is apple computer good?

[Demon-Seed]

Hello
My brother has switched to Apple and says he will never go back to pc.  He says it is virus free, no freezing, no crashes and will run everything windows runs.

I have never used apple much (other than trying his)..and I honestly do not know.  Can anyone advise?  I guess it also depends on what I will use the computer for?  I will use it for,internet, home steno stuff, listening to mp3, downloading off the net, downloading torrents, peer to peer software, backing up wii/xbox360 games/ps3/dvd/blue ray etc...  burning dvd-r/rws, playing some roms/games.... can't think of anything else....maybe watch tv/movies etc...... multimedia stuff like video editing etc.. in HD.

the only thing I am nervous about is new apps, new emulators and burning tools may not work?


the pros of the pc is price, and i am very familiar with them.
Can anyone advise me>I would greatly appreciate it

thx

[shmokes]

My brother has switched to Apple and says he will never go back to pc.  He says it is virus free, no freezing, no crashes and will run everything windows runs.

Not one of these things is true.  However, the answer to the question in the subject line is definitely, "Yes.  Absolutely."

Apple makes very good computers.  And they are probably more stable than PCs, and while Mac OSX is probably technically no safer than Windows, there are far fewer viruses written for it by virtue of Apple only controlling a small portion of the home computer market.  Macs most certainly will not run everything windows runs.  Not even close.  Many things won't even run in VMware or Parallels.  You can set up a dual-boot machine, though, and run an actual copy of Windows on your Apple hardware, in which case it most certainly will run everything Windows runs because it is as much a Windows machine as any Dell or HP.

More importantly than being able to run everything Windows runs, it sounds like it will run everything that you need it to run (though I don't know what "home steno stuff" means). 

FWIW, if I were buying a new computer today, there's a pretty good chance it would be an Apple.  Not for sure, but I'd put it at say 65%.

[Daniel270]

Why not dual boot between Mac OS and Linux?

[FrizzleFried]

Apple sucked until they became a PC...

[shardian]

Apple sucked until they became a PC...

You would get Starbuck's latte and Sarah McLaughlin cd's thrown at you if you said that in an Apple store.

[CCM]

Why not dual boot between Mac OS and Linux?

That's not gonna help run everything windows runs....

[AtomSmasher]

I agree with pretty much everything Shmokes said, although I'll be sticking with a pc.  Macs are good computers, but the only way they run everything a pc can is by actually running windows on them, and theres really no reason to get a mac if your not going to use OS X. 

Windows XP is now a very stable and reliable OS, and there are plenty of excellent and free anti-virus programs for it, so I would say that it is just as virus free, crash free, and freezing free as OS X.  Windows Vista is a different story, so just stick with XP for now 

A friend of mine recently went against my advice and took his brothers advice (who has been a die hard mac fan for years) and bought a Mac.  My friend regretted his decision since a lot of the software he needed could only be used in Windows, so he ended up just running windows on it.  Take a close look at the software you currently use and make sure they all have mac versions before you make your decision.

[DrumAnBass]

I have been a Mac user since '86. In the old days Macs, were far superior to PCs for design and music, which are the 2 things I do for a living. Almost all the decent design software started out as Mac only products. After many years, eventually all were ported to the PC.

Now, almost all the software I use can be found on either OS. And I have used both for work and pleasure.

I find that on the mac platform there is less fighting with the OS. The OS is more transparent. That is not to say there aren't a ton of stupid things in OS-X, but in general I find there is less frustration, less work trying to get things configured, and a more pleasant experience. All the built in iLife software in general is excellent and they do a good job of talking to each other nicely.

The whole spyware/virus thing on Windows is reason alone to abandon it. I have spent countless hours trying to deal with Virus/Spyware issues... So much needless frustration.

But at the end of the day it is all about software. My mame arcade machines are PC based because the front ends available are far superior to what is available for OS-X. My home theater system is a PC. But for general day to day computing, OS-X is a much better more enjoyable experience for me.

Wanna try OS-X for yourself on an off the shelf PC? See: http://www.osx86project.org/

[Goz]

I'm in the process of evaluating migrating to OSX from Windows and there are a number of ways to bridge the gap between OSX and Windows. There is Parallels which is a virtualization solution that can be almost seemlessly integrated. What I mean is you can run it and have Windows execute windows apps from right clicks of a file. Example would be a right click on a WMV file and Windows Media Player plays the WMV. I've got this running on my Hackintosh (home built OSX machine) and not had a single crash in more than a week. OSX is definitely more stable than Windows. As for the virus', etc... There are virus' and trojans that infect OSX but they are so rare that its unlikely that you run into them. There are software suits that you can install to deal with / block them just like on Windows. So far I've been able to run a ton of Windows apps on my Hackintosh.

OSX seems to more efficiently use the hardware as do most NIX type OS'

[slycrel]

I'd say go for the mac unless you have a specific reason to avoid it.  If you want to play PC games (other than world of warcraft) stick with a PC or dual boot the mac.  There are usually software solutions for most everything else out there except very specialized software.  I recently bought a mac laptop and I'm very happy with it.

[Malenko]

I will NEVER for the life of me understand the virus defense. Ive only ever gotten a bad virus when I was doing something I shouldnt have been doing from a piece of software I shouldnt have been running (running a crack that had a virus) Besides Schmokes hit it right on the head, less viruses because fewer people have them.


if you got a virus odds are you deserved it. Also,


back to the OP, if you wanna spend twice as much on a mac to run windows software, all the power to ya! To me if youre gonna run PC windows software get a windows based PC, if youre preferred flavor is MAC software then get a mac.  You will not get an unbiased answer in here, I dont care who has what or how much they say they equally love both, everyone has a preference.  I prefer windows...now what do you think Im going to say is better?

[massive88]

OSX seems to more efficiently use the hardware as do most NIX type OS'

Similar hardware on a mac costs a good deal more too, negating that efficiency.

If its windows you are against, run Linux.  Ubuntu especially is a fairly easy transition from windows.  And you can dual boot as well if you have specialty software you need in windows.

Then you open yourself up to unlimited hardware choices for parts, and dont get nailed by that premium Mac price tag.

[DrumAnBass]

Similar hardware on a mac costs a good deal more too, negating that efficiency.

If its windows you are against, run Linux.  Ubuntu especially is a fairly easy transition from windows.  And you can dual boot as well if you have specialty software you need in windows.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-22EpQOm8c[/youtube]

[pointdablame]

OSX seems to more efficiently use the hardware as do most NIX type OS'

Similar hardware on a mac costs a good deal more too, negating that efficiency.

Goz built a Hackintosh, which negates that argument.  If the OP has built PCs before, I'd look into the Hackintosh route.  You can have an OSX machine for far less than what you can get in an Apple store, and could easily go to XP if you wanted.  You could dual boot as well.

This path pretty much destroys the "PCs are cheaper" pro of the PC since you're building with standard PC parts but loading OSX.

[Goz]

Here are the specs for one of my Hackintosh's

CoolerMaster Praetorian  case.
GigaByte GA-945GCM-S2  motherboard
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700  CPU
2GB RAM
500GB SATA HDD
SATA DUAL LAYER DVD RW
NVIDIA 7600 256MB PCIe video w/ dual output
OSX 10.5.3

Parts wise its around $500 for a stable OSX capable PC. Dual boot it to XP or use virtualization. Either way nice dual core solution for not a lot of coin.

I have a spare one of these if anyones interested...

[Demon-Seed]

hmmm
not the answers that I expected.. I thought after reading all the hype etc about apple you guys would dive all over it.. and say its the bomb.

my other concern is I have heard apples are not upgradeable or limited??? anyone advise?  I am still torn... many love the apples....... I appreciate the feedback although it is making my decision more difficult.

thx
Jim

[Goz]

Apple computers are upgradable but given form factor on everything except the Mac pro it's difficult to do basic upgrades such as RAM upgrades, HDD, etc.

[Blanka]

Macs are good computers, but the only way they run everything a pc can is by actually running windows on them, and theres really no reason to get a mac if your not going to use OS X.

Unless you want a dual quad xeon! If that is what you want, a Mac Pro cannot be beaten by assembling your custom PC. Even getting the parts for the money is almost impossible.
And with Apple they throw in a free nice casing, a great combination and free assembly.

With MacMini's and iMacs you pay a premium for design definetely.

[Demon-Seed]

so can a mac be upgraded? if so what? also you mention a few different models......whats the best one?

Also is it possible to network a mac to a pc? that way i could still use this one?

thanks
Jim

[shmokes]

I think it's important to note that A#1, Macbooks are competitively priced with similar PC notebooks and B#2, hardware design ain't nothing.  iMacs and Macbooks are REALLY nicely designed, which makes them more pleasurable to use and carry around.  When you buy a car or a desk or a bike or a sofa, it matters to you how it looks, and how it functions.  Why would a computer be any different?

[Goz]

so can a mac be upgraded? if so what? also you mention a few different models......whats the best one?

Also is it possible to network a mac to a pc? that way i could still use this one?

thanks
Jim

Yes macs can be upgraded.... CPU, RAM, HDD's, and Video but depending on model your choices for RAM and CPU vary.

I have my Mac's networked with my PC's and they are both able to write to my 4TB Drobo array (NTFS) but writing to NTFS required Paragon NTFS for OSX be installed.

The top of the line Macs are the Mac Pros and they are expensive dual processor Quad Core (8 cores total) but it really depends on what you want. Mac Mini's are nice little machine but top out at around 2Ghz dual core, iMacs top out at around 3Ghz but come with everything and are more upgradable than the minis.

Hope this helps

-Goz

[massive88]

OSX seems to more efficiently use the hardware as do most NIX type OS'

Similar hardware on a mac costs a good deal more too, negating that efficiency.

Goz built a Hackintosh, which negates that argument.  If the OP has built PCs before, I'd look into the Hackintosh route.  You can have an OSX machine for far less than what you can get in an Apple store, and could easily go to XP if you wanted.  You could dual boot as well.

This path pretty much destroys the "PCs are cheaper" pro of the PC since you're building with standard PC parts but loading OSX.

I agree it would.  I also wouldn't call it an Apple, I would call it a PC, which still makes a PC cheaper, and better, but I guess that is just semantics.  Im all about getting away from windows, as I use Linux on my home PC as often as possible.  But Im not for jumping on to Mac hardware.

I think it's important to note that A#1, Macbooks are competitively priced with similar PC notebooks and B#2, hardware design ain't nothing.

I disagree.  You pay a premium for the mac design.  If you want to do that, rock on.

Without shopping around at all, I made this Dell with all the software and stuff that seemed equitable:

http://eminent.omgbbq.com/misc/DELLLT_Page_1.jpg

http://eminent.omgbbq.com/misc/DELLLT_Page_2.jpg

http://eminent.omgbbq.com/misc/DELLLT_Page_3.jpg

To this Mac - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834100037

For $4-500 off the cover price.

[Level42]

I bought a Mac Mini while on holiday in the US in 2006 and I will NEVER switch back to a PC again.

Period.

Level42, Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer.

[pointdablame]

Goz built a Hackintosh, which negates that argument.  If the OP has built PCs before, I'd look into the Hackintosh route.  You can have an OSX machine for far less than what you can get in an Apple store, and could easily go to XP if you wanted.  You could dual boot as well.

This path pretty much destroys the "PCs are cheaper" pro of the PC since you're building with standard PC parts but loading OSX.

I agree it would.  I also wouldn't call it an Apple, I would call it a PC, which still makes a PC cheaper, and better, but I guess that is just semantics.  Im all about getting away from windows, as I use Linux on my home PC as often as possible.  But Im not for jumping on to Mac hardware.

I'd have to disagree, though it is mostly semantics.  With the Apple Intel platform, Macs essentially ARE PCs if you're talking hardware.  There's nothing in there that isn't PC by your argument.   And I have no clue how it being made of PC parts just like a "normal" Mac would make it better.

You definitely pay for Apple design and that certain cachet that comes with it, but a Hackintosh is as much a Mac as a "real one" in my mind if you put aside looks.  And as to the original poster's question, it'd be transparent to him as what he's really asking is if he should switch to OSX and spend the cash on an Apple.  The hackintosh would lessen the money side of the argument and put him in OSX.

