Slartibartfast wrote:DerekVa wrote:
Whatever floats your boat. I admit there are a lot of things I like about Apple's Mac products (starting with their use of mobile chips / chipsets for low power / heat), but I can't stand their 'holier than thou' attitude. Face it; they're just another PC manufacturer with a prettier flavor of Unix than Gnome or KDE.
Well their computers are built better than anything out of Dell or Compaq. Having worked on just about every PC brand, I have not been impressed with any of them, save for IBM's server line.
As as prettier goes, it is more than that. They have graphical interface that works and is not a kludge. The same can not be said of KDE and Gnome. BTW, KDE and Gnome are not flavors of Unix, they are just a graphical interface. BSD has a "more free" license than Linux does, especially if you are developing commercial apps.
I realize KDE and Gnome are the GUI - hence the 'prettier' comment (hell, I could have thrown X in there as well, but that's too old-school). :)
Aside from the Mac Pro (which is a pretty neat machine), I've not been too impressed with the other Mac PCs (and yes, they are PCs - even before they switched from PPC to x86 they were still 'personal computers') - especially with regards to upgradability. I realize that this is both the strength and weakness of Apple's model - limit the hardware you can use and therefore have better control of the OS and fewer 'edge cases' to deal with, but also have machines that are limited in upgradability. On the other hand, the inverse is the case for Microsoft's model - allow pretty much any hardware to run under Windows, but then you have to deal with the headaches of bad drivers from third parties or other hardware issues.
Really, when you get right down to it, it is a matter of choice. I've used both OS-X and Vista, and I prefer Vista. Yellow_Light_Colorz_PDT_06
-D
p.s. Please note that I in no way, shape or form speak for Microsoft. These are my opinions ONLY