Some people on this forum really need to stop with the infantile Mac bashing especially since they don’t know what they are talking about in the least.
LOL, infantile Mac bashing. Since that was my message that you quoted below, I'll let you know that I am *not* an "infantile Mac basher." I'm not an absolute expert on OS X since I don't use it on a daily basis, but I've certainly used it enough to get a decent feel for it as well as being skilled enough to help people who are regular Macintosh users set things up or fix them.
Boot Camp is not an emulator and Windows runs at native speeds on Apple hardware. There are some reports that claim that Windows RUNS FASTER on Apple hardware. Seeing as Apple has totally embraced PC hardware from their Intel CPUs to their ATI and nVidia GPUs to USB 2.0 to EFI that was developed by Intel, Macs are as much PCs as … well … PCs.
First off, most Macintoshes are personal computers and always have been- the Xserves and the old-school PPC and 68k beige-box servers being the exception. So drop the "Mac vs. PC" bit or we'll have to hit you with a clue-by-four until you do.
Secondly, I didn't see anywhere I said that Boot Camp was an emulator at all. It is in fact a BIOS emulator, but that makes virtually no difference to the OS once it is running as the OS assumes control over almost all of the hardware functionality. Something like VMware, QEMU, and Parallels are emulators, but that wasn't being discussed. What was being discussed is installing Windows on the bare metal of an x86 Macintosh (using the Boot Camp BIOS emulator.) It achieves the same effect as any other Windows laptop but at a generally higher price and requires that Boot Camp be installed. That's what I said was a little goofy- it pretty much defeats the purpose of buying the Macintosh in the first place, which is the OS. The only other difference between a Macintosh and any other computer is the hardware, and you just said that it's the same as any other computer. So there isn't really a logical reason to spend more money to get a Macintosh. If you get a Macintosh just to install Windows on it, you probably did so for some other reason- brag to your friends, you like how the Macintoshes look, etc.
“…why would you buy the fischer price model? Apples are fantastic - if you surf the internet, write e-mail, and don't really know what a CPU is. If you play games, program, etc., you'll want a Windows based machine.”
Funny, I remember when Windows XP was called the Fischer Price model! I repeat again, Macs use the SAME DAMN INTEL CPUs! Moreover, Macs run Windows natively which means GAMES! Jesus, how many times are people going to repeat this FUD?
The previous quote was a little dumb, but your response simply reaffirms what I said above: if you want to buy a Windows-based computer, it's easier and cheaper just to get one set up that way.
Lastly Macs can run all three major operating systems from Windows XP (native and virtualized), Linux (native and virtualized) and of course OS X. Moreover, Leopard is fully UNIX compliant. Certification means that software following the Single UNIX Specification can be compiled and run on Leopard without the need for any code modification.
Technically, an unmodified x86 Macintosh can only run Linux, BSD UNIX, and MacOS X as no other OS has EFI support. But the same OSes will run on a PowerPC Macintosh too, so there's no big deal there. You can hack the EFI to allow OSes without EFI support like Windows XP and DOS to load and that is the big deal with the computer. But you can run Windows, Linux, and OS X on any other x86 computer with SSE3 support. There's no technical limitation, only that Apple DRM'ed some of the core components to prevent this. It's not an "it won't run on any other machine" situation, it's a "they won't let me run it on any other machine, but it will in fact run" situation. The OSx86 guys found that one out pretty quickly.
Yes, MacOS X is UNIX compliant because it is a BSD UNIX distribution with a proprietary graphical subsystem in place of (and sometimes alongside) X11 and a proprietary DE. You can compile UNIX applications for a Macintosh without any code modification if and only if you can gather and install ALL linked-to libraries on your system. I can send you the source code for another UNIX's program, such as GNU Octave, and you won't be able to compile and run it until you install X11, GTK, and a whole host of other libraries. It is possible, but it can be difficult to the point that an application is effectively non-portable.
Oh, and one more thing: the above is referring only to programs where you can get all of the needed libraries. This means that a GUI program you write on your Macintosh might technically be UNIX compliant but be impossible to run on my Linux machine as I cannot get a hold of the Quartz or Cocoa libraries that I'd need to compile and run the program.
The only argument against getting a Mac is that they are usually more expensive than your basic Dell. NOT insanely more expensive but more expensive nevertheless. With Dell’s coupons you can pay at least $200 dollars less than for a comparably feature laden Mac. But of course, you do get what you pay for and Macs definitely have a better build design than a Dell. And this is coming from a guy with two Dells who has used, installed and programmed on Windows since DOS.
Macs are more expensive- I've been saying that all along. But the build quality bit is very subjective and the dozens of people I know that have owned Macintoshes, especially MacBooks, have had plenty of problems and the build quality has sucked. The original Core Duo MacBooks ran far hotter than my old flamethrower P4-M laptop did. MacBooks invariably look terrible after several months once the keyboard rest either turns skid-mark-brown (white models) or the black paint flakes off (black models.) The metal-case MacBook Pros wear better, but they are *much* more expensive than the basic Dells and HPs and compete with the corporate-class machines. I've seen Dell Latitudes basically thrown around for a couple years and not look the worse for wear, ditto with many ThinkPads (exc. some x60s, the screen bezels are crap) and HP/Compaq business machines. I'd say that the others are as good or better as the Macs from what I've seen, and I've seen hundreds of notebooks over the last several years.
Plus, Apple has a very narrow range of notebooks and a very limited feature range. They have a 13.3" consumer unit and a 15" and 17" corporate unit. Most other OEMs have 12.1" and 14.1" units in addition to the sizes that Apple has, and a few have 11" and smaller units and 19-20" behemoths. Many also have tablet PCs, which have some traction in certain fields such as education and medicine. Apple has very limited hardware features in their computers, too. None of them have a straight HD-15 RGB port on them for projectors- the Pro models have DVI-D (you need a DVI-D to RGB adapter) and the consumer models have a proprietary port and require that dongle that most people forget when they need to hook up to a projector. No Apple notebooks have a memory card reader, something that's pretty handy and almost ubiquitous on other notebooks. The notebooks also can't handle an extended battery as they battery sits directly underneath the middle, so battery life is limited. Other notebooks have a wide range of battery sizes and some really take advantage of the ability to poke out of the back or front of the unit. These traits commonly make Apple notebooks as a whole less than desirable for the money once they're compared with comparably-priced units from other OEMs.
Anyways, hands down everything you need to learn can be learned online. No questions asked. I have about 30 reference books that I have collected over the years and I rarely touch them. The majority of them are poorly formatted for anyone who is just starting out. Especially considering the multitude of community forums out there. 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram