-Much more expansive range of hardware. Apple 2006 on tends to box you in based on their stereotype of you.
-Better media center capabilities. You need third party software for PVR capabilities on the Mac.
-Blu-Ray Support
-Direct X
-Can't think of anything else.
Both iTunes and Quicktime can do that.
Sorry, but you display the typical PC owner mentality that more equals better. If your argument were true then china would be the best country on earth because it has the most people. That is a nonsense statement.
But to dismantle your argument let me go line by line:
-better media center capabilities: complete bullshit. Apple TV is the most used setup box. That obviates the fact that just because you can combine any of 100 3rd party softwares with 100 setup boxes doesn't mean you will get a better product. It just means you have more choices to make which, sadly, almost always result in more confusion and less quality in the final setup.
-blu-ray support: this is a typical one. People immediately assume that because bluray won over HD-DVD that it is the new standard. WRONG. Bluray is having trouble catching on and it is because people have figured out that the slight video quality improvement over just encoded video sitting on a hard drive is offset by the practicality of the latter.
-DirectX: the only advantage of directX that one can notice is the lack of avail. of games for mac. That was already counted as advantage: PC.
-Cant think of anything else: because there probably isn't.
manufacturer quoted prices. MS sells their crapola for $300 and up. iworks cost less than $100.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
From what I could find on the net, iWorks is colourful, home-use oriented suite. It's applications are nowhere powerful as their Office counterparts.
And that is based on....? I find your remark laughable. iWorks is so much faster and stable than Word it is not even funny. iWorks feels like it is running on a supercomputer with 1000 parallel processors. It lacks a few features relative to Word that I care about. But nothing that can't be fixed in version 2.
Bigger choice of software, in general (likely some exemptions apply)
Games (no contest)
Better support for media standards, both playback and creation (DivX, XviD, flash...)
Bigger choice of external hardware (gaming, media keyboards/controllers/remotes...)
Bigger choice of internal hardware (graphics, audio, RAID, TV tuners... you name it)
(1) as opposed to fantasy networking? Define real-life please. From file sharing to remote computing there is nothing more "real" than Leopard. Sorry your statement is pure nonsense.
(2) bigger choice of software is not an advantage. I would give up 500 PC software applications if I could have iLife for PC, just to give one example.
(3) Games: granted
(4) Better support for media standards: empty statement as quicktime will play just about anything worth playing. Not even worth installing some 3rd party FLAC or WMP player.
(5) Bigger choice of external hardware: Last year I was looking for the best possible keyboard for my windows XP machine. After 1 week researching this I concluded the best keyboard in the world was the mac extended keyboard. Lesson: more choice does not equal better.
(6) Bigger choice of internal hardware: this is absolute and complete garbage statement. You can sub in HD, video, etc in a mac just as in a PC.
Can anyone give me a brief explanation about OSX networking superiority?
All of our clients are on Windows networks and only one has Macs. Of course, only network problems they have are with their Macs.
So I presume OSX "superior" networking is something that happens in Apple networks but in real world, with dominant Windows networks... for me, it's like saying Esperanto is better communication tool than English, however, in the world where English is dominant communication tool, that argument is pointless.
SMB (the Windows sharing protocol) is the most horrific, convoluted, ill-conceived piece of crap in the history of computing. AFP is much easier to set up, administer and use.
In terms of general networking, OS X's core is based on BSD UNIX, renowned for the strength of its networking capabilities.
Sorry, but you display the typical PC owner mentality that more equals better.
And you display the most typical Apple-fanboy mentality that anything Apple doesn't do, isn't worth having.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron
-better media center capabilities: complete bullshit. Apple TV is the most used setup box.
We're talking OS X vs. Windows, not about set-top boxes. Windows Media Center beats the shit out of Front Row. If you want to build an HTPC, Windows is the only way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron
-blu-ray support...[insert typical apple-fanboy diatribe about blu-ray here]
Argue all you like, but in Windows you can play back blu-ray and in OS X you can't. Therefore a redeeming quality of Windows relative to OS X is that it can play back Blu-ray. End of story.
