So come on guys and girls, out of all us music people, who here uses the superior (and most creative ) computer? I'm a Mac of course...

MacBook Pro for me!

LOL..this could cause a flame war. I'm not a Mac or a PC, I'm a person

I use Windows myself. I find Macs just way too overpriced. And Windows, being so popular, has twice (or thrice?) the support and apps available. Don't count on it for security, though.

I just wish Linux was better supported and more user-friendly (it already is user-friendly, but not to a person like me who likes constant tweaks). Then I'll take a Linux box over a Mac or PC any time.

Btw, I run Ubuntu on my Windows laptop on dual-boot.

Mac is the only way to go! Never (and I mean never) have I had a virus problem and everything is just so uncomplicated. Yea, Mac!

I can't imagine ever being able to afford Mac stuff. Linux on a PC suits me -- inexpensive, reliable, and powerful. I find it hard to understand why anybody would use anything else, to be quite honest.

If Mac isn't for you, that's the very best solution. And with open source stuff like Wine* you can run your favorite Windows apps. I love my Mac, and will be replacing my old PC with a new iMac soon.


* Builds are available for most common flavors of Linux (Ubuntu, Red Hat, Fedora, Gentoo), as well as Solaris and BSD. It's open source, so you can compile it on any Unix system for yourself. You can do it on Mac OS X (all you need is X11 and the latest version of Xcode). Xcode 3.x cannot compile 16 bit code, so you need register with the Apple Developer's Connection to get Xcode 2.x if you want 16-bit support. However, for most people, CrossOver is a commercial version of Wine for Mac OS X that will be easier to set up.

I have a PC, my dad has a Mac. Macs have better security because the computer is actually made by the same people who make the operating system.

MacBook Pro and iMac! Easier to use and no viruses, thus far. Love my iPhone too

No, it's more secure because it's Unix. Unix's strict compartmentalizing of the system makes it a very tough nut to crack. Basically, the only things that can be done are trojans that trick the user into allowing them to do something, by giving an admin password for instance. The way Unix is organized also prevents the day-to-day crap that happens in Windows, like an application crash taking down the whole system.

Or something overwrites system files, thus destroying the Windows installation. That can happen. Believe me. Unix solves all these problems by permissions. For instance, only the root can write to system files in Unix.

The fact that it's made by the same people who put together the hardware means that it runs very efficiently on said hardware.

Ah right. I knew there was something about it being made by the same people, and it looks like I got my facts wrong. Thanks for filling me in.

No problem!

Good to see a nice discussion
I personally love Macs because, although they're more expensive, they're so much more intuitive and almost never break down, so that little extra cost pays off in the end!

I do love my Mac(s)....I've got an iMac, and a Mac Mini. After the first of the year, I'll likely get a 13" MBPro. I live in the Windows world, too....but if I can choose, I'll choose the Mac. For any of the creative / music stuff I do, it just works better for me.

Mac is so much more friendly to music applications. It does have some drawbacks though. I sometimes wish I could get in on some of the discussion threads about audio setup and latency problems over in the Digital Pianos area, but with my Mac I just never have those issues to contribute :-(

Mac here too, MacBook Pro to be precise. It's my 1st Mac but Windows Vista finished me with Windows. I had to get something else!!

Am loving the Mac - easy to use, very well built and so far absolutely bullet proof. Those daily Windows crashes are but a distant memory. :-)

I'm on PC mainly because that's what was given to me. Basically, someone in the family decided it was time to replace instead of upgrade and I got their old PC. I've never had a Mac so I guess I don't really know what I might be missing, but I can say for sure that I do like itunes much better than Mindows Media Player.

In principle, there's no reason why modern versions of MS Windows couldn't offer the same level of immunity to viruses and nasties. The process and filesystem security models are both pretty solid. Unfortunately, it's taking developers and users a long time to cotton on to this. A lot of Windows software still works on the basis that it is subject to no security restrictions, and doesn't work on more secure installations. And a lot of users can't get their heads around the idea of using different login accounts to do different jobs -- something that is meat and drink in the Unix world.

