Windows vs. Mac

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.

When Apple opens up OS X to work on any hardware, providing support for literally millions of different devices, and can go through operating system upgrades without breaking compatibility to every piece of software(Vsta didn't break compatibility it only has issues with poorly coded software), Then we can talk about OS stability.

The simple fact is OS X is small, the reason it runs so well is it doesn't have to provide the support and overhead from Dos games to 14KBS modems to the latest and greatest gadgets.

Is it a good OS? Yes its brilliantly designed, and the GUI is top notch.
Is it ready to be the Dominant OS? Not by a longshot.

On MacBook Pro living is so comfortable that using Windows machines same time feels like
acute discomfort. It is so simple. I hesitated before choice - a few months. If opted for next
Windows computer I think now I would be crazy. When feelings are important, my choice was not so bad presumably.

Considering that Apple switched to using Intel based chips and Microsoft's moves to make a more user friendly OS with gadgets and other Apple inspired things, it seems that each platform is striving to be more like the other. In my opinion, in years to come the two platforms will most likely be unrecognizable from each other.

Because if you're using a desktop, I'd have to say Windows. It's somewhat clunky for someone unused to dealing with computers, but it gets the job done and it knows exactly what it's doing. I'm always a little disturbed that it's not easy to see what programs are running on a Mac.

When using a laptop, however, I use Mac. They run cooler, have a longer battery life, and the Mac setup looks and handles better than a Windows laptop. They're also lighter and tend to withstand damage better, too.

Also, just say no to Vista!

Macintosh is much faster and smoother than Windows. It's also more user-controlled. Plus, you can run Windows on Mac but you can't run Mac on Windows.

They produce brilliant, hilarious commercials:

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.

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...)

I've read that OS X and Linux may become host OS's and simply run guest OS's through virtualization. In a world where we have so many options it seems like an optimistic future.