Reasonable summary - where's the inter-operability? Very few people who use computers seriously that I know use Macs in isolation these days.

Nice article! I recently "made the switch" from the Windows PC platform to the the Mac because of OS X (got a PowerBook G4), and it's been an awesome "eXPerience." Nearly all of the applications I need are now available, and I find the interface and the built-in services of OS X to be extraordinary. Anyone out there who's thinking of upgrading their computers should seriously evaluate the Mac platform.

Regards,

Jared

Good assessment. NOT!!!!!! X and XP should not be compared. Let's see MAC OS X new OS; Windows XP a gussied up Windows 2000 hmmm....

I wanted to address the complaint about the lack of customization available in the Mac OS X interface. For better or worse, this has always been the Mac way of doing things - in OS 9, the only choices you had for windows were "platinum" or the old B&W style. Apple does this for the sake of simplicity and elegance, and to maintain a consistent product "look" (why else would OS X be visually styled after Apple's hardware?). Nevertheless, there are many third-party customization programs available for OS 9, and I'm sure that with OS X's UNIX underpinnings the same will soon be true of it as well (actually, for those who are knowledgable with the command line interface, you can actually boot OS X to a different UI). Finally, the reason why Apple offers a gray color scheme is for the sake of its many customers who work in the graphic design field. Trying to create print-quality graphics on a color-filled screen is like trying to write music with another song playing in the background.

I would like to know how you determine that the raw horsepower of the PowerPC chip has fallen behind the Intel-Compatible designs for the PC. I hope you are not falling for the MHz myth.

Also, the Dock is bad because it handles both open and unopened apps? BAH! That is the best part about it. In windows you have to navigate through an obnoxious menu set just to get to an application every time you want it, or clutter up your desktop with a ton of uncontrolled icons that are huge and in the way. Or even worse under a window that you are working in. In the Dock you can put all your most used applications (and documents) and open them in a single click while looking at an icon at a size that YOU choose. You can even make the Dock disappear, so it is never in your way. Find them once, and put them where you can always get to them. What a great idea.

And by the way, I like willy-nilly view styles that let ME put files where I want them in icon view. I can prioritize them in a way that helps me know where they are. I can also stash something in a corner where my five year old is unlikely to look. Childhood will not last forever, but for now it is nice.

Above comments aside, thank you for doing a review of Mac OS X. I think that Apple is going get more converts from the UNIX world than from Windows, but we can not blame people for their lack of taste. ; - )

>>I wish iTunes offered compatibility with Microsoft's Windows Media Audio (WMA) format, which is superior to MP3 in virtually every way.<<

The only reason that the 'WMA' format seems better than 'MP3' on Windows is because Microsoft purposely sabotaged the quality behind 'MP3' to help market 'WMA' but the news is out now about all over the web... and I doubt companies building MP3 player (including Apple) are going to waste their time on a proprietary format... it just wouldn't make sense to!!!

Ken Davis is an idiot. The Itanium processor is capable of over 6 gigaflops with an undetermined theoretical peak. XP runs on the Itanium. The PowerPC G4 theoretical peak is 5.8 gigaflops. If Apple wants to be faster than Intel they will need to use the G5 or the G6 to even come close.

Your article mentions that "another big weakness of the UI—and frankly, this is also a huge problem in XP—is that it doesn't remember folder-view settings.". Excuse me, but my version of OS X remembers the folder settings as well as the window settings in the Finder. Maybe you should explore the OS a little more. As for the Dock I think it's a matter of taste. Initially I didn't like it very much but now I think of it as the windows task bar/application launcher done right - and there´s a lot of small (very nice) things to be found there.

Good report and comparison. I thought your piece was pretty even and fair - love to see what you have to say about Office X.

Windows/Mac interoperability is still being worked on so that it will be seamless, but any OS X user can connect to just about any HP printer and WinX share point via SMB.

I want to address a couple things here.

First, the writer of this article is obviously not a skilled Mac user. He pointed out several things incorrectly and obviously is not aware of how Apple products function and perform.

Although it is true that the first time you encounter an Apple product it seems kind of simplistic and childish. However, if you spend any time learning the advanced/power features all apple products begin to not only be easy to operate but become extremely powerful.

Take OS X for example. At first glance it seems a bit odd and strange and maybe even over simplified. But what you are not noticing is the power of the UNIX core running underneath this interface and what it is capable of.

Stepping from Mac OS 9.x to OS X was like buying a super computer as far as upgrade. This OS has completely unleased power I never expected from the same computer I was running OS 9.2 on before.

One example being Apache Web server. Not only was it freely included in OS X, it's piss easy to start (press a button labeld START), but once I learned a bit of UNIX and a bit about Apache...it's the most secure Web server, fastest web server, is completely customizable, allows virtual hosting in about a thousand configurations, and the whole Apache system is so well ingrained into OS X that it just works, works every time, and never crashes...

Speaking of which....since I run a Web server I leave my Mac on 24/7 and have never had a need to reboot unless I was adding RAM or some other hardware configuration that required me to shut down my computer out of fear of electrocution.

Also, you get PhP, Perl, FTP server, DNS services, Apache Web Server, Mail Services (UNIX servers and the like), Unparalleled security, Proxy server, Telnet services, Remote Login services, Remote Apple Event services, True users and groups, Network Connectivity that is unrivalled (connects to damned near anything over almost any protocol), Quartz rendering, Native PDF support, Native RTF support, Native OpenGL support, and the list goes on and on and on.....All for $120.

What do you get with Windows XP for your $199 (or $299)? Nothing but a stupid looking interface with a bunch of licensing headaches and basically the same old Windows NT/2000 core system.

Also the author said someting about PC users not likely to switch over just because of OS X....this is hogwash. In fact, my brother-in-law, whom I unsuccessfully tried for three years to get to switch to Mac did so on his own accord as soon as he saw OS X first hand...in fact he went crazy and not only bought a new G4 with all the bells and whistles but also bought loads of accessories and software and what have you. In a week he went from a life-long PC/Windows fanatic to a die-hard Apple lover.

Now, another topic rarely mentioned is programming. I do programming on both platforms...Windows and Mac. And I'll tell you that programming a PC is not a joy whatsoever. On the other hand, programming a Mac is about as much fun as programming can be...and that is saying a lot because programming is not all that much fun. Debugging (the most important aspect of programming in my opinion) is SO MUCH better on a Mac than a WinTel Hell machine. Needless to say, now even when I'm programming an application for the PC (Windows) I'll do most of the code writing and maybe even the compiling on the Mac...yeah that's right. I'll compile my Windows apps on the Mac because many Mac development environments are not only easier to work with, but cross-compile to other platforms/OSs and do so very well.

Anyway, I could sit for days explaining why Macs are better machine (things like the hardware advantages, OS advantages, support advantages, easy of use and power advantages, etc...) but I'm an old timer in this arena of war (Mac vs. PC) and I'm battle-scarred from years of trying to explain to people the reasons I believe, "Give me Mac or give me no computer at all". All I can say is if these PC people fail to really see the light then so be it....your loss, not mine...as I'm off to go use my Mac :)

I pretty much agree with the author of this article. I don't limit myself by choosing one or the other. I like OS 10.1 and Win XP, each for different reasons. I would no longer consider Windows for making movies. My Mac and iMovie run circles around my PC.

I choose my computer of choice by the task at hand, some times it's my PC running Win XP Pro and sometimes it's my Mac running OS 10.1 You can't beat the combination!!! I couldn't see being without either.

As the author of this piece, I'd like to address the issues that have been raised so far, and thank everyone who wrote in.

Ivan Thomson suggested that I was not a skilled Mac user. OK. But I never said Mac OS X was "simple or childish." My complaint was that Apple didn't innovate beyond making the OS look pretty, whereas XP uses a task-based interface that I feel is quite compelling. Stepping from OS 9 to OS X is similar to the Windows 9x to XP upgrade; some things are the same, some are different, and I bet the newer system runs slower on the same hardware. Windows XP Pro includes IIS, and you can download Apache for this system as well. Regarding the "same old Windows NT/2000 core system," the same could be said for OS X as well, which is basically the same old NeXT/OpenStep core system. You have experience with these platforms too, right? (I do, incidentally, which is why I was so excited about OS X initially). But Ivan is right-on about programming: Mac OS X does include some cool, and free, programming tools. Unfortunately, these will benefit only a small number of users and aren't really worth discussing in a consumer-oriented publication. I've been using OS X for months, and XP for a bit longer, and in the end, XP is the better overall system. But OS X does offer some interesting advantages in certain key areas, especially digital movies. They're in the same league, certainly, on a technical level.

Neil Roberts mentioned Office v. X and, yes, I'll be reviewing that soon. I took my iBook to COMDEX a few weeks back and used Office v. X on OS X 10.1 for the whole trip. Good stuff.