I'm sure things will catch up, eventually. I'm a long term Unix user (more than 20 years), but I've been quite impressed with Windows 7. Things are definitely moving along. I reckon in about five years time you'll be able to buy a version of Windows that is as good as what I can now get from Linux for free

....Fair points all. But I won't be convinced till Microsoft completely ditches archaic garbage like the Registry. Until that happens, it's still the same old Windows in my book, and much of that security will still be provided by antivirus. Heck, I've heard of people having Registry problems with 7, though granted it's pretty rare.

Separate user accounts are only one issue; Windows also needs to implement a permissions system that will prevent things from writing places they shouldn't whether it's an admin account or a lesser account. In Unix, it's not possible to write to system files unless you are running as root (not smart unless you know what you are doing!) or use the 'sudo' command in a terminal. I don't know of it's still true with 7, but there certainly used to be ways windows system files could be overwritten (with disastrous consequences, of course) without even invoking such privileges.

Unix is still >> Windows, for now. And I predict for a long time in the future, as well.


Cheers!

Well, as a long-term Linux user I'm inclined to agree. But the gap is closing, for various reasons. One reason is that mainstream Linux distributions are seeking to make themselves more appealing to the non-technical user, and introducing problems in that area that Microsoft, for all its faults, addressed years ago. A good example is the graphical boot process that most new distros favour. Windows always worked this way, and there are fallbacks for situations where the graphical boot fails. But this is a relatively new thing for Linux, and those fallbacks aren't really in place -- not where a non-technical user would know how to find them, anyhow.

The default filesystem permissions for Windows 7 are, in fact, _more_ restrictive than Linux defaults. Generally, an unprivileged user can't write _anywhere_ on a newly installed system apart from the home directory. And there isn't even a catch-all `root' account you can use to overcome permissions problems as there is on Unix -- if you create a new disk partition on Windows 7, you actually have to assign rights to the Administrator account. This has caught me out, because I'm used to the Unix approach.

Of course, the power of this new security model is completely emasculated by the tendency of Windows users to do routine word processing and whatnot with admin privileges Sadly, I'm seeing the same thing more and more among Linux users, which further reduces the advantage that Linux offers over Windows.

Well, I haven't fooled much with Win7 except on someone else's computer, so I didn't know; thanks.

Basically, you bring up the point that you can't protect a computer from the user's stupidity. All the good stuff about Unix can be quickly negated by running with more privileges than you need all the time. I run Mac OS X as admin because I need the privileges for my programming (more a hobby than anything right now! ), but I don't even consider running as root because 'sudo' takes care of the few root level things I need to do every once in a while. And I know not to give something I know nothing about my password. I really need to create a normal account for using when I take my MBP outside the house and use it in a public place, though.

Mac OS X has a particular key combinations for modifying the boot process, so they've got that addressed. I think Linux still isn't entirely suitable for the non-technical user for several reasons, that included. But I haven't tried Ubuntu, which I understand is sort of the "slickest" Linux.

Agreed. Windows can be tightly secured. But doing so would leave most users helpless. The typical PC (both Windows and Mac) have no system administrator to manage the system. So the system must remain relatively unlocked, to allow the owner to install applications and to configure the system.

That's not acceptable in a business environment. Users aren't allowed to make system changes. Only admins should do that. So things are kept tightly locked.

So the difference isn't between Unix and Windows (or between Unix and Mac). The difference is between a business environment (with admins) and a home (or small business) environment (with no proper admin at all).

I don't think `helpless' is the right word. If there is the inclination, software vendors can promote the message that there is more to responsible computer use than simply knowing how to change fonts in your word processor. Saying that users would be `helpless' if they had to be responsible is like saying car drivers are `helpless' if they have to obey the Highway Code. Of course it would be easier to learn to drive if you could assume that you're the only driver on the roads; but in practice we all accept that isn't the case, and are taught how to deal with it. And so it should be with computers.

