Reader Comments

ura....ura ***

Because they are based on raster graphics technology and not bitmaps hey scale correctly to any resolution. VECTOR DING DONG

Somebody once said "Artists Ship". http://mark-lucovsky.blogspot.com/2005/02/shipping-software.html

I thought Bitmaps WERE rasters.

Wow, so exiting. Longhorn will have features that Apple already has or will have out by the end of this week!

It's about time for Apple fans to grow-up.It's not about "toys" anymore. I wonder if some of you tried to develop for Apple's new "Tiger" interface?

heard this song and dance before...

"toys" LOL..... i didn't know that some of the fastest super computers in the world are made with "toys"

I wonder how many features will have been cut by 2006? Oh well, anything is better than XP...

Why do so many Mac users suffer from short-guy syndrome? If you like your platform, then use it for something other than to ***** about Windows. As far as Steve Jobs most recent whining is concerned, maybe he should complaining about the real issues Apple faces - "According to a study recently released by IDC, Apple’s Q4 share in the desktop market reached 2.88%, boosting 2.2% more than in Q3." Wow. I mean, that’s impressive even for a vastly superior platform like the Mac.

The times they are a changin'... Following M$ now is like following Novell in the early-mid 1990s. Lots of exhuberence, lots of frustration, and even more denial. The 800 lb gorilla now has a rash and it is spreading. It used to be when you said you use a Mac a couple of years ago, Windows users laughed or called it a toy. Now they just get mad...it is hilarious. Why can Windows users blatantly slamm Apple, yet get so uber-defensive when someone points out their flaws.

Mac fans do not suffer from short-guy syndrome, it quite the opposite. Billy G is the guy with "short-guy syndrome". Why doesn't just admit he is putting features into Longhorn that he copied from Apple instead of trying to make it seem like it was one of his own hair-brained ideas. I get it we had the idea first, that's why MS is coming out with it a year and a half later then Apple. Oh, I guess he wants to give little Apple a chance to make some money amd grab another .3% of the market . Some habits are hard for him to change (like ripping of other companies ideas).

Enough already with the comparisons of OSX to Longhorn. It's hard to be innovative when a large proportion of your resources are related to addressing security in obsolete code. Even if Longhorn is only useful in business, it will have a long life.

It will be nice to see Windows compatibility in a better OS. I'm worried that MS is trying to make 2 OSes in one with Longhorn being mostly new while still supporting all the conventions of 32 2k, XP et al. It seems like it would be better if Longhorn supported a sort of VM for XP with VirtualPC technology. That would have the benefits of keeping the Longhorn code lighter and cleaner while providing a software firewall between the environments. Who cares about eye-candy when there's real fundamental issues to deal with?

Actually the comparisons of OSX to Longhorn are just beginning.... If you are tired of hearing about, it will be a long 18 months.

Longhorn gonna be the best!! Watch it! Bware Mac guys!!

I agree 18 long , long months. Here is one already from Associated Press today! "Indeed, many of the features that Gates demonstrated Monday have been a part of the Mac OS since it was released in March 2001. And some of Longhorn's organizational tools, such as faster searching and virtual folders that populate with documents based on the information they contain, are expected to be part of the version of Mac OS X that goes on sale Friday." 18 and counting. I just hope there's no more delays... 19, 20, 21, 22, 24... and counting! Bill's killing me!

It's not Microsoft's fault that, with 95% market share, the risks of starting fresh with a completely different operating system, as Apple did with OS X, meant that they had to continually update the old OS and its code. Having ridden Windows from 3 to 95 to 98 to 98SE to XP and XPP, they have done adequately, except for security issues. I am tired of the hassle, but I doubt I'd go to the other side. I admit to owning an ipod, and I've see the Apple OS X--don't see any difficulty adopting--and I think people exaggerate the difficulty of the move, but I can't see it. Color me lazy. But if I have to zero out the drives again and reinstall from scratch, I may have to chuck it out the window and go with Apple. Really, how much do they expect us to take. I've spent a year of my life doing Redmond's job.

The real question here is will Longhorn finally do something useful like eliminate the dreaded Blue Screen of Death!!! We've seen that blasted screen for the last 20 years, when will they finally fix it to either 1) not show up or 2) make it mean something that a user can decypher and get useful information on. I don't give a crap if they put a new search button on the Start button, fix the core problems that have existed since the inception of Windows.

Beware Mac guys??! Are you kidding me? Beware of unsecure bloatware 18 months behind schedule? If that's the best... a lot of us will opt for second place.

I agree about the Blue Screen. Take care of the basic problems, and save the eye candy for later. Is basic functioning without reboots too much to ask? And the ever obscure file labeling and locations? We need advanced search to do simple tasks that would take a Apple user a couple clicks to find anyway. I'm tired of the desktop, but security and clean running come first. The tediousness of skimming for malware really detracts from the experience, just slows me down. Do something more there first.

I want to know if they'll ever change their lame organizational names, from Start to My Computer, etc., etc. I mean, do they have an ounce of creativity? They should change the display and desktop. Why not? Make it better, just don't take forever. Stupid names and stupid games, that's why they're lame!

Funny that comments during WinHEC attracts Mac zealots to troll. And I'm certain there's enough Windows zealots trolling when there's a Mac event going on. Does it give you a lasting good feeling or is it just a blink in time of showing your feathers? I've seen these System Wars since 1985 (I guess we've reached System Wars: Episode XVI) when it was about C64/Atari/Amiga/Spectrum/Amstrad/PC/TI/Mac, and every day a new zealot is born to flurry with the other males in heat.

"New zealot is born to flurry with the other males in heat." Hey we're discussing computer OSes. No need to get testy! Like I say it takes a zealot to know a zealot.

""toys" LOL..... i didn't know that some of the fastest super computers in the world are made with "toys"" Ok, anyone who thinks Macs are faster than PCs is malinformed and doesn't know what a benchmark is. (Wait I just described a Mac user)

Not much zeal for Windows, sorry. Mac fancier about super computers was talking about xserve clusters and xsan and so on that do well, and IBM cleaning clocks with powerpc. Dollar for dollar, apple xserve wins, and dollars count heavily in research. Benchmarks count there. I don't care about game frame rates.

Hey, I like the screenshots of Longhorn. Real improvement in looks, like XP. Too many words on control panel. It's like reading a book. But the beast underneath? For all the wait, are we only getting the incremental improvement that XP was? Say what you will, Tiger is one fine operating system, it looks. But if Thurrott uses Mac, and discounts Longhorn, why shouldn't I? Talk about biting the hand...

Man...is there ANYONE with some objectivity? Seriously people. Ok, the Mac is a great platform. Great software, great looking (and performing) OS. No question. Anyone who calls it a "toy" is being retarded. Apple makes good hardward and software with plenty of power. And "back in the day" Macs had a HUGE advantage over PCs if you wanted to do almost anything artistic. Photo editing, desktop publishing, educational software, music software, multimedia production, video editing, all of it was more plentiful and better on the Mac. Because the Mac had more and better software in all these areas, designers, musicians, etc., all got on the Mac train and stayed there. (Also helped a lot that Macs were easier to use and more reliable (less crashes.) However, NOW, there are just as many excellent packages for all these application categories on PCs. So, the only advantages the Mac has over PC anymore are: 1. Better looking OS 2. More stable / less hacked OS 3. Nice ergonomics What about the PC?? Well, the PC is easier to upgrade/customize/tweak (I'm talking hardware here) and more expandable. It has a lot more software in almost every category. At least 1/2 of the top games on PCs never make it to Mac. Also, many business applications either don't go to Mac or are released much later than they are on the PC. Macs of course have alternatives to these applications that aren't released on Mac (for business software anyway), but they aren't the applications PC users are used to using at work. Mac heads love to talk about how unstable Windows is, but they aren't being realistic. The PC is an OPEN platform. There are dozens of motherboard manufacturers, severl BIOS manufacturers, dozens of video card makers, sound cards, and other add-in cards, etc. How about Apple? Hmmm. One motherboard maker, one BIOS, etc. MUCH easier to make a stable OS when you have SO many less variables to consider. When you look at the challenge that MS has with Windows, they need to make an OS that is compatible with literally MILLIONS of potential hardware profiles, that is pretty damn impressive. And when you add in the fact that they need to make sure that compatibility also takes into account OLD hardware manufacturers that may not even exist anymore, the fact that Windows works as well as it does is even more impressive. If they didn't do that, we'd have to run out and buy all new hardware...hmmmm...just like people who bought the old 68XXX based Macs were screwed and had to upgrade to completely new systems when the PowerPC based architecture came along. And as far as security is concerned, I have news for you, MS is not NEARLY as bad at security as everyone thinks. There is room for improvement yes, but the real reason there are so many security issues with MS is that there are SO many people looking for ways to exploit Windows. Why? There are many reasons. For one, if you are a black hat hacker, hoping to get some financial gain or other illegal benefit from your work, does it make sense to hack an OS that has less than 3% of the market? Or are you going to target the OS that has a virtual monopoly on desktops? And then there are the hackers that just HATE MS and so they also target MS...there are far more people who can't stand anything MS puts out than there are people who can't stand what Apple puts out. Finally, there are the white hat hackers and security consultants. Same logic here as the black hats...are they going to spend a lot of time looking for security issues for an OS that only has 3% of the market, or are they going to look for something that might cause serious trouble for 97% of the market? If they are "platform neutral" in disposition and their motivation is to help protect people, they will be trying to break Windows. So...both platforms are good. They are just different. Different advantages, different disadvantages...get over it.

"It's about time for Apple fans to grow-up.It's not about "toys" anymore. I wonder if some of you tried to develop for Apple's new "Tiger" interface?" I have been developing with Tiger 6 months now. I can guarantee it is the best development platform ever. Cocoa is the best for rapid development of powerful, stable applications. In fact, I think Tiger is much more of a developer release than a user release. Core data, core image, and core video are amazing, there is nothing like them in the Win world. Although I am a bit of an Apple fan, it does seem to me that Microsoft did announce its Longhorn search features before apple did. It seems to me that Apple usurped all of Longhorn's key features and implemented them before they did, and then accused MS of copying them, in an ironic twist. Just my take on it anyway.

[I]Man...is there ANYONE with some objectivity?[/] Good take. We have three iBooks at home but I do use an XP computer at work from time to time. Since SP2, it has been much more stable. My big beef with Windows PC's is that when they are shipped, the hard drive is full of demos and useless crap. The restore discs don't include an option to install the OS only so you are left with trying to clean the junk out yourself. For the average computer user, it is almost impossible. Apple computers come with separate restore discs for the OS and extras. The extras disc even has a custom install option. I know there are workarounds, build your computer, purchase XP, find a torrent, etc. It's just that the out-of-box experience pretty much sucks with Windows computers. People say it's an "open" platform but they come with the registries f'd up from the start.

"People say it's an "open" platform but they come with the registries f'd up from the start." I agree with you there...(I'm the "is there ANYONE with some ojectivity?" guy.) That's why I never buy prebuilt systems except here at the office. At home, I always build my own. I used to do it because it was so much cheaper than pre-built and because I could pick exactly what I wanted for hardware brands etc. of components. The cost savings has pretty much disappeared (except in the high end gaming PC market) but now I also do it because of all the crap loaded on branded systems. You're right about the PCs registry being a mess on most new PCs.

