IMWorks Both Microsoft(R) Windows(TM) and Apple(R) MacOSX(TM) have a serious enemy that you people constantly ignore - it is called Linux. I know several companies who switched to Linux last year and they are pretty happy about it. Why would not they be happy? They have a rapidly developing platform, with millions of free applications. Platform that is completely open, from the kernel and boot-loader to the simplest GUI applications. X Window System, being criticised so often has many advantages. Linux distributions had included hardware acceleration before Windows and MacOSX, we had remote desktops nearly THREE DECADES ago, system ready for the Internet (remember the time when network layer on Windows was a third party product???). Sure, there are disadvantages, but Linux will fix them - we do not have to wait for years for Microsoft or Apple to release significant patches, or completely rewrite an OS...

dejan_lekicIMWorks Just to point out the obvious, Linux didn't have remote desktops 3 decades ago because Linux didn't exist 3 decades ago. The Linux kernel was first released in 1991. You're thinking about UNIX. Linux is similar to UNIX, but they aren't the same thing. As you're probably aware, GNU (the organization that makes most of the utility applications included in Linux distributions) actually stands for "GNU's Not UNIX."

vbscript2dejan_lekicIMWorks I am perfectly aware of all you said. If you read again what I wrote above, you will see I mentioned X Window System before that sentence... - If you know so much about Linux, then you also know that Linux desktop is X Window System (1984), which almost from the start had remote capabilities. So what are you trying to prove? :)

But, Linux is moving forward - Wayland (http://wayland.freedesktop.org/) will in few years become #1 display protocol on Linux and all modern UNIX systems...

thebigboxxbox 1.You are wrong

2.Mac os x is used by alot of music producers around the world

3.You have no idea what you are talking about

You have the spelling of a 1st grader

JacobMangoMangusthebigboxxbox MAC OSX is only for newbs who like paying more for the same thing.

DanielWatkinsJacobMangoMangusthebigboxxbox

Agree, Windows is an amazing os and with the money you save by not gettign a mac, you can spend on getting an amped up PC build.

JacobMangoMangusthebigboxxbox If producing music is the only argument you have, then you have no idea what your talking about. Computers should be able to handle all kinds of projects and work loads. I had IT guy that has to support and fix both tell it to me like this. Macs are like race cars, they look good, have fancy but unpractical features, cost a lot to fix, and stay current for about a year. PC's are like trucks, not as fancy looking, have many practical and useful features, cheap to fix, and stay current for 5 years. The cost of a mac is more than enough to get a really nice PC ( Top end truck w/ 4WD :) ), also for the cost of a Mac Im sure you could buy a nicer PC and still have the cash to get yourself some nice music composing/recording software. As far as spelling goes, my friend you couldn't even compose a paragraph, food for thought.

CreetonJacobMangoMangusthebigboxxbox It comes down to personal experience and personal preference. I buy a new mac every 7-10 years. My friends with PC's seem to buy a new PC ever 2-4 years. I've never had virus software on any mac I've ever owned. Granted there are high end PC laptops that seem nice, but most of them feel like a hunk of plastic. Of course, no one should be dropping any laptop. Apple's low end isn't low end, while a low end PC is definitely low end... feels cheaper, looks cheaper, is cheaper. The windows OS has been quite bloated. I don't know if 8 will be any different. Hopefully it will be. I use both a PC and a mac and my user experience has always been much better on the mac. Things work much easier and there's less to install or update. It's a more unified system. I don't have decide what brand of computer I want to run OS X. I don't have to decide what smart phone I want or if it will work with my computer. I don't have to try and choose a tablet from a sea of them. Apple's devices and computers work with each other very well. Is it more expensive than a PC? Yes. Though you can build a PC for $3,600 and up if you want something for video work. I like quality. Computers are part of our everyday lives, so I'd rather have one that even at the lowest end, is still up there in quality. I do high end video editing for a living, so my needs are much higher than someone who just wants to surf the web or use MS Office. I'm typing this on my laptop, but right next to my leg is my old apple power mac G5 from 2003. I still use it to edit video, record music, etc. Other than the initial purchase, it's basically cost me nothing over the years. I did put both a firewire and usb pci card into it. That probably cost $15 each. It can still do EVERYTHING I need... except go with me to meet with clients. I have updated the OS on it, but that isn't expensive. Remember, these are my experiences and my opinions. It's what has worked for me. The mac vs. PC feud will always be alive and well. I would be interested to hear about others who have old PC's and if they're still using them, how much was the overall cost? I think it would be an interesting comparison.

keijuCreetonJacobMangoMangusthebigboxxbox "I don't have decide what brand of computer I want to run OS X. I don't have to decide what smart phone I want or if it will work with my computer. I don't have to try and choose a tablet from a sea of them."

