Advantages of OS X over Windows?

Hi all,

I'm a PC user all this time, and want to know the advantages of OS X over Windows?

I have read the MAC switcher guide thread up there and didnt find what are the benefit of using OS X over windows.
The only thing I know is that OS X is spywares and viruses free.
And Windows can do anything that OS X can. But not vice versa.

Maybe u guys can provide me with some pro&cons. Thxs in advance.

 

No crashes
Simple and intuitive
OSX apps are great (Garageband iCal ect)

Hope that helps

 

The most serious advantage that I see is that it is UNIX under the hood so various programming utilities work out of the box and it is easy to connect to UNIX farms (assuming your work involves such things as mine does). It would basically save me the effort of dual-booting Vista and Linux. Of course, the disadvantage is that a host of programs (mainly games) don't work with OS X (so I'd need Windows anyway) and Macs cost a ridiculous amount of money given the hardware that they offer.

 

OS X allows me to spend more time using and less time fighting and maintaining my OS

a) Gives me a much more stable and reliable work environment. Fewer updates, fewer crashes, fewer recoveries and less collateral damage when there are application crashes.
b) Requires much less tuning, tweaking, and ongoing maintenance (updates, scans, defrags, registry cleanups etc) saving time again.
c) Its much more secure even if this may only be due to the fact that the vast majority of viruses were written for Windows and simply don't work on the Mac.

 

> The only thing I know is that OS X is spywares and viruses free.

Not true, but close enough. In MacOS just as they can in Windows, Browser hacks can spy/be malicious, and MS Office trojans can affect the system.

> Windows can do anything that OS X can. But not vice versa.

Not true, any more than saying Linux can do anything Windows can, but not vice versa. It's a catchphrase from the bigoted or ignorant.

With Intel-based hardware, you can even run Windows as a process within MacOS using VMware/Parallels/etc. There are no commercial offerings to run MacOS on non-Apple hardware, so the opposite is technically accurate.

With Intel-based Macintosh hardware, Apple machines can run Windows. Reviews even suggest certain Apple hardware runs Windows better than Dell/HP/Toshiba price-and feature-equivalents. When hacks are more popular, more accessible, to get MacOS on the MSI Wind (and other "Wintel" machines) then we'll start seeing more direct comparisons and meaningful superiorities by one platform than another.

If you have specific questions, we can address them. However, I don't think MacOS is better or Windows is better in a blanket statement, even though there are implementations I prefer. I prefer MSWord on Windows XP and Photoshop on MacOS Classic, for example. I prefer to game in Windows Vista, and use Eudora on the MacOS X.

YMMV.

 

yes, i use ubuntu in my work, and sometimes I have to use programs that only runs in windows. So I have to reboot through GRUB and switch to Windows. And reboot again to switch back to Ubuntu after I'm done. Wasting much of my time there.

 

You might want want to look up vmware or crossover. Mac also has bootcamp.

Most OSX users know how to use windows and they choose to use OSX. I personally think OSX and mac works good together. OSX built specifically for mac, and windows is for ...... umm all kind of hardware.

 

Having antivirus/antispyware is not necessary, which gets the most out of your system performance. You can boot any OS on a mac too (legally!). Another thing is the great programs coming with OSX like iPhoto and etc. that you would come to like very much. System maintenance is also not necessary so you dun have to spend all those time defragmenting and stuff.

 

With any kind of hardware you buy these days there will be a need to regularly maintain it. OSX does indeed need less maintenance. But in my opinion, Windows Vista is becoming better at maintaining itself. I haven't done a defrag in the past year when running Vista. Vista is also getting better at figuring out when an application has crashed and can reliably close it and restart it (i.e. Microsoft Office, some games, etc.).

Edit: The one thing OSX needs to do is handle application crashes better... when Finder goes down, it requires a reboot. In Windows, if Explorer goes down it often times is able to restart itself without requiring a reboot.

 

The biggest things that I enjoy in Mac OS X compared to Windows... hmm, well, there are plenty, but I'll just name a few.

- No need to worry about Spyware or other malware.
- No need to install an anti-virus.
- Applications rarely crash, and I've never seen Mac OS X crash in the entire time that I have been a Mac user.
- Everything "just works".
- The level of integration between the hardware and the software is just phenomenal.
- The applications are well thought out, well put together, and usually work together, whereas in Windows there are varying degrees of freeware out there where no application shares a common interface.
- Really easy to use.

