I know this is hard for you to accept, but there's nothing wrong with these Dells. That's just how Windows performs.
It is _not_ "just how Windows performs".
Yeah, and I should accept your word above my experience why?
(Congratulations on getting MythTV up and running though, it's quite a struggle.)
Thank you. Indeed it is. Took me the better part of a week to get everything running, but I think it's worth it.
It doesn't matter that you have two licenses. You still can't do anything with them without a machine that doesn't already have MacOS on it. In this, it is identical to a Windows updgrade version.
No. Say you have two computers, an older one and a newer one. You bought the newer one to replace the older, but the older is still running as a file server or something along those lines. Buying a new version of Mac OS X for your newer computer allows you to legally move the previous license from the newer to the older computer - this is not the case with Windows. This is a common scenario (although in reality, most people would probably just install the most recent version on all of their Macs).
Sure. Just as obviously as OS X is a knockoff of Microsoft's system. I mean, they both have some similar high level functionality that looks and acts vaguely the same.
If you mean to say that Apple copied stuff form Windows, then yeah, that's true. Unfortunately, the magnitude of Apple's intellectual theft quite simply can't compare to what Microsoft has done.
No, *your* argument (and the article's argument) is that Vista is a MacOS knockoff because it supposedly copied things from OS X.
"Supposedly," huh? You're cracking me up.
Indeed. The ideas that just because two systems have some vague similarities, one copied the other, and that two developers extremely active in the same field, striving for the same broad goal, could not independently come up with somewhat similar ideas, *are* absurd arguments.
They would be, if Microsoft stopped at copying functionality. Unfortunately, they also copied the lookd and feel of those apps and features, which makes the idea that this whole thing is just a huge coincidence borderline insane.
You need to do some more research [google.com.au]. Smalltalk isn't just a language spec.
Interesting. I had no idea that Smalltalk was a whole IDE/OS/Language combination.
Yeah, because one of them shows all currently open windows in its own superimposed layer using neat warping effects, while the other one... shows all currently open windows in its own superimposed layer using neat warping effects.
They are completely different task switching paradigms.
And how is that?
Calling Flip3D a "knockoff" of Expose makes about as much sense as calling the Dock a "knockoff" of the Taskbar.
That comparison makes no sense, because the Dock was around before the Start bar, while Flip3D came after Exposé.
Indeed, given that the Dock and the Taskbar have _more_ in common (that the Taskbar did first) than Flip3D and Expose, I look forward to your discussion about how Apple ripped off Microsoft in that regard.
So basically, you're telling me that Microsoft took this from NeXT? Could be. I guess they aren't stealing only from Apple.
Because it's still a toy. Nintendo doesn't try to take over the living room. The weather thing actually doesn't feel like an application, it feels like a toy, with its spinning globe and all.
Also... you make it sound as if Nintendo is the one that made the browser and is selling it. In fact, Opera put money into porting a browser (and by all accounts it works really well) and is selling it through Nintendo's Shopping Channel.
Then why is Nintendo making all the announcements and calling all the shots (ask Opera's support people and all they say is "we can't comment, it's up to Nintendo"?
I can't see how what you say contradicts grandparent. Opera is the developer, Nintendo acts as the publisher. Nintendo decides when the thing is ready to be released, and Nintendo actually sells it, but they sell it for Opera, who probably get paid for each sale of the browser.
Either way, the five bucks you pay for the browser cover the browser's development cost and will (at least in part) end up at Opera.
No, I think Sony avoided a shortage by creating a console that's priced too high for most potential buyers. FYI, the Wii is fully localized in Switzerland, and amazon.de has some Wiis in stock right now - two of my co-workers just ordered theirs yesterday.
Gruber was off by 100%, and you're saying I'm wrong? Somebody did dispute the numbers and you're saying I'm wrong?
