OSX is going nowhere fast? Apple's desktops may be floundering due to the lack of their killer app (i.e., anything made by Adobe) for the Mactels, their laptops are selling like frickin' hotcakes. Apple is pushing more Mac laptops than ever before.
Not to mention that OSX is the *only* non-Windows OS that is commonly used by average users.
Macs as desktops are going nowhere fast, mostly because much of the desktop market is now polarizing into enterprise-level hardware or cheap shite Dell boxen. There simply isn't enough demand for a non-enterprise quality home-use desktop. Laptops on the other hand are a different story, demand for the Macbook is huge around where I live, and interest in buying Mac mobiles is higher than I've ever seen it before.
We have forgotten about hit points. Play games like Gears of War or Call of Duty, where death is based on the rate at which you're taking damage, as opposed to depleting an existing HP supply.
Call of Duty: Get shot, it's ok. Get shot too much in too little time, your screen starts turning red. Keep getting shot, die.
I use both XCode and Visual Studio daily at work, even though I use a Mac at home I still prefer VS for development. Here are a few reasons off the top of my head:
- Quick work with large codebases. "Go to Definition" and "Go to Declaration" in my experience works much better in VS than "Jump to Definition" does in XCode.
- "References To" that allows me to quickly find all references to a particular function, this allows me to assess quickly the potential impact of any code changes without too much hunting.
- I still find VS' debugger to be faster and easier than gdb integrated into XCode.
XCode has some things that I really do wish Visual Studio had:
- A keyboard shortcut to jump between corresponding.cpp and.h files.
- A more comprehensive Find-in-Project feature that can generate a report instead of just taking me to the next found location.
IMHO XCode is the best IDE hands down outside of Visual Studio, but VS has a pretty big lead as #1.
You're right, a lot of documentation has been available for a long time now, but you're forgetting two things:
1 - The last release of iTunes was a quite a while ago, it is quite likely that the Vista API has changed since then. If Apple released iTunes now and it wasn't compatible, there would be no excuse, but during iTunes' development, many aspects of the OS were still up in the air.
2 - Many companies that are using the "widely available" documentation is having trouble getting their apps to play nice with Vista, and those that have released things in the last year or so find themselves having to patch their app to work right under Vista. This includes my company.
Apple is far from alone in the "help! my legacy app doesn't work in Vista!" camp.
With all that proprietary software people love using, and the high cost of maintaining a corporate IT infrastructure, the cost-of-ownership for a single corporate laptop well exceeds $5000. It may in fact exceed $10K over its lifetime, especially if security is poor and requires constant IT intervention both in patching and rescuing/replacing dead machines.
The summary surely exaggerated, but if you think about it, companies are (in the end) paying very exorbitant prices for laptops, and most of that is for the guarantee that it will always work, or if not, the turnaround time for repair/replacement is short. I know IBM in the old days developed a lot of backend tools for ThinkPads to allow total replacement of a broken laptop with a new one - data intact and all, within hours. That costs money.
If I have the right of way (i.e., I am at a cross walk, and the WALK sign is on), and I get hit by a car while crossing the street, this is clearly not my fault, and any amount of cell phone talking or iPod listening is entirely irrelevant.
If I do not have the right of way (e.g., jay-walking), and I get hit by a car, it is my own damned fault, but the problem is the fact that I jay-walked, not the fact that I was listening to a bloody iPod!
Jay-walking is already illegal, there's no reason for this law.
While people love to rant about the items Wal-Mart sells how do these same people explain the grocery sections? Same brands as the big supermarkets at significantly lower prices. Heck I can find similar names in their department side of the operation as I can at the mall and save money.
I cannot say about the grocery sections, but if you're using brand names to claim that Wal-Mart carries the same items that other chain stores carry, you're in for a huge surprise. Having worked in a factory before (as an engineer, not a line worker anyway), I can tell you that the myth that manufacturers make ridiculous margins and rip off the unsuspecting consumer is utterly false. You do get what you pay for, and Wal-Mart has been known to negotiate with many brands to make inferior Wal-Mart-only products specifically for the chain. Those $15 Levi's jeans are not the same as the ones you buy for $60 elsewhere.
Call me spoiled, but I have an eye for quality goods, and I don't walk into Wal-Mart, ever, because I've yet to see quality goods there. That and it the whole bargain-bin mentality troubles me: why are so willing to spend $50 on a lawn mower that lasts one season, when we can spend $250 for a lawnmower that'll keep going essentially forever? This bargain-basement mentality prevents people from deriving the enjoyment and satisfaction out of the goods they own, and instead turns it into a struggle of frustration, unreliability, all for some questionably valid financial gain.