 

Yeah you should look into VM ware. They have products for OS X, Windows and Linux

Here's me running windows in OS X

Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch

 

wrong, i have loads of program crash.. not the OS itself, but whats the point of having programs crash and have the OS still working.

its not that intuitive, i find it stupid not being able to cut and paste a file

another annotying thing is that it doesnt automatically view mode of files.

for example: if i have a pictures folder, i have to change the view mode to thumbnail for every folder i open, and if i set it as default, the same thing happens to my music and files.

i dont see any advantages.. it just looks better, and you get the dashboard..

dont get me wrong, i love my macbook pro, but windows has a lot more utility than the OS X.

 

strongerthanall, I agree for the most part of what you said. Good point there. But apple hides system utilities and complex things "under the hood" they file it away deep in the system preferences so people who are exploring will not screw up their system is and change some very important setting.

 

I would like to install OS X on my HP laptop. HP has no support nor drivers for the OS X, so my questions to you guys is, will it work?

With vista, I have several problems including sound, graphic, quick launch buttons etc etc.. All of them fixed with simple drivers from HP.

So how will this OS X work on the HP laptop? I don't want to shell out $110 and find out its use less on a PC.

 

Everyone is talking only about lack of crashes or Spyware and Viruses lacking in OS X but the biggest advantages of OS X over Windows are as follows;

All these features increase my productivity and Windows has none of these:

Stacks
Spaces
Time Machine
The Dock
Menu Bar
Back to My Mac
QuickLook
Hand Gestures for swipe
Bootcamp

After using these features I don't know how I got along without them. Please (Windows fanatics) don't respond to my post saying you can install a fake dock or that Vista has Shadow copy or you can make Windows look like a Mac..dadada....none of that is the same as the real thing.

 

I've had my Macbook Pro (late 2008) about 3 weeks now. It does seems to work smoother than Windows, and since you can put Windows on it for gaming purposes, it does seem the best of both worlds. Biggest issue I've had is the MBP dropping from my wireless network, or having to restart after waking from sleeping to reconnect to my wireless network. Didn't have that issue with my Dell or with my wife's PC laptop.

 

Yea, like other people have said, osx does crash.

Although, for the general population, it probably wont crash as often as a 'power user'.

It's crashed for me, though at one point it was mainly crashing due to third party hardware, right after leopard came out, but they fixed it.

But it can crash, just wanted to say that.

Though HLdan brought up a list of good features that I agree fully on. Though he forgot Spotlight, which is a lifesaver for me

 

We are not aloud to talk about installing OS X on none Apple computers here. Just so you know.

 

Thanks for letting me know.

 

Oh wow, another "bash the stupid Mac users" thread.

Who would have thought? :|

 

A lot of people here are saying "no crashes", just works etc etc, but those are opnions. Windoze works for me. i've never had a BSOD. its simple enough for me, etc. depends what u use it for.

 

You've NEVER had a BSOD? I'm kidding here but did you just start using a computer last week? I'll be the first to say that Windows has been fairly good to me, but even I've had a few over the years (I have a work computer that BSODs at least once a week but that is the crappy software preload from work). I have to admit that I've never had a BSOD in Vista, but then again I've had a few lock ups.

 

To me the difference is in the details. Switching to Mac isn't going to revolutionize your world overnight, but I think for most people, it's a positive experience.

Starting from the hardware, people always complain about it being more expensive and complaining about how you can get higher specced computers for less. However, I have no interest in carrying around large, heavy, power hungry laptops whose claim to being a 15.4" laptop is the screen size. I don't think you'll be able to find another notebook that is as thin, as light, as strong or as power efficient as the MacBook Pro for any price. I don't think there are many 15.4" notebooks that can get 4 hours of battery life on a discrete GPU and the option to get 5 hrs on an IGP. There are complaints that Apple only includes the 9600M GT, and while I whole-heartedly agree in wanting a better GPU, Apple has always used high-clocked GDDR3 in their notebooks while most notebook maker just use cheap, lower-clocked DDR2. The 9600M GT with GDDR3 would be faster than other 9600M GT notebooks that use DDR2, but of course, most customers don't know enough to check, and are taken in by other OEMs coupling 1GB of VRAM which the 9600M GT can't even use. Similarly, Apple seems to be the only notebook manufacturer using DDR3-1066 for their system memory while everyone else uses DDR2-800. Admittedly the performance difference is small, but there are power savings, and the extra 33% bandwidth goes a long way to helping the IGP.

