Yeah, I think you do a pretty good job of dissecting his comments. Why does he seem so defensive? It's interesting when a company with such a small market share is able to put the giant on the defensive. As far as the "operation" commercial goes, it is true, at least for the past 5 years, that when you upgrade a Mac's OS, you don't need to swap out hardware. It's also interesting that Gates would claim that they've done a better job making upgradeable hardware. I thought computer manufacturers were responsible for case designs.

That would be the Xerox PARC which Bill Gates is talking about. They invented many of the GUI innovations Jobs adopted for the original Mac. As folklore.org has it, when Jobs accused Gates of ripping of the Mac GUI, Gates said "Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."

Steve Jobs' rock star status is definitely getting into Gates' nerve

Whatelse can one expect from guys like you. Infact, you safely went under shelter in the last paragraph, because you don't want to accept that microsoft did those things before Mac. A typical Mac idiot! Go to hell!

Windows had and has lot of flaws, but I agree with Mr. Gates that Mac has way more issues these days. Why? Simply because it is more popular than 5 years ago and hackers are getting used to it. Yes AS/400 is almost unbreable, mostly because there are only 5 guys on this planet who know the system.

what I really hate on MAC is how they try to hide the issues over and over. Microsoft admits the issues. MAC does not.

It's funny, it doesn't matter how much $$ bill gates makes or has... for him it's always a catch up game..not an inovation. I guess money can't totally buy creativity. Apple User RZ

Well said, Bill Gates knows the Mac is a superior product, he knows the when people see that Vista isn't all its cracked up to be there might be a huge switch to a better operating system. How long will it be for the next version of Windows? Another 5 years? By then Mac will have gone through at least 2 more renditions, if Microsoft wants to keep it needs to redevelop its system and make it leaner and more like Mac.

"I wish I knew these "security guys" who find the Mac easy to hack".
There you go, Matt:
http://projects.info-pull.com/moab/
There was also a scathing review of Apple's so-called Firewall at last year's DefCon, but I don't have a URL handy.

"A larger and larger percentage of people I know have Macs now."
..and are they going to stick with it? Having heard all the hype and finding out about BootCamp made me buy a MacBook last year. It's a nice little machine, but for that amount of money I would expect more versatile software and more reliable hardware. In other words: my first Mac is also going to be my last.

BULLSHIT!!! you are all completely full of shit!!!

I think this article was completely one sided. This writer is an apple fan and completely ignored the plusses and only showed the minuses. The whole article was pretty much written by a juvenile who totally has a mixed up view of what is greatness and his so called "coolness" of a software. Why are you trying to defend that Mac is safer and completely ignore what windows has done to increase the safety of its software.
All I have to say is grow up and become a real writer. You can’t be one sided.

i agree with kp

I am personally a windows PC fan. I tell you this up front because (unlike some) I don't think that I'm sneaky enough to get away with disguising the fact, and (unlike some) don't want to look like an idiot trying. As a fan of the standard windows 95-and-beyond OS, I write this: Though Matt the Apple user (and rather ardent one at that) may hate windows with all he has, he leaves one tiny observation out of his solitary rant- that because (he even admits)90% of people use windows, while mac has to contend with the remaining 10% for even a right to call itself equitable. This solid fact leads to the observation: That if 90% of the people like windows more than mac, then Matt is the only one out of ten that like mac.In truth, despite his wish for mac to slay the giant of windows, it won't happen because he's in such a minority that his opinion doesn't matter.

Go visit http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/journalism, hopefully future content will be worth reading.

macs are for noobs and grandmas windows is the only true os. If you like DRM go and buy an ipod.

Why is Vista running better on my Mac than on a DELL.

I think KP's comment was completely one sided. The commenter is an anti-writer and completely ignored the plusses of the article and only showed the minuses. The whole comment was pretty much written by a juvenile who totally has a mixed up view of what is greatness and his so called "gown up"ness of an article. Why are you trying to argue that the article is one sided and that windows has done a lot to increasy the safety of the software and ignore what benefits macs have had in the world. All I have to say is grow up and become a real commenter. You can't be one sided.

Many years I was a real Windows adapt. And I thought Apple users where from another planet. Now I know better. What a wonderfull system is this MacOSX. Now I know Windows really sucks.

And in the Netherlands there is an very very fast growing group of people who are switching. The marketshare of Apple has grown here from 4.5% in 2004 to 22.4% in Q4 2006 and its still growing.

And as you know, in many things the Netherlands is een open minded and on the leading edge..;-)

LOL looks like Bill is not the only one to have his mummies milk turn sour because of Steve...

"Microsoft admits the issues"
Not from the above interview!

Of course my post was one-sided - it was from me, a biased person (just as if you, Savage, are biased). I'm a blogger, not a journalist. I can say what i feel without trying to pretend to be neutral. If you read this blog, it's for my slant on the news, not the news itself (though sometimes I do report/break news).

I'm typing this on my Mac. I love it. Maybe I'll use my Microsoft Word to spellcheck. I love that, too. Biased, but not stupid. Not usually, anyway. ;-)

Agreed with KP. This article has so much bias it looks like Jobs came and wrote it.

Want security? Get Windows.

Want to run hardware you pick instead of Apple telling you what to get? Get Windows.

Want to play games or use 90% of the software in the world without jumping through hoops? Get Windows.

Want to run a server? Get Linux.

Want to be "cool" and "different"? Get a Mac.

Microsoft may lose market share. But not to Apple.

Forcing an upgrade is good. If no new software came along and forced anyone to upgrade, what would be the point of anything? Not just Windows forces upgrades on anyone, the whole world of software works that way.

If Windows does crash for you (WinXP hasn't crashed for me in a few years now), then remember this. They're not making Windows for a few bits of hardware they're forcing you to run. You can run this thing on anything with any combination of hardware and drivers and software.

Only a tart would buy a Dell AND Nobody buys a MAC and doesn't have a PC when they need real work or games done.

Geez. I accidentally stepped out into this Mac/PC range war (following a google link to a news story) that I didn't know was even going on. I am content with doing my employers bidding on windows systems at work and handling my own personal affairs on my Mac at home. People this is far worse than offending the baseball nuts who bore the hell out of you with the baseball statistics. My advise let the machines do the work and devote more of your time to other human creative pursuits Obviously this is your bread and butter, so excuse me for intruding into your little world here, but realize other little worlds like this exist all over.

I spent a lot of time with Macs, and they really aren't very good. They're slow, expensive, and each generation Mac OS is always crude. They try to make their hardware pretty high end, which it is for about 4 months at a time. Then it's expensive, slow, and limited. Think about it, for about the same 2 grand, you could build a quad core qx6600, twin high end GPU card monster with raid sata 3.0 and 2 to 4 GB of ram, a pair of dvd burners, the Vista of your choice and have a lot of change left over. Your new PC would flat out smoke anything Apple could dream up. And it's available NOW. Get a case, get a mother board, get a cpu and fan, get some ram and a video card, spend an hour snapping it together and loading software, and then ask yourself how anyone could possibly dig Macs. Even the cheapest Mac - about $800 - can't match a $400 PC. If you compared an $800 Mac to an $800 PC...the answer is obvious. Apple is just lucky they made the switch to Intel CPU's - they had to - they were getting their butts kicked. It's no secret that computers are not Apple's main business anymore - music players are

Gates is just too funny!!! If he continues to lie like that he will certainly lose all his credibility. What is he thinking? Is he on drugs? Does he think that everybody will believe him because he is the richest man on this planet?