To "is there ANYONE" I'm a Mac user and don't apologize for it. I like a lot of what you wrote, and thanks, you went to a lot of trouble to do it. But I disagree on several points, or at least have a different take. Some issues, such as quanity of software and Mac not having had one single successful virus or other malware attack due to low market share are really old debased arguments, but I'll address them. First--and this is a Mac user writing this--three areas concerning hardware are negative with Macs. One, for whatever reason, product release of Mac graphic cards lags PC's and they're more expensive, even discounting third-party spinoffs of ATI and Nvidia boards. Two, Apple sells many more limited upgradable computers than PC makers do. The real sticking point is what you can't change the graphics board, and if it's integrated into the motherboard, well...Now the Power Mac is completely upgradable, as much as any PC. Three, Apple very seriously undertakes any upgrade in a product line; the negative is that adoption of some developments, such as PCI-X, just take a frustratingly long time. Having said that, I'd say many aspects of Apple hardware are extremely positive. Because the hardware and essential software are in their hands, almost everything you got and everything you can add works perfectly. As you said, driver issues are largely solved, and Apple is working very hard to be all inclusive for any relevant hardware. Also, over the last twenty plus years, much of the basic hardware PCs depend on were introduced by the Mac/Apple. CD drives, laser printers, the basic form of the current laptop, the creation of PDAs, and more recently dead-set implementation of USB (forced by the 1998 iMac having nothing else), FireWire (aka iLink, etc.), DVD burners (the SuperDrive, 2001), mainstream 64bit chips (G5) and OS architecture (OSX, 2001), the first and only integrated MP3 player/song organizer/download service, which as you know is kicking asp, and the brilliance to realize that HD capacity was the way to go. On software, consider this. Apple DOES have the best and most secure operating system because they dumped the old OS and made a huge leap of faith by moving to a UNIX (BSD kernal) operating system, which happens to have an outstanding GUI. MS, on the other hand, has been reworking it's code since before Windows. As to Windows itself, just be glad that a real dumb *** was running Apple at the time, or you'd be still typing into DOS. Windows insecurity is due to execution without the user's consent or knowledge, meaning root is easily addressed. Downloading anything means the addition of cleverly masked applications you're often unaware of, leading to the loss of control of your computer. Finding and removing malware is a horrible task given the user interface and the unintuitive nature of the file names and their placement. Most people hate digging into My Computer, and the geeky side of PC users doesn't let them face the fact that the majority of people don't want to mess with this stuff. Virus, spyware, etc. blockage and removal is partial and incomplete, forcing you to run more than one program for each, if you're smart. ALL installation on OS X requires a password at root level if an app wishes more than superficial address to system components. Spyware is non-existent on Macs, non-existent (other than cookies, easily removed). Viruses are also non-existent? Why? Partly for the reasons you mentioned. But if we have much less market share, we have NO SHARE of the viruses. That's because our system cannot be exploited very often, and thousands of times less often then Windows. Fact is--and you should start facing it like men--there are so many holes in Windows and IE that MS is like a tap dancer on amphetamines trying to stamp them out, and brother, all that old, old, old patchwork code is brutal to fix. Here's the basic fact. When Windows was brought into the world of the internet, the pre-internet, pre-web code that allowed innumerable entries was never dumped. It will never be fixed until the old code is killed and a true NEW operating system for your chips is born, and it's not Longhorn. The only missing software for OS X are certain business and industry-related apps that haven't yet been ported or brought by competitors. I'm most likely not in your business, but in architecture, unfortunately, the unavoidable banner app is Autodesk's AutoCAD. That and 3D Viz. I would like to kick Autodesk's backside, because, I'm telling you straight, every darned architect I've ever met would switch to Macs if they had AutoCAD; and it just makes me wonder how much MS pays them to keep it off Macs. I'm just sick to death of the downtime of Windows, and having an IT department constantly fixing and fixing. I wish that Apple would use its 6.5 billion in cash (and no debt) to buy those batstards. Otherwise, there are tens of thousands of programs for OS X and I can't think of one I prefer in Windows form or alternative. Not one. For the home desktop, anyway, the only reason in the world not to use Macs is hardcore gaming, the last bastion of Intel/pc hardware superiority. Notice I left out Windows. It's a hardware/upgradability issue, as I described above. You can keep the lousy pc software. I don't want it. We'll see what the next generation of game players does to make the advantage irrelevant. One more thing, Apple will always make MS worry. It's more than just making the bigger company look bad. If Apple EVER releases OSX, let alone Tiger or its successors, to the Intel/AMD world, MS is royally screwed. Can you say, "Huge change in market share?" It might destroy Apple's desktop hardware market, assuming they still care, but it would liquidate Longhorn and anything succeeding it those characters will come up with.

The previous post was excellent.

First of all, let me admit something right now: Although I like Macs, have used them, and even used to sell them (back when the transition from 68XXX to PowerPC took place, pre-OSX), I haven't used OSX itself.(Nor any of the followup releases.) Also, although I've read about the great features of OS X, I haven't familiarized myself with the virus issue and when I read your statement that there are NO viruses on Mac, I thought you were being a fanboy...then I researched it and found..you're right! However, it doesn't change my basic point, which was that Windows isn't as bad security wise as it appears at first glance. I will however, concede that writing a virus for MS must be easier, or there would be at least SOME existing on OS X. I still believe that the 3 reasons I mentioned make MS a much bigger target, but having researched this more, I have to agree that the unix kernal OS X is based on must be more secure. You know what though? Apple is missing a HUGE opportunity here. Instead of making their clever "appeal to artists" type commercials, or their "switch" commercials of a few years ago, they SHOULD be trumpeting from the rooftops (well, print ads and TV anyway) that very point. They should have commercials showing a guy sitting at a PC, turning it on, clicking on a browser and have 50 windows popup. lol They should tell everyone that, unlike PCs, Mac's have NO viruses. THAT is something that might actually get people to migrate (home users anyway) because they have so many problems. As far as the software goes, I didn't do a very good job of explaining my point on that. :) I wasn't trying to imply that there were not applications similar to the windows applications out there that work as well as (or better than) their Windows competitors, merely that having an alterative that does the same thing as a Windows application isn't good enough for a lot of home users, they want the exact same software because its what they are used to. Incidentally, I would LOVE to see Apple release OS X for Intel boxes...that would be SWEET. I don't think Steve Jobs would ever do it though. :)

By the way, the previous post, starting with "First of all, let me admit" was by "is there ANYONE" guy again.

"is there ANYONE" guy- your points are well taken. Do yourself a favor... please try OSX. I promise you will not be disappointed. It is secure. It is relaible. It is elegant. Maybe the word elegant should not appear in a discussion regarding an OS, but it never used to enter conversations about automobiles either.

One point not raised during the "debate" over the merits of Apple's OS and hardware is the TCO. For businesses, they would do well to compare the costs of owning MS/Intel systems with Apple OS X systems - they'd be surprised at just how much the former is REALLY costing them to use and maintain. That said, the main salient points they tend NOT to use Macs is not because the HW is lagging in any respect, but that the Apps used in MS Windows environment are custom made or generic but customised to suit their needs. Secondly, the IT Dept is self fulfilling it's raison d'être - namely that it takes them to keep the rest of the staff's computers and screw-ups in operating condition. In other words, one can't be without the other. Unfortunately, those who sign the cheques are ignorant of an alternative which would cost them less in the long run but for the SW they've had customised or custom built for them. In respect of what has been said previously - Window's biggest problem (self imposed I may add) is that they persevere with ancient legacy HW. I don't agree with the above proposition of using something akin to VPC for those users - that'd be worse than staying as they are at 98SE/Me/XP - but that they SHOULD draw a line and simply say "if your HW doesn't meet these criteria, sorry, but you can't use Longhorn". As hard as that may be for a lot of users to hear, it really NEEDS to be done if MS is to EVER design a proper OS that removes all the gripes users have about this, that, and the other. Another lesson MS needs to learn, is to ship the OS with the ports CLOSED. All ports open is only inviting trouble to those of little or none computer experience/knowledge. That and include a Firewall (albeit SW based) built in and readily/easily configurable by a complete novice. Oh, and do away with Install wizards - those things are as clear as mud and as easy to comprehend as someone speaking Swahili! Over all the years I've been working in the IT sector and involved with MS's OSes, after Me, I've held the firm belief that they show nothing but utter contempt to their customers. Another business doing the same, would've been gone by now as customer's left in their masses. MS and numerous zealots/uninitiateds/etc have done a good job of making most users think without an MS PC, there's no alternative - as if Macs were completely hardcore to use. Slowly but surely this is ceasing to be the case with the advent of the iPod, but alas, I don't see Apple getting a tenfold increase in users in the next 3-5 years. Like the vast majority of people, better the devil you know than the one you don't! A comment above made reference to Apple adverts being more forceful in their tact - sadly not likely to happen for various reasons. THe IE example was well meant, but a moot point now that FireFox with inbuilt pop-up blocker is starting to catch on. That and tabbed browsing has meant there's an alternative to switching to a Mac for Safari, which itself needs to be better in a few areas compared with FF. Apple is nowhere near the real deal - only now, in X.4, do we get Network tools that should've been there long ago. Equally other areas of the interface could do with being improved upon, some of it basic interaction stuff. But on the whole, it's a much better non-technical user OS to operate and get on with doing rather than redoing, as often happens in the Windows environment. As intimated in my post here, I'd love to see Apple become a 20%er, but I don't think that's ever likely to become anything more than a fanciful notion unless they seriously get certain business Apps (Sage, amongst many many others, including AutoCad) ported across. Only then and with the right sort of advertising will they even attempt to gain inroads in the other areas of business that they don't even get consideration for. Their XServe is a step in the right direction, but without the desktops to compliment and persuading companies to layoff or retrain a percentage of the IT Dept. this too is too little at a stage that's too late for them to get beyond 5% ever. Maybe that ship's already sailed and the prejudices are already set in concrete, never to be undone. I hope not, but only time will tell if MS is the only game in town for nearly everyone out there.

I also wonder why Apple doesn't shout about their security advantage. All I see in discussions are the ideas that, 1, they don't want to encourage hackers (kinda like telling the bad guy on the block to leave your car alone), and 2, they don't want to alienate MS. That's probably true, but I don't think they'd panic if Office on Mac were cancelled tomorrow. Office file compatibility is already done, at least w/ PowerPoint and Word files. Keynote already beats PowerPoint to a pulp. But Apple has got to advertise their desktops better, somehow. Such unexploited potential. Such a shame. A lot of people just sort of use what they see around them, and that becomes "normal." Right now, the best advertising for Apple is the Apple store, which is what I considered it at the start. They are profitable, though. OSX is just a huge change from OS9. Just as I was getting over not using OS 9, OSX suddenly became great with Jaguar (10.2), and better still with Panther (10.3). I use Adobe and Macromedia apps, all available for Macs, and frankly better on Macs, generally; iLife; Office, also better on Macs (though Office 2004 was a step up). FileMaker (you know that was an Apple spinoff right? Not bad when you created the #1 database product). Apple counts five big iApps as iLife, but I count eighteen good productivity apps that Apple bundles with the OS, and none of them MineSweeper. Go to an Apple store and try out OSX. Give it a real test run. At least buy a Mac mini (with 512MB memory, and with Tiger). New Macs coming out in a few days, along with Tiger. Never been a better time to buy a Mac.

OSX... Longhorn... I just use Debian!

me too :)

Is it really true that Longhorn has gotten rid of the Sidebar? I thought that was one of the OS's best features... :|

Well, all you Apple guys, answer a few questions of mine: 1) Why are u posting on a WinHec forum? It is not AppleHec, is it? 2) What does basing OSX on Unix code say about Apple itself? Someone should have raised that point by now. 3) How many games can I play on a Mac? 4) How much software is there for a Mac? 5) What percentage of hardware available in a normal market will work with a Mac? 6) Don't you realize that MS is catering to the whole industry while Apple is just programming for its selected few hardware suppliers? Imean, are you blind or something? 7) Won't a system inhabiting 98% of the world's computers be a better target for virus programmers and hackers as compared to one on only 2% of the machines? 8) AND LAST, BUT NOT THE LEAST: IF MACS ARE SO GOOD, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE 2% MARKET SHARE? I mean, Bill Gates was not that infulential in 1984, or for that matter, before Win95, was he? Listen, I want honest answers and not the emotional crap you guys seem to be coming up with.

We have to ask an important question here: Will Longhorn fix any of the current problems? Is it going to be merely a TOOL so the users could use to get their work DONE or is it going to be a barier to prevent the user from acomplishing what they have in mind?

>Even if Longhorn is only useful in business, it will have a long life. it shure has a long birth.

1) since longhorn will try to be osX for x86 we consider you family (bastards but still family) 2) Everyone I respect in CS (even ms-fanboys) agrees this was a (very) smart move by apple, I guess you know absolutely zilch about CS. 3) I hate playing games on a mac or a pc, I've got a concole for that. 4) Plenty and the most wonderfull of all come preloaded (iLife) 5) Newsflash: we live in 2005 and have something like usb- and firewire-devices now, and yes they ALL work on a mac. 6) I don't need my software-supplier to be catering the industry, I want decent software, not patchwork. 7) wouldn't someone with 'money to burn on style/design&eyecandy' be a better target for ad&malware? Yet, they are not... I wonder why. 8) It's currently over 5% (consumer-market that is) and it is still growing.

1) since longhorn will try to be osX for x86 we consider you family (bastards but still family) 2) Everyone I respect in CS (even ms-fanboys) agrees this was a (very) smart move by apple, I guess you know absolutely zilch about CS. 3) I hate playing games on a mac or a pc, I've got a concole for that. 4) Plenty and the most wonderfull of all come preloaded (iLife) 5) Newsflash: we live in 2005 and have something like usb- and firewire-devices now, and yes they ALL work on a mac. 6) I don't need my software-supplier to be catering the industry, I want decent software, not patchwork. 7) wouldn't someone with 'money to burn on style/design&eyecandy' be a better target for ad&malware? Yet, they are not... I wonder why. 8) It's currently over 5% (consumer-market that is) and it is still growing.