A challenge of Microsoft and Apple and other software vendors is to make their systems enforce good security practices while at the same time being easy for a non-technical user to administer. All the major vendors have made significant steps in this direction in the last couple of years.

Microsoft in particular has a real battle here. The company really wants to do the right thing, but it faces constant protest from customers whenever it steps back, however slightly, from the `click here if you Microsoft to do your thinking for you' business model.

I suspect that the majority of computer owners don't realize that working on a computer with an Internet connection is in many ways very much like driving on a public highway, particularly the notion of shared responsibility. The sooner we put people right about that, the better for everybody.

Nice screen name. Afraid I have to disagree somewhat there...the Unix platform is better designed irrespective of security protocol.

Unix wasn't designed -- it evolved by random selection

Happily, it evolved in environments which were largely free of commercial pressures to make it appealing to end users. Whether this favourable climate persists remains to be seen.

I would disagree with Horwitzian (and agree with Kevin) about the current state of affairs with OS security. In the early days of the internet, hacking into unix/linux servers was common place and easily done. Current systems are where they are due to a significant amount of trial and error. OpenBSD is one of the few systems around that actually took a significant proactive approach to OS security. The concepts of permissions and protected address spaces has been around since the dark ages, it's a much better understanding of how to apply them (e.g. setuid) and having the horsepower to overcome performance penalties (e.g. user space vs kernel space) that have really brought it down to the common man.

Yep...I don't disagree about your point regarding security. My point is more of a performance thing rather than a security thing. No OS is going to be perfect with regards to security. Of course, some is more perfect than others.

"Don't ask a man what kind of computer he uses. If it's a Macintosh, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?" (supposed source: Tom Clancy)

Recently finished reading a book "The Cuckoo's Egg" by Clifford Stoll. Pretty interesting account of security problems on Unix systems. Didn't much care for the writing style, but the story was good, and it gave a look into the general disregard for computer security back in the late 1980s.

BTW, I have both a Mac and PC at work, but only a Mac at home. Security concerns aside, I prefer the Mac for its much more elegant and intuitive user interface. (And I can still get a Unix prompt on my Mac. )

I have a MacBook Pro, an iMac, and a Mac Pro. Only one Windows laptop in the house and it's going in the dumpster as soon as I can afford another MacBook.

I support Microsoft all day at work, and when I get home the LAST thing I want to see is Windows.

Beyond that, I like Mac for home machines, but for business I don't think they are ready for prime time due to the lack of professional/business line software availability and interoperability with such applications on the corporate network. Microsoft is simply far too entrenched on the corporate LAN/WAN to permit true Mac adoption in the business world, IMHO.

And beyond that, it's too expensive for most companies to adopt on a large scale.

Maybe someday!

Bob

They are actually coming along pretty well in that department, or so I have heard. One big problem is unresolved issues with Active Directory; however, that affects all Unix operating systems that are used in a Windows server environment.

But Apple is traditionally consumer-oriented. They certainly don't depend upon enterprise buyers to keep their profit margins.

I'm on PC,because pc can do many thing that mac can't do it

You mean like the Blue Screen of Death?

No no, that's the beauty of a Mac, if you really miss your BSODs, you can still have them by using Parallels or Fusion =)

I'm a PC of course. See below...



Not some Mac loving college boy...



With his classic blue slip on shoes. Come on!

Now that's funny, bitWrangler! Thanks for sharing. I needed the laugh. On a similar note, if you have a shared Windows computer on your network, the icon that shows up next to it in Finder has a BSOD on it.

PC is so much more flexible than Macs. If you're looking for easy to use overpriced and simple interface than go for a Mac. But if you wanna do more in-depth stuff with your computer and change things that a Mac won't let you then go for a PC. Honestly if you use a PC you won't get a virus unless you do something silly like opening random attachments in your e-mail.

Could we see some such as's rather than generalized platitudes? Ironic isn't it that graphic design pros tend to prefer Macs. And with Unix underneath, there's a lot more to OS X than meets the eye.