In terms of the OS, the most critical productivity feature I find is Expose. It allows you to window manage in parallel by seeing live views of all your open windows nicely laid out so you can select one. In comparison Flip3D or Windows+Tab in Vista seems pretty useless since you are just flipping through things in serially and isn't much of an improvement over Alt+Tab. I find Expose very convenient and often a time-saver, although admittedly we're probably talking split seconds here.

It doesn't really translate directly into productivity, but another nice thing I like about OS X is that there is a consistent feel to all the applications even by third-parties. Now some people would criticize conformity, but realistically it's a key part of why some people say Macs "just work" since user interaction is consistent across the majority of programs so the learning curve between different software is reduced.

The way Apple does this is providing the same UI framework they use internally to make the OS X look and feel available to developers to use in their own apps. Every program sharing the same program elements probably saves space too. That's not to say developers can't do whatever they want with the UI, because they can, just that they have a strong starting point. In contrast, in Windows and Office I'm sure everyone's heard of the new Ribbon interface in Office 2007. But did you know that the UI framework for Ribbons is directly integrated into Office and not available to anything else, even Windows? What this means is that developers hoping to use the Ribbon UI can't use the same one that Office uses but developers must instead write their own. I'm sure you've seen a number of third-party applications with Ribbon knockoffs, I believe PerfectDisk uses one, and they are all slightly different because everyone is trying to individually copy Ribbon. Hoping to address the developer need for Ribbon, Microsoft released a Ribbon UI API for developers, but from what I understand it's Win32 only whereas Microsoft has been trying to tell everyone to move over to .NET. What's more this new Ribbon UI API isn't the same one from Office. Not only that, Windows 7 is going to use a revised version of Ribbon. So MS itself has at least 3 different versions of Ribbon not including third-party copies. These issues hamper the look and usability of Windows. It may be a minor detail, but it can make a difference for both users and developers.

It's been pointed out that OS X is very stable, but that doesn't always stop applications from crashing even though it doesn't bring down the whole system. While there are applications crashes, I don't think that detracts from the view of stability of the system as a whole. Personally, I view OS X as a solid base where everything is piled on top. And I know it might gall some people to hear me say this, but realistically I view Windows as an application now rather than an OS. This stems from me having OS X as my stable base OS and running Windows in VMWare as an application when I need it. Admittedly, for me OS X will never completely replace Windows, and Windows is always a dock icon click anyways, but at the same time I doubt I would ever want to part with OS X completely either.

On a side note, it's interesting that elements of OS X's UI are coming to Windows, which may chagrin people hoping to stay away from Apple and OS X at all costs. The previews of Windows 7 shows it doing away with text for taskbar icons leaving just large logos so the taskbar looks much like the Dock. The Gadgets are also going to move from the sidebar and instead be overlaid on the desktop accessible through a button on the keyboard exactly like Widgets and the Dashboard in Tiger and Leopard. Windows 7 is also adding an accelerated 2D graphics API like Quartz 2D Extreme in Leopard and 7 is also adding an animation API like Core Animation in Leopard and the iPhone. That's not to say OS X doesn't copy features from Windows too, but with these graphics and UI changes Windows is certainly moving toward the features that are present in Leopard, although MS will probably continue to refine the Windows look and approach to these technologies as Windows 7 develops.

 

I just don't understand why nobody can't have an objective and balanced opinion about this. I believe that people who say that "It just works", "It doesn't crash" and "No virus" are at the same "level" than the ones who say "Mac can't play games" or "Macs = no right-click". With a thread called " Advantages of OS X over Windows", everyone just throw all the good stuff even if the OP asks for the pros&cons.

Personally, I never saw anyone say something like "Macs are expensive, indeed, but you still have a sleaker design, slimmer case, etc. that is worth the extra you pay" or "You don't have SLI or Crossfire on a Mac but the performance is still very decent for most of the users". In other words, I believe this depends from the perspective you're taking, i.e. the needs/requirements of the user, his budget, computer knowledge, etc. OS X is just awesome for the average computer user who have a little extra money to spend on a new computer. Windows will be better for a gamer who spend most of his computer time playing games, since most of the time will be spent on Windows so I believe it wouldn't worth it to spend an extra for OS X. The average guy who play games occasionally could live with Bootcamp. And there's plenty of scenarios.

For the generals pros and cons:
Pros:

• Crash less (it is still possible for it to crash, although it's smaller than on Windows, taken in account that Windows have a larger variety of drivers. It's still possible that it doesn't crash, and the same applies on Windows)
• No or little maintenance required. Computer last longer if no maintenance was done.
• Easier interface in terms of configuration and general use. Eg: updates(although this depends on the user preferences)
• Full 64-bits applications, should be faster for optimized applications
• No bloatware, lot of useful built-in applications (compared to National Brands, like Dell or HP. In this case, I'm excluding resellers who don't include an OS or smaller resellers who keep the computer cleans )
• Limited hardware (This is a pro when you take in consideration the fact that Apple will fully support the hardware you choose)
• The best of both worlds: Have the pros of OS X while having compatibility of Windows (applies more to general users)
• And more...

As for the cons:

• Limited hardware (the selection is decent and meets most of the people's need but for more advanced users, the choice of 2 CPU and 4HDD, 1 screen resolution, etc. for the notebooks is limited and doesn't help to fit all budgets)
• Limited applications: please don't shoot me, I know more and more applications are compatible with Macs and the rest can be used on Windows but you either have to virtualize or literally dual-boot. In both case, this means less hardware space for another OS, the need to (re)start another OS. Not a major deal, but then, you are buying a Mac to espace the hassle and pain of Windows but you end up having to use it for applications that are not compatible.
• Latest technology? Where are the i7, Core2Quad/Extreme, SSD and 10k for desktop, SLI/Crossfire, gamer enthousiast video cards on laptops? For that part, this wouldn't matter for the average user.
• Price. You are getting more for the price you pay but in terms of pure hardware, i.e. specs and maybe performance (e.g. 3dmark), its a bit expensive
• It may still crash, it could not work, it could be unhappy. That's the principle of computers: some will like it, other will not. And that's how our society works.
• Other cons...maybe?? I believe there's arent so many cons.

Overall, this all comes down to the user's need and personal preferences.

 

Did some one say BSOD?

Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch

 

well,my new HDX a week old-I had lots off BSOD and crashes...my mac haven't crashed that much in it's whole life...

 

There isn't anything on the Mac that I can't do on Windows. What I DO like about OSX is the whole vertical integration model they use as their business model. One company that designs both the hardware AND the software to work together.

 

Nobody using vista really needs the look of Mac OS. Who needs to install a dock, when is already there (called QuickLaunch). Yeah, small buttons, but they work just fine for me.

As for your list, I am sure you already know it's just a list, with no real good point around it. I mean, there are TONS of apps (freeware) that will do anything you want.
Stacks - it's just a folder with shortcuts, my friend;
Spaces - my microsoft mouse comes with that, hahaha, just press the scroll button(middle button)
Time Machine -people are so laid back they forgot what the name is for it: BACKUP !! taaa taaa ! shadow copy is a real thing and it works, Backup works, System Restore works! time machine works! all good here!
The Dock - quicklaunch; start menu (since I need more than 15 apps that will fit in THE DOCK)
Menu Bar - blah, any window has a menu bar in the MS world
Back to My Mac - you got to pay for it (over mobile"me.com")
QuickLook - ok
Hand Gestures for swipe - you got it here
Bootcamp - no need for it, seriously now, who in the world would like to boot in OSX? cause there is no such thing as "this game won't work under vista, I have to boot into leopard"


Don't worry, I still use my MBP and my wifes Air under Leopard. But it just makes me sick when I see the apple "fanboys" going over their head just to prove nothing. I never boot under Vista cause I have a Vista desktop where I can do anything I want (like play ANY game). Therefor, Vista is VITAL for a lot of stuff (besides games), and until APPLE doesn't come with the real thing is far far away. At least in the corporate world, where working with an Apple is really hard to work with the 99.9% of the computers/servers out there. Yeah, install this and install that.. and still no real usable stuff exists in some domains. I hope Snow Leopard will improve TONS of stuff in this direction, and keep the stability of the current system.

For the OP:
You HAVE to play with the system for like a week. After the first 2 days you'll really get the whole mac thing and then you can start try real stuff: try to use what you NEED in order to do your business (talking about applications). Games are a no-go on a MAC, but in my case I don't really play much anyway. Make sure your PC work can be done on a MAC with no hassle. You have to like what MAC has to offer in terms of Office, for example, because MAC Office is nothing like Office 2007 for MAC, neither is Apple's iWork. Because it looks and works different you may encounter problems, and it's up to you if you can overpass them (maybe you don't even wanna bother). And Office is a simple example, but there are programs that DO NOT work properly in Leopard because there is no version for APPLE (like my company's software). In this case you must try all this software within a VMware, and see if it works properly. Some programs will crash, especially when the program will work at a low level (hardware access is involved).
On the other side, Apple has some software that is great to use (like Final Cut and other) where is hard to find the same deal in Windows world. Some are just easier and nicer than on a PC.
Anyway, you MUST try it for yourself. Vista is great for me, MacOS is great too, but I can not really find a plus on either side (like a huge plus, that will make me lean onto one side). For me the Apple's laptops/hardware is what I really like, the system is nothing special, compatibility is an issue, the price ...