Look: Unix systems are real operating systems. DOS, was also a real operating system. GUI's are toys, and the aqua interface a particularly sweet-coated toy....however, the fact that underneath OS X lies a real operating system is the key to Mac's (current) superiority.

I ran windows machines for 12 years and they NEVER worked right. I was trying to produce music on my home PC for 12 years, every version of Windows since 95, 7 different hardware incarnations and NEVER did I go more than a week or two without a crash, softare or hardware. I bought a macbook 10 months ago and it has never crashed. I have had ZERO problems with it. Zero. For me, that is a strong statment. If vista can hold a candle to that, then great, maybe I'll load it on this machine or buy a PC next time, but over a decade of worthless junk computing has me convinced for the moment.

Point being, Old Bill has every reason to sound defensive...he's deathyl afraid that 40% of those 90% that use windows might finally decide after VISTA that maybe a free Linux distribution is better suited to their needs...

Whether Apple zealots or Windows zealots are idiots or not is not important, competition is! I am glad that Microsoft came around to knock IBM out of the top spot and spur growth, innovation, and spending in our economy as a result.
Now Microsoft needs a strong competitor. It's got way too much cash, and that cash could do better being put back into the economy.
If Apple and Microsoft were strong competitors it would be good for everyone. More money would be spent and more innovation would occur.

i think reading the comments from previous contributors , one thing becomes apparently clear.
We as consumers ,end users , have the right to make a choice .
My choice is to run Mac osx , now i also think i have the right as a consumer to also use software from across all platforms ,,in this case i choose to use Microsoft word , simple.
That is the point ...choice we all have it ,the 'canny' end user recognizes that not all OS systems are perfect and can run perfect software .
OS systems are a means to an end ,and that my friends ,is why Apple has the edge ,they have opened up the OS to run boot-camp ,to equip end users with choice ,and yes they will make money ,but we as end users will also profit from CHOICE!.

I don't get the comments attacking the original post as being biased towards the Mac? The guy said two pro Mac things:
Creating a DVD is arguably (notice he didn't say it definitely is) easier on a Mac
Upgrading Macs are easy.

As for the copying thing, people copy each other all the time. If you really wanted to go back to where OS X and Vista get their ideas then look at Copland and Cairo. You can go on about who copied who all you like but the thing is, we just don't know that for a fact. Take fast searching for example. MS announced that in WinFS in.. I can't remember if it was late 02 or early 03. Apple showed off an implemented fast search in mid 04 and shipped mid 05. Now I seriously doubt that Apple could have researched and mostly completed something like spotlight in 18 months while also working on other stuff.

Now each company has "copied" off each other. MS has taken the graphics stuff that has been in OS X since 2000. Apple has taken the auto back up that has been in Windows since.. was it Server 2003? Microsoft has taken UI tips for Windows Calendar from iCal. Apple took fast user switching (and actually admitted it) from Windows.

The thing is, it doesn't matter who did what first. If we went off announcing features then MS would likely win. If we went off actually shipping features then Apple would likely win. But does it really matter? The features are in both OSs and it means that users of both win.

Why was Bill Gates so defensive?
I'll tell you.
Here he's trying to promote a 'new' os that they have been working on for 5 years and all he hears is comparisons to macs.
Like any salesman he wants to get the message over that his new product is fantastic and the best thing ever when Apple is getting a slice of his publicity.
Bill Gates knows the games up. People have been putting up with shoddy work from M$ and paying through the nose for it for far too long and are sick of it.
People are realising that all the stability and security problems can be cured in one easy step, just buy a mac.
The games up Bill, everyone (except the windows zealots) knows what a pig windows is. The next version of windows will be based on Unix, just wait and see.

With more than 90% market-share and more money than any human on earth, it's absolutely hilarious that Bill Gates is so pissed about the Apple commercials.

I would have responded in this manner: "We at Microsoft wish Steve and the Apple family all the success in the world in their brave and long fought efforts to top the 2% market-share barrier. I mean, every little bit helps us justify the meager payback we get from our Mac development efforts. Moreover, with Mac's switch to Intel, a high percentage of Mac buyers are now buying Windows - at full-pop - to install on their Mac. We're reaching a completely new market. So keep those cool, innovative ideas flowing, Steve!"

That 90% thing again. What a heap of Bulls Hit!

The 10% of computer users that use the Mac have a more or less equal experience with their computers. Software capabilities, connectivity, user experience, they are very comparable. Even with the huge difference between a MacMini and a Mac Pro, the difference is mainly the amount of load you can put onto the machine.

The 90% of Windows users, on the other hand, have fastly different experiences, simply because of the difference in what the hardware provides, the add-ons that manufacturers installed and the requirements that their bosses put onto the way things are configured and used.

The result is that a satisfied Macintosh user will be equally satisfied when working on a whatever Macintosh they need to work with. The result is also that a satisfied Windows user will very likely be unsatisfied when they are forced to use a different Windows computer. This makes refering to the 90% of computer users as a single group rather silly.

And don't give that crap as if a Windows user automatically means that he is one by choice and wouldn't have it any other way. Many understand the limitations and are seeking out alternatives for certain tasks. This even includes looking over the fence into Mac-land.

And a *lot* of people *know* the Mac in great detail, even if they consider themselves unfamiliair. They have read information and they have been seeking for more detail.

I happen to be a software developer. As such I have to work with colleguas who are in the same business, but work on Windows, while I use my Macintosh. I am truely amazed by the questions I get. They have heard about something and ask me to show it how it works. They *know* so much and really want to see how much is hype and how much is true. I am only too happy to give demonstrations. From their questions I understand that my demo isn't the first one and there seem to be a lot of people who have one just a single issue they can not yet solve (price still seems to be a main objective: why buy a grade-A machine for personal use?)

Yes, it is undeniable that most computer users are sitting behind Windows when doing their tasks. But to equal the amount of Windows users to the amount of happy and satisfied Windows users is a logical fallacy.

90% of the computers have the windows software installed not because these people choose windows, but because people at least before now knew only of windows. They went to work and the computers were windows. They wanted a machine, thus they went with what they knew. If that 90% were given a choice between windows and mac, and shown the difference before their decision, do you really think that 90% ofthem would still choose windows?

A few years back i recall many times looking at instructions for installing software and for windows it gave a long list of instructions, for mac the instruction were "hit install". For me that said it all. You should have to spend time learning how to use the computer, instead you should spend it on the task you want to accomplish with the machine.

I am a dual user. My 1998 Mac runs all of the "advanced" features that Vista now has with no upgrades. And those features are done MUCH better on the MAC. You would have to see it to believe how much better the MAC is. I have never had any trouble finding software to do anything that I want on a MAC for less money than the Windows version. I am a dual user only because I write software for windows machines for a living. Most companies have to use Windows because they uses software written just for thier little niche of the business world. The rest of us can find software to do whatever we want.

Dear Everyone
I find that the average internet user is costing way to much money ! to just have the old plane internet !
Thanks
Dave

Bill Gates does seem incredibly defensive for a guy with 90% market share.