Joaquim Lopes says that Mac OS X does remember his folder settings. Hmm... I cannot get it to do this for me, and believe me, I've tried. The windows want to size a certain way and icons just want to stay where they are. Reboot, and it's all back to where it started. This is very annoying, just as it is in XP (in fact, it's infuriating, because I've spent time in both OSes customizing things). But OS X's folder settings are bizarre (as they are in earlier versions of Mac OS, incidentally). The icon placement has no bearing at all on the size or position of the window, so it's possible (and often is likely) that icons will be "off screen" when you open a window. This just stinks, guys. They need a "remember these settings" options and a way to apply folder options globally. This is real basic stuff.

Jared says that Ken is an idiot. I won't touch that one. :)

In an earlier post, however, Jared said that anyone upgrading their PC should evaluate the Mac. I do agree with this. I don't think most people will actually "go Mac," but again, there are good reasons to own a Mac and it's worth exploring. I love my iBook and wish I could get a PowerMac G4 with one of those gorgeous flat panel displays. Some day.

Dennis suggests that WMA sounds better than MP3 because "Microsoft purposely sabotaged the quality behind 'MP3' to help market 'WMA.'" This is a bizarre (though disturbingly common) accusation, and it's simply not true. Microsoft has done nothing to make MP3 sound bad, other than introduce a superior-sounding format. WMA, quite simply, sounds better than MP3 at lower sampling rates. This means that you can store more and better quality music in WMA format than you can in MP3. On the other hand, MP3 is more widely accepted than WMA. That might be important if you want a portable audio device or whatever.

Ken Davis, who later suffered Jared's wrath, questions whether I've fallen prey to the Megahertz myth. I have not. I've used every kind of modern Apple Macintosh, from the fastest PowerBook G4 down to the lowliest iMac (and a few desktop G4s as well) and, quite simply, modern Macs are not as fast as modern PCs. They just aren't. They aren't slowpokes. They aren't (usually) painfully slow. But they are quite simply not as good at day-to-day work as a PC. By "day-to-day," I mean using Office, reading email, and browsing the Web. I mean playing Quake III Arena. That kind of thing. And I stand by my comments regarding the Dock: It is not as useful as the Windows XP Start Menu/taskbar combo (The Windows taskbar disappears, too, if you want it to. In fact, Windows had this first).

Pete Goebel correctly notes that Apple has never really provided much UI customization (though they planned to in "Copland," the cancelled OS project that preceded OS X). Neither has Microsoft, actually. I'd really like to see both XP and OS X offer a wider range of color schemes. It can't really be that hard. These companies' fascination with the color blue is very strange.

Mark says that Windows XP is just a "gussied up Windows 2000" while Mac OS X is a brand new OS. Mark needs a history lesson, sorry. See my comments about NeXTStep and OpenStep above: OS X is not "new." In fact, it's based on technology that's older than NT. For the curious, NT was a reaction to the problems with the Mach kernel used today in OS X: That is, NT was designed to be better than Mach.

Rob von Nesselrode wonders about interoperability. You can sort of network Macs and PCs. Mac OS X cannot browse Windows workgroups, which stinks, but you can hit specific shares if you know the exact address (like smb://MachineName/ShareName) and have the proper credentials. This is OK, but not great: You can't store shortcuts to these shares anywhere, and there's no GUI for it at all. I've spoken with Apple about this, and they've expressed an interest in improving this feature. Another HUGE problem with this feature is that the Mac adds weird files and folders to with periods at the beginnings of their names when ever you copies files from the PC to the Mac or vice versa. I thought I had a virus the first time I saw this; now it's just very annoying. If you want something more elegant now, you can download better third party networking solutions, like Sharity and Dave X. There is no native way to use a Windows printer on the Mac, sadly.

In the Mac OS X review, you tell that «[...]the raw horsepower of the PowerPC chips that power Macs use has fallen behind that of the Intel-compatible designs on the PC[...]». Maybe you should go on the Apple's site to see how they compare the performances of a P4 and a G4... It isn't just a question of MHz! I have a PowerBook G3/400 that kicks the a** of any PIII/400 running under Mac OS X and I only have one comment to make: that OS is something I have never seen before and it rocks!

You Intel users, the Power PC chips are 83 percent faster than anything you guys have.

I have recently switched to OS X (and a beautiful iBook) over from the Windows world. I think Ivan Thomson said a lot of what I would have said; very eloquently, I might add. I am a software professional and besides Windows, I am at home with several flavors of UNIX too. It is incredible what Apple has achieved with OS X. The elegant interface that they have put over, essentially, a FreeBSD kernel is simply amazing!