As I said, you're totally missing the point. I'll quote Gruber's article:
Respectable agents or managers take no more than a 15 percent cut of their clients' revenue, and usually not more than 10 percent. That's true in sports, it's true for authors, and it's true for entertainers. MacHeist's role isn't that of an agent or manager; the closest traditional description I can think of is that of a promoter.
Whether MacHeist got 85% or 75% doesn't change Gruber's point. In fact, Gruber's worst printed scenario in the original, non-updated article had MacHeist's share at 71%, lower than it ended up being. So Gruber was right, thank you very much.
Me too, except for some fucked up reason, it doesn't work with my beamer (shaky picture). So I'll re-buy the better games. Additionally, having the games on the Wii means I only have to take the Wii with me and have all my games.
You're wrong, and it shows just how much you really don't understand what you're talking about. Phil Ryu tried to dispute them, but he actually confirmed them. He said that "Doubling [Gruber's] estimation of dev fees would bring it closer to reality, but even then, not quite."
So basically, doubling Gruber's numbers is pretty much where it's at. That means that MacHeist's share of the profits was 75%. Straight from the horse's mouth. Gruber was right.
Additionally, it seems that they doubled the dev's share only after Gruber's blog post, so they should thank Gruber for that additional money, even if it doesn't change his original point: MacHeist got most of the money, the devs got very little.
I think it's important to note how wildly inaccurate [Gruber's] estimations are. Seriously. Doubling his estimation of dev fees would bring it closer to reality, but even then, not quite.
I know this is hard for you to accept, but there's nothing wrong with these Dells. That's just how Windows performs.
Mac OS X contains Front Row, which is Media Centre minus the TV stuff. Admittedly, that's a feature less, but at least Front Row isn't such a crappy piece of shit like Media Centre (I own a license to the NT Media Center Edition of Windows - I don't use it anymore, I've replaced it with Ubuntu running MythTV). Additionally, there's tons of stuff in Mac OS X that's not in Windows.
And no, every copy of Mac OS X is not an upgrade. Yes, you do have to own a Mac to be able to run it, but after buying it, you own to licenses to Mac OS X. Legally, you can use your old copy on another Mac with an even older version of OS X. That's not an upgrade, that's an additional license.
Something doesn't have to be "a specification or an implementation" to be ripped off. Ripping off implementation is a copyright violation. I'm not accusing MS of violating Apple's copyright (except when they steal Apple's icons, which they have).
I also find it rather hard to take anyone seriously who implies Vista is the first version of Windows with overlapping Windows. You *do* remember we're comparing Vista and MacOS _X_, right ?
Well, since you now admit that Microsoft copied stuff from Apple before Vista, the discussion is moot. That makes it obvious that Windows is a knockoff of Apple's system. I mean, your argument is that Vista is not a Mac OS knockoff because the most recent version of Windows copied nothing from the most recent version of Mac OS X? Even if it were true - which it is not - it's an absurd argument.
Either way, I don't get the Smalltalk reference. Smalltalk is a programming language. The Alto had no overlapping windows.
And no, I'm not going to give you a detailed list of every feature in Vista which Microsoft took from Apple. I don't have the time. Google it yourself, read this, watch this, or read this:
"[When I worked at Microsoft,] I was given a badge that allowed me entry to all but a few of the Microsoft buildings. One of the things that caught my eye was a large grid on the wall of a hallway in the building that housed the engineers that worked on Windows Media Player--building 50, on the 2nd or 3rd floor.
"The grid was labeled across the top with A, B, C, etc., and down the left with 1,2,3, like a game of Battleship. The grid was made of 8.5×11-inch pages, landscape orientation, showing color screenshots from Apple's iTunes software. Each sheet was a different screen of the application: each tab of a preference panel, each info window, everything."
Moving on...
Flip3D and Expose, two utterly different task switching methodologies
Yeah, because one of them shows all currently open windows in its own superimposed layer using neat warping effects, while the other one... shows all currently open windows in its own superimposed layer using neat warping effects.