But his comments are completely from another planet. His comments on the security issues in particular are laughable- Windows machines get infected within minutes of going on our network, whereas I've been using macs for 20 years and have NEVER had a virus or spyware. Neither has ANY MAC USER I KNOW. Not a single one. Maybe that's going to change sometime soon, as Mac picks up a bigger and bigger market share- only time will tell if the system really is that much harder to hack, or if it is just a question of a bigger "audience" for the hacks, as Windows people often claim.

"Microsoft admits the issues" because they have no choice- security issues with Windows are so well known that there's no point trying to hide them. How many national news stories did we have in the last 5 years about some apocalyptic worm that brings down hundreds of thousands of computers at a time, costing millions of dollars in lost productivity? These are not concoctions of the Apple press office- these are facts.

And how about the epidemic of SPAM that annoys all of us, and that wouldn't even exist if not for the huge population of infectable Windows machines that get enlisted as "bots"? Every time I spend 10 minutes deleting spam from my inbox, I thank the Windows boxes of the world for the privilege of so many offers for cheap Viigagra, Vi*nagra, Viibb*agra, and, my personal favorite, Viigaagra.

And as for those of you who are bragging about the 90% market share, the answer is really, so what? Most of those people bought Windows bcause it was cheaper, not because it was better.

The question of who ripped off Xerox first is pretty irrelevant. But the fact is, a great many of the "new" features in Vista have been part of OSX for a long time.

That being said, I have nothing against Vista, and hope it is a success. I doubt it will hurt Apple much, and if it cleans up the dismal security situation, that helps all of us, Mac and PC users alike.
-mk

hmm. funny the the mac is so insecure- ours is powered on & on the net 14 hours a day for the past 5 years or so and we've had no troubles. I must be really, really, really lucky.

And all those internal microsoft emails that slam Longhorn (Vista) as sucking, the executive (Allchin) who said he'd get a mac if he didd't work for microsoft, that's all bullshit too, Bill?

I better run out and get me one of them new vista machines so I can be safe.

I don't much like Chairman Bill, but this slavish Apple sycophancy is a real turnoff.

I wouldn't think to hang around at any Starbucks with those kids from the Apple commericals - or even Steve Jobs - because I suspect they'd end up comparing their ach so superior watches, phones, clothes, haircuts, tattoos to mine - or lack thereof.

Does owning a Mac get you laid more often? Does it guarantee you a high score at online gaming? Will it churn out a superior resume, getting you that 100k job at Apple? Does it even get you a discount at yer Starbucks?

Well, then overall I'd say it does look like its just another average tool made by average boys.

Some of the posters above are missing the point. Microsoft depends on people using their lock-in "standards", such as ActiveX, DRM, Office formats etc. to guarantee their future business. The threat to Microsoft isn't directly from Apple, it's if non-proprietary ISO standards start to gain widespread adoption. Every % that Apple gain in market share makes more organisations consider using open standards to ensure compatibility with both Mac and Windows.

If it gets to the point where open-standards are commonplace, there is nothing to stop enterprise level businesses dropping Windows altogether and adopting alternatives. This is what Microsoft really fears. The "Battle for the living Room" with Apple is peripheral to their core business market. If Linux (or another company entirely) becomes a real competitor there, Microsoft's strategy is totally broken.

"The rise of China combined with failing US education and tough visa systems means the US must surrender its superpower status and adopt a more multicultural worldview."
That's according to Bill Gates, Microsoft chairman, who said the US is failing to turn out sufficient numbers of computer science graduates or to attract enough talent from abroad.

Case in point:

"Dude, your PC is soooo lame."
"No, its not"
"Sitis"
"Snot"
"Yuh-huh"

The true test of market share is not when people are forced to use an OS but when they have a choice.

Google lets its employees choose to use a Mac or Windows laptop. The Mac is chosen by 70%.

The people I know that use Windows do so because they are forced by their employers to use Windows. So they stick with what little they know when they buy a computer for home.

Back to the topic... This has turned into a commentary on bias in the blog, but lets remember the purpose of the blog. Gates made certain dubious claims as fact in the interview, which weren't picked up on. The blog is trying to highlight the uncerrtain nature of these 'facts'. Let's stick to considering whether Gates was telling the truth or not. Thos who want to say he was, please point to one exploit in the wild that allows someone to own an OSX box. You won't find one, let alone a 'total exploit' 'every single day'. Don't bother point to the Month of Apple Bugs - many of which weren't anything to do with Apple, I mean VLC for Christ's sake! - the only feasible 'total exploit' mentioned on there was patched weeks ago. Conclusion? Gates was lying.

I have used Microsoft OS's for more than 20 years. I have also used Mac OS's for more than 10 years. Robert Donovan said earlier that users should spend more time actually using the computer than figuring out how to use it or doing maintenance on it. This is true of cars and should be true of computers.

My personal experience is that, so far, Microsoft OS's require a lot more maintenance than Macs. You can use a Mac to do your work without having to clean out Temp files and other sludge to keep it running.

I've never been able to use a Microsoft computer for more than 2 years without having to re-image it. Maybe Vista will change this. I hope so. I have never had to reload anything on a Mac. I hope this continues.

With such a huge share of the market, I doubt that Gates even cares about the money side so much as he desperately wants to have a superior product. What's got him so pissed off is that no matter how hard they try, Microsoft can not innovate at the speed that Apple does. This is like trying to win a speedboat race while driving a freight-liner! If Bill gates wanted to do something cool, he'd spin off a piece of Microsoft for an advanced OS that cared nothing about legacy users. The rest of the world could work on Vista and this new entity would pioneer new techniques and features that would eventually filter down to the masses. THAT is the only way Bill will be able to compete effectively and get some sleep at night.

Article is badly written....What Bill Gates says about the operation commercial is true... imagine MAC OS on any other hardware than MACs.... Gates did that, he gave us a lot of choice in hardware which made competitors in hardware industry and all the prices came down...we owe it to Gates... Also why do u think Mac sales are increasing so rapidly after they moved to INTEL processors???? because of WINDOWS.... I like MAC, Apple made good OS but, their current strategy of attacking Windows without proper ground is bad...

Really LOL! Most of these comments are really funny.

Just to lay things out - I am a Mac user. Have been since 1985. Lots of time behind windows screens also, although I don't own one (but do have a LEGAL copy of XP installed on my brand new MacBook).

I really don't care what you use. It really isn't important to me. Use DOS or Linux or Windows or whatever. Have a ball. Evangelize. Get up in arms. Yell. Scream. None of it affects me at all. I can only give you the facts.

I am the owner of a small DSL provider in Colorado. We have about 1000 customers. About 200 of them are Mac-based - the rest are Windows based. Although the Macs are 20% of our base, they account for less than 1% of our trouble calls - that's right - less than 1%! Just this week - I had no fewer than 10 customers with Windows call because they had to wipe their hard drives and reload their XP operating systems, and then couldn't figure out why they couldn't get on the internet (they all needed to reload their ethernet drivers from their manufacturers' disk - what kind of an OS doesn't include ethernet drivers).

At any rate - come on people - a computer is a tool - like a pencil. It isn't a way of life. It isn't a religion. It is just a tool that you use to do a job. I just want my pencil to work. I am not interested in the chemical composition of the lead, don't care how the paint is applied or the spectral analysis of the color. Nor interested how the eraser is bonded to the wood. I just want it to work. I don't want to spend time messing with it - reloading the lead - changing the eraser type, etc. I just want to use it as a pencil.

I use a Mac because it is reliable and easy. My experiences with PC's running Windows is not the same. My experience with Linux is not the same. They both take too much babysitting and tweaking.

If you want to run Windows, or Linux, or DOS - feel free. Just doesn't work for me.

Now - a serious question. How many of you Mac evangelists out there have spent more than 100 hours behind a windows screen? But it is close to 90%. How many of you Windows evangelists have spent more than 100 hours behind a Mac screen? Bet it is close to 5%. If you are going to evangelize for one OS or the other - let us know where you are coming from. If you are gonna knock Macs - let's see how much experience you have with them. If you're gonna knock Windows - the same. That'll give us some real info on how biased your comments are, and how much attention to pay to them.

As far as the article goes - I think what it showed was how defensive Bill was. That's all.

Vista may be a really good OS, but I can tell you that I will probably never put it on my machine, as the EULA prohibits running anything but Ultimate in a "virtualized environment", and I am sure not going to fork out $500 just to support my customers who are early adopters. Really nice touch, Bill.

Wouldn't it be great if one could read an intelligent conversation in the comments section? Talk about a waste of time!

Microsofts marketing comments are worth pondering and the article was thought-provoking ... but most of you are neither.

Jim Allchin - Jim perhaps you were to young to know how much happened during 60's and 70's, MS dos(gates_went develop as dos ie windows). Mr Gates in a past life was one of the largest pirates who never got caught and went on to become the richest man in the world ,he should try and give some back to ease his conscience!!

p.brosig@insightbb.com

Wouldn't it be great if one could read an intelligent conversation in the comments section? Talk about a waste of time!

Microsofts marketing comments are worth pondering and the article was thought-provoking ... but most of you are neither.

Anyway, thanks for the blog Matt.

"Oh, Lord, it's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way."

From an old C&W song--and true of Mac users!

Apple has always been more into monopoly than PC's . Proprietary hardware, software .. all controlled by one company. Price choice for Apple? non-existent, alternatives, clones? Not allowed.

Finally they had to ditch their OS series to rip off *Nix cuz their own shit didn't hack it.

Like the design and style, but it's all fluff.

I love some of the comments above about how those wanting to do "real work" use Windows.

I've been a Mac user since 1996 and I have never once had to jump onto a Windows based box to get any of my work done.

So my question is what exactly constitutes "real work"?

The Xerox parc argument is somewhat silly becaue Apple at least went to the trouble to hire, and buy many of those technologies, where Microsoft actually just sent someone over to Apple to spy (under the auspice of getting the info they needed as a software developer).

The point of this article is that Gates was lying about the Mac in an extremely defensive way. I don't see how you can argue against that point.

The Mac IS way more secure than Windows has ever been. There are no viruses in the wild for OSX. You can say that's because of market share but honestly, hackers like a challenge... and if Microsoft thinks OSX has a big enough market to develop for, then I guarantee you that there are hackers who think it is too. The simple fact is that it's a combination of factors that keeps the mac safe. 1) The mac has a smaller market share (yes, that helps but isn't the main reason)
2) The Mac has an archetecture that was built for security from the ground up (windows is a cobbled together series of code that has built up decades of holes to be plugged and which security experts have pointed out, was originally designed with the opposite of security in mind--that is to say, when windows was created, it was created by linking program code together so that you couldn't remove explorer and have windows still work for example... which means viruses can freely move throughout the system... osx on the other hand was written with compartmentalized code so that if one app were infected it could not move beyond there without user approval.

This has the added benefit of making OSX more stable because if one app crashes it is unlikely to bring down the whole system. If you're going to bash OSX security, you might bother to read a little bit about security first. And don't just read the dribble put out by most security firms. They are dishonest at best. They have a vested interest in Microsoft staying on top. If OSX wins the OS war then companies like Norton etc will not have any market to sell to. Mac users don't really need antivirus programs.

Now someday I'm sure there will be a few viruses for the mac... but lets not get carried away and pretend that it will ever be as bad as windows.

The bottom line is BG realizes HIS legacy and Windows legacy is slowly/rapidly becoming a joke. Even if you discount the legality of how they arrived at their market position, they did get there but since Windows 1998 and perhaps even Windows 1995, they have added very little of substance to the industry. When the internet started growing, BG & MS tried to tell us that MSN was a better internet - who'd want an internet with just random bits of stuff - better to send them $19.99 a month. BG is smart but it's not easy realizing you are a one-shot pony when it comes to tech. BG is EXCELLENT at selling technology to enterprise marlets - outside of that - not much. (Virtually every consumer release has been an outright failure: MSN, Talking Barnmey's, watches, Bob, WebTV, MSN search, home media PC or of dubious "success" like Xbox which is some $10 BILLION in the hole). How, the history books of being re-written already and SJ is rapidly replacing BG as the smartest guy in tech and that infuriates him as evident by his stammering and frankly, completely ineloquent defense of Windows/Vista. He could have said a thousand other things from being completely dismissive or to parising but insulting every other OS but instead he is not very good at lying and realizes none of that has any ring of truth so he basically sounds like an 8-year old going 'nuh-huh.'

It's great he's doing something useful with his ill-gotten gains instead of just buying gold faucet heads but the man is clearly not that bright about CE - I know some people worship him because he's the world's richest man but he's not that smart about everything. part of it is that can you even imagine him taking photos, listening to music or watching ANY TV outside of a CEO roundtable or the news? He's NOT like us. He's just not interested in what we do - he's just being him and it's disingenius of MS to trot him out as if we'll worship his every word and that he knows what he's talking about. When it comes to consumer technology, he's a dweeb.

OS...hah! Nobody seems to get what really matters. The simple truth is, Windows dominates the market share because Windows is what is installed on the vast majority of PC's and, I'm sorry to say to Mac lovers, PC's are incredibly easier to upgrade than a Mac. Need a new video card? You can actually install one on a PC, not so with a Mac. Yes, Macs are cooler, have some more user friendly software packages but you have to take them to an authorized dealer (of which there are a sliver of a percentage compared to a PC) and get it upgraded. Have an older Mac? Forget about upgrading the bastard, you pretty much have to go out and get a new one. PC's are legos, not as cool as the latest toy out, but hey, you can always play around with legos.

Both systems have their upsides but what has been really annoying about the apple commercials is how they convey the message to the casual viewer that you can't do anything creative on a PC...I tell you what Mac people...Give two people three hours of video footage to edit, one on a mac and one on a pc, and whoever comes back with a more interesting piece has done so because of their individual skill and talent not because of the computer system they used.......So mac people should stop thinking that all of us pcers are code crunchers and office heads....Sony Vegas inspires me to work creatively far more than FCP has ever done....And how can they be slamming on pcs now when they are using the chips that we have had for years....So now that they are in an overpriced piece of furniturem, intel chips are good? But the same chip in a generic pc case is bad? Give me a break....

What exactly has microsoft ever been first at, besides making a crappy os that is full of holes and is used by businesses who have no creativity and think only about themselves.

