Keep in mind though, when OSX 1.0 first rolled out the door - it was a UI disaster.

I remember renaming an item to take the stupid dot 3 extension off of it, and was warned by the OS that "removing the extension will cause that document to turn into a folder." - and it did. I was ready to through my Mac out the window, it was seriously bad.

But I just went back to OS9 and waited.. by the time 10.2 rolled out, things were alot better.

Im not saying that Vista will turn out the same way - with any switch like this there will be huge amounts of growing pains, the test will be in how quickly they react.

Comparing OSX and Vista is useless. The day Apple releases an OS that can run on any hardware besides Apple hardware is the day you can compare it with Windows. If Microsoft releases the "Microsoft Computer" with it's own OS, then you can compare the two as well. Until then, it's oranges and, uh, Apples.

You can not possibly compare the two they are completely different. Just try running an APPLE server.

I repair Macs, PCs, and even own 8 of the former, and dozens of the latter, plus, a DEC Alpha. So, OSes are simply tools, to me.

GNU/Linux does several things well, and the number of annual converts for me, to Macs, are outnumbered 50 :1 by the number of converts to Open Source Operating Systems.

Let me explain: I convert the typical Microsoft Windows users to Macs if they are hopelessly busy or totally dumb about computer security, and just need something that works, and performs extremely well.

Points go to Mac for the great hardware, outstanding support, and prices competitive with Dell, in fact, at dramatically cheaper prices, when all things are considered, such as added expense for Dell, to activate all the Windows trial ware, and Windows AV apps., plus, all the PRO stuff needed to even approach the competency of Mac as shipped.

Lack of money, a desire to escape the world of "114,000 Microsoft Virus Definitions", and the quest for personal ownership of information drive the evolution to FOSS.

Gnu/Linux is the FOSS choice for folks who have the time to make wise choices, and, want something that is as virus free and stable as a Mac, and who desire to 'own' their data, information, and not rely on the generosity of a proprietary master with delusions of monopoly dancing in his head.

Heaven help the world if Mac gets 30% or more market share before 2008. Which, without a tripling of their manufacturing capability, can't happen.

The disaster that is Vista, will keep users tied to XP and, at the cessation of support, as happened with Windows98. This is partially why both Linux and Mac user bases have grown, as will again occur, when many will choose a system that is not a virus magnet.

Now, as then, the 'old' hardware that lacks support will be converted to PCLOS or another of the 500+ GNU/Linux or *BSD systems, either by that owner, or by the lucky geeks who find that old machine curbside or at the rummage sale.

The Mac 'look' and competency, running PC hardware at upto 50X the speed of Microsoft, virus free, secure, and with over 134,000 programs, is what makes GNU/Linux the choice for FREEdom for the future.

You should discover the features of GNU/Linux, with http://pclinuxos.com

"...and not rely on the generosity of a proprietary master with delusions of monopoly dancing in his head."

settle down...

Please this kind of OS comparisons are really out of scope.

Max OS is a really simple, totally standardized, non-user friendly ... "somethings". The whole desing is so simple that while I need to do two click to reach an option on windows, on max you need to "travel up" to the main menu bar, push the menu, open the sub menu, click.

I know I know its the "simplified" way. Well, most of us NON U.S. peeps prefer the quicker, smarter, "manage yourself" way. Not the "stupidly simplified that really makes your work slower".

Please dont even bother comparing the security and system stability. Windows were always the nr1. target of professional techies to find holes and bugs... very simple why? Couse everyone using it, thus needs to be as secure as possible.

And yes, I do get Max OSx windows like "please restart your computer".

Not to mention that pc hardware evolves around Microsoft OSs, not linux, not mac! DirectX10 is the next gen and thats in microsoft OS as well. Hardware companies straight away supporting it and accepting it. What is that if not success on the big-scale? I'm reading news about all kind of innovations and tech brakthroughs but I never heard anywhint "really big" about mac... Again, sorry to say.

So no, you cant compare a suzuki and a ferrari, sorry. Use your suzuki, be happy with it but please try not to say that "yes Suzuki was much more designed because the company working on it longer and updating it more steadily". Yeah right.

For 25 years, the issue with Mac adoption has been Software Software Software. We don't use Operating Systems, we use Applications. 90% of my work life is just POP/SMTP mail, browsing, MS Office-format documents, etc., and I'd love to use a Mac for those. But 10% of my work life requires MS-specific apps. Using our company's accounting and HR systems. Running tools to manage our MS SQL Server. etc. etc.