(5) Bigger choice of external hardware: Last year I was looking for the best possible keyboard for my windows XP machine. After 1 week researching this I concluded the best keyboard in the world was the mac extended keyboard. Lesson: more choice does not equal better.
You can't dismiss this argument so easily just because you found out that for you the best keyboard is an Apple keyboard. There's more to external hardware than keyboards. It's a sad fact that due to its ubiquity, the Windows platform has a much larger range of supported hardware. It's not due to Windows being inherently superior, it's due to its massive market share; but the means don't change the ends: bigger range of 3rd party hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron
Bigger choice of internal hardware: this is absolute and complete garbage statement. You can sub in HD, video, etc in a mac just as in a PC.
Wrong. Anything that doesn't require a driver, like an HDD and RAM, you can use. But things like video cards, TV tuners, data capture devices, audio cards, networking cards, I/O cards, all require drivers. And if the 3rd party who makes the card doesn't make an OS X driver, you're stuffed.
Granted, for most consumers, anything they are interested in will be supported in OS X. But there's plenty of niche applications where your only choice is Windows.
You can't dismiss this argument so easily just because you found out that for you the best keyboard is an Apple keyboard. There's more to external hardware than keyboards. It's a sad fact that due to its ubiquity, the Windows platform has a much larger range of supported hardware. It's not due to Windows being inherently superior, it's due to its massive market share; but the means don't change the ends: bigger range of 3rd party hardware.
The funny thing is that most keyboards are supported in OSX. The windows key is treated like the command key. OSX also lets you change the function of the control, option, and command keys as to map windows keyboards in a more Mac like way. I would also agree with him on the choice, the Apple keyboard is great. They new aluminum keyboard is the best I've ever had. Mighty mouse not so much. Might have to go with another companies' keyboard for its replacement. Why? Choice. Apple doesn't offer a full-sized bluetooth keyboard. They company I bought my bluetooth mouse from does.
But then again, no matter how good the keyboard is, it doesn't change the fact that the iMac can't do what the PowerMac it replaced (at the same general pricepoint) could. Yes people, I know it has a faster CPU..blah blah.
Quote:
Wrong. Anything that doesn't require a driver, like an HDD and RAM, you can use. But things like video cards, TV tuners, data capture devices, audio cards, networking cards, I/O cards, all require drivers. And if the 3rd party who makes the card doesn't make an OS X driver, you're stuffed.
Actually with a lot of those have drivers of OSX nowadays. Apple does business with a variety of support chip makers these days and the video cards and chipsets are designed in common driver families. OSX can actually support a lot more than the hardware allows.
As for TV tuners, Elgato's EyeTV supports quite a few and could probably support more with more resources. They've always seemed like a prime acquisition target to me, but it somehow has never happened. Their cost would be pocket change to Apple, so the only real reason I can think of that is some twisted Jobs logic, its seen as a threat to iTunes episode sales. In reality, elgato's hardware and software could help Apple a great deal. Add direct or indirect (through a Mac) PVR capabilities to the iTV and it becomes a very useful overnight. Add a TV Tuner to a 16:9 iMac along with the bluetooth keyboard/mouse combo and you you have the ideal multi-purpose device for bedrooms, dorms, kitchens, etc. Supersize it and put a Mac in a 37+ inch TV and you give Apple a whole other source for revenue.
We're talking OS X vs. Windows, not about set-top boxes. Windows Media Center beats the shit out of Front Row. If you want to build an HTPC, Windows is the only way to go.
Nah...OSX doesn't suck anymore for HTPCs and I prefer Front Row to WMC.
The next rev of the mini will tell us which platform is more preferred. I expect with HDCP support that should allow for more iTunes content and rentals.
Nah...OSX doesn't suck anymore for HTPCs and I prefer Front Row to WMC.
OS X has the potential to beat Windows here, as it's not so reliant on third parties; it just requires Apple to get its act together.
