Gaming Why Mac?

[cracker]

On the software-side, the two companies maintain almost polar opposites in corporate methodology. Apple is "continually" breaking things through implementation of new technologies, while Microsoft focuses on maintaining the legacy. This is due to the fact that Microsoft has far more corporate machines in service, and breaking someone's software/hardware can lead to the loss of big clientele. This difference has several effects on the product:

1) Windows is convoluted.

Windows' directory structure makes very little sense. They maintain many obsolete PC concepts (legacy from the 90s) such as a singular registry for storing software information, and an (almost) monolithic kernel. Each version of Windows is tacking more and more layers of software and design paradigms onto the same product leaving it a mish-mash of potential usability.

2) Windows is insecure.

OSX is UNIX-based and conforms to UNIX principles. This gives it a robust permissions system and distinct kernel separation. Contrary to popular belief, the reason there is so few OSX malware is due to the fact that it's difficult to do damage, even when exploits present themselves. With Windows you can pretty much do whatever you want in user mode, making security a constant cat and mouse game.

3) OSX is well-designed.

Many aspects of Windows' UI are just bad. Take for example something as simple as a settings dialog. Three buttons generally present themselves: "Okay," "Cancel," and "Apply." This is an old design paradigm left over from when any sort of operation took some amount of time. In the modern world of computing these settings should be applied instantaneously. Thankfully in recent revisions of the platform the "Apply" button has been mostly dropped, which slightly improves the situation.

4) Apple strongly promotes their design guidelines.

Windows has more software of course, but OSX has much better designed software. This is due to Apple's SDK heavily supporting specific UX guidelines which leads to third-party software having far more intuitive UI and usability choices. On Windows virtually every piece of software takes it upon itself to reinvent the users' work-flow, making navigation between them a mess.

5) OSX is pretty.

Every element of OSX has been thoroughly inspected from not only a usability perspective, but an appearance perspective. Animations for even things as minor as dialog changes in the System Preferences are masterfully done. Microsoft took their good time implementing some sort of graphical revision (6 years), and Aero is alright, but it doesn't extend much past window borders and some sporadic menu animations, whereas on OSX it feels like a complete package.

Now for hardware, it depends. Personally I don't conform to the belief that a desktop PC needs to be aesthetically pleasing. If I have a good looking panel, and good input devices, that's all I need. For a laptop however, these things are all built-in, making the aesthetics of that hardware far more relevant. The recent Macbook Air revision, for instance, is an excellent piece of hardware that I've really enjoyed using (review unit). This distinction being made, the average person will need to buy a Mac to get OSX, which (as everyone here knows) requires a price premium over an off-the-shelf PC. The benefits that OSX brings over Windows is well-worth it though.

And for the record, I don't own any Macs. My primary desktop is a hackintosh.

1.
I don't understand why you think the directory structure is weird and obsolete.
If your argument was that it made the system more prone to problems due to the possibility of a corruption of the database then, yes, that would be true.
OSX has its quirks too such as having to cache the kexts in order to use them which just leads to wasted time and headaches (lovely KPs)

Note: I hate Windows Vista and 7 because they try to be more like OSX and shut off functionality from users that know what they are doing.

2.
Read this. All systems have vulnerabilities. Many times it is the end user (the weakest link in the chain) that introduces the exploits to the sytem no matter what OS it is running.

3.
I think this is more of a personal issue. I prefer XP's interface and am annoyed by OSX as well as Vista, Windows 7. All of them have varying degrees of configurability though so it may just be that it isn't defaulted to how you want it to be out of the box.
There are many things in OSX that are just as buried under various settings dialogs and/or complicated to do as there are on any Windows OS.

4.
I read Apple forces their design guidelines on programmers.
Sure it may be good for reducing the amount of bugs in software used on their platform but it also inhibits programmers that want to do things that Apple does think they should need to do or want them to do.