If that's the only thing you can come up with, I guess you're basically telling me that I'm right: the PC should be faster. The fact that it is not (and I'm not talking a small difference here, I mean that some actions take between 2 (compiling our app) and 10 times (searching through the project in IntelliJ) as long on the PC) pretty much shows that Windows is most definitely not a faster OS than Mac OS X.
Of course, that makes one thing painfully clear: If you really think that Windows is faster then Mac OS X, it's not my imagination that's running wild here, it must be yours.
4* US$129 = US$500.
Vista Home Premium (which is more featureful than OS X) upgrade will apparently retail for US$159.
And when you say "more featureful," you do of course mean "less featureful, and will stop working after being installed twice." As for pricing: "Suggested retail price for full package product, $239.00 USD. Suggested upgrade retail price, $159.00 USD." Last time I checked, Mac OS X (full version) cost US$129.00, and there's even a family pack (5 licenses) for US$199.00. Not that the normal version actually checked for license violations and suddenly stopped working, like Windows is wont to do.
So which "stolen" features in Vista don't fit that definition ?
All of them.
The comparison is specific features Vista "knocked off" from OS X. Not vague concepts that just happen to be similar between half a dozen different GUIs and Vista and have been around for twenty-odd years.
Sorry, but wrong. "Overlapping windows" (to pick one) are not a "vague concept." It's something Apple introduced and Microsoft then copied. Nothing wrong with that, it's better for all of us if good ideas are copied, but claiming that Windows isn't a knockoff of the Mac System is just wrong. As for "specific features," read Pogue's article.
Do not conflate BSD and OS X. No matter how much Apple's propaganda might suggest otherwise, they are *not* synonymous.
Ah, yes, the old "poorly optimised software" excuse. I was wondering when that would appear. Nevermind that Safari, iPhoto, Mail.app and co. are all just as bad.
Except when they're not. I've never heard anyone call Safari slow. iPhoto used to have issues with large photo libraries, but they're pretty much gone, and Mail is definitely fast.
I'm interested in why you think the iMac is responsible for slowing down OS X. A G5 iMac, in objective terms, is not a slow piece of hardware.
Low RAM (per default), slower memory, single-core processor, usually very slow hard disk, usually mediocre graphics card, comparably slow bus speed, etc.
Try a PowerPC G5 which came out at the same time as your iMac, it's quite a lot faster despite both having G5 chips.
I agree. The list is good, but Twiglight Princess should have won instead of FF. Also, there's no better online experience than Test Drive? That's interesting.
Estimated total sum paid by MacHeist to the developers of the bundled applications, based, yes, on anonymous sources, but which figure I stand behind, and which, I will further note, has not been disputed since I wrote about it last week: $66,500
There's an argument to be made that the devs got into this willingly and know what they got. There's really no argument to be made about how much they got. Nobody disputes these numbers.
Unfortunately, as we've already established, Windows pretty much destroys that advantage by being slow as a pig:-P
Your comparisons between a PPC Mac running an old version of OS X continue to be pointless. My claim is that OS X 10.4 is at least as fast as Windows XP sp2 on comparable hardware, not that OS X 10.3 on an old portable G4 is at least as fast as Windows XP sp2 on an old portable X86. This is due to my own experience of having both of these running processor- and disk-intensive tasks right here on my desk. All day long.
And yes, the G5 is a fast processor, but again, the iMac is hardly to computer to make proper use of it - especially when running poorly optimized software like Thunderbird or Word.
Which would make the Dell roughly twice as fast. Please list the specs to confirm.
It's a Precision 670, it has some kind of dual-core Xeon processor. RAM is upgraded to 2 gigs.
And no, it's not broken. It's a new computer, with a new OS. Everyone here has the same computer. Some have Dell's factory-installed Windows version, others have a shrink-wrap Windows version, and they all run at the same speed. The Dell isn't slow, it's just that the Mac is a lot faster. My guess is it's due to the file system.
No, a comparison of the full retail price of Vista is irrelevant when I'm comparing how much it would cost to buy (or upgrade) an entire computer (actually scratch that, it's flat out wrong).
Sure. Unfortunately, even when comparing upgrades, Mac OS X is cheaper, and since it's not technically an update, you then own two full copies of OS X.
If Windows has features OS X does not, how could they have been "knocked off" from OS X ?
Okay, let me explain that to you. "A is a knockoff of B" does not imply that "every feature in A is stolen from B."
As an example, the recent iPod nano copies were knockoffs of the iPod nano, even though they have some features (like support for playsforsure) which iPods have not.
Windows is not a "knock off" because all of the things it and OS X has in common are either superficial, common to a whole range of platforms, or blindingly obvious natural progressions of technology.
That's just revisionist bullshit.
1984 called and wants its strawman back.
Way to disprove my points.
Saying Microsoft copied its new display system from Apple is like saying Apple copied pre-emptive multitasking, memory protection and SMP support from Microsoft.
Actually, from Unix is probably more likely to be true.
Given that Windows runs on bigger hardware, and has been doing so for far longer, than any version of OS X, provides prima facie evidence of the Windows kernel being both more capable and more mature. This is before even getting into actually comparing things like kernel locking (still very coarse in OS X), async IO (extensively used in NT since day dot), ACLs, etc.
Switch arguments often? I thought we were talking Kernels here. So Windows runs on bigger hardware and for far longer than Mach and BSD? I give you kernel locking: It's better in 10.4 than in previous versions, but still not perfect. However, ACLs are in OS X now.
Dude. Per MacHeist's own definition, the terms were non-negotiable. And if you read my post, two of the devs mentioned did participate.
but you can't give a single confirmed figure, or terms of the contract
Uhm... They are confidential? Do you realize how absurd you sound? "Sure, all the evidence points in one direction, the actual people involved all but confirmed it and the people who are in charge of it actually made that very specific non-negotiable offer, but there's no actual proof, so the opposite must be true!" Yeah right yourself.
Because I have extensive experience with Macs, MacOS "Classic" and MacOS X.
Interesting. So do I. In addition to that, I have a very recent 64-Bit Dell under my work desk, and a very recent dual-core iMac (which, by the way, cost half as much as the Dell). The iMac smokes the Dell in just about anything. The most astonishing difference, however, is disk speed. The iMac has a very slow disk, compared to the Dell, but searching through the whole project in IntelliJ takes about a tenth of the time on the iMac. The iMac is faster in pretty much everything: compiling, starting up, Java... Admittedly, the Dell is faster while accessing our SMB network drives.
Really, who cares about your 1GHz PPC iBook. You can't tell me OS X is slow and then talk about what amounts to ancient hardware running on a discontinued chip architecture.
Because the minimum buy-in point is lower.
This is true. If you're interested in sub-600-$-pcs, Apple has nothing for you. However, if you compare computer above that price, Apple's pricing is very competitive.
Have you even seen the prices for the pro-level copies of Vista?
It's irrelevant (and compares reasonably if you add up all those OS X upgrades anyway).
Okay, now that's precious. First, the price of the OS is irrelevant when comparing prices. Second, not having an upgrade in half a decade is suddenly a feature, since if you don't have upgrades, there's nothing to buy? Are you for real?
Oh, and yes, it is a knockoff. Although admittedly a poorly done knockoff.
No, it's not. Windows has been doing the things I'm interested in longer and better than MacOS has.
So Windows is not a knockoff because it has features which OS X does not have? Does not compute.
Although, it's a struggle to see how anything meaningful in Windows is a knockoff of OS X *at all*, regardless.
Yeah, because the whole Desktop ideas, overlapping windows, the menu bar, the whole graphic style and all that recent junk, that's all not meaningful.
Vista's compositing layer is much more advanced, its GUI behaves quite differently, its kernel is much more capable and mature, etc, etc.