Basically you don't have a choice what brand of computer you want to run OS X on. You don't have a choice what smart phone you want because only one will work (properly) with your mac. And you don't have a chance, to choose a tablet from hundreds of kinds, but are stuck with the few models of Ipad.

Don't get me wrong apple produces great quality products. I have the chance to use a mac at work, linux at school, and windows at home. My experience?

Mac is for work, windows is for home, and linux is for school (I study programming).

Mac is way too expensive for what it's worth, and always will be, but it's reliable, and at business that is important, and altough it doesn't let you do a lot of things, at work that should not be a problem.

Linux basically lets you do ANYTHING, IF you know how to, which is exactly what programmers, designers, and so on need. And it is completely free, and always will be.

Windows is for the average home user, and is a great OS (vista exluded :)). It's not hard to use, and let's you do most of the things. It's exactly the OS between the OS X and linux.

Lot of more things to say, but don't want the post to get unreadably long.

keijuCreetonJacobMangoMangusthebigboxxbox and btw still using IBM Thinkpad T22 (2001) running latest Linux ubuntu OS, booting time is under 2 mins (1 min on clean OS). The working laptop is the proof of quality IBM produced, the fast OS is the proof of how optimized linux is.

This laptop is 11 years old, and was never in service. All I changed in it is I had the original 256MB RAM replaced for 512MB (8-9 dollars I think, but I just had one lying around).

And the best part, you won't believe. It still has it's original batteries and provides about 1:30 hours of battery life. That should not be that bad from an 11 year old laptop :)

MihirGarikiparithipeter benz rs-mfarnood pakravansteven lou Apple mobile is nothing more than a media streamer no real computing can be done, there are apps that allow for some like remote desktop, but bah. I cant speak of Window's mobile as I have never owned a mobile w/ a Window OS, I can speak of Android though and it spanks Apple, not an opinion. Look for yourselves. Apple mobile is simple for simple people I guess but there is obviously a market for it.

ErichEpoor It does not have to look like a smartphone... that is just the start menu that looks like the smartphone version, the real desktop looks a lot like windows 7

ErichEpoor Allot of companies are doing this android have made there tablet and phone OS the same now, windows is doing the same so users experience consistent between devices... makes sense really.

Zable_Fahr

I see what you did there, my 9gagger friend! :D

Zable_Fahr ie9 respects all the standards, and i hear ie10 will be quite similar to firefox, also the developer tools on ie10 will be better

geoaritonZable_Fahr I disagree, i have seen lots of websites that work in IE 8 but not IE9.. some websites are having to force compatibility mode to make there site work properly.

Zable_Fahr All developers stand strong and stop supporting IE. Every IE release has caused a ton of work to keep cross browser compatibility. For instance IE 9 stopped supporting the "nowrap" attribute on <td> tags. This may seem small but if you have to manage a large site w/ many pages, like me, this little diddy took me 3 days of useless coding to go into each <td> and remove the attribute, then add a span tag to accomplish the same thing. This is one of many examples. I hope to god they abandon IE altogether. Like you said its only good for downloading a real browser. And for all others that are not developers stop using it. It takes 5 min to get a "real" browser up and going. With our combined efforts we can standardized the web and start spending our time making cool stuff vs wasting our time trying to keep things working.

Zable_Fahr ha ha the td tags were omitted. I was referencing them in the first post

Creeton Your first problem was using a table based layout. Your second was using a text editor that does not have a find and replace functionality.

mcpants32 i completely agree w/ ya on the table based ... I inherited the mess. Secondly I did use find and replace, but not effective when adding a span tag. Trust me I wouldn't be where i'm at if i were an idiot.

paragao Do you realise that windows 8 actually will see a new file system ReFS, based on NTFS but without many of the limitations, it's being pushed to server environment first but will filter into win 8

paragao No, SSDs solve all I/O speed issues for just about all users. The future Filesystem from Microsoft may be more efficient and more reliable against data loss, but the inefficiency of the current NTFS filesystem just increases CPU utilization, but does not hinder the speed of an SSD. CPUs are so powerful these days, who cares.

KyleBinder PC is not the only thing that need OS you know? Windows lost in server, tablet and low-powered machine. The only place where Windows still rules is on PC.

WahyuHidayatKyleBinder which is more than enough

WahyuHidayatKyleBinder Windows is still pretty dominant in the server market. Even most of the servers the government uses are Microsoft base.

WahyuHidayatKyleBinder Yeah, mikerkelly is right. To say Windows "lost" in the server market is not much more accurate than saying it has "lost" in the PC market. Almost every organization of any significant size at all runs an Active Directory. In fact, Windows domination in the server market is a large reason that it still dominates the PC market. From a business standpoint, it's much easier (and, therefore, cheaper) to manage a Windows domain than anything else. Nothing else touches the ease with which systems administrators can manage a domain of Windows-based computers. Even .mil is an Active Directory domain.Also, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to as "low-power machine." Windows is still a huge player in the embedded market and it pretty much owns the netbook market. The only places where Windows has really "lost" so far are the smartphone and slate markets, where Android and iOS currently dominate.

KyleBinder One of our IT guys said it best. Apples are like a race car, they look good and have lots of cool stuff, but there not practical if you have to do work, costly to fix, and good for about a year. PC's are like trucks not as fancy but able to handle all kinds of work, easy to fix and good for 5 years. This isn't an Apple bash they are nice but not really practical. The cost of one Apple is more than enough to get a really nice PC ( A truck w/ all the goodies and 4WD :) ). The statement that Apple is winning in mobile tech, bah, Android OS is far superior. Apple mobile is for media only no real work can be done on it unless you use an app or remote desktop. Android is far closer to real computing on the go then Apple. Simple people like simple things i guess, and i cant argue that iPhones and iPads are very popular. Apple has definitely found a market.

TysonStrickland whats sad is i never even read that very last part of the article until you pointed it out.... who did write this and thinks apple is the marketleader in operating systems for personal computers ??

... and i'm not talking about iphones and ipads being counted in as those aren't traditional personal computers but mobile devices.

TysonStrickland Hi Tyson, thanks for pointing it out, however, the mistake in the statement was the "8". I did not mean to say that Windows or Microsoft had lost "completely" to Apple. I know that I made a mistake be making such a vague statement, and I apologize for that.

However, my statement holds and here's why -

Windows, or rather Microsoft certainly lost the battle against Apple in many terms. The fact is true that Windows is the "most" sold OS, but that doesn't mean that it the "best" sold OS. Right? Also, when it comes to design, power, usability, interface and performance, Apple is considered to be the "best". I'm sure you would agree with that. And I'm sure you would also agree that Apple's OS and Microsoft's OS, both have their own pros and cons regardless of the market sale or the design. If only Apple sold its products at a price compared to Microsoft's, I'm sure you can image where Apple would have been now. Currently, users have no choice but to deal with Windows systems, since they are affordable. However, Apple has no reason to sell their products at a lesser price coz every feature in their product is worth it. Right from the hardware components to software programs and applications.

In the ear of Windows Vista, we all know how bad the OS was and the problems end-users faced. However, Microsoft got things right when it released Windows 7 and I'm sure things will get even better when they launch Windows 8.

joelfernandesTysonStrickland Mac OSX 10.7 is slower than 10.6 and by far less user friendly. Macintosh computers aren't made for the power-users and certainly don't have any feature I like what Windows doesn't have.

My Macbook needs a solid 2 minutes to start up. I cannot find how to uninstall programs, since I still have LittleSnitch running in the background and I don't know where to remove it, Macintosh has left a grey mark for me.

My Windows 7 PC, however, only needs 14 seconds to start up. All programs turn on when I want them to, and all programs are configured how I want them to. Directly, from the start.

My Windows 7 PC has only cost me a total of 1400 euros, including the 24" LED screen and Razer Mouse + G510 keyboard. Whereas my Macbook has cost me 1200 euros excluding all the apps I need to buy to watch my .avi or .mkv movies, and it fails in both performance and user-friendlyness.

Sure, it looks nice, but really now? Mac is worthless. It has no market value except for the ones who believes their lies. I now only use Mac for my music and programming on Xcode, and with all the bugs and hick-ups I have to live with, it's slower, unreliable, doesn't work well with business applications, absolutely nonuser-friendly, uncontrollable, and sir, it certainly isn't the "Best OS".

joelfernandesTysonStrickland

Wow. very biased and not even close to being accurate.. While Microsoft messed up with vista, they still are the Big kid on the block. They DO have the most systems out there with PC OS and server. What has apple done on the server front... ZERO. While Apple may be making great leaps, they never would have survived if Microsoft didn't step in and save them... Competition is good! But anyone who really believes apple doesn't have any hardware or software issues has their head in the ground. The two best things apple has done is iPad & iPhone... That truely has generated change and gave users that portability. For that I say apple is number one.. But when it comes to outpacing sales, sorry to tell ya, Android is the fastest growing. They haven't caught apple, but they aren't falling behind. ( I know, different discussion all together).

I have devices from each vendor and can clearly say NONE of them are as perfect as you would appear to be painting Apple.

Just Saying

joelfernandesTysonStrickland You can't backup a statement with an opinion.

joelfernandesTysonStrickland "Also, when it comes to design, power, usability, interface and performance, Apple is considered to be the "best". I'm sure you would agree with that."LOL! Only by Apple fanboys. Sorry, but, as a professional software engineer who is also finishing a Master's in Computer Science, I find this assertion absurd, at best. I've managed dozens of OS X workstations and servers and dozens of Windows workstations and servers. To say OS X leads Windows in design, power, interface, or performance is complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps if you're comparing a $2,000 MacBook Pro to a $500 Windows-based laptop, then you might have more power, but that's because you're comparing good hardware with crappy hardware and says nothing whatsoever about the OS. If you compare a $2,000 OS X system to a $2,000 Windows system, I assure that the Windows system will destroy the OS X system on power and performance.

joelfernandesTysonStrickland OS X is has only a fraction of Windows' and Linux's power. You can't customize it from source, and if you open it up to upgrade (unless it's a mini, or pro), you void the warranty unless you get a guy at the genius bar to do it for you. But what if you ordered online, and you live 200 miles from the nearest Apple Store, like me. Well, then you have to order online AGAIN, and spend another couple thousand dollars for so-so hardware. Just because of the of the shiny OS and sparkly aluminum case. Apple should have an obligation to sell the products at a lower price. The hardware components suck. With a mac, you get a 1.8 ghz core 2 duo, with 2 gigs of ram, and if you're lucky, some AMD Radeon graphics. For $2000. With a PC, it's a 3.8 ghz i7 with NVIDIA FX 5800 graphics, and 16 gigs of ram, for the same price. The difference is the Apple premium (adds $500), and the shiny aluminum case. The 12 core mac pro's hardware is only worth about 1000 dollars. Yet they sell it for 5000. Wow.

ps: Bill Gates coded Apple's OS in the beginning. You know why? Old Stevie couldn't program.

TysonStrickland And like KyleBinder mentioned in his comment above, "The only place where Windows still rules is on PC." Windows has certainly lost in many areas. I hope at least the Windows Phone 7 succeeds to some extent.

joelfernandesTysonStricklandKyleBinder Ruling on pc is more than enough seeing as though businesses, schools, technical jobs, music jobs, creative arts jobs, all require computers.

hello95 So because of boot times its the better OS, what a nonsense.

I don't know about W8 boot times but I sure do know that My 7 years old Powerbook G4 boots up faster than My sisters 2 years old dual core W7 installation.

Win it???? There is nothing to win, Windows is still the most used OS but other are still gaining market share while Windows is loosing market share.

Its fucking high time Microsoft cleaned up their bloated OS, how many lines of code are there on W7, a gazillion?

They should have moved to Linux a few years ago, Apple moved on from OS9 to a more stable Unix so I still don't understand why Windows didn't move on from old code.

I have no doubt W8 will be faster and better, but that Metro look is just awful.