As it stands, for me the lack of blu-ray support is an immediate deal-breaker for using OS X on an HTPC. Add to that the fact that WMC can be expanded by 3rd parties without hacking, and WMC wins for HTPC use at the moment.
manufacturer quoted prices. MS sells their crapola for $300 and up. iworks cost less than $100.
Now that is plain silly. Looking that way, cheapest no-name PC is so much better than Mac because it is so much cheaper. And Trabant eats BMW for breakfast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron
And that is based on....? I find your remark laughable. iWorks is so much faster and stable than Word it is not even funny. iWorks feels like it is running on a supercomputer with 1000 parallel processors. It lacks a few features relative to Word that I care about. But nothing that can't be fixed in version 2.
Well, I did not have chance to use iWorks so I had to settle down for some Googling on that topic. Every compare I saw (I stopped at 5th) claimed iWorks set of features is nowhere close to MS Office. Not only Word, but Excel, PowerPoint... Even crappy Mac version of Office seem to be much more feature rich than iWorks, and it is nowhere close to Office for Windows.
Of course, if you are using only most basic features, you might find out WordPad is better than iWorks and Office word processing put together. Hardly relevant.
Well, I did not have chance to use iWorks so I had to settle down for some Googling on that topic. Every compare I saw (I stopped at 5th) claimed iWorks set of features is nowhere close to MS Office. Not only Word, but Excel, PowerPoint... Even crappy Mac version of Office seem to be much more feature rich than iWorks, and it is nowhere close to Office for Windows.
Of course, if you are using only most basic features, you might find out WordPad is better than iWorks and Office word processing put together. Hardly relevant.
Correct iWork is a consumer suite. A hell of a lot better than MS Works, but nowhere near as feature rich as Office. If there is ever a ProWork, office might be given a run for their money feature wise, not as of yet nobody has managed to unseat office as the standard.
(1) as opposed to fantasy networking? Define real-life please. From file sharing to remote computing there is nothing more "real" than Leopard. Sorry your statement is pure nonsense.
Real life where, for god and bad, most networks are Windows based. As I mentioned, we have only one client with Macs - small publishing house - and only problem they have regarding their LAN is with those Macs. We had to restore from the backup files lost on saving from Macs to public and personal folders handful of times, and their Mac people have no clue (neither do we but we don't support their Macs anyway).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron
(2) bigger choice of software is not an advantage. I would give up 500 PC software applications if I could have iLife for PC, just to give one example.
At the end of day, more choice is advantage in general, but fair enough - it can be matter of personal preference. From my point of view, me and all my mates using iMovies to do home videos would be a bit too much... uniform. Not to mention reviews I saw are so-so anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron
(4) Better support for media standards: empty statement as quicktime will play just about anything worth playing. Not even worth installing some 3rd party FLAC or WMP player.
Um... so if you can't play it, it is not worth it. Riiight... unfortunately, I came across some video files in Matroska and other "exotic" formats. I also happen to have numerous ebooks in Microsoft .lit format. I don't know if they are all available on Mac. If you don't need any, doesn't matter. But if you happen to need some of them...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron
(5) Bigger choice of external hardware: Last year I was looking for the best possible keyboard for my windows XP machine. After 1 week researching this I concluded the best keyboard in the world was the mac extended keyboard. Lesson: more choice does not equal better.
So... just because you like that particular keyboard and don't have any use of media and application launch keys makes less choice better in general? Right...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron
(6) Bigger choice of internal hardware: this is absolute and complete garbage statement. You can sub in HD, video, etc in a mac just as in a PC.
So how do you put video card in iMac? Or audio card (if you are not happy with integrated one)? I presume iMac is mainstream when it comes to desktop Macs. Comes to Mac Pro, you can some... but still very limited (compared to), unless something changed recently and radically. Has it? Can you plug in and install software for, say, ATI 4870X2 or nVidia 280..?
SMB (the Windows sharing protocol) is the most horrific, convoluted, ill-conceived piece of crap in the history of computing. AFP is much easier to set up, administer and use.
In terms of general networking, OS X's core is based on BSD UNIX, renowned for the strength of its networking capabilities.
Thanks. But does that easiness of setup, administering and use translates to real-life scenarios where networks are at best mixed and infrastructure (servers) are much more likely to be Windows based..? How does OSX deal with Exchange, VPN, remote connections, terminal servers..?
I'm not prejudicing it can't cope because, frankly, I have no idea. I'm just curious. Can it?
I would expect big chunk of windows awkwardness should be due to demands for compatibility with existing infrastructure, which is a must for business. There is a price you pay for everything, including compatibility.
On OS X, there's Perian, VLC, Flip4Mac, Silverlight and flash. The only media-playing advantage Windows has over OS X is Blu-ray.
My bad, then. I used to have to dig deep for some obscure codecs before, but since I got aware of VLC, haven't seen format I could not open (though there are probably some out there). I presume VLC for Mac is same as Windows one..?
But what about video conversion, DVD ripping..? Is it all covered?
3. I didn't encounter this at all. Safari works well with all websites I have navigated and it is way way faster than IE or firefox, more stable and just better overall.
I do not think you realize how pervasive Flash is.
Install Flashblock on Firefox and just watch what happens. The achilles heel of the iPhone is the lack of Flash implementation. It can not access "the whole web", not even half of it because of this problem. (Hello? Steve? Wake up, dude!)
Comments
Actually most popular windows software is 2-3x more expensive than mac. Think windows vs leopard, office versus iworks, and others.
And to top it off they are way worse too.
And that is based on..?
From what I could find on the net, iWorks is colourful, home-use oriented suite. It's applications are nowhere powerful as their Office counterparts.
-Much more expansive range of hardware. Apple 2006 on tends to box you in based on their stereotype of you.
-Better media center capabilities. You need third party software for PVR capabilities on the Mac.
-Blu-Ray Support
-Direct X
-Can't think of anything else.
Both iTunes and Quicktime can do that.
I think following items stand as well:
Thanks for information
__________________________
http://tinyurl.com/4rdhmc
I've seen you spamming other forums (outside AI) you twat. Leave now idiot.
-Much more expansive range of hardware. Apple 2006 on tends to box you in based on their stereotype of you.
-Better media center capabilities. You need third party software for PVR capabilities on the Mac.
-Blu-Ray Support
-Direct X
-Can't think of anything else.
Both iTunes and Quicktime can do that.
Sorry, but you display the typical PC owner mentality that more equals better. If your argument were true then china would be the best country on earth because it has the most people. That is a nonsense statement.
But to dismantle your argument let me go line by line:
-better media center capabilities: complete bullshit. Apple TV is the most used setup box. That obviates the fact that just because you can combine any of 100 3rd party softwares with 100 setup boxes doesn't mean you will get a better product. It just means you have more choices to make which, sadly, almost always result in more confusion and less quality in the final setup.
-blu-ray support: this is a typical one. People immediately assume that because bluray won over HD-DVD that it is the new standard. WRONG. Bluray is having trouble catching on and it is because people have figured out that the slight video quality improvement over just encoded video sitting on a hard drive is offset by the practicality of the latter.
-DirectX: the only advantage of directX that one can notice is the lack of avail. of games for mac. That was already counted as advantage: PC.
-Cant think of anything else: because there probably isn't.
And that is based on..?
manufacturer quoted prices. MS sells their crapola for $300 and up. iworks cost less than $100.
From what I could find on the net, iWorks is colourful, home-use oriented suite. It's applications are nowhere powerful as their Office counterparts.
And that is based on....? I find your remark laughable. iWorks is so much faster and stable than Word it is not even funny. iWorks feels like it is running on a supercomputer with 1000 parallel processors. It lacks a few features relative to Word that I care about. But nothing that can't be fixed in version 2.