Rebooting an Intel Mac into Windows is a lousy solution to that. Running a Remote Desktop Session to a Windows machine to do those things is a kludge. After all these years, Parallels is finally very interesting...

I think that it is apples and oranges, however, I prefer the apple. It doesn't crash on me, for what I need it to do, it works well. For multimedia, you can't beat a mac for what it is, sorry PC users, PCs are just too clunky.

Just have to comment about a comment above referring to how many clicks it takes to get somewhere on a mac vs the PC; I think you don't know the shortcuts on the mac, so you can't judge.

Wow, another stunningly biased Mac Vs PC comparison.
He is right in his revolution vs evolution comparison, but then isnt that only natural? Microsoft has at least 85% of the market which equates to hundreds of millions of PC's running an exponentially larger number of combinations of software than the Mac will, ever! If Microsoft turned around tomorrow and told us they were casually revamping the entire operating system or target architecture as Apple have done both of in the past few years, it would be corporate suicide.
They HAVE to make incremental, baby step changes to the OS. Apple enjoy huge brand loyalty, and that makes them very footloose when it comes to system revisions and hardware changes. They do what they feel like, and their users will happily acquiesce.

When it comes to the UI. Yes, it is gorgeous, but is it as flexible as Windows in terms of customisation? Absolutely not! If you want to do anything outside the scope of what apple had intended you to do with the OS, it's actually quite difficult. I always got the feeling that the user experience was far more 'on rails' and deterministic than it was in Windows.

As for OS X being more secure, that is an unfounded assumption. So far, security through obscurity has prevented macs being infected with viruses and spyware. If Apple had the same OS market share as Microsoft do now, it would suffer the same flood of malware that Windows does. The fact is, OS X hasn't seen any viruses bar a few proof-of-concepts because it is a blip on the radar in terms of operating system sales and consumer visibility. Therefore, it hasn't really been stress-tested in the real-world.

How about some unbiased, level-headed, non fanboy-esque comparisons next time, huh?

I tried to convert to a Mac and found David's comments to be absolutely correct. It is about the applications, not the OS!

I am a small business owner and decided to buy a new MacBook Pro C2D with 15" Screen.

This is a very nice laptop but as I learned the first day, it is not compatible with the small business applications we use:

1. Quickbooks Online
Requires ActiveX which is not supported by any Mac Browser

2. Salesforce.com
Only provides a Synchronization tools for Outlook

3. Hosted Exchange
Our provider only supports Outlook (not Entourage)

Parallels works great! But if all my applications run in the Windows virtual machine, why do I need MAC OS X.

There are also serious quality problems with the MacBook Pro. The 15" screen was extremely grainy. The screen died on the second day. It was returned for a refund.

I would still like to have a Mac. But it is about the applications, not the OS!!!

It is truly a matter of choice!!!

In all of the debates concerning Macs and PC's it's almost always mentioned by a Mac enthusiast that people use Windows because they have no other choice. Well, for many reasons I choose to use PC's and as a PC user I have a lot of choices regarding what I want to use. I could use a huge array of operating systems/applications/hardware from a huge array of vendors. I "choose" to use Microsoft products. Tell me, as a Mac user what "choices" do you have?

Come on now, buying an "Apple" PC and then saying, "I can install Windows too" is not a good answer. Really, what "choices" do you have if want to use the only "real" Mac product called the Mac operating system. Please, don't tell me that the debate is about anything other than the operating system and the "choices" that it provides. Apple's leadership has chosen to eliminate the "choices" that consumers could have had in using their OS.

When making comments about "choices", please realize that it is Apple and not any particular PC vendor that has limited the "choices" of people. I am sure that if Apple was as readily open to working with non-propietary systems. Then soon PC manufacturers would be readily open to working with the Mac OS.

Apple seems to have a good product; it is called an Operating System. If only people had the "choice" to use this product with their "choice" in hardware/expense/quality/performance/scale and using various manufacturers. Then perhaps Mac would be the "best choice" or perhaps we would see the Mac OS for what it truly is; a system that is just as or even more succeptable to failure.

As it currently stands:

After you buy a Mac Apple treats you as if you don't actually own a Mac but that it is a machine that you have been given the privilege of using. If you want to upgrade your hardware then you will need to get the permission of the Apple people to do so. Usually permission to upgrade is granted in the form of buying a new Mac, which in turn you only have because you are given the privilege of using it.