5.
You can shine shit.
Being pretty doesn't mean much when it comes at the cost of functionality. You may disagree that it does but I feel that it does. I feel the same way about Vista and 7 so it isn't just a Mac vs PC thing for me.

 

[Urza]

1.
I don't understand why you think the directory structure is weird and obsolete.
If your argument was that it made the system more prone to problems due to the possibility of a corruption of the database then, yes, that would be true.
OSX has its quirks too such as having to cache the kexts in order to use them which just leads to wasted time and headaches (lovely KPs)Not the file system, the directory structure.

For example, the Windows directory. Its an amalgam of nonsensical abbreviations. Contrast with /S/L/, where folders have plain English names using full words, plainly describing their contents.

Also not sure how Kext caching is a bad thing. Worst case scenario you need to run a permissions repair, which is a one-click process.

2.
Read this. All systems have vulnerabilities. Many times it is the end user (the weakest link in the chain) that introduces the exploits to the sytem no matter what OS it is running.Once again, potential vulnerabilities does not translate to system insecurity (a common misconception among those who aren't computer savvy).

There are many things in OSX that are just as buried under various settings dialogs and/or complicated to do as there are on any Windows OS.Such as?

QUOTE4.
I read Apple forces their design guidelines on programmers.
Sure it may be good for reducing the amount of bugs in software used on their platform but it also inhibits programmers that want to do things that Apple does think they should need to do or want them to do.

It has nothing to do with bugs, and everything to do with UX. Not to mention that it inhibits programmers in no way, as you're free to use other toolkits.

QUOTE

5.
You can shine shit.
Being pretty doesn't mean much when it comes at the cost of functionality. You may disagree that it does but I feel that it does. I feel the same way about Vista and 7 so it isn't just a Mac vs PC thing for me.

Appearance is very relevant when in concern to an interface you're directly looking at for possibly many hours a day.

I would love to know what functionality you're missing out on though.

 

[Rydian]

Here's my copy-paste for people who are considering switching to a Mac.

PCs and Macs are both computers. It's a bit of a confusing term since "PC" means "personal computer". A Mac is a PC as well. When people say PC, they mean a computer running Windows. You may use different programs to do the same things on either type of PC, but you will still be doing the same things.

Macs use the same hardware as windows computers nowadays. They stopped using those "special" processors years ago. The two are pretty much equal as far as ability for a home user.

Macs come with way better default software for playing around and doing home productions with (which may be your goal), but it's still not professional-level stuff. The million dollar pros that use macs don't use garageband. They use software that costs more than the machine itself. Macs have an image of being better for art, because they come with better default software (which appeals to amatuers), and because everybody says they're better for art (and everybody else hears it and repeats it). You can run photoshop on a mac or a PC with the exact same results. Please do not buy a mac and expect it to turn you into an artist.

An important thing to know is that macs don't come with Windows. They come with "OS X", version 10 of Apple's Macintosh operating system. It's an operating system, so you'll still be able to get online and draw and stuff, but it's not windows, so it runs different programs. Programs could possibly have a Mac and PC version (photoshop, world of warcraft, firefox, and others do), but lots don't. This includes most games! You can't run Ragnarok or Crysis on OS X. There are plenty of programs for OS X, however. You may find a few that you'll grow attached to quickly. For any program that doesn't have an OSX version, there's sure to be an OS X program that does the same thing. There is a lot more software for Windows, but nobody needs all 2 billion programs available for Windows. Or even all five thousands programs available for OS X. Most people use only 5-20 programs daily and most of those will work on both Windows and OS X or have similar alternatives available, so as long as you don't intend to game Windows-only games or use a specific brand-name program you'll be fine.

You can certainly install windows on it (easily through bootcamp) if you wanted, but you'd need to buy a copy of windows for that.

