Windows vs. Mac

They produce brilliant, hilarious commercials:

Speaking of commercials, this is the guy Microsoft chose for their CEO

I'm gonna have to say that since Apple went to Intel based systems and VirtualOS runs so smoothly on the big dog macs and MacBook Pros that Mac wins this one. I'll always have a pc in the house but the mac is well worth the buy. It's safer, it's smoother (at times), and it's got everything you could possibly need implemented right into it. Plus, as a broadcast student Macs are definitely the industry standard for video/audio editing.

Sometimes I do wonder whether Macs are actually worth the buy. When you go to apple page: http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?family=MacBook you'll notice how expensive the hardware is.

Any PC setup is far less expensive and you're still allowed to setup an alternative operating system such as Linux (like a Mac), honestly the only reason I am even interested in purchasing a Mac at this point is to compare its hardware against big manufacturers like Dell. Steve Jobs does a great job with UI design, but does the overall quality of his products meet the same standard and is it worth the price tag they stamp on Macs? (I am sure Apple fanboys will say yes everytime...)

Apple does charge a premium for their hardware, however they also extensively test their machines to perform optimally. I haven't had any trouble with my MacBook, but if we want to get into a debate over PC vs. MAC, the moment Apple switched to Intel architecture, Mac's became PC's dressed in a sexy skirt. I think the real debate here is Windows vs OS X. The power of the Mac relies heavily on the user experience of OS X. Every app works with each other, and all hardware I've used synced/connected on the first time around. The only place where OS X lacks is in the gaming arena, since MS pretty much set the graphics standard with Direct X.

Yeah it annoys me that Microsoft has such a monopoly on the gaming market, that's one of the things holding me back from switching out my PC for only a MAC. I wish Apple would make it so OS X was sold as an open OS, rather than limiting it to just Macs, the only place I wish Apple would take a hint from Microsoft.

Linux also has the same problem with gaming. Both Linux and OS X use OpenGL for graphics. Back in the day OpenGL was in the running with DX, but Microsoft made smart business moves and was able to get vendors to use their technology. Though OpenGL is superior as a graphic library, it doesn't win the hearts of game developers because its not a standard. Take Compiz for example, you can run insanely awesome graphics with minimal hardware, but to run Vista's Aero interface you need a graphics card and some hefty RAM.

You can say Microsoft makes smart business moves and everything is political but the fact of the matter is there are a lot of brilliant minds at Microsoft. Can you provide evidence that OpenGL is a superior graphic library?

It seems like an oxymoron to run a graphics library that's lightweight generally when graphics and video games generally coincide with the average user. If you know the average gamer, you know that they will want to run the best hardware they can and therefore also the best graphics card. I don't see the added benefit of running minimal hardware in the gaming sector of computing.

I don't see anything wrong with creating high-end software. Seems to me Microsoft is being smart, they know XP took a while to penetrate the market and they know Vista will as well, so by making it high-end they know that by the time it penetrates the hardware will have scaled correctly to their operating system. If you don't have the time or money to support vista, then wait, XP is just fine and Microsoft has given you the time to wait.

If you've seen DirectX10, it's insane. Additionally, I found an entry from wikipedia, you can assess its validity:

"Prior to DirectX's existence, Microsoft had already included OpenGL on their Windows NT platform. At the time, OpenGL required "high-end" hardware and was limited to engineering and CAD uses. Direct3D (introduced by Eisler, Engstrom, and St. John as an alternative to SGI's OpenGL) was intended to be a lightweight partner to the back then slower OpenGL for game use."

As you can see, OpenGL initially did support some of the things you state today.

Microsoft has brilliant minds, no doubt but ever heard of the "Microsoft Model?" Through licensing and vendor history its primarily the only reason why they are still in business. As of late they haven't been innovating much, I'd like to see that change, because MS has lots of potential.

OpenGL is superior because of portability. Yeah DirectX is good for high-end gaming but in a world where technology is pacing so rapidly, we are beginning to shift gears. Notice the trend in mobility? There were more laptop sales in the past two years than desktop. Cell phones are becoming more and more ubiquitous worldwide and already surpass the PC market. One thing I'm looking forward to is the adoption of Google Android. It uses an OpenGL engine to render graphics and its pretty damn good, all on a cellphone that fits in your pocket. Direct X was not designed for this kind of portability.

I think its a sham to have to require 2GB of RAM, and hardware acceleration, whether it be through a videocard, or in the chipset just to run an operating system. DirectX is the only reason why these requirements are necessary. Again it was a business move. By getting users to run Vista you are forced to run Direct X 10. This forces developers to write DX10 games, and since writing a game is time consuming nobody is going to write a DX9 port. Once you've got your game in DX10 you have a pretty good chance of writing it for the XBOX. Its a very smart thing to do, but it short changes the common customer who is only in it to go online and chat.

Have you seen the difference in DX9 to DX10? It's extraordinary, I'll post some screens later and you'll see that DX10 is less a business tactic and more of a quality piece of technology that needs to be unleashed.