[citation][nom]dc_webster[/nom]While Microsoft may have had predatory corporate actions in the past, and have, atleast in the past blissfully successfully glossed over some of their monopolising moves in the market place, I would choose Windows 7 over Mac OSX and the required hardware any day. Here is my take:1. Yes, Microsoft have been rather predatory, doing things that may be considered unfair corporate practises, but in my humble opinion many large corporations make use of their "size" to get more business or to promote their products and there are thousands of corporations that push the boundaries of corporate anti-competiveness etc in thier pursuit of business. So Microsoft is not unique. Apple do similar things to stifyle competition and by design cost Apple users more money. Apple also treat their older users poorly by unnecessarily making things obsolete (somtimes stupid little things, but terribly annoying ones) by removing features or compatibility from hardware or software thereby leaving older customers in the cold and forcing them to find workarounds for particular pieces of hardware for no great reason other than to save production costs or because something more cool is replacing something no longer cool. I don't see this happen nearly as much in the PC world - users are usually given a lot of scope for backwards compatibility for a while for standards than with Apple who seem to make things incompatible at the drop of hat. 2. A lot of Mac proponents claim that their hardware is of a much better quality and that Mac OSX is more stable. Granted, Mac hardware is usually not sh!t, but most of it is off the self PC hardware re-managed - whether it be Hard disks, Graphics cards, Memory etc etc. And while Vista annoyed me for several months at release, OSX Leopard was also a problematic OS and probably saved MS from loosing a percentage of people for the reason that Leopard was bad also. I have friends who reported problems with various Mac hardware regardless of their aluminium cases and have first hand locked up the finder in mac in much the same way Explorer used to lock up in Windows XP. Another Mac loving friend was very dismayed when Leopard turned his PowerMac into a Blue screening POS. (he upgraded from Tiger). But yes, it is fair to say that Mac's are good looking (i.e. the aluminum [which may attmittedly make some products a little more durable]) and most seem to be well designed thermally. For the first time ever, I bought an Apple product (an ipod nano 5G) and there are so many problems with it all over the web and I am probably about to get a second replacement for faulty workmanship (on day 5) - so, all in all, their, "We're a [better quality] hardware company" is imho euphimistic. 3. Many on here have mentioned the "Apple Tax" - basically paying 50%+ for an equivalent computer. When considering point 2. above, Macs are not worth the extra money. Yes they have more included software, but if you're saving $500.00 on a cheaper machine (or $1000+ on bigger ones) you can buy some software for less than that or better yet go open source and do most things for free that Macs have extra in them anyway. (but yes, admittedly, the odd thing in this point on Mac OSX may still be a little better).4. Given the proprietary nature of the machines, you have no real option to choose a more wider range of hardware both at build time (at apple) and when upgrading or when adding additional functionality. Sure, given the off the self nature of many parts you can upgrade some things and still get more into your system. My contention is that becuase of OSX, and perhaps because of other hardware implementations many options are not available to you and if they are, do to lack of competition, they are more expensive. (Someone can correct me here if things have changed lately.) And because of drivers there are many pieces of hardware you simply can not connect / plug in due to the lesser hardware compatibility base of the OS and or hardware. So you have less hardware to consider using and pay more for what you can.5. In terms of backwards compatibility, with Windows 7, I can do the following. In open-source DosBOX, run 90% of DOS productivity software streching back to the 80s. In it I can also play 90% of DOS games from the late 80's and the 90's and play them well. With some small effort, I can get atleast 85% of Windows 9x / XP / Vista games to run natively in Win 7 stretching back to 1995. With Windows XP Mode, while requiring a more expensive version of windows, I should see problematic old accounting software etc that is XP bound run also. And if all else fails you may be able to get your app running in a VM (and yes you can do this on mac). So backwards compatibility is much better in Windows 7 for a larger selection of apps.6. Software selection: Although this may be changing, software selection on Windows would out number Mac 100 to 1. This is especially true for niche and very specific software solutions. (Yes, I know you may be able to use a VM in Mac for this, but the fact is, if in windows already you probably dont need to and they will run more efficientally and in an integrated fashion). For the person who mentioned the 15 ish games available for Mac, there are, and probably will continue to be, 100 times more games on PC than on mac (tho this is changing with mac support gaining much more traction). But at the moment there is probably several thousand more games for PC of all types than there are for Mac. I would consider dual booting a Mac into Windows as a way of running games not nearly as good for two reasons: a. Obvisiouly you have to reboot to play a game b. you can't play the games as well as most PC's as smart built PC's have much better hardware for less. (so you are paying more to do something that is much cheaper and better equiped to do on a PC anyway).7. Even Mac Security gurus will admit that Mac OSX is less secure than Windows 7. Although, its true that Macs are less often attacked and this makes them less of target, it doesnt mean the security is better if someone is having a go at infecting or otherwise tampering with your OS. iPhones are a good example of some poor apple security - its been reported that some business's are reluctant to use iPhones due to their security worries. I beleive OSX is in a similar position tho perhaps not as stark as the iPhone problems reported. I think the popularity of iPhones made them more of a target and showed up apples security holes in that product. The contention seems to be that OSX if targeted may be similarly vunerable.8. My last point goes to flexibility of maintenance and expansion or re-coupling of hardware and software in PCs. Because of points 4 & 5 above, you have much more flexibility to considerably take your PC to pieces and make major changes. This is admittly a bit of rehash of points 4 & 5, but I feel it important to highlight to people considering Mac the great modularity of PC's when maintaining them or for even trying different OS's - like linux or for example, turning your PC parts in to a HTPC by rehousing and using different parts. My point, is that there a world of choice with PCs - there are uses that you can make of them that aren't nearly as easy or pehaps not even possible with a Mac.If anyone can distinctly claim that I am wrong in what I've said, I'd like to hear why my information isn't correct or if its perhaps a little out of date in some of the details or assertions.[/citation]
I want that hour of your life back so I can play more WoW.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram