While I generally like what MAC is trying to accomplish, I’ve found the MAC OS to be smooth only when it’s fresh.
It’s a nice thing that it can be clean-installed without formatting, as it seems to corrupt itself too easily, and appears to need more restarts than even Windows on some installations.

The current versions, like the past ones, still have that “memory allocation” problem attached to the launching of the applications, and the systems continue to lose track of where both parts of some data forks are.

All in all, I don’t think the OS has demonstrated any real advantage to any other, when equally well applied, that would justify the expensive hardware.

Linux seems easier to secure and more reliable, and actually easier to maintain once you’ve acquired the taste and feel for how it works. But it still doesn’t have a large enough following to have the extensive choice of capable, quality software that would be comparable to Windows or MAC. I’d like to see Linux achieve parody with the others not only because of the open software scenario, but because it would probably be able to perform everything and still be more stable. (It might also put a kink in the plans of those who make a career out of exploiting the end users in so many ways!) There something to be said about not executing everything inside the OS kernel!

Windows presently has the largest following, so it also has that illusion of being the most user-friendly. Whether it’s actually any friendlier than a MAC seems to be the opinion of the individual user. (Personally, I don’t see it, really.) But, because of the popularity, it also has the biggest “target on its back”. It’s been so popular for so long that hackers have needed to only go after Windows to make a profit. (Think what you will! If MAC had been the one enjoying this level of popularity for this long, all the viruses and malware would have been written for MACs, and the OS patches would have been a regular part of MAC life.)

Also because of Windows’ popularity, you have just as much of a shitload of really BAD software out there for it as you have good – even from MS itself! The recent mutations of Windows (Vista/7) haven’t helped its cause. One thing I’ll give MAC is they’ve stayed true to the code and not tried to change it so drastically you need to replace half of your software to continue upgrading.

Windows’ downside will always be the need to “dump it all” and reinstall everything as the only true way to “cure it” when it “gets sick”.

What Apple has done is tethered the user experience of their OS to their hardware, which from what I have seen is really no different than any other computer hardware. That’s what makes this Psystar case so interesting – they’re trying to eliminate the tether so people can get “Macs,” that is, the Mac OS user experience, without the Mac “premium” imposed via the hardware.

You’d think Apple would find this a good thing, as each Psystar customer is buying into their OS at the very least, and an increased OSX market share means more developers will keep it in mind, leading to more software that operates on OSX, making ALL computers running OSX more valuable – including their own. But no, instead we have to do the same old song and dance around the intellectual monopoly bonfire.

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/677

I didn’t like Apple back when, and I don’t like it now.

Cheers!

“…most Mac users would argue…”
———^^^

There! You’ve just qualified what I said.
As a lifetime user of all computers, I won’t “argue” that way for any one of them. I find it really curious when someone “gets their back up” just because someone else doesn’t share their “MAC obsession”. To each his own.
________________________

“Basing your current opinion on preconceptions garnered a long time ago is not a wise course of action.”

This wise advise works both ways.
: )

Basing your current opinion on preconceptions garnered a long time ago is not a wise course of action.

If you tally up just the components then maybe you have a point, though most Mac users would argue the way the computer works ie. the experience of using it etc. is worth the “premium” that you seem unable to quantify.

Way back in the dark reaches of time when I wrote for a friend who had one of the first ‘computer’ newspapers, Apple actually gave me a Mac and a printer. It was a relatively new company and the idea was I’d write about its product(s). But because a) unlike a PC, you couldn’t fool with it unless you were an expert; and, b) most people couldn’t afford it, or the software needed to run it, I couldn’t see how it’d be of much use to the general population. So I gave it back.

With apologies to surfer, a keen Macolyte, I used to believe those who bought Macs (and were subsequently afflicted with the manic religious fever which seems to hit most people who own an Apple product) had secret brain implants. Now, I realise they’re just too embarrassed to admit they were had.

Cheers!

Having used ALL varieties of computers and operating systems all my life, the only noteworthy difference I’ve seen between what Apple puts in the box and what PC makers put in their boxes is the price. At the component level, many identical makes and models of parts can be seen in both. At the performance level, I’ve seen no particular winner.

I think the word “premium” here is a farcical perception perpetuated by that “niche” market.

Actually, it’s more like being sued for making a car body that a Ferrari engine will fit into.

As for the Big Spat w/Apple……….Apple would not be in this situation, or the situation occuring right now all over the internet w/home-made mac clones, if they would’ve offered for sale only 1, just 1………Affordable & UPGRADEABLE computer. The only one that is graphics upgradeable right now is the Mac Pro, and it is over $2,300 at it’s most basic. It, even, was not so upgradeable in the past either, w/a motherboard that was soldered also.

They could also solve this issue (price) by simply offering a L-o-n-g-e-r warranty to its customers, which would justify the higher price of the hardware. That would solve the conundrum. Many people are a little nervous about spending 1,500 for an iMac that isn’t upgradeable or user-fixable, and also only w/a guarantee of 3 yrs. of “fixable” warranty. Dell recently brought back its 4-5yr. warranty. That is what put them on top before. I see their stock rising again now. An included warranty of, say 5 years on iMac would quell much of this cloning, and the lawsuits.

Apple’s hardware is excellent quality and their customer service is top-drawer! I give them full credit for it. I do not wish that to change. They really try to help their customers, and that is why they have so many, and not because of OSX, which is justifyably great, however. It is just this one thing, the lack of a user fixable/fully upgradeable desktop ( for less that what i paid for my first good car ) that is spurring all of this Cloning !

I predict that this will not end soon. Psystar is going out, but not before they have laid the seed for more massive cloning of Macs. It will continue, simply because there is DEMAND for the niche they occupy, which Apple hasn’t convinced customers that their hardware is worth paying to occupy that niche.