With that statement there is some smirking Macker that is thinking/saying that the only thing that I have ever needed to upgrade is the mouse and keyboard.

I would love to get a straight answer from a real Mac enthusiast regarding this issue. As a Mac user, what if you wanted to have a system with a RAID of 12 hard drives? What if you were tired of looking at a plain/dull/white computer case? What if the latest and greatest motherboard/processor combination or other hardware on the market was offered my a non-Mac proprietary system and when is this not true? What if Adobe and MS stopped making applications for the Mac? What if your warranty has expired and the motherboard of your Mac turns out to be the problem? The answers to these questions are almost the same as for PC users. The only difference is that a PC user will have their "choice" in hardware and the Mac user will not.

aMacUser clearly didn't understand that removing an extension from a file and hiding it are different things. But that's neither here nor there (as removing an extension from a file to make it a folder is indeed madness).

H0PE needs to make sense; they're either hopelessly thick or a Windows fanboy trying very hard to look objective.
"Max OS is a really simple, totally standardized, non-user friendly ... "somethings". The whole desing is so simple that while I need to do two click to reach an option on windows, on max you need to "travel up" to the main menu bar, push the menu, open the sub menu, click." is gibberish. Simplicity does not mean burying things in menu bars. Nor does Mac OS X do that compared to Windows. "travel up" is in fact an indiscriminate flick (a usability advantage over roaming Windows menu bars where you must aim the cursor). Basically your lack of evidence, and lack of clarity, make your argument absurd.

Your point that Windows and its parts are accepted and supported by hardware, thus making Windows a success and thus better than Mac OS (one can only follow your thoughts through to their ends), is irrelevant to the quality of the OS itself. Your point about not hearing any tech breakthroughs for/on Macs just means you must never read anything other than PC magazines. Places like Digg (admittedly pro-Apple) and Slashdot are full of them.

Also, Suzuki =|= Mac, Ferrari =|= PC. Bad, bad, bad analogy. Fanboyish.

Eric C: "hey HAVE to make incremental, baby step changes to the OS."

And such a step takes five years? The point is that Mac OS does these baby steps every year-to-eighteen-months. There has been no 'major revision'; the move to Intel has been essentially seamless to the consumer, bar the new joys of Boot Camp. Function wise (architecture being irrelevant to compare) Mac OS X has been baby-stepping with every 10.x into a modern operating system, while Windows had tried to do all of that in a single leap after five years. Your argument falls in on itself.

"Yes, it is gorgeous, but is it as flexible as Windows in terms of customisation? Absolutely not!"

I'm not sure where you get the evidence for this. There's ShapeShifter, there's Uno, there are many programs that change Mac OS X just as much as others change Windows. They're pretty much equateable in this regard, I'd think.

"As for OS X being more secure, that is an unfounded assumption. So far, security through obscurity has prevented macs being infected with viruses and spyware. If Apple had the same OS market share as Microsoft do now, it would suffer the same flood of malware that Windows does."

And as each vulnerability arises, Apple will fix it. Microsoft has no hope in going back to fix all the various Windows exploits, but Apple (given the immense economic incentive) will do so. Let us not forget, too, the Unix-based, open source foundation of Mac OS X. Both strong against the Mac becoming Windows-esque in its malware state as it gains market share.

Mark: "But if all my applications run in the Windows virtual machine, why do I need MAC OS X."

You don't. Buy a Windows-based laptop. Get the operating system you need; don't complain about getting the wrong one simply due to poor planning. Your hardware problems could occur with any laptop; freak things happen. If it were a plague on Macs alone it would be much more ranted about.

Jonathan G: You say a lot of things about choice. I choose to use Mac hardware with Mac OS X and Windows. It's the state of things that I can't yet legally use Mac OS X on a PC. If I choose the OS I'm forced to choose the hardware: yes. But that's not so bad, from my perspective. It's a balancing game, and I'm happy to get quality hardware with quality software. It doesn't make the OS worse in function if I can't use it on a PC; it limits it, but then the point of the OS is to work on Macs. It's like deriding Palm OS for not working on my Mac, as though everything that doesn't work with everything else is suddenly nothing at all.

I use both OSs, as I've said, and both have their uses. I find my subjectivity favours Mac OS X, simply because I prefer the way it works. Others prefer Windows; fine and dandy. Just don't support unassailable subjectivities ('tis your opinion, after all, and so it cannot be affected by argument) with flawed objectivities.