As to viruses, there are more threats than just email attachments these days. Running Windows without virus protection is stupid.

I'm ON a PC for the last 25 years of my life (being 32 now). That alone is a reason to stick to PCs... too used to them (and I still use Dos for some reasons and GWBasic :D).

Thing is that if I switched now I would also have to buy an extra $10,000 of software (right now only for PC) or change them with the equivilant ones... :-/

What type of "in-depth stuff" are you referring to? What are you trying to change that a Mac won't let you? I can only assume you are referring to tower machines and the relative lack of Mac compatible add-on cards (the overwhelming majority of which are graphics cards)? So if you statement boils down to "I can't roll my own gaming tower with mega quad card nvidia graphics and creative sound card" then you would be absolutely correct (hackintosh's not withstanding). However, since this addresses a relatively small percentage of the overall computing public, I don't think it's something that you can unilaterally dismiss a platform for. Plus, look at the success of netbooks, folks generally don't want to monkey with their systems, they just want to surf.




Or you can just run the above mentioned parallels or fusion and transition at your own speed.

This is exactly what I'm wearing right now - jeans, t-shirt, and sweatshirt hoodie! (Except the sweatshirt is gray and my slip-on shoes are brown). Whew. Good thing I'm typing this on a Mac!

and a scruffy beard too?

I've been a loyal PC user for over 20 years, so I'm probably too set in my ways to change now. But just yesterday I was at the campus bookstore where they had an Apple mini-store set up in it, and I took a few seconds to look at the Mac Books they had on demo there. Really nice graphics.

Really, really nice.

If Mac supports WordPerfect, I could almost be tempted...

WordPerfect? Wow! Version 5.1 still?

I'm not THAT much of a dinosaur. I'm running WP 11.0.

Oh my goodness. I hope not! Wrong gender.

So, not quite a match. (And I'm probably twice his age, too.)

Should run fine under Parallels or Fusion. Get that credit card warmed up.

So ture Linux is great! I whish I knew how to use it.

Macs since 1992 and they are the safest OS against viruses. Very intuitive to use as well. Also remember that with a Mac, you are getting a ton of very useful software that PC's don't have, so cost could be more. But you get what you pay for and Macs have great displays and are built well.

But it's just a matter of preferences. Something for everyone out there and I'm glad because we don't dive the same cars either.

I bought a cheap PC for the internet. I wish I could have just made my Atari faster.

Except grammar .... ;-)

Seriously name ONE SINGLE THING a PC can do that a MAC can't ?

There is something other than a Mac? What's a "virus"?

Mac since a LC back in 92...I am definately not geeky or energetic enough to navigate the PC virus/wrong sound card/wrong something card/app/whatever/incompatibility nightmare.

I *am* geeky enough to navigate PC viruses, drivers and incompatibilities. I just choose not to, there are better ways to spend my time (like learning rags). It's Macs for me.

I'm using a PC, but not with Windows on my HDD, but Linux ^_^ .

In other words: i'm using Linux.

Btw. did you know, that the Mac OS X (and later) is based on Unix too ( like Linux ) ? Well, yes, Linux is based on Minix, to be more exact, but oh well.

Greetings,
Ingo

Not to pick nits, but MacOS is based on FreeBSD. I also run a couple of Redhat Linux boxes at home (plus a Windows box to support customers who run on that), but I haven't seen a Linux distribution yet that beats the Mac!

And Linux contains no Unix code. It is a Unix-like system. Mac OS X is certified as Unix by the Open Group, which arbitrates that kind of thing.

I have just replaced our eight-year-old PC with a Mac and so far I am very pleased with it. I found it very easy to set up and everything worked immediately. I like to control and experiment with many things myself, so I did have to buy different compilers and rewrite some code but it is all going very nicely now.

Just curious: What did you recompile?

Glad it's worked out nicely for you. I'll bet it's blazing fast compared to that PC.