[AtomSmasher]

I'd have to disagree, though it is mostly semantics.  With the Apple Intel platform, Macs essentially ARE PCs if you're talking hardware.  There's nothing in there that isn't PC by your argument.   And I have no clue how it being made of PC parts just like a "normal" Mac would make it better.

You definitely pay for Apple design and that certain cachet that comes with it, but a Hackintosh is as much a Mac as a "real one" in my mind if you put aside looks.  And as to the original poster's question, it'd be transparent to him as what he's really asking is if he should switch to OSX and spend the cash on an Apple.  The hackintosh would lessen the money side of the argument and put him in OSX.

Lets use a couple examples:
You build a computer from parts with the intent of putting OSX into it, but end up installing windows XP into it instead.  Is it a Mac or a PC?  I don't think anyone would call it a Mac. 

You buy an actual Mac from the Apple store, format it and only install windows XP.  Is it a Mac or a PC?  I don't think anyone would call it a PC.

The Apple design you mentioned is what makes it an Apple, without it, it's just a PC with OSX installed...not that theres anything wrong with that. 

[massive88]

If somebody asks, should I buy an Apple or a PC, its a hardware question to me.

If someone asks should I use OSX or XP or Linux or FreeDos or whatever, that is a different (software) question; to me anyway.  Use whatover OS gets you off, for me, the hardware Ill buy is a PC for the reasons listed above.

It used to be that these were the same question, hence the confusion we find here.  Nowadays, it is not.

[pointdablame]

I'd have to disagree, though it is mostly semantics.  With the Apple Intel platform, Macs essentially ARE PCs if you're talking hardware.  There's nothing in there that isn't PC by your argument.   And I have no clue how it being made of PC parts just like a "normal" Mac would make it better.

You definitely pay for Apple design and that certain cachet that comes with it, but a Hackintosh is as much a Mac as a "real one" in my mind if you put aside looks.  And as to the original poster's question, it'd be transparent to him as what he's really asking is if he should switch to OSX and spend the cash on an Apple.  The hackintosh would lessen the money side of the argument and put him in OSX.

Lets use a couple examples:
You build a computer from parts with the intent of putting OSX into it, but end up installing windows XP into it instead.  Is it a Mac or a PC?  I don't think anyone would call it a Mac. 

You buy an actual Mac from the Apple store, format it and only install windows XP.  Is it a Mac or a PC?  I don't think anyone would call it a PC.

The Apple design you mentioned is what makes it an Apple, without it, it's just a PC with OSX installed...not that theres anything wrong with that. 

And if you put either of the cases behind a desk door and turn it on, what will people say it is?  They'll say its a Mac when they see OSX and a PC when they see XP.

My point is "PC parts" is bad nomenclature these days when the exact same parts can load up XP or OSX.  They're computer parts -- the only thing differentiating them at the point of use is the OS installed.

I'm not saying the mac styling isn't important, it most certainly is to almost every single mac buyer.  But if you want to use/try a mac but don't want to spend Apple prices, a hackintosh is cheaper and will get the you exact same experience unless you spend more time staring at your case than your monitor.

[AtomSmasher]

And if you put either of the cases behind a desk door and turn it on, what will people say it is?  They'll say its a Mac when they see OSX and a PC when they see XP.

My point is "PC parts" is bad nomenclature these days when the exact same parts can load up XP or OSX.  They're computer parts -- the only thing differentiating them at the point of use is the OS installed.

I'm not saying the mac styling isn't important, it most certainly is to almost every single mac buyer.  But if you want to use/try a mac but don't want to spend Apple prices, a hackintosh is cheaper and will get the you exact same experience unless you spend more time staring at your case than your monitor.

I would not call a home built OSX machine a Mac just the same as I would not call a home built windows machine a Dell.  PC stands for Personal Computer which means it isn't necessarily built by a brand name and it doesn't specify which OS it has installed.  PC's can have Windows, Linix, Unix, and now OSX installed on them, and they shouldn't be called anything different depending on what OS they have installed.  I understand in the past the term PC has pretty much meant every personal computer other then Macs, but that was because Macs ran on completely different hardware then every other OS and it was quite difficult to build a hackintosh anyways.  Now they are all the same hardware wise, so hackintosh hardware is no longer Apple specific, which means they no longer have the Apple brand name attached to them, and that a hackintosh is a just a PC with OSX installed.  But it doesn't really matter, as it's been mentioned it's just semantics, so call it a unicorn for all I care 

And I never said (and I don't believe anyone else did either) that you will not have the exact same experience when you build your own OSX computer over an official Mac, so I don't know why your talking about that.  I built all of my own computers and got a lot more for my money over buying a brand name, and the same goes for anyone that wants to run OSX.  I'd recommend building their own over buying brand name to anyone who is knowledgeable enough to do so.