I think following items stand as well:
(1) as opposed to fantasy networking? Define real-life please. From file sharing to remote computing there is nothing more "real" than Leopard. Sorry your statement is pure nonsense.
(2) bigger choice of software is not an advantage. I would give up 500 PC software applications if I could have iLife for PC, just to give one example.
(3) Games: granted
(4) Better support for media standards: empty statement as quicktime will play just about anything worth playing. Not even worth installing some 3rd party FLAC or WMP player.
(5) Bigger choice of external hardware: Last year I was looking for the best possible keyboard for my windows XP machine. After 1 week researching this I concluded the best keyboard in the world was the mac extended keyboard. Lesson: more choice does not equal better.
(6) Bigger choice of internal hardware: this is absolute and complete garbage statement. You can sub in HD, video, etc in a mac just as in a PC.
manufacturer quoted prices. MS sells their crapola for $300 and up. iworks cost less than $100.
The Home version of Office is $150 for a 3 computer license, and most stores have it 50% off until Christmas.
As for Windows, almost nobody buys it retail. People buy it with a new PC and never see the cost.
Can anyone give me a brief explanation about OSX networking superiority?
All of our clients are on Windows networks and only one has Macs. Of course, only network problems they have are with their Macs.
So I presume OSX "superior" networking is something that happens in Apple networks but in real world, with dominant Windows networks... for me, it's like saying Esperanto is better communication tool than English, however, in the world where English is dominant communication tool, that argument is pointless.
SMB (the Windows sharing protocol) is the most horrific, convoluted, ill-conceived piece of crap in the history of computing. AFP is much easier to set up, administer and use.
In terms of general networking, OS X's core is based on BSD UNIX, renowned for the strength of its networking capabilities.
[*]Better support for media standards, both playback and creation (DivX, XviD, flash...)
Er... No.
On OS X, there's Perian, VLC, Flip4Mac, Silverlight and flash. The only media-playing advantage Windows has over OS X is Blu-ray.
Sorry, but you display the typical PC owner mentality that more equals better.
And you display the most typical Apple-fanboy mentality that anything Apple doesn't do, isn't worth having.
-better media center capabilities: complete bullshit. Apple TV is the most used setup box.
We're talking OS X vs. Windows, not about set-top boxes. Windows Media Center beats the shit out of Front Row. If you want to build an HTPC, Windows is the only way to go.
-blu-ray support...[insert typical apple-fanboy diatribe about blu-ray here]
Argue all you like, but in Windows you can play back blu-ray and in OS X you can't. Therefore a redeeming quality of Windows relative to OS X is that it can play back Blu-ray. End of story.
(5) Bigger choice of external hardware: Last year I was looking for the best possible keyboard for my windows XP machine. After 1 week researching this I concluded the best keyboard in the world was the mac extended keyboard. Lesson: more choice does not equal better.
You can't dismiss this argument so easily just because you found out that for you the best keyboard is an Apple keyboard. There's more to external hardware than keyboards. It's a sad fact that due to its ubiquity, the Windows platform has a much larger range of supported hardware. It's not due to Windows being inherently superior, it's due to its massive market share; but the means don't change the ends: bigger range of 3rd party hardware.
Bigger choice of internal hardware: this is absolute and complete garbage statement. You can sub in HD, video, etc in a mac just as in a PC.
Wrong. Anything that doesn't require a driver, like an HDD and RAM, you can use. But things like video cards, TV tuners, data capture devices, audio cards, networking cards, I/O cards, all require drivers. And if the 3rd party who makes the card doesn't make an OS X driver, you're stuffed.
Granted, for most consumers, anything they are interested in will be supported in OS X. But there's plenty of niche applications where your only choice is Windows.
You can't dismiss this argument so easily just because you found out that for you the best keyboard is an Apple keyboard. There's more to external hardware than keyboards. It's a sad fact that due to its ubiquity, the Windows platform has a much larger range of supported hardware. It's not due to Windows being inherently superior, it's due to its massive market share; but the means don't change the ends: bigger range of 3rd party hardware.
The funny thing is that most keyboards are supported in OSX. The windows key is treated like the command key. OSX also lets you change the function of the control, option, and command keys as to map windows keyboards in a more Mac like way. I would also agree with him on the choice, the Apple keyboard is great. They new aluminum keyboard is the best I've ever had. Mighty mouse not so much. Might have to go with another companies' keyboard for its replacement. Why? Choice. Apple doesn't offer a full-sized bluetooth keyboard. They company I bought my bluetooth mouse from does.
But then again, no matter how good the keyboard is, it doesn't change the fact that the iMac can't do what the PowerMac it replaced (at the same general pricepoint) could. Yes people, I know it has a faster CPU..blah blah.
Wrong. Anything that doesn't require a driver, like an HDD and RAM, you can use. But things like video cards, TV tuners, data capture devices, audio cards, networking cards, I/O cards, all require drivers. And if the 3rd party who makes the card doesn't make an OS X driver, you're stuffed.
Actually with a lot of those have drivers of OSX nowadays. Apple does business with a variety of support chip makers these days and the video cards and chipsets are designed in common driver families. OSX can actually support a lot more than the hardware allows.
As for TV tuners, Elgato's EyeTV supports quite a few and could probably support more with more resources. They've always seemed like a prime acquisition target to me, but it somehow has never happened. Their cost would be pocket change to Apple, so the only real reason I can think of that is some twisted Jobs logic, its seen as a threat to iTunes episode sales. In reality, elgato's hardware and software could help Apple a great deal. Add direct or indirect (through a Mac) PVR capabilities to the iTV and it becomes a very useful overnight. Add a TV Tuner to a 16:9 iMac along with the bluetooth keyboard/mouse combo and you you have the ideal multi-purpose device for bedrooms, dorms, kitchens, etc. Supersize it and put a Mac in a 37+ inch TV and you give Apple a whole other source for revenue.
We're talking OS X vs. Windows, not about set-top boxes. Windows Media Center beats the shit out of Front Row. If you want to build an HTPC, Windows is the only way to go.
Nah...OSX doesn't suck anymore for HTPCs and I prefer Front Row to WMC.
The next rev of the mini will tell us which platform is more preferred. I expect with HDCP support that should allow for more iTunes content and rentals.
Nah...OSX doesn't suck anymore for HTPCs and I prefer Front Row to WMC.
OS X has the potential to beat Windows here, as it's not so reliant on third parties; it just requires Apple to get its act together.
As it stands, for me the lack of blu-ray support is an immediate deal-breaker for using OS X on an HTPC. Add to that the fact that WMC can be expanded by 3rd parties without hacking, and WMC wins for HTPC use at the moment.
manufacturer quoted prices. MS sells their crapola for $300 and up. iworks cost less than $100.
Now that is plain silly. Looking that way, cheapest no-name PC is so much better than Mac because it is so much cheaper. And Trabant eats BMW for breakfast.
And that is based on....? I find your remark laughable. iWorks is so much faster and stable than Word it is not even funny. iWorks feels like it is running on a supercomputer with 1000 parallel processors. It lacks a few features relative to Word that I care about. But nothing that can't be fixed in version 2.
Well, I did not have chance to use iWorks so I had to settle down for some Googling on that topic. Every compare I saw (I stopped at 5th) claimed iWorks set of features is nowhere close to MS Office. Not only Word, but Excel, PowerPoint... Even crappy Mac version of Office seem to be much more feature rich than iWorks, and it is nowhere close to Office for Windows.
Of course, if you are using only most basic features, you might find out WordPad is better than iWorks and Office word processing put together. Hardly relevant.
Well, I did not have chance to use iWorks so I had to settle down for some Googling on that topic. Every compare I saw (I stopped at 5th) claimed iWorks set of features is nowhere close to MS Office. Not only Word, but Excel, PowerPoint... Even crappy Mac version of Office seem to be much more feature rich than iWorks, and it is nowhere close to Office for Windows.
Of course, if you are using only most basic features, you might find out WordPad is better than iWorks and Office word processing put together. Hardly relevant.
Correct iWork is a consumer suite. A hell of a lot better than MS Works, but nowhere near as feature rich as Office. If there is ever a ProWork, office might be given a run for their money feature wise, not as of yet nobody has managed to unseat office as the standard.
(1) as opposed to fantasy networking? Define real-life please. From file sharing to remote computing there is nothing more "real" than Leopard. Sorry your statement is pure nonsense.
Real life where, for god and bad, most networks are Windows based. As I mentioned, we have only one client with Macs - small publishing house - and only problem they have regarding their LAN is with those Macs. We had to restore from the backup files lost on saving from Macs to public and personal folders handful of times, and their Mac people have no clue (neither do we but we don't support their Macs anyway).
(2) bigger choice of software is not an advantage. I would give up 500 PC software applications if I could have iLife for PC, just to give one example.
At the end of day, more choice is advantage in general, but fair enough - it can be matter of personal preference. From my point of view, me and all my mates using iMovies to do home videos would be a bit too much... uniform. Not to mention reviews I saw are so-so anyway.
(4) Better support for media standards: empty statement as quicktime will play just about anything worth playing. Not even worth installing some 3rd party FLAC or WMP player.
Um... so if you can't play it, it is not worth it. Riiight... unfortunately, I came across some video files in Matroska and other "exotic" formats. I also happen to have numerous ebooks in Microsoft .lit format. I don't know if they are all available on Mac. If you don't need any, doesn't matter. But if you happen to need some of them...
(5) Bigger choice of external hardware: Last year I was looking for the best possible keyboard for my windows XP machine. After 1 week researching this I concluded the best keyboard in the world was the mac extended keyboard. Lesson: more choice does not equal better.
So... just because you like that particular keyboard and don't have any use of media and application launch keys makes less choice better in general? Right...
(6) Bigger choice of internal hardware: this is absolute and complete garbage statement. You can sub in HD, video, etc in a mac just as in a PC.
So how do you put video card in iMac? Or audio card (if you are not happy with integrated one)? I presume iMac is mainstream when it comes to desktop Macs. Comes to Mac Pro, you can some... but still very limited (compared to), unless something changed recently and radically. Has it? Can you plug in and install software for, say, ATI 4870X2 or nVidia 280..?
SMB (the Windows sharing protocol) is the most horrific, convoluted, ill-conceived piece of crap in the history of computing. AFP is much easier to set up, administer and use.
In terms of general networking, OS X's core is based on BSD UNIX, renowned for the strength of its networking capabilities.
Thanks. But does that easiness of setup, administering and use translates to real-life scenarios where networks are at best mixed and infrastructure (servers) are much more likely to be Windows based..? How does OSX deal with Exchange, VPN, remote connections, terminal servers..?
I'm not prejudicing it can't cope because, frankly, I have no idea. I'm just curious. Can it?
I would expect big chunk of windows awkwardness should be due to demands for compatibility with existing infrastructure, which is a must for business. There is a price you pay for everything, including compatibility.
Er... No.
On OS X, there's Perian, VLC, Flip4Mac, Silverlight and flash. The only media-playing advantage Windows has over OS X is Blu-ray.
My bad, then. I used to have to dig deep for some obscure codecs before, but since I got aware of VLC, haven't seen format I could not open (though there are probably some out there). I presume VLC for Mac is same as Windows one..?
But what about video conversion, DVD ripping..? Is it all covered?
2. Never had any need to run flash in Mac OS
3. I didn't encounter this at all. Safari works well with all websites I have navigated and it is way way faster than IE or firefox, more stable and just better overall.
I do not think you realize how pervasive Flash is.
Install Flashblock on Firefox and just watch what happens. The achilles heel of the iPhone is the lack of Flash implementation. It can not access "the whole web", not even half of it because of this problem. (Hello? Steve? Wake up, dude!)