While I haven't looked into Vista's new graphics layers (and I do welcome Microsoft for finally having copied that, since it'll probably make my job easier eventually), I do frankly question your grasp of the Mac OS X graphics layers, Quartz and the Mac OS X typography features in particular.
Also, if you really think the Vista kernel is more mature than Mach and BSD, you're delusional.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it unlikely that XP SP 2 on a 1GHZ P3 would run faster than Mac OS X 10.4 on a G5 iMac.
What exactly are you running on these computers, and what specific things run slower on the Mac than on the Windows box?
Yeah, and I should accept your word above my experience why?
Thank you. Indeed it is. Took me the better part of a week to get everything running, but I think it's worth it.
No. Say you have two computers, an older one and a newer one. You bought the newer one to replace the older, but the older is still running as a file server or something along those lines. Buying a new version of Mac OS X for your newer computer allows you to legally move the previous license from the newer to the older computer - this is not the case with Windows. This is a common scenario (although in reality, most people would probably just install the most recent version on all of their Macs).
If you mean to say that Apple copied stuff form Windows, then yeah, that's true. Unfortunately, the magnitude of Apple's intellectual theft quite simply can't compare to what Microsoft has done.
"Supposedly," huh? You're cracking me up.
They would be, if Microsoft stopped at copying functionality. Unfortunately, they also copied the lookd and feel of those apps and features, which makes the idea that this whole thing is just a huge coincidence borderline insane.
Interesting. I had no idea that Smalltalk was a whole IDE/OS/Language combination.
And how is that?
That comparison makes no sense, because the Dock was around before the Start bar, while Flip3D came after Exposé.
So basically, you're telling me that Microsoft took this from NeXT? Could be. I guess they aren't stealing only from Apple.
Because it's still a toy. Nintendo doesn't try to take over the living room. The weather thing actually doesn't feel like an application, it feels like a toy, with its spinning globe and all.
I can't see how what you say contradicts grandparent. Opera is the developer, Nintendo acts as the publisher. Nintendo decides when the thing is ready to be released, and Nintendo actually sells it, but they sell it for Opera, who probably get paid for each sale of the browser.
Either way, the five bucks you pay for the browser cover the browser's development cost and will (at least in part) end up at Opera.
No, I think Sony avoided a shortage by creating a console that's priced too high for most potential buyers. FYI, the Wii is fully localized in Switzerland, and amazon.de has some Wiis in stock right now - two of my co-workers just ordered theirs yesterday.
Oh, so it came free with your 600$ console? What a bargain!
VC games: yes. Wii/Cube games: no.
As I said, you're totally missing the point. I'll quote Gruber's article:
Whether MacHeist got 85% or 75% doesn't change Gruber's point. In fact, Gruber's worst printed scenario in the original, non-updated article had MacHeist's share at 71%, lower than it ended up being. So Gruber was right, thank you very much.
Technically, Mario is a spinoff from the Donkey Kong Franchise, I think :-)
Are you living behind the moon or something? Have you really missed the news during the last few weeks?
Me too, except for some fucked up reason, it doesn't work with my beamer (shaky picture). So I'll re-buy the better games. Additionally, having the games on the Wii means I only have to take the Wii with me and have all my games.
You're wrong, and it shows just how much you really don't understand what you're talking about. Phil Ryu tried to dispute them, but he actually confirmed them. He said that "Doubling [Gruber's] estimation of dev fees would bring it closer to reality, but even then, not quite."
So basically, doubling Gruber's numbers is pretty much where it's at. That means that MacHeist's share of the profits was 75%. Straight from the horse's mouth. Gruber was right.
Additionally, it seems that they doubled the dev's share only after Gruber's blog post, so they should thank Gruber for that additional money, even if it doesn't change his original point: MacHeist got most of the money, the devs got very little.
Now I can, from Phil Ryu himself:
So basically, Gruber was right.
I know this is hard for you to accept, but there's nothing wrong with these Dells. That's just how Windows performs.