[Level42]

People always say Macs are more expensive but that's not true.

1) You get a great set of USEFUL and POWERFUL software with the machine, instead of some 30-day versions of crap.

2) A Mac stays up in value more than any PC. F.I. I bought my Mac Mini in sept 2006. I upgraded to Leopard and it's running FASTER than it was before. Try that with an upgrade from (f.i.) XP to Vista. Apple is now working on Snow Leopard, and instead of the wrong direction MS is always taking (adding more features) they are focussing on getting Leopard to perform better. I've NEVER heard anyone from MS say they would actualy concentrate on that. It's a non-issue because in their devilish pact with the hardware manufacturers they make sure every new version of their OS needs more horsepower, thus forcing people to buy a new machine every 2/3 years.

When Snow Leopard is ready, my Mini will again make a performance jump. Not that it's really necessary, it's powerful enough for my day-to-day jobs I do on it. So, I will be using it for 4/5 years and it will run faster than when I first bought it.

Also, Macs are selling for higher prices second hand (at least here they are).

3) Cost of wasted PC time. I mean having to deal with hardware/software issues on PC's took me a lot of time when I was a PC user. Simply having to run virus and malware scans is already a burdon. But it really gets bad when you start to get problems that take you hours to solve. I've always wanted to use a computer as a TV: turn it on, work, turn it off, walk away. On a Mac that's possible.

4) Apple refuses to use below-par components. I mean f.i. the processor. There are no Macs with crappy Celeron processors. If you compare laptops with the same hardware specs between Apple and PC compatible machines, the Mac is not that more expensive.

5) More value for money. You get a beautiful machine. In looks and feels. It's quite. It's working.

I've never been a PC enthusiast. I've used a Jackintosh (Atari ST) for as long as I could (until way into the 90's) and loved it. I was never glad that I "had" to switch to a PC and now I'm glad I could a afford a simple Mini that just does what it's supposed to every day I use it

[Blanka]

People always say Macs are more expensive but that's not true.

3) Cost of wasted PC time. I mean having to deal with hardware/software issues on PC's took me a lot of time when I was a PC user. Simply having to run virus and malware scans is already a burdon. But it really gets bad when you start to get problems that take you hours to solve. I've always wanted to use a computer as a TV: turn it on, work, turn it off, walk away. On a Mac that's possible.

What Mac enthusiast forget is that OSX is the key factor in the experience. The nice case is nice for first week you buy it and for all those encounters with friends that awe at you. After the butterfly-week when you start production on it, the case does not matter anymore. It even starts to annoy you. My MacMini is having a enormous clutter of peripherals around it. The display of an iMac shows you perfect when the boss stands behind you. And for the design, Apple left the NEXT cube corporate design long time ago, and switched to MTV-rapper-vs-Paris-Hilton style bling-bling aproach.

For the great components look somewhere else too. A mini dies after a year when used 24/7 as server because of the bad note-book harddrive. For the same money you get a 3,5 inch server grade twice the size. You have to enlarge the case (I dont care, its too small anyway) but oh, that is against the holy knee of Steve!

Same with carppy Geforce 7300 vidcards in MacPro's, and lame penryn processors in iMacs. Why model everything around mobile chipsets? A Intel E8400 is similar low energy use as the special 3 Ghz iMac processor, but it costs halve, has better bus and memory speed, and the whole architecture around it is cheaper. Apple makes itself too expensive by doing everything with mobile technology. Heck the 2 cm deep screen of an iMac. I have an 24 inch matte Eizo that is 8 cm, and still I do never ever have a problem with its depth.

Last thing maccers forget is the big shakeout of different architectures on the PC side. In 2000 it would have been hell to try and make OSX X86 PC compatible. Today it is peanuts. I ran OSX on a generic PC and it runs fantastic. Apple could make OSX available to everyone with just 2 weeks of work. Write a good NVidea/ATI generic driver, and support Bios. That's all. All the rest works already. Leopard can be installed from the original DVD already on NON macs!

In the end it is only OSX that makes the difference. Nothing else. Unless you buy a computer not to work on but to show off. Then buy mac.
But Apple seems to have forgotten the people who use a Mac to Work on, and kept the brand alive in the dark years. If you are a true designer, you use a total awesome hackintosh today.

[Malenko]

Level42, Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer.

I dont really see how network architecture holds any weight in this discussion.  I read a few other replies I dont really get either, I dont have to run virus scans or malware scans because I only go to trusted sites and I dont open attachments from strangers in emails.....  that sorta like complaining you have to take valtrex because you like to have sexy with slutty women and not wear a rubber.

Malenko, Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer.  (but the training I got at computertraining.com was bullspit)

[shmokes]

In the end it is only OSX that makes the difference. Nothing else. Unless you buy a computer not to work on but to show off.

That's really a little absurd.  You could say the same thing about a car or a sofa.  Unless  you buy a car not to drive, but to show off, unless you buy a sofa not to sit on, but to show off, it shouldn't matter what they look like.  Why would I buy a nice looking desk and lamp, nice shelving, paint the walls, buy nice wall hangings, buy nice frames for family photos, etc., and then not care what my computer looked like?  It's going to be sitting in plain sight among the rest of the stuff.

[massive88]

Level42:

I see you didnt click on my example above from Dell.  The hardware specs are exactly the same.  On the dell I even opted for the specially colored case, and full office suite (though OpenOffice is what I would use).  Any premade system will work when you turn it on, and the warranty from Dell is the same as it is from Apple.

I have also never run a malware or virus scan on my PCs since like 2001, and not had any problems, even with all my questionable surfing practices you should still easily be able to sniff out the good sites from the dishonest.

[Blanka]

Why would I buy a nice looking desk and lamp, nice shelving, paint the walls, buy nice wall hangings, buy nice frames for family photos, etc., and then not care what my computer looked like?  It's going to be sitting in plain sight among the rest of the stuff.

Because that is furniture. A computer is like a Makita screwdriver, a Festo sawing table, a sewing machine or a Japanese sharp sushi-knife. Men has to earn money with it. Today Apple forgot that group and focusses solely on the computer-as-furniture buyers. Back in the G4 and before era, they new they needed the professionals for their profit.

[massive88]

Because that is furniture. A computer is like a Makita screwdriver, a Festo sawing table, a sewing machine or a Japanese sharp sushi-knife. Men has to earn money with it. Today Apple forgot that group and focusses solely on the computer-as-furniture buyers. Back in the G4 and before era, they new they needed the professionals for their profit.

Is it a forgone conclusion that home built-PCs are generally considered unattractive??  Personally I prefer the all black aluminum cases to any brightly colored apple offering.

Its not like you arent going to buy a case when you build your own PC, and a major component of your case selection I would guess would be look and decor.

[Shape D.]

Are Apple Computers good?

Yes

Do you need one, or would a mac work better for the apps you're intending on running?

No, for what you're looking to do you'd be better served with a PC


I've been using mac's for the last 8 years or so, and I love it. And now I'll be a blowhard and comment on other peoples comments from above.

Viruses: Mac users typically do have less spyware, and virus issues. Mainly due to all the viruses being made to attack windows.

Running Windows: While you can run windows on a Mac, thus windows based programs, it doesn't run as smoothly as it does on a regular pc.

OS: XP>OSX, I think not. But then again I'm a biased Mac user. In the 8 Years I've been using my mac I've never had any issues with my computer. (G4 733Mhz 2 gigs of ram) And I don't miss the blue screen of death.

Upgrading: Yes you can upgrade a mac, but depending on the applications you are running you can have issues. The main reason I use a Mac is for Audio recording programs, some of which are only made for the Mac. If you upgrade your processor, these programs will not run as smoothly. (thus the reason mine is still a 733Mhz) Anything else can be upgraded without issues though. 


Long story short, yes they're good. But I don't think you need one.

[AtomSmasher]

2) A Mac stays up in value more than any PC. F.I. I bought my Mac Mini in sept 2006. I upgraded to Leopard and it's running FASTER than it was before. Try that with an upgrade from (f.i.) XP to Vista. Apple is now working on Snow Leopard, and instead of the wrong direction MS is always taking (adding more features) they are focussing on getting Leopard to perform better. I've NEVER heard anyone from MS say they would actualy concentrate on that. It's a non-issue because in their devilish pact with the hardware manufacturers they make sure every new version of their OS needs more horsepower, thus forcing people to buy a new machine every 2/3 years.

When Snow Leopard is ready, my Mini will again make a performance jump. Not that it's really necessary, it's powerful enough for my day-to-day jobs I do on it. So, I will be using it for 4/5 years and it will run faster than when I first bought it.

This actually touches on one thing that bugs me with OSX.  Microsoft releases a new OS with major updates every 5-6 years, but releases incremental updates (i.e. service packs) for free every year or two, while with OSX you have to buy the OS again every couple of years in order to get the incremental updates.  Oh, and service pack 3 for XP did increase performace.

[Shape D.]

Except there's usually some pretty big differences between the pay for upgrades. Switching from 10.4 to 10.5 isn't just a small update.

Also, Apple does have free upgrades between the major releases though. For example, I'm currently running osx 10.39. And you don't always need to upgrade to the new version. And I normally don't recommend doing so until you are required to from software you need to use.

This compares to MS's "service packs" that have a bunch of upgrades (and are also filled with a bunch of bug fixes they don't tell you about)

[AtomSmasher]

This compares to MS's "service packs" that have a bunch of upgrades (and are also filled with a bunch of bug fixes they don't tell you about)

Heh, I don't know where you read your information about the service packs, but when I read about them they normally list the number of bugs and security holes fixed as prominately as any other feature of the service pack.  Both OS's provide small updates between releases, but service packs compare to the updates you typically get when you buy a new release of OSX.  The fact that they want people to buy the "new" OS every 1 or 2 years is just something that has always irked me.

[slycrel]

This compares to MS's "service packs" that have a bunch of upgrades (and are also filled with a bunch of bug fixes they don't tell you about)

Heh, I don't know where you read your information about the service packs, but when I read about them they normally list the number of bugs and security holes fixed as prominately as any other feature of the service pack.  Both OS's provide small updates between releases, but service packs compare to the updates you typically get when you buy a new release of OSX.  The fact that they want people to buy the "new" OS every 1 or 2 years is just something that has always irked me.

I have a PC at home and (recently) a mac laptop.  I've developed software for the mac for over 9 years now.

You've just made a very misleading statement.  I disagree strongly with the fact that service packs and  OS X point releases are the same thing.  They both serve different purposes.

Since windows has a much larger release cycle, they would simply get nailed by the competition if they didn't release a bunch of features in their service packs.  5+ years is a long time to have no new feature upgrades.  Pricing is also an issue, sure if you fudge a bit you can get the latest OS for under $300, but generally retail is around $500 for an uncrippled version of windows.  If they brought that price down and released in shorter bursts it wouldn't be that much different than apple's pricing.

Apple releases smaller bugfix and security features, as well as under the hood improvements in smaller increments.  These are the smaller point releases.  (i.e. they jsut released 10.5.3)  These keep things relatively up to date and add new features when appropriate.  (As an example, 10.5.4 is seeded to developers already and will have their new .mac stuff in there as a feature)  These are all free, and other than new "free" features they serve the same purpose as windows service packs or security updates.  Additionally for more urgent security issues apple releases a security patch roughly every month or so.

There are huge differences between the apple releases.  10.3 to 10.4, 10.4 to 10.5.  Even 10.6 is billed as a security and stability upgrade (which may or may not be full price) and it's got a bunch of new features that will be good for users and developers alike.  Check the initial press release here:  http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/

Trash on each company how you want, but it's more a matter of release schedule and how they choose to do it than anything else.  Both get the job done, some people prefer more incremental releases for a smaller price and some prefer longer releases with free updates that charge more.