You may hear that macs are immune to viruses. That is false.
http://www.securemac.com/
Macs cannot be affected by windows viruses, but Windows programs running on your Mac (with bootcamp or WINE) can be infected by Windows viruses. There are viruses for OS X, but there's so few viruses for it (less than 10 percent of home users use macs) that you will likely never be affected by one. It is still recommended that you have an antivirus around, as windows infections will affect windows machines if they're given to a windows machine from a mac, hopefully the mac antivirus will be able to clean the file.
http://www.clamxav.com/ is a free one.

However, if you are going to get an Apple, you should not become totally oblivious as to what you are downloading. Especially if you are downloading anything from a third party or file-sharing site (legal or not). As stated before, most viruses are geared towards Windows, yet you might get a bad script running in Mac that will fuck everything up, and can be a bitch to find and repair/delete even if you have the appropriate application. So don't think that a Mac will solve all of your safety and security problems (I own a MBP, so I have decent idea about what's going down). Just be careful.

Go to an apple store (apple's site has a store locator) and try out a mac for a bit, see if you like it. They use the same hardware as any other PCs, but the case and accessories are made by apple, so they have their own look and feel, as well as quality level.

Sephiroth_the_FallenAngelSwitch because you want a Mac, not because you don't want a PC.

 

[Deleted User]

Arguing with Urza is like arguing with a brick-wall. That said, he's given the most solid, comprehensive advice within this thread so far, I tip my hat off to thee.

 

[nutella]

Apple try to market themselves as a king of "premium" product, especially for multimedia. MacOS is supposed to be far more "intuitive" than Windows, and the Mac experience is supposed to be much richer and polished than what you get with the "WOW Factor" of Windows. Also the software suites (like Adobe, even though it's on both) are supposed to be more efficient and powerful on Macs than PCs, whilst delivered in a case (usually in ceramic white) that (arguably) looks so damn awesome. And it has an Apple on it, so you have to pay for that (whoever heard of paying extra to see DELL on the side?).

There's also the whole loyalism thing... people get an iPod and think "wow, Apple is awesome", then have to get an iPhone and an AirBook, etc, to match.

PCs on the other hand appeal with their flexibility and upgradability. The parts that make up a PC are easy to learn, so picking parts to put together and upgrade and actually doing the upgrading can be a fun process. Some parts in the market might shoot themselves in the feet for trying to be cheaper than the competitors (there are many bad quality products in the budget market), but on the other end of the scale you can get parts that are so powerful that Macs just seem feeble in comparison - and often the PC parts will still be cheaper.

PCs might not look so pretty, but you can build a PC for every purpose, whilst Macs are limited to only what they sell. Plus the price for fixing Apple products are often higher than the price of newer Apple products (like my Gen2 iPod), whilst PCs can often be relatively easy to diagnose the problems and fix.

As for viruses... if more people started using Macs, more viruses would be written for Mac. Mac can only pretend to be Virus free because so few people use Macs (in comparison). Using it as an argument for why Macs are superior... well that just seems silly.

I agree with most of this, except the last paragraph. I do agree that less viruses is a pretty poor argument to buy a Mac, but I can't accept the fact that it has to do with market share. Maybe some of it does, but when you look at say, OS 9 or Windows Mobile, they had far less market share but still had viruses. Whether that makes Macs worth it or not is up to you, I certainly don't think so, but I won't deny that Macs are more secure than Windows.

Despite this little disagreement, I agree with the rest of what you wrote. I'd still like to point out some other things however:

- Most of what you pay for when you get a Mac are intangibles. That is software, support, experience. These come from seemingly little things like the packaging of the product. Do you want to pay for that? Personally, no I don't, but I can see why others would.

- You also pay a lot for the proprietary design of Macs as well as the fact that they are all-in-one machines. Look at the interior of the Mac Pro. You could build a PC for far less with greater functionality, but you pay for the proprietary design of the motherboard. Also, being an all-in-one, you pay for things you might not even need your computer to do. This is true for all all-in-ones.