I have a 20" G5. After 11 months - the Power Supply blew up - the Electrolytic capacitors all blew up - and what support did I get from Apple - ZERO - called and called and kept getting transferred to some support air-head in INDIA! I live in Australia and actually expected better than that.
I love OS-X - it is way better than XP which I use daily at work - at home I use my MAC - but also have sercers and other PC's that all run XP - Server wise it works (XP that is) - but then I date back to 3+ Open and then MS's takeover - SMB works so well.
So I have a foot in both camps.
If you have a problem with a MAC or OS-X or an I-Pod or i-Tunes - just try contacting Apple - they don't wanna know!! But MS not much better.
But still when I have a choice, I will use my MAC running OS-X anyday before XP - I have rebooted due to a system crash 3 times in 2 years - probably 2000 times on my Windows machines (not clones - Dells's or HP's)!!
I would pay so much more for a hardware platform and an OS that is 100% reliable - don't care whether Apple, MS, IBM or whatever (actually OS-2 was fantastic) - so I have no bias - I just want to get on with my work - efficiently and reliably - from that point of vies - MS and Apple both don't have a clue. And for my final comment - give me BG (aka the Nerd) to SJ (aka U2 sleeze etc) - what Bill does for Humanity is incredible - wheeras SJ and Bono spend everyone else's money and take all the Credit - for contributing Zilch of their own!

So in THAT perspective - Bill G gets my vote!!!!

Microsoft has and will always have Mac envy.

http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/010807/PLEX_7264.pdf

Microsoft isn't trying to create a better operating system. It wouldn't make sense from a return on assets standpoint. By investing very little on new development, and a small amount (relatively) on marketing, the shareholders in Microsoft can rake in huge profits for little or no risk. Microsoft's market share (and revenue from it's OS) will steadily decline over t time but will provide enormous cash in the meantime. With web-enabled programs increasing in importance, the OS is becoming less and less valuable. This makes Apple's challenge of returning shareholder value from OS-related revenue daunting even though it arguably does have a "better" operating system. This explains why both companies spend most of their research dollars on non-OS related products and each has an entirely different market strategy in non-OS segments.
The winner of course are Barclay's owners who are reaping the rewards from both sides; Here's what they currently hold as the top institutional investor in both:
MAC: Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd 31,831,417 3.73%
Microsoft: Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd 408,084,601 4.15%

All of the debate and hype plays into both company's value propositions by implying that the underlying value (of Operating Systems themselves) justifies the high market capitalization. At the end of the day, Microsoft and Apple aren't competing at all anymore.

Two words "ubuntu linux" configure the multimedia with automatix2, done. If you want the 3d effects install beryl. Why people waste money on windows or mac is beyond me. It takes an hour the initial setup, I have better things to do with the $800(vista+office). I also don't waste my time with defrags, virus scans, or spyware removal. I also have the freedom to get any barebones computer and load it with linux, mac users are married to mac hardware$$$. Try Ubuntu linux for a week and I'll bet you won't waste your money again.

I'm sitting at my desk and two computers are in front of me. One is a relatively new Dell Windoze XP. The other is a PowerMac. The PC is dead, killed dead by a virus that got through what I thought was rather good security. The Mac has been on for 2 years 1-1/2 months, except for the day we had a power failure. A few programs have crashed over that period, but OSX has held up and continued to run perfectly. I do enormous amounts of e-mail and get hundreds daily, most of it spam. Yet, my Mac has never been taken over by a virus, a spybot, and adbot, you name it.

There's no question in my mind that the Mac OS is vastly superior to Windoze. It is faster, much more reliable, and, well, elegant. Yeah, that's it, elegant.

Gates has taken a line out of of George Bush's playbook: Iraq is falling apart, a total failure, but President Forehead says that things are much better than they seem. Likewise, Gates is saying that Windoze is much more secure than Mac OSX. Just lie in the face of the blunt facts and hope everyone will go away.

Everybody is missing some important points here. Just because a larger group of people eat at "MacDonalds" rather then a 3 star restaurant doesn't turn "Mac Donalds" into one , or because more people read "Tabloids" then "Big Sheet" newsprint like the "NY or LA Times" makes them a better read.
This has more to do with the "Herd Instinct" and "Single Digit IQ's" of the users, then quality of product or individuality.
Just because 90% of computer owners use "Windows", in whatever form or function, does not make it a superior product.
Anybody today, that buys into windows after using it since the "Win 95" days either follows the herd, is ignorant of the facts or an idiot (that makes up for about 90% of computer users).
By the way, I've been using "Windows" professionally, not by choice, for 11 years and "Mac" at home for 9 years.
I repair "WinTel" computers for 100's of poor ignorant souls a year that just don't get it.l

Anyone want to buy a Zune Paper Weight?

Bill is so defensive because Microsoft has spent 5 years making a "new" OS and it still falls short of what Apple has had on the market since 2001.

With Windows you get an "its good enough" approach. Mac takes the time to be innovative instead of playing catch up with other companies.

I'm pretty sure Vista has ripped off Apple's Widgets, spotlight, and over all design.

And as for who created things first, Apple was the first to use a mouse, and I'm pretty sure that it a bigger step than "File, Edit, View, etc."

how many of you guys that have an opinion (and a rather hostile one at that) actually have used the latest version of OSX and have had a hands on experience with Vista (and allowed enough time for the possible virus to enter). I haven't, so I can't say anything. I never will be able to say anything. I use a mac.

Hey PC people.
Ok. Here's the drill.....
PC people hate that Mac people are smug about their OS. Even when OS9 was crashing left and right it was still miles better than windows.

Now, the quality gap is higher.
Every time I touch a Win machine I curse it, the thought and design that has gone into human interface standards on Windows up until XP has been mind-numbingly lame.

Here's why I am particularly smug:
I get stuff done. I don't have to deal with driver issues, I have never had a virus, worm, trojan horse, malware but once. (and It was isolated to an external drive)

The stuff on a mac just works (just like the ad says).

Apple doesn't hide its bugs any more than microsoft. (I know, I used to work at Apple in engineering)

In a few years, when apple has more market share, we might just be complaining about how hackers are taking more interest in macs, but until then I'll go with the real deal, thanks.

Smugly yours,
s

Good percentage of reasoned, creditable, and coherent posts here. Better than most of the Comments you see...
User since 69 (IBM 360) Atari, Commodore, AppleII Xerox, Osborne, Zenith, Mac I, Mac II, IBM PC, IBM PCjr, Mac CI,CX etc etc.
Worked in three computer retail stores. Freelance geek for 15 years. Large institutions hire me to take care of the Macs in their creative departments because IT do NOT want to touch them.
1,000's of hours in front of DOS, Win3, Win95 etc
10,000's of hours in front of OS1,OS4,OS7,OSX10.2, etc.