For home use, I have my Mac.

I use a PC at work.

I use both, but I'm mostly a Mac.

Just put Windows 7 on my Mac yesterday. (I run it in Bootcamp.)

Golly, what was all the excitement about? It runs no more efficiently than Vista did, but Win 7 takes up a lot more space on my hard drive.

I never ceased to be amazed at Microsoft's vulgar self-promotion. The Redmond monopoly has the PC world mesmerized, especially the young who -thanks to Microsoft- feel that Apple is just for old fogies who might not care about taking their computers apart, or climbing into the Windows Registry to 'customize'. A whole generation coming in to university don't even know that there is any alternative to Word or Excel. Microsoft has won the battle through sheer money and power. Just like most big American companies: the greatest of all terrorists.

For all that, Apple is a take-no-prisoners company -and Steve Jobs has terrible moments of pomposity- but I still feel that Apple makes a superior product. No win (hehe) situation I suppose.

I like PC the most but I am currently on a crapple... Erm apple. Its a macbook issued by the school. I dont like it. Its slow, cheap (screen cracked 2x, keyboard edges have cracks) And they are so expensive to fix! Well school is part to blame for that as they rip you off for repairs!

That sounds more like abuse typical of institutional anything. Still, aluminum unibody >> plastic.

Yes. Fortunately for us, the large multi-national conglomerates in the rest of the world are kindly, almost saintlike, institutions who have nothing but the welfare of their fellow men at heart.

And, to get back on topic, I'm "both", I'm running a Hackintosh. I refuse to pay the apple premium for what is basically off the shelf hardware painted white. And yes, I did purchase the software.

I like Apple hardware; it's elegantly designed which appeals to my artistic side. However, I agree with you in that OS X (Unix!!!!) is what makes a Mac a Mac; without that the hardware is nothing.

Actually this is not the aluminum one, rather the cheap old style plastic one. I dont abuse this computer. I always keep it in a thick padded case. Just cant hold up to the long backpack encased rough school life.

I dont think I know any other student whos laptop has -not- had this issue.
http://www.blackstickblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/dsc033271.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3345/3335476837_88c1a2f0a8.jpg

I understood it was a plastic one. Plastic is unfortunately not the best material for a portable computer. If it doesn't crack or something, it gets creaky and squeaky. My unibody MBP is so much nicer in this regard. I carry it about a good bit, and yet it is still as solid as it was when I got it a year ago.

Midrange CAD applications (AutoCAD, Inventor, Solidworks, SolidEdge) are Windows only. CATIA & Pro/E still have Unix versions but I don't know that they would run natively on MacOS.

Do they not run under parallels or fusion?

The Unix versions would probably run via the command line in X11. OS X is Unix.

They might for a small assembly or simple parts, but for large machinery or complicated parts that use 4GB or more of RAM, you are probably better off without the extra layer for stability and speed reasons. Parallels and Fusion are basically a virtual machine layer that you can run Windows in, right?

My point to the original poster was that there are some applications for which there is no native Mac substitute.

If a virtual machine doesn't work, you can always dual boot an Intel Mac. Any processor/graphics intensive app really should be run natively anyway.

A Intel processor computer running Windows natively is a PC, even if it has an Apple logo on it.

I think that goes without saying...though it looks a heckuva lot nicer than any other PC.

Mac. In the early 90's I had started using video and computers. NEVER did I have a problem as I did with PC's. I ditched the platform and went Mac, never went or needed to go back.

Interesting update:
Microsoft Announces Improved BSOD

LMAO!!!!!

That is seriously innovative form, Horowitzian! I don't think I've ever see someone write "LMAO!!!" followed by "Best Regards"!!

Mac! Two PowerBooks at home and anxiously awaiting delivery of my iPad. (C'mon April 3 ... a gift from the best Apple-employed brother in the whole wide world!!) They still stick me with a lab full of PCs at work, though.

My BIG investment is my piano. My get-by-with-what-I-must investment is the computer. PC.