I'm a Mac user, you might be better off looking at Linux if DRM-free-ness is what you want. Apple is as big a pusher of DRM as Microsoft. That said, it tends to be less in-your-face about it.
Excuse me if this is a dumb idea, since my understanding of electronics is fairly basic. But wouldn't it be easier just to have a high DC source voltage that is higher than any device requires (say, 15V?), then just use zener diodes to get the voltage down to whatever it is that the device requires? I've done this on a small scale for individual devices, the voltage is rock solid stable, but I'm not sure how this will work out when you're drawing 300W from the source.
An idea I've always thought about is converting to DC supplies indoors. AC has an advantage in terms of long-distance transmission, but in this day and age a HUGE part of our electric use is in devices that require DC power. Hell, many of the things that run AC (like lights) can in fact run DC with nary a problem. It's always boggled my mind why we have a bajillion power bricks sitting around, each venting heat like mad converting AC/DC, when in fact we could have a much more efficient "main" transformer installed in the house that does it on a larger scale and feeds our devices directly.
I imagine this would be even more useful for heavy power using environments like server farms - imagine if you can do with the huge boxy PSUs in every single box and just have a unified DC power source that can FAR more efficient than what's in the average beige boxen.
First you whine and moan about not having online distribution. Now we do, and we cover our asses by enforcing anti-piracy measures like Steam. Yes, it's not perfect, but it is all we've got for now.
Then you whine about how said online distribution is draconian, unfair, and turn us all into faceless corporate drones bent on making your life hell.
Then, inevitably, somebody will bring up Galactic Civilization II and how the disc has zero copy-protection but the game still sold well, without realizing for one second that uber-hardcore gamers (GalCiv2 is directly targeted at that demographic) are less inclined to pirate than Joe Average who doesn't blink when burning something for a friend. While I congratulate Stardock for making it work for them, realize that high-profile mainstream games like HL2 cannot survive without copy protection. Look at Doom 3, whose release-day sales were gutted due to the rampant piracy of the leaked copy.
I call it the piracy curve. At the lowest end you've got the users who are too tech-illiterate to effectively pirate much of anything. Then you see increasing piracy as tech-literacy increases, until it plateaus and starts dropping off at the extreme-hardcore-gamer range, where well, maybe a conscience or two will kick in. The biggest pirates I know do not consider piracy a serious moral issue. Many would never shoplift, but yet somehow pirating a game is acceptable.
Check out the pricing on a new MacBook, which is their consumer-level mobile product. Compare that with an equally equipped Dell, and you will see that the infamous "Apple premium" only exists in their prosumer lines. Apple doesn't sell cheapo crap-in-a-box machines, and as such the lowest MacBook would be considered mid-end by PC standards. Compare that with mid-end PC laptops and you will see that the price difference is almost negligible and sometimes favors the Mac, even.
Software availability?
Like what? I recently had an amusing discussion with a PC zealot who went on about how his software choices were vastly better than on a Mac. He even went as far as to boast that he could download torrents, as if OSX doesn't have its own slew of clients. The most popular (and IMHO most usable) office suite, MS Office, is available on the Mac, and is continually being developed. As a software developer there is absolutely no shortage of tools that fit my development needs. Heck, I enjoy the fact that many 'nix apps are perfectly compatible with OSX, opening many doors for a geek like myself. Really, the only lack of "software availability" is in gaming.
I would agree that Mac probably has a slight edge in ease of use, but it isn't as if using Windows is difficult by any means.
Spoken like one who hasn't spent enough time with a Mac. I've converted many of my friends and colleagues over to Mac over the last year. The switch to Intel helped, since nearly all of them wanted to leave Windows on the machine, being unsure about OSX. All but one of these people have since removed Windows from the machine, preferring OSX - and the one that didn't is a hardcore gamer. So am I, I suppose, and that's the only reason I ever run Windows on my MacBook Pro. I've seen many people who pick up OSX for 2 hours, get frustrated at the differences, and then proclaim loudly that Macs suck. Many of these same people then spend more time with the system, and in a week or two they're all pretty much die-hard OSX proponents.
1 - A woman wouldn't accept *any* floppy. Bring on the hard disks!
2 - While the 8" floppy may be larger, it only contains 256KB of "data". These specimens are clearly evolutionarily inferior.
Ooh, or MS Visual Studio and the "Help us improve Visual Studio!" popup. At least it doesn't come back every 5 minutes.
Did I mention the Windows updater? "Hello! I've finished auto-installing your OS updates, and I need to reboot. If you select 'Reboot Later', I will come back and bother you in 10 minutes! I don't seem to understand that when you mean 'Reboot Later', that means you will do it yourself at your convenience!"
As a relatively recent switcher, I can completely attest to the lack of obtrusive notifications in OSX when compared to Windows. One of the things I absolutely could not stand about Windows are the little taskbar popups. I don't need to know when you've successfully connected to a wireless network, that little wireless icon in OSX tells me that without popping up a bubble. I also don't need to know when updates are ready to install, and when I dismiss that damned bubble you better not well come back in 15 minutes to haunt me again! Those taskbar bubbles are the most abused and most annoying UI feature ever invented for any version of Windows, and I sincerely hope Vista had the smarts to get rid of them entirely.
If it's important enough to demand my immediate attention, pop up a modal dialog. If it's not important enough for that, then don't bother me with it! Figure it out yourself, and give a gentle reminder that doesn't block valuable UI space! The bottom right corner of many Windows apps are quite important with tools and readouts placed there regularly, those bubbles can't possibly come in at a worse place.
Yeah, 'cos everyone who's tight on finances just has to be a greedy bastard that fits your stereotypes?
A lot of us have $25K in terms of savings, but that money isn't for firing myself off to space. Having the money and being able to afford spending it are two separate issues.
There are competing solutions already out which are better than BootCamp (like Parallels),
Not comparable. Parallels is a good solution for running desktop apps, but for those of us who demand performance when we run Windows (gaming, rendering and whatnot), boot camp is the only real option.
1. Why does OSX crash? They have the hardware lock-in down, so why crashes? Because...
All complex systems have bugs, some more serious than others. I would be surprised if OSX didn't crash. I've only experienced one complete lockup before, so it's not as if this is a common occurrence.
2. I've never seen Windows XP crash, but the *only* time I've seen Windows 2000 crash was because of bad hardware drivers (which will be fixed with "trusted" drivers in Vista). Why is Windows XP crashing for you?
Most Windows crashes I've seen are due to bad software or bad drivers. I especially despise it when laptop vendors insist on using their own branded display drivers and refuse to let you install ref drivers from NVidia/ATI. My Toshiba has some really shite drivers that has forced XP to bluescreen at least twice in the last couple months.
I work on OSX every day, I develop software for both OSX and Windows, and reliability-wise, OSX is not that much better than Windows. It's not the uncrashable behemoth that Mac fanboys would like to pretend it is, though I do find that as a general non-scientific statement it crashes less than Windows. This is due to a lot of factors, not the least of which is the fact that your hardware configs are limited, so driver conflicts that bring Windows to its knees simply do not have an opportunity to manifest itself on a Mac.
On the other hand, the user doesn't care *why* their machine doesn't work, just that it doesn't. Reliability-wise I would say OSX wins, but only by a slim margin.
Agreed on the UI though, Windows' UI has always been obfuscated to me, and I find OSX much more intuitive. I've convinced many people to switch to Mac, and other than the 2-week "OMG I CANT TO ANYTHING!" break-in period, all now prefer OSX to Windows.
Also agreed on cost. Windows costs an ass-load. OSX costs $100 every couple years. All in all I see the whole cost argument as pretty moot: nobody says you have to buy Vista and/or Leopard. Tiger/XP runs just fine, why is cost a factor in the OS wars at all?
Flamebait much? I completely agree if Macs ever reach majority (or even a significant minority) market share, they'll get their own share of malware issues. I doubt we'll ever see Macs get to that kind of market share, though.
Your other comment seems to have nothing to do with anything. I find dealing with spyware hunters, AV software, etc etc incredibly annoying and a waste of my time. I use an alternative OS to rid myself of these troubles and suddenly I'm being insulted for it? How is this any different than running Ubuntu, which on/. seems to make you unquestionably on the good side?
Slashdot Mirror
OSX is going nowhere fast? Apple's desktops may be floundering due to the lack of their killer app (i.e., anything made by Adobe) for the Mactels, their laptops are selling like frickin' hotcakes. Apple is pushing more Mac laptops than ever before.
Not to mention that OSX is the *only* non-Windows OS that is commonly used by average users.