1. Because the topic was interesting to me. 2. It says they decided it was the smartest choice to make. They chose NeXTSTEP over BeOS and WindowsNT. 3. I do not know. Smart game players usually use a console device. Personally I only play 4 different games, one being WoW -- all on a Mac. 4. Too much software to keep track of. Most likely if you want to accomplish something, there is software for the Mac. The Mac can run Java, X11 and tons of other Unix code too. There are definitely places where the Mac lacks software -- some games, and some specific applications -- like AutoCad mentioned earlier. However, lacking AutoCad does not mean one cannot use one of the many other drafting packages out there, unless of course you MUST use AutoCad. 5. I cannot tell you definitively. However, if you want to use an external device that connects with FireWire or USB most likely it will work without any issues since the OS has the basic drivers built-in. If you have a special device that needs drivers it probably depends on whether the company has provided a driver for the Mac. Also, if you are talking internal devices, it depends on what Mac you have since some cannot have extra cards, for example, put in. But if you have a PowerMac you can fit many cards in place. 6. Interesting comment. I personally thought each company was looking after its shareholders' interests. Or are you saying that Microsoft needs to ensure its OS runs with parts that are supplied by lots of vendors? If so, then yes, Microsoft has a much harder job than Apple with regard to device drivers, etc. 7. I imagine so. However, please look at the facts with regard to percentage of machines, because Windows does not run on 98% of the machines in the world. Remember that the percentages that most people post regarding Apple computers is based on the percentage sold in the most recent period. This does not indicate the total percentage in use, especially since Apple machines tend to be used longer (have a longer useful lifespan) than a Windows machine. 8. Look at the previous answer for part of it. A reason a lot of people purchase WIndows machines is because businesses use them a lot. Home users tend to buy machines they use at work. The same goes for people that use a machine at school and want to buy one for themselves after they leave school. Also, a lot of people tend to buy something they perceive as inexpensive. The initial sticker price for a Windows machine can be lower than that of an Apple, but not necessarily always any more. They do not look at the total cost of ownership (TCO). If they did, they would realize Windows machines are more expensive than Apples. Hopefully this did not sound emotional, as I am not about it. I use Windows (in various incarnations), FreeBSD (because it is more stable than any Linux), Mac OS X, and various OSes with which people may not be familiar. I happen to find the development environment on Mac OS X the best in the world, bar none. When something better comes along I will most likely switch, but nothing comes close yet. By the way, I use FreeBSD for my web site servers and Windows XP for running one application that does not exist yet on Mac OS X -- though it should be ready by the fall they say. Everything else is Mac OS X for now. Have fun computing ... and if you are a gamer get a console box! :-)

My oh my... Paul thurrot is a dick =\

WHY APPLE BEST SELLING PRODUCT IS A MP3 PLAYER STICK TO MAKING MP3 PLAYERS UR GOOD AT IT....APPLE..

...and the linux users stand in the corner and snicker softly.

windows is obviously ripping Apples operating system, have you people seen the screenshots for Longhorn, the icons look like something from a Mac, this is just like Windows 98 all over again.

How does the cost of ownership of a PC end up being more than a MAC?

Windows is blantly ripping off things from Apples new operating system, Tiger. If you have seen screenshots of Longhorn you would know, they icons look MOSTLY, if not all, like a Mac's icons would. They are doing the same thing that they did when they came out with Windows 98, or 95, which is ripping off the product of a company that is better than them and has a better product then them. Go to the link I am including at the end of this post and tell me that Apple's new operating system isnt better than Windows. http://www.apple.com/macosx/ My email is notursterotype@gmail.com feel free to email me if you have any other questions why Mac's operating system is better than Longhorn.

Steve Jobs said "Artists Ship"

Apple really have taken the lead in the "designer" computer market, and OS X is a well written, well thought out OS, with a lot of design flair, functionality and stability... Having said that OEM Windows OS and Tier 1 PC manufacturers are quite simply pricing Apple out of the business desktop environment, add that to the easy deployment and versatility of the Windows platform and I think you will not see any large market shift anytime soon. I am however glad to see that Apple's "designer" look is creeping into the otherwise very boring business PC market through Longhorn.