- Macs do NOT have better build quality. This may shock people, but allow me to explain. The components inside Macs are identical to PCs, because by nature, Macs are PCs it's just that they run a different OS. Therefore, the hardware will have the same DOA rate as PC hardware and will last for relatively the same amount of time. Now you might think the aluminium case allows for a more sturdy build, or perhaps the compact design or whatever. The reality is that there are many types of PCs, some of which also use a very similar exterior design to Macs.

- Macs are NOT NECESSARILY better for video editing. Some people will disagree because they like iMovie (which no real video editor would ever use) or Final Cut Studio. If you like those pieces software or other Mac only software, then yes, go buy a Mac. If you don't mind using other software like the Adobe Suite, you can build a kick ass video editing system for less that has better hardware. NOTE: I am not a video editor, but the point of what I'm saying is that there is such a huge variety of hardware configurations out there that if you specifically choose a Mac, you limit yourself greatly in respect to hardware.

 

[Deleted User]

Switch because you want a Mac, not because you don't want a PC.

Best reason ever!

First, I apologise if this sounds stupid. SATA3? As in, SATA 6Gbps SATA3? Not SATAII 3Gbps?

I don't know about the desktops, but the 15" and 17" MacBook Pro models use SATA 2.0 3Gbit/s. Based on how PoweredByTux described the process of changing the HDD, he's refering to a standard MacBook (the white ones and before they went unibody) and I doubt those use a newer/faster chipset than the Core i based ones.

 

[BakuFunn]

- Macs do NOT have better build quality. This may shock people, but allow me to explain. The components inside Macs are identical to PCs, because by nature, Macs are PCs it's just that they run a different OS. Therefore, the hardware will have the same DOA rate as PC hardware and will last for relatively the same amount of time. Now you might think the aluminium case allows for a more sturdy build, or perhaps the compact design or whatever. The reality is that there are many types of PCs, some of which also use a very similar exterior design to Macs.

Build quality usually refers to the body of the product, such as the casing and materials.
It's almost universally noted that Apple spends much resources for R&D, more so than the average technology company, on their aesthetics, and that all of their current products have superb build quality (except the iPhone 4's antenna problem, but that is more of a design problem rather than one of build quality anyhow.)
The similar exterior designs that you mention are usually made of cheaper materials and, with their small amounts of R&D, do not have the premium feel that Apple products give. Comparing the HP Envy, a very nicely designed laptop, with the MacBook Pro, the MBP "feels" more sturdy and devoid of any loose or seamed parts, while the Envy, while looking quite snazzy and made of fine materials, has a flimsy feel. Furthermore, comparing my Samsung Galaxy S to the iPhone 4, or the 3GS even, has the SGS feeling like a cheap toy and the iPhone's weight just feeling more expensive and solid.

I am not saying Apple's products are superior to all. Only that their products maintain the same standard of high build quality, and almost all of their products are built exceedingly well, software and brand loyalty aside. Other companies make products of high build as well, such as HTC.

 

[nutella]

- Macs do NOT have better build quality. This may shock people, but allow me to explain. The components inside Macs are identical to PCs, because by nature, Macs are PCs it's just that they run a different OS. Therefore, the hardware will have the same DOA rate as PC hardware and will last for relatively the same amount of time. Now you might think the aluminium case allows for a more sturdy build, or perhaps the compact design or whatever. The reality is that there are many types of PCs, some of which also use a very similar exterior design to Macs.

Build quality usually refers to the body of the product, such as the casing and materials.
It's almost universally noted that Apple spends much R&D, more than the average technology company, on their aesthetics, and all of their current products have superb build quality (except the iPhone 4's antenna problem, but that is more of a design problem rather than one of build quality.)
The similar exterior design that you mention are usually made of cheaper materials and, with their small amounts of R&D, do not have the premium feel that Apple products give. Comparing the HP Envy, a very nicely designed laptop, with the MacBook Pro, the MBP just "feels" more sturdy and devoid of any "free" parts, while the Envy, while looking quite snazzy and made of fine materials, has a flimsy feel. Furthermore, comparing my Samsung Galaxy S to the iPhone 4, or the 3GS, even, has the SGS feeling like a cheap toy and the iPhone's weight just feeling more expensive and solid.

I am not saying Apple's products are superior to all. Only that their products maintain the same standard of high build quality, and almost all of their products are built exceedingly well, software and brand loyalty aside. Other companies make products of high build as well, such as HTC.

Fair enough. I've held phones that I thought felt just as or more sturdy than the iPhone but that's just me. Though I have heard a lot of people claim that PC components do not last as long as Mac components, which I think we can all agree is absolutely incorrect. I saw this guy on YouTube comparing Mac prices to PC prices and he claimed that PC hard drives generally die within a year.

 

[bowlofspiders]

I saw this guy on YouTube comparing Mac prices to PC prices and he claimed that PC hard drives generally die within a year.

He should tell that to my 2001 desktop. Hard drive still runs perfectly.

 

[Urza]

I saw this guy on YouTube comparing Mac prices to PC prices and he claimed that PC hard drives generally die within a year.

He should tell that to my 2001 desktop. Hard drive still runs perfectly.

I once bought a Dell, and the HDD was a fine powder by the time I got home!

True story.



(Not really.)

 

[Originality]

I agree with most of this, except the last paragraph. I do agree that less viruses is a pretty poor argument to buy a Mac, but I can't accept the fact that it has to do with market share. Maybe some of it does, but when you look at say, OS 9 or Windows Mobile, they had far less market share but still had viruses. Whether that makes Macs worth it or not is up to you, I certainly don't think so, but I won't deny that Macs are more secure than Windows.
(...)
- Macs are NOT NECESSARILY better for video editing. Some people will disagree because they like iMovie (which no real video editor would ever use) or Final Cut Studio. If you like those pieces software or other Mac only software, then yes, go buy a Mac. If you don't mind using other software like the Adobe Suite, you can build a kick ass video editing system for less that has better hardware. NOTE: I am not a video editor, but the point of what I'm saying is that there is such a huge variety of hardware configurations out there that if you specifically choose a Mac, you limit yourself greatly in respect to hardware.

You seem to have not noticed my use of language in my post. Saying "supposed to" and "arguably" should show that it's what people say about Macs, and that I don't necessarily agree with that opinion. In the last paragraph, it was based on the idea of "what if" Macs made up 85% of all computers used, rather than PCs. I didn't comment on how secure MacOS is, and others did plenty to fill that gap for me. My point was that, if Macs were used in 85% of the case, then the majority of viruses would be written for and aimed at Macs, with a tiny amount directed towards PCs.

As for video editing, there are many good multimedia suites on both PC and Mac. I've had a bit of experience in several programs on both sides (Windows, MacOS9 and MacOSX) so I can appreciate a bit the differences in them, but generally both sides have very good programs for it. I'm not interested in video editing myself (being more of a writer), but someone who is should just try both and pick whichever they think feels better. One of my neighbours who does a lot of video editing picks PC (and often borrows my laptops for it), and my dad who used to do it for his job prefers Macs (on MacOS9). Too bad his PowerPC (I forget which number it had) died.

Extra point: around 25% of Macs have a major fault within 3 years of purchase, which is around the same failure rate as HP and Dell. It came up in a thread a couple months back. So much for "quality"...

 

[BakuFunn]

Extra point: around 25% of Macs have a major fault within 3 years of purchase, which is around the same failure rate as HP and Dell. It came up in a thread a couple months back. So much for "quality"...

Seems unlikely.

If true, at least their customer service is on many levels better than competing companies'. To have my HP Mini replaced as the LCD display failed was one annoying process that consisted of hold music and reroute calls.
My brother had his 2007 MacBook Pro serviced (rather quickly) three times for the most minor reasons (loose screw, vertical display consistency abnormalities), and on the third time, Apple just sent him the new unibody MBP, one that had a greater value than the 15" he originally had.