Macs as desktops are going nowhere fast, mostly because much of the desktop market is now polarizing into enterprise-level hardware or cheap shite Dell boxen. There simply isn't enough demand for a non-enterprise quality home-use desktop. Laptops on the other hand are a different story, demand for the Macbook is huge around where I live, and interest in buying Mac mobiles is higher than I've ever seen it before.
My mistake, I meant to say Call of Duty 2. COD1 had a very very traditional health system, except it had a bar and didn't show you the actual number.
We have forgotten about hit points. Play games like Gears of War or Call of Duty, where death is based on the rate at which you're taking damage, as opposed to depleting an existing HP supply.
Call of Duty: Get shot, it's ok. Get shot too much in too little time, your screen starts turning red. Keep getting shot, die.
I for one welcome our new plastic, assembly required, batteries not included overlords!
I use both XCode and Visual Studio daily at work, even though I use a Mac at home I still prefer VS for development. Here are a few reasons off the top of my head:
- Quick work with large codebases. "Go to Definition" and "Go to Declaration" in my experience works much better in VS than "Jump to Definition" does in XCode.
- "References To" that allows me to quickly find all references to a particular function, this allows me to assess quickly the potential impact of any code changes without too much hunting.
- I still find VS' debugger to be faster and easier than gdb integrated into XCode.
XCode has some things that I really do wish Visual Studio had:
- A keyboard shortcut to jump between corresponding .cpp and .h files.
- A more comprehensive Find-in-Project feature that can generate a report instead of just taking me to the next found location.
IMHO XCode is the best IDE hands down outside of Visual Studio, but VS has a pretty big lead as #1.
You're right, a lot of documentation has been available for a long time now, but you're forgetting two things:
1 - The last release of iTunes was a quite a while ago, it is quite likely that the Vista API has changed since then. If Apple released iTunes now and it wasn't compatible, there would be no excuse, but during iTunes' development, many aspects of the OS were still up in the air.
2 - Many companies that are using the "widely available" documentation is having trouble getting their apps to play nice with Vista, and those that have released things in the last year or so find themselves having to patch their app to work right under Vista. This includes my company.
Apple is far from alone in the "help! my legacy app doesn't work in Vista!" camp.
With all that proprietary software people love using, and the high cost of maintaining a corporate IT infrastructure, the cost-of-ownership for a single corporate laptop well exceeds $5000. It may in fact exceed $10K over its lifetime, especially if security is poor and requires constant IT intervention both in patching and rescuing/replacing dead machines.
The summary surely exaggerated, but if you think about it, companies are (in the end) paying very exorbitant prices for laptops, and most of that is for the guarantee that it will always work, or if not, the turnaround time for repair/replacement is short. I know IBM in the old days developed a lot of backend tools for ThinkPads to allow total replacement of a broken laptop with a new one - data intact and all, within hours. That costs money.
Let me get this straight:
If I have the right of way (i.e., I am at a cross walk, and the WALK sign is on), and I get hit by a car while crossing the street, this is clearly not my fault, and any amount of cell phone talking or iPod listening is entirely irrelevant.
If I do not have the right of way (e.g., jay-walking), and I get hit by a car, it is my own damned fault, but the problem is the fact that I jay-walked, not the fact that I was listening to a bloody iPod!
Jay-walking is already illegal, there's no reason for this law.
Gears of War has a "Load Last Checkpoint" option in the menu. Try that to reset yourself to before the bug.
While people love to rant about the items Wal-Mart sells how do these same people explain the grocery sections? Same brands as the big supermarkets at significantly lower prices. Heck I can find similar names in their department side of the operation as I can at the mall and save money.
I cannot say about the grocery sections, but if you're using brand names to claim that Wal-Mart carries the same items that other chain stores carry, you're in for a huge surprise. Having worked in a factory before (as an engineer, not a line worker anyway), I can tell you that the myth that manufacturers make ridiculous margins and rip off the unsuspecting consumer is utterly false. You do get what you pay for, and Wal-Mart has been known to negotiate with many brands to make inferior Wal-Mart-only products specifically for the chain. Those $15 Levi's jeans are not the same as the ones you buy for $60 elsewhere.
Call me spoiled, but I have an eye for quality goods, and I don't walk into Wal-Mart, ever, because I've yet to see quality goods there. That and it the whole bargain-bin mentality troubles me: why are so willing to spend $50 on a lawn mower that lasts one season, when we can spend $250 for a lawnmower that'll keep going essentially forever? This bargain-basement mentality prevents people from deriving the enjoyment and satisfaction out of the goods they own, and instead turns it into a struggle of frustration, unreliability, all for some questionably valid financial gain.