Well, all you Apple guys, answer a few questions of mine: 1) Why are u posting on a WinHec forum? Because Paul and his readers frequently make inaccurate comments about Apple that should be corrected. 2) What does basing OSX on Unix code say about Apple itself? It says they're smart enough to use the right tools for their OS. 3) How many games can I play on a Mac? More than you have time for, I'm certain. Go here: http://www.insidemacgames.com/store/ If you're trying to make the point that a Mac is not the ultimate gaming machine, I won't argue it. But neither is a PC the ultimate machine for most daily computing tasks (such as safely using the Internet). 4) How much software is there for a Mac? Over 15,000 programs, according to Apple. The Mac has been my primary machine for the last 10+ years, and I have yet to find a PC program that doesn't have a Mac version or comparable equivalent. YMMV, but that's been my honest experience. Visit http://www.apple.com/macosx/applications/ 5) What percentage of hardware available in a normal market will work with a Mac? My Mac is updated with a lot of third-party hardware: 3 internal hard drives, a Dual-Layer DVD burner, mouse, keyboard, USB hub, floppy reader, memory card reader and much more--all purchased at my local office supply store. Most hardware is cross-platform compatible. I don't have a percentage, but in my experience, it's been very high. 6) ...MS is catering to the whole industry while Apple is just programming for its selected few hardware suppliers? Not true. See above. 7) Won't a system inhabiting 98% of the world's computers be a better target for virus programmers and hackers? If you want notoriety, write a mac virus. That's the surest way to get attention. Hasn't been done yet. 8) AND LAST, BUT NOT THE LEAST: IF MACS ARE SO GOOD, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE 2% MARKET SHARE? "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" --attributed to H. L. Mencken.

"I thought Bitmaps WERE rasters" They are. Paul probably meant "vector".

The new Mac OS looks great, better than Windows. But if Mac users had their way, Apple would have a bigger Monopoly than Microsoft and computer prices would be much higher. Thanks to the commoditized nature of PCs and the likes of Michael Dell, PCs offer more value per dollar for most users. By reducing the the power of hardware middleman the only way Apple can provide any value to customers is through innovation, and innovate they do. However, as we know the average person is not willing to fork over more cash for glitz they don't really need. If I need to have the operating system of the future, I'll spend a bit more and get a Mac. If I want to get the most PC for my money, a PC with Windows wins every time.

>> Because they are based on raster graphics technology and not bitmaps, they scale correctly to any resolution. Finally! It's about time Windows stopped using 32x32 icon bitmaps. >> They also display in a special thumbnail mode that graphically shows the contents of each file. That's something I thought was quite usful under Linux/KDE, at least for text files. Nice to see Microsoft implementing it.

U stand for MacOS just because it's nice face? Although Windows XP is not goodlooking enough by default, the mac os gui is NOT so nice either, except 50% icons in mac systems. well, mac HAS it's markets, but so has Windows, too. think about 3D Graphics on Mac Platform, Terrible!!!!! Maya for Mac OS could always be a pain of Alias. XSI will never never never comes out a Mac OS version. U guys take a look at Lightwave 3D for mac & windows, see the different situations and make your own conclusions. ........ well, mac is mac, not always better than windows!

When will you people understand... its not microsoft or apple adding new "toys". Its us the users demanding a easyer way to do things because 95% of us are too stupid and lazy to lean how to use what we have.

Trying to compare Mac` OS X to Windows XP SP2 is like comparing a rotten apple (pun not intended) to a ripe bananna. OS/X looks like a great innovation for Mac, just like Windows Vista is sure to revolutionize how PC users work. From only 2nd-hand accounts of OS/X and being a personal user of XP SP/2, I think it is pretty much a take-your-pick, and it is my opinion that Mac should enter the real world of computing by making an OS you could stick right over Windows. As far as he latest versions of Windows/Mac being abount even, I should make a comparison. Windows XP's features fresh UI, better system management, and bigger security. This on top of the reliable business core that MS has been using for years (Windows NT Code Base). THey also added a few things here and there, but one doesn't really need many programs withing the OS, because in the PC world, it's all about choice. My big thing with XP is that unlesss you have 256 MB of memory, painfully slow stratups are in store. But this is getting noticeably better between operating systems put out by Microsoft (I hate you, Windows Me).Mac OS/X was featured as more than a new look, but instead a new base of code that was steady, reliable, & compatible. I think the UI & Control Panel were pretty cool, and I really want an iPod, but it has its issues. For instance, if "compatible" means shipping me off to solitary confinement to run the previous version of Office for Mac or something else from the non-OS/X generation is totally crazy. Secondly, I've heard from someone who favors Mac that the networking configuration stuff is horrid. Again, this is second-hand info, but it was from a Mac enthusiast. Steve Jobs is a genius for inventiung the iPod, but for his next trick, instead of making a new OS and saying its better without a platform comparison, make something not only better, but actually make something I can stick on my IBM/PC-platform computer, right over Windows, so I don't throw out my entire hardware setup.