 

[nutella]

I agree with most of this, except the last paragraph. I do agree that less viruses is a pretty poor argument to buy a Mac, but I can't accept the fact that it has to do with market share. Maybe some of it does, but when you look at say, OS 9 or Windows Mobile, they had far less market share but still had viruses. Whether that makes Macs worth it or not is up to you, I certainly don't think so, but I won't deny that Macs are more secure than Windows.
(...)
- Macs are NOT NECESSARILY better for video editing. Some people will disagree because they like iMovie (which no real video editor would ever use) or Final Cut Studio. If you like those pieces software or other Mac only software, then yes, go buy a Mac. If you don't mind using other software like the Adobe Suite, you can build a kick ass video editing system for less that has better hardware. NOTE: I am not a video editor, but the point of what I'm saying is that there is such a huge variety of hardware configurations out there that if you specifically choose a Mac, you limit yourself greatly in respect to hardware.

You seem to have not noticed my use of language in my post. Saying "supposed to" and "arguably" should show that it's what people say about Macs, and that I don't necessarily agree with that opinion. In the last paragraph, it was based on the idea of "what if" Macs made up 85% of all computers used, rather than PCs. I didn't comment on how secure MacOS is, and others did plenty to fill that gap for me. My point was that, if Macs were used in 85% of the case, then the majority of viruses would be written for and aimed at Macs, with a tiny amount directed towards PCs.

As for video editing, there are many good multimedia suites on both PC and Mac. I've had a bit of experience in several programs on both sides (Windows, MacOS9 and MacOSX) so I can appreciate a bit the differences in them, but generally both sides have very good programs for it. I'm not interested in video editing myself (being more of a writer), but someone who is should just try both and pick whichever they think feels better. One of my neighbours who does a lot of video editing picks PC (and often borrows my laptops for it), and my dad who used to do it for his job prefers Macs (on MacOS9). Too bad his PowerPC (I forget which number it had) died.

Extra point: around 25% of Macs have a major fault within 3 years of purchase, which is around the same failure rate as HP and Dell. It came up in a thread a couple months back. So much for "quality"...

I now see what you mean in your first paragraph. As for video editing, the point I'm trying to make is that Mac hardware has no advantage for video editing, it's the software you're most comfortable using. I think Rydian's post covered this, but amateurs who want to get into video editing see things like iMovie think that that's what actual professionals use when in fact, iMovie is specifically designed for home movies.

 

[Originality]

If true, at least their customer service is on many levels better than competing companies'.

True story: a friend who works in an Apple store has to regularly advise customers that "it's not worth fixing your Apple product, since it'd cost nearly as much as buying the newer product brand new". Mostly this is about iPods, which seems to be designed to break in 2-3 years (based on how many people around me keep complaining about them), but it also applies to MacBooks. I think there's a good chance it'll happen to iPads too, but I'm just taking the "wait and see" approach with my finger at the ready to point and laugh.

It might not sound nice to point and laugh, but when overhyped products ultimately fail... sometimes it's needed (eyes on Sony too).

 

[nando]

those are some hard facts.

 

[Xoo00o0o0o]

I have to say in my opinion OSX is beautiful. That doesn't make it better. I find Windows better because there are some games you can not play on OSX. Thats why I run a Hackintosh!

EDIT: I forgot to justify OSX. I use Final Cut at home for School work at home.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

If true, at least their customer service is on many levels better than competing companies'.

True story: a friend who works in an Apple store has to regularly advise customers that "it's not worth fixing your Apple product, since it'd cost nearly as much as buying the newer product brand new". Mostly this is about iPods, which seems to be designed to break in 2-3 years (based on how many people around me keep complaining about them), but it also applies to MacBooks. I think there's a good chance it'll happen to iPads too, but I'm just taking the "wait and see" approach with my finger at the ready to point and laugh.