Mac OS X contains Front Row, which is Media Centre minus the TV stuff. Admittedly, that's a feature less, but at least Front Row isn't such a crappy piece of shit like Media Centre (I own a license to the NT Media Center Edition of Windows - I don't use it anymore, I've replaced it with Ubuntu running MythTV). Additionally, there's tons of stuff in Mac OS X that's not in Windows.
And no, every copy of Mac OS X is not an upgrade. Yes, you do have to own a Mac to be able to run it, but after buying it, you own to licenses to Mac OS X. Legally, you can use your old copy on another Mac with an even older version of OS X. That's not an upgrade, that's an additional license.
Something doesn't have to be "a specification or an implementation" to be ripped off. Ripping off implementation is a copyright violation. I'm not accusing MS of violating Apple's copyright (except when they steal Apple's icons, which they have).
Well, since you now admit that Microsoft copied stuff from Apple before Vista, the discussion is moot. That makes it obvious that Windows is a knockoff of Apple's system. I mean, your argument is that Vista is not a Mac OS knockoff because the most recent version of Windows copied nothing from the most recent version of Mac OS X? Even if it were true - which it is not - it's an absurd argument.
Either way, I don't get the Smalltalk reference. Smalltalk is a programming language. The Alto had no overlapping windows.
And no, I'm not going to give you a detailed list of every feature in Vista which Microsoft took from Apple. I don't have the time. Google it yourself, read this, watch this, or read this:
Moving on...
Yeah, because one of them shows all currently open windows in its own superimposed layer using neat warping effects, while the other one... shows all currently open windows in its own superimposed layer using neat warping effects.
If that's the only thing you can come up with, I guess you're basically telling me that I'm right: the PC should be faster. The fact that it is not (and I'm not talking a small difference here, I mean that some actions take between 2 (compiling our app) and 10 times (searching through the project in IntelliJ) as long on the PC) pretty much shows that Windows is most definitely not a faster OS than Mac OS X.
Of course, that makes one thing painfully clear: If you really think that Windows is faster then Mac OS X, it's not my imagination that's running wild here, it must be yours.
And when you say "more featureful," you do of course mean "less featureful, and will stop working after being installed twice." As for pricing: "Suggested retail price for full package product, $239.00 USD. Suggested upgrade retail price, $159.00 USD." Last time I checked, Mac OS X (full version) cost US$129.00, and there's even a family pack (5 licenses) for US$199.00. Not that the normal version actually checked for license violations and suddenly stopped working, like Windows is wont to do.
All of them.
Sorry, but wrong. "Overlapping windows" (to pick one) are not a "vague concept." It's something Apple introduced and Microsoft then copied. Nothing wrong with that, it's better for all of us if good ideas are copied, but claiming that Windows isn't a knockoff of the Mac System is just wrong. As for "specific features," read Pogue's article.
That's why I said "Mach and BSD".
That was the royal "we", of course :-)
Except when they're not. I've never heard anyone call Safari slow. iPhoto used to have issues with large photo libraries, but they're pretty much gone, and Mail is definitely fast.
Low RAM (per default), slower memory, single-core processor, usually very slow hard disk, usually mediocre graphics card, comparably slow bus speed, etc.
Try a PowerPC G5 which came out at the same time as your iMac, it's quite a lot faster despite both having G5 chips.
I agree. The list is good, but Twiglight Princess should have won instead of FF. Also, there's no better online experience than Test Drive? That's interesting.
New Daringfireball article:
There's an argument to be made that the devs got into this willingly and know what they got. There's really no argument to be made about how much they got. Nobody disputes these numbers.
It's pretty obvious from how they defend MacHeist that this is exactly the deal they got.
Unfortunately, as we've already established, Windows pretty much destroys that advantage by being slow as a pig :-P
Your comparisons between a PPC Mac running an old version of OS X continue to be pointless. My claim is that OS X 10.4 is at least as fast as Windows XP sp2 on comparable hardware, not that OS X 10.3 on an old portable G4 is at least as fast as Windows XP sp2 on an old portable X86. This is due to my own experience of having both of these running processor- and disk-intensive tasks right here on my desk. All day long.