I'm a Mac user, you might be better off looking at Linux if DRM-free-ness is what you want. Apple is as big a pusher of DRM as Microsoft. That said, it tends to be less in-your-face about it.
Excuse me if this is a dumb idea, since my understanding of electronics is fairly basic. But wouldn't it be easier just to have a high DC source voltage that is higher than any device requires (say, 15V?), then just use zener diodes to get the voltage down to whatever it is that the device requires? I've done this on a small scale for individual devices, the voltage is rock solid stable, but I'm not sure how this will work out when you're drawing 300W from the source.
An idea I've always thought about is converting to DC supplies indoors. AC has an advantage in terms of long-distance transmission, but in this day and age a HUGE part of our electric use is in devices that require DC power. Hell, many of the things that run AC (like lights) can in fact run DC with nary a problem. It's always boggled my mind why we have a bajillion power bricks sitting around, each venting heat like mad converting AC/DC, when in fact we could have a much more efficient "main" transformer installed in the house that does it on a larger scale and feeds our devices directly.
I imagine this would be even more useful for heavy power using environments like server farms - imagine if you can do with the huge boxy PSUs in every single box and just have a unified DC power source that can FAR more efficient than what's in the average beige boxen.
As an indie developer I have to say this:
First you whine and moan about not having online distribution. Now we do, and we cover our asses by enforcing anti-piracy measures like Steam. Yes, it's not perfect, but it is all we've got for now.
Then you whine about how said online distribution is draconian, unfair, and turn us all into faceless corporate drones bent on making your life hell.
Then, inevitably, somebody will bring up Galactic Civilization II and how the disc has zero copy-protection but the game still sold well, without realizing for one second that uber-hardcore gamers (GalCiv2 is directly targeted at that demographic) are less inclined to pirate than Joe Average who doesn't blink when burning something for a friend. While I congratulate Stardock for making it work for them, realize that high-profile mainstream games like HL2 cannot survive without copy protection. Look at Doom 3, whose release-day sales were gutted due to the rampant piracy of the leaked copy.
I call it the piracy curve. At the lowest end you've got the users who are too tech-illiterate to effectively pirate much of anything. Then you see increasing piracy as tech-literacy increases, until it plateaus and starts dropping off at the extreme-hardcore-gamer range, where well, maybe a conscience or two will kick in. The biggest pirates I know do not consider piracy a serious moral issue. Many would never shoplift, but yet somehow pirating a game is acceptable.
How about price?
Check out the pricing on a new MacBook, which is their consumer-level mobile product. Compare that with an equally equipped Dell, and you will see that the infamous "Apple premium" only exists in their prosumer lines. Apple doesn't sell cheapo crap-in-a-box machines, and as such the lowest MacBook would be considered mid-end by PC standards. Compare that with mid-end PC laptops and you will see that the price difference is almost negligible and sometimes favors the Mac, even.
Software availability?
Like what? I recently had an amusing discussion with a PC zealot who went on about how his software choices were vastly better than on a Mac. He even went as far as to boast that he could download torrents, as if OSX doesn't have its own slew of clients. The most popular (and IMHO most usable) office suite, MS Office, is available on the Mac, and is continually being developed. As a software developer there is absolutely no shortage of tools that fit my development needs. Heck, I enjoy the fact that many 'nix apps are perfectly compatible with OSX, opening many doors for a geek like myself. Really, the only lack of "software availability" is in gaming.
I would agree that Mac probably has a slight edge in ease of use, but it isn't as if using Windows is difficult by any means.
Spoken like one who hasn't spent enough time with a Mac. I've converted many of my friends and colleagues over to Mac over the last year. The switch to Intel helped, since nearly all of them wanted to leave Windows on the machine, being unsure about OSX. All but one of these people have since removed Windows from the machine, preferring OSX - and the one that didn't is a hardcore gamer. So am I, I suppose, and that's the only reason I ever run Windows on my MacBook Pro. I've seen many people who pick up OSX for 2 hours, get frustrated at the differences, and then proclaim loudly that Macs suck. Many of these same people then spend more time with the system, and in a week or two they're all pretty much die-hard OSX proponents.
A woman won't accept a 3.5" floppy.
Oh, so many ways to turn that around:
1 - A woman wouldn't accept *any* floppy. Bring on the hard disks!