PC, cheap HP laptop from my dad. Used to run Linux (Mint, Debian, Slackware) but switched back to Windows because of problems with audio, and now that I got 7 instead of staying with XP, I have the same problem with audio I had on linux, I can't run an ASIO (JACK on lunix) audio app and a normal app both at the same time... which wasn't on XP. Whee.

So do you have that iPad yet?

I like windows since I learned how to use a computer with the old windows Me, then I moved to XP and finally to Vista.
I was not very happy since I had to format the pc many times, had virus, etc... and then I needed a new pc, and I bought a sony vaio just when Vista came out. that means a XP computer with a software to big to it. I wanted to buy a Mac, it was around the same price, but in the last minute I gave up and bought the vaio.
it was the biggest mistake of my computer life. I couldn't play games, I had less then an hour of battery... awful.
In last year's november, I bought my macbook withe, I like it much better then the vaio, the screen is awesome, I've 7 hours of battery, it didn't crash or and a virus.
but i must say that I really miss the Office and MSN.
about linux, I don't like it because I didn't found out how to install stuff on it.
in the future, I think I will get an IMac for my home, and a pc as a laptop, because Macs aren't very popular around here, and I need a Windows to work.
I don't think that macs are over priced. I need a computer that lasts a lot of time, my mac was 899, I think that in 5 years I will have it working just fine... a pc of €600 wouldn't do the same

As an artist myself, I've got to vote Mac, though I do think they're overpriced. I don't hate PCs like a lot of Apple fans, they each have their benefits. The Mac I'm on now cost a fair bit, but it's lasted well and always been able to do all I ask of it.

I turned to the Mac side cus PC's well certain OS's that is are getting too bogged down with having to defend their selves from invasion.

My PC and Midi interface always suffered latency, I got my Mac connected the same midi interface and voila, no latency straight out the box.

I like the Mac cus it just keeps working, I have a PC but I usually mess around with it installing linux and whatever I can get me hands on. Saying that, I'll probably be selling the PC soon cus it mostly sits around collecting dust.

Cheers

Mart.

PS. I work on PC's all day by the way, I'm an IT Tech so have to suffer them daily. :o(

PC, because I understand how computers work. Windows 7 definitively ends all security concerns with the revamping of user permissions.

Laptop is a Lenovo T61 with 4GB ram, 2.8ghz core 2 duo, and 250GB OCZ Vertex SSD. 5 hour battery life. Three years old and looks like absolutely brand new despite having fallen off of grand pianos onto hardwood floors over thirty times. Magnesium alloy rollcage, waterproof keyboard, etc. Built far better than any Mac (or other windows laptop), and was far, far faster than anything available at the time - with more features to boot.

HTPC is a custom built machine in a Silverstone GD02-MT Black touchscreen case with a 4ghz core i5, 8GB ram, 4TB of storage space, and a Radeon 5870. Absolutely nothing Mac has can even remotely compare to the power and ease of use of Windows Media Center. Runs a complete projector based home theater with full HD codec capability (including DTS-MA and TrueHD), all from the ease of use of my Logitech Harmony One remote (the touchscreen case has a built in IR receiver). Good luck getting your mac to do that!

This kind of ignorance always makes me smile. And statements like this are often followed by an impressive spec sheet – big numbers and cool letter combinations to prove how 'good' the system is and how knowledgeable the owner is about computers.

I think you'll find that the average Mac user has more Windows experience than vice versa.

Just for the record, I have a quad core workstation that I built myself to be dead quiet, and it runs Snow Leopard. But most of the time I'm on my MacBook Pro chatting with friends about how cute it is, because it's too slow and dumb for any serious work, like me. Lolz.

I am a PC, and I use Finale.

I've used Macs, I've used Sibelius, and I honestly prefer what I've stuck to. PCs run into all sorts of little minor problems, but none of them compare to the glorious rainbow wheel of death. If it weren't for that, I would probably switch over to using a Mac... but that's the way things are.