 

I have Vista on my desktop and laptop and have never crashed or BSOD. My brother and 2 roommates all have MBP and I have seen every one of there macs crash, lockup and BSOD twice. They always have WIFI issues where I have never been dropped from the network. 1 of my roommate have reinstalled his MBP 2 times and had to take it in to get the WIFI card replaced.

Anyhow at the end of the day they are 2 very different OS's and they are both awesome. They both have there pros and cons. It is my opinion, treads like this are childish because most people are always going to give a very bias opinion in this area.

@ previous post:
OS X is more vulnerable to viruses than Vista.
OS X has had more and bigger updates than Vista.
There were DDR3 laptops before the MBP.
The dude who talked about the ribbon thing was pointless.

 

I am running XP Professional Service Pack 3 and was trying to System restore. Even in safe mode it wouldn't work for me. Windows is broke.

 

I've used Macbooks and Windows laptops. A well installed Windows laptop does not crash more often than a Macbook in my experience.

The difference is that the Macbook runs well without any tweaking/clean install, while Windows laptops need to be clean installed/tweaked.

 

Very true. So that implies that Windows machines are much more of a hassle to get working properly I take it?

 

In my opinion yes.

Especially Sony laptops are notorious for excessive installed software a.k.a. bloatware.

My Asus laptop had 51 processes when it was new. My own clean install results in 21 processes. (XP).

 

It depends on who you buy it from. If it's essentially a clean install with the correct drivers, then it works perfectly fine out of the box. If not, then yes, you will have to fiddle with it to get it working the way you want. However, unless you're utterly clueless about how a computer works, even then it should not be that much of a hassle -- I would say on the order of 3 hours extra time, and this only has to be done once. It's an advantage of OS X, but a really tiny one (for people one these forums, at least).

 

Don't know if this was mentioned before but a big benefit of OS X laptops is the higher resale value.

If you manage to find a good second hand Air for example, you can use it for a while and then sell it at the same price.

 

With these Intel Macs the resale value has gone down. You can buy a £1,800 MBP and put in ebay five months later and be lucky to get £1,000 for it. Maybe the MB's do a little better as they are cheaper.

I have seen some TZ's that were going for £1500 going for over £900 on ebay six months down the line.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Sony-VAIO-TZ-...14&_trkparms=72:1300|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318

I have not done a clean install on my SZ. I uninstalled some stuff and my laptop runs very well there is no need for me to do a clean install. I also had to tidy up my Mac laptops as well as there was a bit to much junk and stuff i never needed taking up my HD space.

 

True, the higher models will always take a bigger hit in resale value.

Some Sony's, like the TZ/TX/SZ/Z have pretty good resale value too. Although similar priced MBAs hold their value better than the TZ.

Here on the dutch market a 9 months old TZ originally priced at 1800 will have a hard time bringing in 900. The MBA priced at 1699 originally will bring in 1000 fairly easily.

Ebay prices aren't a very reliable indicator of resale value because some auctions are incidents. Like the auction you linked to Rachuk, I can buy a similar config for 850 euros now: http://tweakers.net/aanbod/advertentie/130804/sony-vaio-vgn-tz11mn-n.html I doubt it will actually bring in 850.

By the way, one downside to OS X is the inability to download drivers from Apple and the inability to update drivers freely. On my Macbook the Nvidia driver under Windows was better than under OS X.

 

Well, Mac owners are very silly, you realise?

I like OS X because it's almost Linux. It runs almost all the cool Linux programs, with a little tweaking, has a proper terminal, and a few decent visual effects. It's like diet Linux, which a little more mainstream support.

 

I don't know PhilFlow last time i checked Ebay i saw some MBA's going for £700. Maybe they sell higher in your country.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Apple-MacBook...286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66:2|65:13|39:1|240:1318

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/MacBook-Air_W...286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66:2|65:13|39:1|240:1318

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Macbook-Air-1...286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66:2|65:13|39:1|240:1318

 

Yeah maybe UK is different not sure.