2 - While the 8" floppy may be larger, it only contains 256KB of "data". These specimens are clearly evolutionarily inferior.
Ooh, or MS Visual Studio and the "Help us improve Visual Studio!" popup. At least it doesn't come back every 5 minutes.
Did I mention the Windows updater? "Hello! I've finished auto-installing your OS updates, and I need to reboot. If you select 'Reboot Later', I will come back and bother you in 10 minutes! I don't seem to understand that when you mean 'Reboot Later', that means you will do it yourself at your convenience!"
As a relatively recent switcher, I can completely attest to the lack of obtrusive notifications in OSX when compared to Windows. One of the things I absolutely could not stand about Windows are the little taskbar popups. I don't need to know when you've successfully connected to a wireless network, that little wireless icon in OSX tells me that without popping up a bubble. I also don't need to know when updates are ready to install, and when I dismiss that damned bubble you better not well come back in 15 minutes to haunt me again! Those taskbar bubbles are the most abused and most annoying UI feature ever invented for any version of Windows, and I sincerely hope Vista had the smarts to get rid of them entirely.
If it's important enough to demand my immediate attention, pop up a modal dialog. If it's not important enough for that, then don't bother me with it! Figure it out yourself, and give a gentle reminder that doesn't block valuable UI space! The bottom right corner of many Windows apps are quite important with tools and readouts placed there regularly, those bubbles can't possibly come in at a worse place.
Yeah, 'cos everyone who's tight on finances just has to be a greedy bastard that fits your stereotypes?
A lot of us have $25K in terms of savings, but that money isn't for firing myself off to space. Having the money and being able to afford spending it are two separate issues.
I'm sorry, but the current evolutionary version is the "Tiger Shark". There is no current release date for "Leopard Fish".
Jaguar sharks are deprecated and should be evolved at the soonest opportunity.
There are competing solutions already out which are better than BootCamp (like Parallels),
Not comparable. Parallels is a good solution for running desktop apps, but for those of us who demand performance when we run Windows (gaming, rendering and whatnot), boot camp is the only real option.
1. Why does OSX crash? They have the hardware lock-in down, so why crashes? Because...
All complex systems have bugs, some more serious than others. I would be surprised if OSX didn't crash. I've only experienced one complete lockup before, so it's not as if this is a common occurrence.
2. I've never seen Windows XP crash, but the *only* time I've seen Windows 2000 crash was because of bad hardware drivers (which will be fixed with "trusted" drivers in Vista). Why is Windows XP crashing for you?
Most Windows crashes I've seen are due to bad software or bad drivers. I especially despise it when laptop vendors insist on using their own branded display drivers and refuse to let you install ref drivers from NVidia/ATI. My Toshiba has some really shite drivers that has forced XP to bluescreen at least twice in the last couple months.
I work on OSX every day, I develop software for both OSX and Windows, and reliability-wise, OSX is not that much better than Windows. It's not the uncrashable behemoth that Mac fanboys would like to pretend it is, though I do find that as a general non-scientific statement it crashes less than Windows. This is due to a lot of factors, not the least of which is the fact that your hardware configs are limited, so driver conflicts that bring Windows to its knees simply do not have an opportunity to manifest itself on a Mac.
On the other hand, the user doesn't care *why* their machine doesn't work, just that it doesn't. Reliability-wise I would say OSX wins, but only by a slim margin.
Agreed on the UI though, Windows' UI has always been obfuscated to me, and I find OSX much more intuitive. I've convinced many people to switch to Mac, and other than the 2-week "OMG I CANT TO ANYTHING!" break-in period, all now prefer OSX to Windows.
Also agreed on cost. Windows costs an ass-load. OSX costs $100 every couple years. All in all I see the whole cost argument as pretty moot: nobody says you have to buy Vista and/or Leopard. Tiger/XP runs just fine, why is cost a factor in the OS wars at all?
I run Tomato Torrent, your point?
Flamebait much? I completely agree if Macs ever reach majority (or even a significant minority) market share, they'll get their own share of malware issues. I doubt we'll ever see Macs get to that kind of market share, though.
Your other comment seems to have nothing to do with anything. I find dealing with spyware hunters, AV software, etc etc incredibly annoying and a waste of my time. I use an alternative OS to rid myself of these troubles and suddenly I'm being insulted for it? How is this any different than running Ubuntu, which on /. seems to make you unquestionably on the good side?