You can buy a hundred different modems or network cards or programs for Windows. What percentage are quality products? If you get a medium or low quality product and pair it with another, and have problems, who is going to give you a solution?
Drivers are a big problem, supposedly they are a bitch to write correctly, and are expensive to create.
WindowsNT, 2K, XP, (maybe Vista) are designed to be behind large corporate firewalls with IT people to babysit them. And Microsoft sells them to the home user.
Articles were published about the 66,000 bugs in the initial release of WinXP.
WinME was the last user version (pew).
The registry is a bad thing. If a 174 companies can build registry cleaners (there's that Windows advantage of more software) why can't Windows keep it clean?
Networking on Windows sucks, the open ports, the ability of system components to invisibly install and trash the os. The bitrot that requires a repair or most often a clean install. More than a dozen clients have given away their Win machine and bought a new one, rather than do the monthly maintenance that ALL OS's require. Monthly maintenance that SHOULD be done by the OS - if 489 companies can make maintenance utilities that help keep Windows reasonably fresh, why can't Microsoft?
It appears that with Office 2007, Microsoft has finally realized that adding 150 features that 97% of the users will NEVER use, is less useful than making the 10% of the features that most users DO use easier to access.
Have you watched the number of exploits that are removed by Spybot grow over the last two years?
There are no exploits for OSX unless you're phished or install something dumb (if you still use IE).
Apple made it's OS for the individual user. Even in OS7,8,9 it was harder to hurt something because the port default was OFF.
This made it more difficult for IT to deal with Macs. The 90% marketshare is partially because of the large percentage that are business machines, dictated by IT for homogenity, not a good genetic decision.
Apple had drop dead networking early on using Appletalk, it just worked. And IT hated it, because it was simple and chatty, talking all the time on the network.
OSX sucked for the first two revisions. The dock is less than it should be. The mouse has been usable, but I use a two button scroll wheel model. Networking and printing needs lots of work, although the printer manufacturers are finally writing quality drivers.
The directory on Apple's file system is poorly implemented, if utilities can fix it, why can't the OS prevent the corruption?
Backup, the most important part of computing, has been ignored by both (MS backup has lead people to believe they are backing up, but retrieval is another matter).
Gates and Jobs are both driven. And their companies cultures reflect this.

I prefer Mac, but I do not use vertical software or games. Nor am I in a corporate environment.

I will say just this, Gates is grasping at straws as he has done for years. 'Innovation' is not a word that Microsoft can accurately use, perhaps it should be replaced with 'desperate'.

I think he and his team of 'experts' (what a funny guy; 'experts'...) should go back to the drawing board and kick up some new ideas for once. If that's possible. I doubt it.

And Mr Stewart, Apple and Microsoft are obviously still competing, that's business. Why else would Gates be so bitter about the upgrade issue?

As a conclusion, I'd like it to be noted that I'm writing this comment on my boyfriend's fantastic MacBook. Very easy to use, stylish and incredibly non-Windows.

God, most of you are complete morons; including the original poster.

A couple of examples:

1. In the article, Bill compares the security of VISTA vs. OSX. He makes a claim that VISTA is much more secure than OSX. Whether you believe him or not, for you guys to claim that Bill is lying because XP is not secure, is completely illogical. XP is indeed insecure, but the article never broached this subject. If you're going to call Bill a liar, don't make yourself one in the process.

2. Bill claims that Microsoft invented most of the features that Apple now claims Vista stole from them. This is indeed true and it has been documented in quite a few articles. Microsoft showed these features to developers back in 2002/2003..it's a matter of public record. Unfortunately, Microsoft's Longhorn (now Vista) development took a lot longer than everyone expected (Bill notes this as well) and Apple was able to copy these features and release a new OS before Microsoft. It is incredibly disingenuous for Apple to now claim that they were the ones that came up with said features in the first place.

To say that PCs are easier to upgrade than Macs is to oversimplify the situation. It depends upon which model of mac and whether you're talking about software or hardware. Software upgrades on every model of mac are drastically simpler and much smoother than any such upgrade on a pc. Hardware upgrades are different to some extent.

Mac minis and iMacs are not as upgradable (hardware-wise) as pcs. However, the items that you can upgrade on them are quite easy to upgrade (such as ram, the processor, and the screen on the iMac).

The MacPro, on the other hand, has just as much upgradability as any pc (with the exception of the logic/motherboard).

But there are different advantages to each approach. The Apple approach helps maintain a much more stable platform than windows and makes possible the "it just works" reality of the mac ecosystem.

The PC approach gives you more hardware options and the ability to put together a bargain basement pc for less than the low rung mac... however, someone above suggested that Mac's are more expensive than pcs...

That's misleading. If you look feature for feature, the Mac is quite competitive on price. The standard mac comes with far more features than a bargain pc so price comparisons are hardly fair. And if you look to laptops in particular, the competitiveness of the mac platform is extremely good. You also end up paying a bit for the extremely portable form factor... but you can't forget the basic software package that is included for free with the mac, as well as all the upgrades such as high quality camera, built in bluetooth, high quality screens etc. etc. etc.

um... i just upgraded my PC... it cost me $200. i bought a new gfx card, and another gig of ram. don't you have to buy an entire new computer if you want to upgrade a mac?

PC Envy? Mac Envy? Sitting on the fence here and being a mac fanatic both OSes are as difficult and insecure as one another (I've 6 macs at home at 2 windows) as for the guy who threw in the games argument for PCs get an xbox man, put the disk in, it works, from the creative end of things which I stem from yes the mac is far far superior, from the business end of things the PC has the software and is probably (shame on me) far far superior, deal with it, M$ is NOT an innovator, they've 90% market share, why would you wanna innovate and blow us all away with vista, it looks damn good, like OS 10 when it arrived 5 or more years ago, but it definitely sounds like M$ are shoring up an XP upgrade, security security security, so stifling that 90% of the market are going to be hamstrung.

two words: market capitalization
suck mactards

First Off, I am a mac user who uses a windows machine at work.

There are a couple of discussion points I would like to give my two cents on.
1) Vista on Virtual Machines - There has been some misunderstanding of Microsoft's Licensing (My info is from a MS licensing rep). You can run ANY version of Vista on a virtual machine (As long as you have a license). However Vista Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate allow you to run multiple copies of Vista on the same hardware through virtualation (Amount varies by version).
2) Upgrading Mac Hardware - Other than RAM, upgrading hardware on a MAC is a pain in the @$$. However this is not felt by most mac users because each OS does not require a hardware upgrade. My first Gen G4 is still running with the latest Mac OS. I use it as a shared file server for my intel Mac Mini and my iBook G4.
3) I was at the microsoft launch event and the two features that I saw that were not already on my mac were the video desktop (Using video instead of a static picture for your desktop) and Ready Boost (Using a USB drive as a swap drive), and honestly only Ready Boost made me jealous. However the built in voice recognition (that mac has had since the early 90s) not quite working right was funny to watch. (To be fair it was as accurate as the first version on MAC.)
4) Apple does not sell bargain basement or do it yourself MACs. Because of this a Windows PC will always be able to undersell the Mac. However if you compare a similarly configured PC, the MAC will be comparable on price and sometimes cheaper. Just do a google search or go to apple.com and dell.com to see this for yourself.
5) Hardware choice is a double edged sword. Yes it allows for super cheap and do it yourself PCs, but it also creates a support nightmare where even Microsoft is not able to keep up with all of the drivers out there.

In reference to the flowchart:

Better a smartass than a dumbass.

Wow...I didn't even know that Apple still made computers. I thought all they made were Ipods.

Flowchart leaves out Win2003, by far THE BEST Microsoft OS evar, used'm all from CPM(not really MS) to even "96" (look it up) on a industrial lathe, and trust me. 2k3 is the OS "to work done" on. It's the REAL Windows Ultimate

Well,

In 10 years of owning macs, only once was I hampered by software that is unavailable for the mac - 3DS Max - my solution? Load Windows XP on Parallels as a VM and do the job I needed to do - in my Mac. And, for the record, I was only hampered because I was bailing out someone whose PC crashed and locked the day before a major paper submission. A couple of days notice and I would have done it with Poser. Oh, and I work at a Graphics Research Lab (in Computer Science).