I sold a second hand MBA with 64GB SSD for 1400 euro last week. I would not get those prices for a second hand Sony.

But anyway, I know Sony does pretty good for PCs. I was talking about Windows laptops in general that loose more value than Apples. In my experience anyway.

 

I'm gonna chime in and explain bloatware and how it affects you.

Here's how the deal works:

X company makes a deal with X PC vendor. X company says they will give X vendor X dollars for every X product they throw on X PC. Y number of companies offer this to X vendor. X vendor can now knock of X $ from your now bloatwared PC. In the end, it saves you $, but it ends up costing you time.

I think anyone who's switched to Macs have realized this one thing: Zero Bloatware

Why? Simple. Look at the price you're paying for your Mac. Kinda high, isn't it? Yeah. Worth it? Sure. Why? It's not the name, not the components, not the pretty looking case that it comes in. In all actuality, it's something you don't think about: Lack of bloatware. It works out of the box with only the necessary software required to make it function well. That is a major cause of high Mac price tags. Apple makes NO deal with any company to preinstall 3rd party garbage applications in order to discount your Mac.

On the PC side:
Lots of bloatware!!! But look at the price of your new PC that has performance on par with a Mac! It's several $$$ cheaper, isn't it? Unfortunately, folks, there is no such thing as a free lunch. You're getting your PC cheaper BECAUSE of bloatware.

To experienced PC users, we instantly wipe out the drive as soon as we get home and re-install the OS with only the necessary drivers and minimal software we need to operate on the PC. The experience NOW becomes very close to Mac level. Very minimal crashes, no slowdowns due to stupid software running in the background, and an overall good experience just like how Mac users experience it

Unfortunately, your Uncle Bob of Grandma Jane will not figure this out. They'll suffer through the pains of bloatware, chuck the computer out the window, and get a Mac for their next computer. It doesn't have to be that way...if they were willing to pay a higher price. The boutique high end PCs like my Velocity Micro desktop comes with zero bloatware. All I got with it was Nero and a 3D benchmarking software.

Sony offers their Fresh Start option which ships your PC with no bloatware. The Dell Vostro line also offers no bloatware, I believe.

In conclusion, bloatware has a large effect on the price of the PC. Keeping that off the Mac contributes to the higher Mac prices, but more pleasurable experience out of the box. I just had to explain it so people understand that PCs aren't crap machines by default. They were made into that. It's almost like someone took a marker and drew all over it while it was sleeping. If you wash the marker off, it's got just as good of an experience as a Mac, IMHO. I appreciate both Mac and PCs!

 

It's not just the lack of bloatware, the extra bucks go into the development of OS X, first party software, product design and engineering, and especially the advertising

 

Windows and mac are like two sides of the coin.

Why is that most of the mac users need boot camp if mac can do everything windows does. ...

Why is that so many windows users are moving to mac and staying there...


Personally i love mac because i never need to switch it off and sleep fn has been amazing.....
But i miss a xillion things from windows and i know i cant ask for everything.

I thought apple would release a touch screen laptop.. may be that is what we are going to see next year

 

Because OSX isn't like
http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2008/11/10

 

recently i just installed a stripped down version of vista 64 using vlite and i have to say it runs pretty snappy. but osx just has a polish to it that vista isn't quite able to match yet. although i have to say i still miss cut & paste on windows.

 

Personally, I think it's also about the pretty looking case that it comes in. Apple is spending more and more in their R&D as well as design departments while other vendors are constantly slashing away at them in order to free up funds. I'd imagine the new Macbook aluminum casing that is made from a single block of aluminum and then sculpted with laser and water is not cheaper than slapping a couple of plastic components together.

 

the only pc company on par with apple is sony with its carbon fibre.. and its superior screen

 

what do you mean? sony is one or the worst pc manufacturers IMO
screen? all manufacturers use similar cheap TN panels, it doesn't make too much sense to say one is way better than another, esp when sony uses glare/reflective screens.

 

There are many different quality TN panels and Sony uses some of the best for it's high end models, like TZ, Z, SZ, SR and AW series.

These have considerably higher contrast and brightness than average TN panels. Let me know if you want to see the numbers.

PS. Many Sony glossy models use semi glossy screens, these are far less reflective than normal glossy screens.

 

You must not have been an OS X user for very long.


BTW, saying you can run Windows on your Mac is not an OS X advantage. It's a Mac advantage. The very defeniton you might need to run a Windows-only app is an OS X disadvantage.