And yes, the G5 is a fast processor, but again, the iMac is hardly to computer to make proper use of it - especially when running poorly optimized software like Thunderbird or Word.
It's a Precision 670, it has some kind of dual-core Xeon processor. RAM is upgraded to 2 gigs.
And no, it's not broken. It's a new computer, with a new OS. Everyone here has the same computer. Some have Dell's factory-installed Windows version, others have a shrink-wrap Windows version, and they all run at the same speed. The Dell isn't slow, it's just that the Mac is a lot faster. My guess is it's due to the file system.
Sure. Unfortunately, even when comparing upgrades, Mac OS X is cheaper, and since it's not technically an update, you then own two full copies of OS X.
Okay, let me explain that to you. "A is a knockoff of B" does not imply that "every feature in A is stolen from B."
As an example, the recent iPod nano copies were knockoffs of the iPod nano, even though they have some features (like support for playsforsure) which iPods have not.
That's just revisionist bullshit.
Way to disprove my points.
Actually, from Unix is probably more likely to be true.
Switch arguments often? I thought we were talking Kernels here. So Windows runs on bigger hardware and for far longer than Mach and BSD? I give you kernel locking: It's better in 10.4 than in previous versions, but still not perfect. However, ACLs are in OS X now.
Dude. Per MacHeist's own definition, the terms were non-negotiable. And if you read my post, two of the devs mentioned did participate.
Uhm... They are confidential? Do you realize how absurd you sound? "Sure, all the evidence points in one direction, the actual people involved all but confirmed it and the people who are in charge of it actually made that very specific non-negotiable offer, but there's no actual proof, so the opposite must be true!" Yeah right yourself.
At a certain point, it's just comon sense.
Frankly, I don't think you have much experience with the Mac community :-)
No, of course you're right, but you're overestimating the effect.
Interesting. So do I. In addition to that, I have a very recent 64-Bit Dell under my work desk, and a very recent dual-core iMac (which, by the way, cost half as much as the Dell). The iMac smokes the Dell in just about anything. The most astonishing difference, however, is disk speed. The iMac has a very slow disk, compared to the Dell, but searching through the whole project in IntelliJ takes about a tenth of the time on the iMac. The iMac is faster in pretty much everything: compiling, starting up, Java... Admittedly, the Dell is faster while accessing our SMB network drives.
Really, who cares about your 1GHz PPC iBook. You can't tell me OS X is slow and then talk about what amounts to ancient hardware running on a discontinued chip architecture.
This is true. If you're interested in sub-600-$-pcs, Apple has nothing for you. However, if you compare computer above that price, Apple's pricing is very competitive.
Okay, now that's precious. First, the price of the OS is irrelevant when comparing prices. Second, not having an upgrade in half a decade is suddenly a feature, since if you don't have upgrades, there's nothing to buy? Are you for real?
So Windows is not a knockoff because it has features which OS X does not have? Does not compute.
Yeah, because the whole Desktop ideas, overlapping windows, the menu bar, the whole graphic style and all that recent junk, that's all not meaningful.
While I haven't looked into Vista's new graphics layers (and I do welcome Microsoft for finally having copied that, since it'll probably make my job easier eventually), I do frankly question your grasp of the Mac OS X graphics layers, Quartz and the Mac OS X typography features in particular.
Also, if you really think the Vista kernel is more mature than Mach and BSD, you're delusional.
Dunno why you think Windows is faster than Mac OS X, but in my daily experience, Mac OS X is faster.
How is Windows cheaper than Mac OS X? Have you even seen the prices for the pro-level copies of Vista?
Does it run more software? Probably, but the apps which run on Windows and not on Macs are
Most people probably need neither of these, and for everything else, Mac OS X generally has better apps than Windows.
Oh, and yes, it is a knockoff. Although admittedly a poorly done knockoff.