<!!

There was a rather scathing comment about whether or not having a Mac will get you laid, and all I have to say to that is yes. I refuse to date PC guys, I simply MUST have a Mac geek warming my bed. That way, I know I'm getting someone smart who's willing to go the extra mile to get what he wants, and hey, they're generally cuter anyway ;)

There is a lot of talk about hardware specs and performance between a Mac and PC but it all comes down to one thing...the digital lifestyle....Macs have it, PCs don't.

Movies, music, photos...they're just better on a Mac. Until Windows catches up, I'll keep using Macs.

I run IT (by myself) for an exchange server, xserve, xraid, 50 macs and 4 pcs.

I'm glad most of them are macs, and 2 out of the 4 PC's are running Win2k3

my xp box is for games only:)

But yeah, so far half the apple bug o' the month club has been pumping out half their exploits that work on the PC to, stuff like quicktime (crossplatform) vlc (everyplatform)

From a normal view - and for my personal media managment, and media creation, the apple tools are consistantly better, and friendlier. After 7 years of pro tools i use Garage band for quick tracking. it's to easy. It sounds so good.

Still have a PC, for games, but love the apple stuff. Go Crossover! don't make me have 2 machines anymore!

I don't know why are you so arguing about... When we look at the facts, 80% of IT ppl are "wanna be" administrators or programmers and they think they know all. Now they say linux is better, wow...

When we look at the facts, London stock exchange, NASDAQ, Continental, AMD, MySpace, MICROSOFT is on win 2003, it's funny when some wanna be admin says that linux is better against software analitics who have choosen the right solution for their IT firms. That what ppl thinks it's free, yeah right. I'm sure 90% of them doesn't know what TCO is (total cost of ownership), and that licence is cheapest part of all. Something else makes Win so much cheaper than that so called free.

OS X is for kids, and is very limited. MOAB proved that it's full of holes, so will linux be, just when it gets much more popular. Why dont you speak about that Linux Debian now has more than 400 000 bugs but when Win gets one all the bells are ringing.
Use right thing, don't think that anything is free.

I'd like to touch on aher be playing Battlefield 2142. Why should it be any different for an OS that delivers more?

I've been a Windows user for many years. I actually appreciated the fixes in Windows Me over Windows 98. I have never had any real issues with crashes. I've had some, but nothing that would make me take a hammer to my case. One thing you always find with the Windows prebuilt systems is a silly amount of applications preinstalled running in the system tray. It only compounds itself when you start installing all your 3rd party applications. Winamp, Quicktime, IM apps, Realplayer, Norton anti-this and anti-that, etc. all vie for space in the system tray and just clog it up and make it sluggish and unstable. My friend's G5 crashes more with Cubase VST than my Windows x64 does with Adobe Audition. Is it either OS's fault, or is it the 3rd party software?

My main issue with the Mac vs. PC commercials goes back to basic retail principles. Why is it that Mac has started selling it's product based on the problems of the competion? You sell your product based on two things; quality/price ratio and fit. You should by product X because product X is this. Prodcut X is what you need because of this. Anyone that starts to sell product based on others faults starts to lose credibility. And for those that don't read into this correctly - just because you say the other product has as issue, it doesn't mean that your product won't have that same issue, you're only pointing it out for that product.

"i just upgraded my PC... it cost me $200. i bought a new gfx card, and another gig of ram. don't you have to buy an entire new computer if you want to upgrade a mac?"

Uhh, no. Done that sort of upgrade on my MacPro in a couple of minutes.

Just for grins I tried to install Mac OS 10.4 on my old 450 Mhz iMac DV with 512 MB RAM. I had a big grin when it worked, and an even bigger one when I figured out it was usable. Try installing Vista on a 450 Mhz machine and let's see how usable it is. Doubt it would even work.

First of all, the whole reason for releasing Vista has nothing to do with security. The only reason for Vista/Aero is to get folks to buy new and faster computers.

I personally think Windows was designed to be insecure to open up markets for virus checkers, etc. Its reliance upon a "registry" which anything can modify was designed to fail. I have repaired numerous systems which were corrupted by mismatched DLLs, modified by a new software installation.

OTOH MacOS and Linux are based upon open standards and designed to be reliable

Microsoft's recent deal with Novell reinforces that belief. If you can't beat 'em join 'em.

Wow. Another utterly biased and one-sided article by a Microsoft Basher/Apple Fanboy. What a surprise. Every product (especially operating systems) that has EVER been released by Microsoft has been greeted by articles from detractors ascerting ABSOLUTELY that it was too big, slow or expensive. No one would like it unless you had a top of the line system, and EVERYTHING else out there is a better substitute, especially macs. This was true from windows 95 on. And guess what? Hundereds of MILLIONS of windows users over more that a decade disagree. You want to hate Microsoft go ahead, but if you are going to write an objective article then it is your responsability to be objective. This "article" is nothing more that opinion and conjecture. Where are the facts? Oh right, 'People he knows, more and more of whom buy Macs". Solid journalism, there. I hope this isn't your day job.

I have been a PC user since the early days of dos and originally rejected the MAC because it looked like a toy compared to a PC. I am always amazed at some friends who have a mac and are religious about thinking how great they are but have nothing but problems using their systems. Apple has spent years convincing and scaring their fans about how hard it is to use a PC and how wonderful the MAC is to run. MAC people are usually less sophisticated about computers and are basically consumer-bots who are willing to spend twice as much for the same features you get on a PC while chanting the apple cool life mantra. I use Linux at work and PC's at home. I have had friends with
MACs that have had problems and I have tried to help them fix their systems and but they remain basically people who are afraid to look under the hood of any computer. If MACS were so startling great they would dominate the market instead of providing cooler commercials on TV.

I've been using both Windows/Macs since I was a kid, from Windows 3.1 and MacOS 6 all the way up to the latest versions today. Personally, I enjoy Macs alot more, I think they have always been geared towards the more "creative" uses (Print,Video,Music) I use mine for music all the time, I run a business doing music on it. I think Windows is great for what it does as well. Is it as beautiful and streamlined as OS X? No. Does that make it a BAD operating system? No. People just like to think in black and white. It's either A or B...it really isn't though. It's a computer, an operating system makes a computer capable of doing many things. The point is....just use whatever gets your work/music/fun done the way you like it. If it were the other way around and Apple had the 90% marketshare, and Windows was always trying to gain, I think it would still be a problem, there always needs to be competition for innovation, and I love all the choices. My preference just happens to be a Mac. Please people, stop calling it MAC, it's super annoying! A Mac is short for Macintosh.

Wow, who knew the Mac vs PC debate could get so emotional? Don't you people have better things to do (unless you're bored and doing laundry like me).

1. Don't claim your superiority unless you've actually worked on and compared BOTH options...

2. Defensiveness - Noticing a general trend ala BG in the blog, ie Windows buffs spewing bs that simply isn't true. Get this into your heads - OSX and Vista stole most of their stuff from someone else. All hail Xerox PARC.