It might not sound nice to point and laugh, but when overhyped products ultimately fail... sometimes it's needed (eyes on Sony too).

My 60gb iPod Video that's been through a dishwasher that was turned on [baby whoops], 2 turns in the washing machine [bitchy sister whoops], and once in a dryer [iPod left in hoodie from rain whoops] and it still works perfectly.

But all Apple products are ridiculously over priced. Macs are no exception. For what you get, you can easily get a Desktop PC, customize it to be milestones better than a mac, buy your monitor + keyboard + mouse and you'd still save a pretty penny.

 

[cracker]

@Urza:
Sorry for removing the original quoted text but was having a helluva time with all of the nested quote tags and couldn't get it sorted out.

1. Many times if the end user is supposed to know what files are then they should be prepared for doing a search to understand what they are, etc. This is true of any OS -- including BSD that OSX is built upon. You think the average user is going to know what grep, awk, etc. are just by seeing the name? Of course not! There are tools and files that are supposed to be used by people that have a higher understanding of the systems they are working on and if not then they should be prepared to *gasp* learn something in order to accomplish what they want. No system hands everything to the person on a golden platter just because they want it done.

When you get a KP caused by kext caching problems that even refuses to rebuild with a forced rebuild on boot then you have to resort to attempting to rebuild the cache via the terminal from the OSX install disc which is the PITA. And if it involves offending kexts you have to manually remove them using the terminal which isn't fun at all.

2. I'm not sure if that is a jab at me as I believe I have vast amounts of info above the average computer user on many different platforms... Potential vulnerabilities is quite ambiguous... Are you referring to the possibility of vulnerabilities or the possibility of someone getting infected/exploited by one? There have been some unresolved exploits on many platforms that haven't been addressed because they are deemed low level threats but eventually they will be used and a 0 day patch will need to be released because of the lazy bums that didn't think it necessary before.

Such as doing something simple as changing the permissions for files. You can either go through the rigmarole of 'unlocking a file for changes' in the dialog, entering in your root password, and changing the permissions (sometimes -- othertimes it still won't allow you to change any or all of them) or you can resort to going to the terminal to do it command line style. Usually this comes from having to change a b/plist... Also it is really annoying to have to input your password to install most programs.

4. Here I was mostly talking about the App Store for iDevices but since now there is an App Store for OSX then there will be thorough checking of all those submitted apps as well.

5. It sounds like you are talking about the pleasure you get from the aesthetics of the GUI. I don't know how much this would really improve productivity. The functionality is in being able to get to files more quickly instead of having to go through the dialogs with the drives, etc first and then narrow down where you want to go to in sub-panes. This is true of OSX, Vista, and 7. Sure it can be changed a bit but it still isn't to my liking.[/quote]

I'm also going to add some airing of grievances (even though Festivus is over)... Apple pissed me off with their forcing SL upgrading to use the 4.0 iPhone/iPod Touch SDK which pisses me off to no end. The only reason I am still messing with trying to get a 100% working Hackintosh netbook is to program for iDevices (which I more than likely wouldn't have gotten an iPod Touch if I couldn't have programmed with the official SDK on it so I could sell my wares on the App Store). Also I understand the reason why submitted pay titles should cost a fee but just for debugging on your own private iDevice just pisses me off so much. It is a step above MS' Forcing users to upgrade to newer OSes to run their dev tools because at least they don't force you to buy a license for it!

 

[zeromac]

Sleek design

 

[FireGrey]

People saying how windows gets more viruses.
Well Windows gets more compatibility which meens more better programs more viruses BUT MORE ANTI-VIRUS.
Looking at Mac Total Care it's like WTF JUST GET NORTON ON WINDOWS.
and Window computers have more competition like Acer vs. ASUS vs. Toshiba vs. HP etc...
But Mac just has Mac vs. Windows vs. Linux
The cheapest current windows computer would be like $400 but Mac is like $1000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg1-ywndVNc


Anyway i'm a HP fanboy