As far as Finale vs. Sibelius goes (not sure if this is related...) I prefer Finale because it feels a lot more like writing the music out by hand. It feels like "real" composition, where I always feel like the computer is assisting me when I write with Sibelius. That said, Sibelius is much more streamlined; Finale has a lot of kinks.

But anyway... I am a PC

Long term Mac user here. Well, I say that... I run Windows on my Macbook Pro as well (for the occasional game generally..!!) which pretty much snuff's out the PC is Better argument..

I'm a software developer, and I use a Mac, Windows, *and* Linux, often at the exact same time At work I have a MBP set up on one external monitor, then I have two more monitors connected to a nice box running Ubuntu which also dual boots into Windows 7. If I can't be bothered to restart the computer into windows, I can always run it inside a virtual machine (VirtualBox). I'm able to use the same mouse and keyboard on both physical computers with Synergy, an awesome program that sends mouse clicks and keystrokes over your network.

Here's what I like about Linux:
1) You need software? Fire up your software manager and just download it. Everything you ever need is free, and most of it is quite good.
2) Secure. Same lack of virus/malware problems as a Mac.
3) Powerful. If you're willing to learn a bit of command line fu, you can do pretty amazing things.

Linux cons:
1) While community help is generally easy to find, sometimes you have to dig around for just the right thing. Since there are so many flavors (distros) of Linux, getting the right info can be a bit hard sometimes.
2) Won't play your kids' games. They're written for Windows, although there are a few good ones available for Linux (and you can always try Wine as mentioned elsewhere, but don't get your hopes up).

Things I like about Mac:
1) It's pretty
2) No viruses/malware, etc

Mac cons:
1) I really don't know where people get this "it's so intuitive" stuff from. Take some of the keystrokes for instance. Go google how to take a screenshot on a Mac - go ahead, I'll wait. Done? Yeah, there are at least four different keystroke commands, consisting of at least 4 keys each, to take a screenshot. A small example, I know, but I don't buy that macs are more intuitive - especially since 3rd party developers on mac make the same bad user interface decisions that they make on Windows. And don't even get me started on copying/pasting with the keyboard.
2) Super expensive. They call it the Apple tax for a reason. You can get the same hardware in a PC for about half the price and do the same stuff with it.

Things I like about Windows:
1) That I can turn it off

Windows cons:
Really, there are too many to list. After being turned onto Linux, I can't really go back except to play games.

Nice post UrLicht! I agree with you on most things.

I use a MBP as my main machine.....with external display, USB keyboard and Magic Mouse at my desk it's a very nice desktop (especially with the memory and HDD upgrades I recently did). And I can easily grab it and go for school.

I have been experimenting with VMs though. I have three: Ubuntu 10.10, OpenSolaris 2009:006 (mad at Oracle for dumping support for this when they bought Sun out); it's a nice OS and runs very well in a virtualized environment. My work in progress is FreeBSD 8.1. I'm building X11 from source as I type this.

There are things to like and dislike about any OS...however based upon my Windows experience and now my experience with one flavor of Linux and two (other) flavors of Unix, OS X strikes the best balance between ease of use, powerful Unix underpinnings, and lovely GUI. Ubuntu probably comes as close as any to achieving that on the other side of things.

I enjoy using all of the OSes I have on my computer though.

I have a flash drive with Slax linux that I sometimes use on the family comp. since I don't know the password (http://www.slax.org/). I've used Linux Mint, Debian, and Slackware, and ended up with Windows 7 as my main operating system after destroying my slackware :p

I forgot to compile the modules, so neither mouse or keyboard worked on X11. When I identified the issue, after many forced rebootings, I couldn't connect to the internet, neither with the new nor theo ld kernel.

I think Mac is good for art but mostly useless for gaming and such, and they're much more expensive than PCs, however, it's much more stable and "out-of-the-box" for music production. I think.

I've a pc because it is cheaper to buy and to upgrade, but if I had more money to spent I would bought a Mac..