3. Most of the Mac posters are smug, egotistical, and happy with their machines. PC users are wondering if getting a Mac could get them laid... seriously, if you think computers have anything to do with that then you need some counseling.

3. I gotta wonder how many people just surf blogs so that they can post "you people are all morons!". Hmm, what a clever and witty comment.

4. BG is nervous because the 'new' Vista doesn't really have anything 'new' on it. It may be a good OS, but there is nothing revolutionary about it.

5. BG is pissed because the comparisons of Vista with the Mac is giving Mac a whole lot more publicity than it ever got by just coming out on its own. Exhibit A: This blog.

The Mac OS is better. PeeCee's suck. This pisses PC users off. I'd be annoyed too if I had to use a PeeCee. I don't argue anymore, if you follow the herd, want to keep Bill Gates rolling in his billions go buy your PeeCee from Walmart. If you want an easy to use computer that makes sense go buy a Macintosh computer.

How was Microsoft first? The Apple II was released in 1977, the Lisa, the first computer to employ a graphical user interface was in 1983. Microsoft released the first Windows version in November 1985! Get your facts strait people! Look it up if you don't believe me. All you Gate's lovers look like fools!!! OS X hit the market in 1999. Microsoft's XP came out in 2001!!

90% plus of computer users run windows, and more people run linux than macs so at best I'm guessing mac users total 3-4 percent and yet they feel they have the right to act like know it all jerk-offs.

The more Mactards piss and moan the more i'm convinced that myself and the overwhelming majority of the world have a far superior computer experience.

And btw why wouldn't Bill G, be PO'ed I'm almost to the point I want to go around and smack the little mactards for being such crass little whiny asses, and I'm just a Win user.

And finally - Bill & Melinda Gates have donated BILLIONS to charity, just how much has the Head Mactard Steve Jobs dontated to charitable causes? Hmmm I thought so.

Matt, you seriously need to learn how to write a persuasive essay because, in that piece of garbage I just read up top the parts that made the [s]most[/s] sorry, any sense where given by Mr. Gates. Take an English class before you write another one of these please.

APPLE = LOTS OF HYPE, LIES, DECEIPT & OVERPRICED CRAPPY COMPUTERS

Steve Jobs, the Apple commercials, etc. is all a desperate attempy by Apple to stay afloat in the computer industry.

Why buy that overpriced MAC piece of junk that is incapable of running most of the world's software, computer games, use industry standards for business communications. The MACS are useless.

The reason we don't see more security breaches on MACS is because no one wants to bother to write even malware programs to annoy the typical computer bimbos that buy MACS.

The MAC is a dead system. Wonder why arrogant Stve Jobs dropped "Computer" from Apple's name last month.

Apple is lucky their also overhyped overpriced crippled IPODS are still selling, otherwise Apple would have died by now. Making the IPOD work with Microsoft Windows saved them. I bet deceitful Steve Jobs had to eat !@# when he was forced to make the IPOD work on Windows. The idiot had claimed you had to buy a MAC to use the IPOD when he first introduced the overpriced mp3 player.

All you people need to get a life, go outside once in while (maybe see the sun) and be more concerned on some real life issues face the world. DRM is Nazi sh*t!!!

I would like to comment on the perception that Mac users tend to be more creative, (video, photo, music, etc). Adobe constantly puts out it's pro and consumer version photo editors in PC trim first. The reason being that 70%-80% of professional photographers work on a PC. Because it's "better"? I don't know. Maybe, for one reason or another, it's just better for them. If a Mac is better for you, good. If a PC is better for you, just as good. Having both around is good for both users so who cares who uses what? Can anyone out there tell if a best seller was written on a Mac or PC? Or what platform that video you just watched on utube was edited on. How about that unbelievable photo that you saw yesterday? The only thing that gets me heated up is when I have to open a web page in IE instead of Firefox because it won't display properly. And that is the websites fault. It's not who's hammer and nails you buy, but what you can build with them that counts. Any one lose someone in Iraq lately? Oops, that's not nearly as important.

Like many I've used Windows for the past 15+ years. I also use Linux as a server. The world largely uses Windows and that doesn't in itself make it the best. The world also pays too much attention to the UN. Anyway, as goes Microsoft, for the time being, so goes the world ... at least until independent thinking takes hold.

I remember Windows.

Wow what a war you guys have going on here. This is to poster Tony who said that People who use Macs virtually don't know anything about computers. I believe this use to be some what true but not any longer. I am a graduate computer science student and have used both both OSes. I have seen many people switch in our department to Macs. I see MacBookPros everywhere now in the department because its the best combination of power and usability and people are starting to get that. I bought a brand new Gateway Laptop a year ago...I have re-installed XP at least 12 times because of instability issues or maleware. In fact I totally lost my love with Windows when it really crashed and I could not reboot it while finishing a term paper a week before finals. I had some of it backed up though. I am sure Vista will be better than XP as they keep getting better, but it does not matter now because I just bought a MacBookPro and its totally awesome! Very well built machine, I see why so many in the department are buying them. I can do all my Computer Science programming and assignments on it. My wife and kids use it as well. Power and ease of use. I have had it for about 2 months now and it never crashed. I never shut it off! I run lots of programs at once and just close the lid. Its always ready to go.

After using Win95,Win98,WinXP all the previous years the Mac OS X was like a breath of fresh air. I actually get a lot more work done now than I ever did on Windows. All of the Windows flavors crashed on me often or got frequent infections eventhough I ran all the anti-spy/virus, firewal etc on them. I spent so much time with that crap when I could have been doing my work.

On the Mac, I do exactly that, my work. I paid about $700 more for the Mac laptop than my previous windows laptop, but it is definitely worth it! I am trouble free and spend Zero time fixing anything on my Mac.

Wake up Windows users, most of you should try the MacBook its a wonderful machine and the OS is great. I run OS X, WinXP, and Unix Applications on one machine! No crashes. While I am typing this I have 31 applications running while doing my programming assigment. I am actually trying to see how much this thing can take. Its doing great.

Shinobi

Previously a pc sufferer, now a 5 year mac lover I can tell you first hand, no blue screen of death, no driver issues, no fatal exceptions, NO VIRUSES, no trojans, no bots nothing. nada. zip. It's the simplicity and elegance with which the Mac goes about its business. Ease of recognition of anything you plug into it. Even a bluetooth adapter, the installation process for a pc is seven pages long, for a mac it says simply- plug it in to USB. And that sums up the entire debate, the mindset of both companies.

I find it funny people saying that because 90% of people use windows it means they obviously like it more than mac.

well most people pay their taxes, it doesnt mean that they prefer paying taxes to the alternative. Im not saying you will be jailed for not buying windows unlike not paying your taxes but sometimes you just dont have a choice.

The reason more people don't buy macs is because more people dont sell them. Apple gives resellers bad profit margins so most places prefer to sell pc boxes with higher profit margins. Its also easier to become a reseller of PC's compared to trying to become an apple reseller.

Why not just let 90% of the world continue
to buy Windows... and 5% continue to buy
Apple... and you can buy whatever *YOU* like.

Everyone gets exactly what they want.

There *IS* a reason why Apple is only 5% of the
world, you know. It's not just "luck" or a
very odd "coincidence".

People buy what they like. And we can see an EXTREMELY small group of people buy Apple products.