-cuff comment that he would be open to selling some computers with OS X pre-installed. A comment in an interview hardly constitutes a formal offer from a corporation to another.

Not to mention that both Dell and Apple have traded their share of barbs aimed at eachother. They have not been the best of friends...

But then again... If not your friend... Who was it that said to keep your friends close and your enemies closer?

And it'll barely function. The glory of Mac OSX is that it runs on hardware it was specifically designed for. Start running it on vanilla boxes and you lose that reliability and stability. Right out the window. Kinda like Windows.

Damn! Don't switch to mac. Am I the only mac user that doesn't want more company? Being a mac user now is like knowing about a great little hole-in-the-wall restaurant with excellent food and service. If the word gets out, the restaurant gets busy. Everything suffers. It's loud, you can't find parking, the food and service starts to suck, etc... The main reason that there is hardly any malicious code attacking macs is that there are hardly any mac users, AND I LIKE IT THAT WAY!

Great analogy!

agree. keep it down. I use FCP, Shake, Motion and DVDSP and make lots of money with my creative skills, so price is no issue. I'm just glad I don't have to sink 150K into a 18 wheel truck. We computer people have it so good compared to other jobs. A lot of you seem to like to build your own systems, thats fine for a hobbie. But I would rather drive the build. Give me the open road, a three year extended wan and a brand new top of the line machine every year. God knows I need as many 1099 tax offs as I can get... But if everyone gets a mac then that would suck... hey this post has lots of comments. people hate what people love