Have you ever had the experience of someone talking so much nonsense that you just walk away from the conversation rather than attempt to educate that person because it would take too much time and energy to do so? Well, that's how I felt after reading Paul Thurrott's article. And I'm not even a Mac fanatic.

As Ivan Thomson says, "...if these PC people fail to really see the light then so be it....your loss, not mine...". Well, all is not lost. You Windows fanatics will still get to keep all 80% of the Internet viruses that are written just for you and Microsoft will rake in those subscription dollars as you reinstall XP over and over again. Ka-Ching!!!

Itanium is not exactly what anyone has on their desktop. In my, admittedly limited, research, the only system I found one in was a $22,000 enterprise server. By the end of next year, servers and a few workstations should be available to make this a valid argument. I also thought we were all talking about what was on the market, not future hardware. In response to article I was commenting on "raw horsepower", not how the operating system and daily operations feel. I apologize if I misinterpretted the context.

Second of all, I apologize for coming on a little strong. It was unwarranted and unnecessary. I disagreed with a couple of opinions in the article, so I expressed my opinions in return. My only regret is that they came out more harshly, and negative than they could have.

The review was well put together, though I did notice a slight Windows bias. I use both platforms, I built a PC about three years ago, stupidly, and it hasn't worked for two years. Also, I think this needs updating as of today: iPhoto was just released and kicks Windows' Camera Wizard's butt. And I don't know why Windows users seem so in denial of this fact, but, the Mac G4 processors do go faster than PC's! Wake up and smell the roses, the 867 Mhz goes somewhere around 50% faster than a 1.8 Ghz Pentium 4. But overall, this is a great perspective of Mac OS X.1, and I heartily await X.2 :)

I just went through the comments and read one by "Jared". He claims the G4's limit is 5.8 gigaflops *laughs* just to bring you up to speed, try 14.8. (last i checked).

I was originally interested in reading this article, then I discovered that this individual does not know the Mac. He made two VERY BIG mistakes.

Number 1) "And both OSs seek to integrate into your digital life. On the Mac, this concept is called "the center of your digital lifestyle;" Apple markets the system's connectivity with digital media, the Internet, and various types of devices."

It's Bill Gates who uses that catch phrase(The center of you digital lifestyle). Apple uses "You digital Hub". I find HUB to be a better catch phrase anyway and he got it wrong.

mistake #2) "But Apple did create a new Quartz rendering engine for OS X that brings the power of Adobe Postscript to consumers, offering a lush and beautifully rendered environment with super crisp text, photographic icons, and 3-D effects."

It is Quartz but it IS NOT postscript. It's PDF. There's a HUGE difference between Postscript and PDF. He should get his facts straight before he writes an article about which he is obviously a WinTel user who needs a mac.

+ 'XP's task-based UI is a true innovation' : What is understood by task-based UI? And is it as such a 'true innovation'?

+ 'OS X's rusty desktop metaphor' : The desktop metaphor in Mac OS X has changed. Nevertheless, what was good before, why should it be thrown away? Or called rusty?

+ 'OS X performs certain tasks better, and XP performs others better' : Could have been: XP performs certain tasks better, and OS X performs others better. This realy makes no sense at all.

+ 'the most obvious conclusion is that XP and OS X are different, and overall, neither really has a huge advantage over the other' : Nothing has been proven about the differences. So how can there be a conclusion, which should also be so 'obvious'?

+ 'A less popularized but, in my mind, more elegant way to install OS X is on a system by itself: You can't run older OS 9 applications in such an environment, but if you're not relying on such legacy programs, you'll save a ton of disk space.' : Clearly no good advice. Why should we avoid incorporating the Classic environment? The Classic environment --after loading-- works very well, albeit OS 9. It's a nice solution for a smooth transition to Mac OS X for people who still need to use some Mac OS 9-compatible software.

+ 'the raw horsepower of the PowerPC chips that power Macs use has fallen behind that of the Intel-compatible designs on the PC' : The megahertz myth?

+ 'I wish the UI was more configurable' : Reading further I got the impression that configurability should have all to do with cluttering up the UI. A stable, performant OS with a well-designed, consistent UI is the first thing to have, I think. I'm satisfied with the UI of Mac OS X. Apple is working on it too. Playing with the colors and settings of the UI is of a second degree importance. By the way, drab-gray is a color which is allover available in the Windows OS.

+ 'Microsoft's Windows Media Audio (WMA) format, which is superior to MP3 in virtually every way' : You say it, we should believe it?

+ 'Apple's digital-imaging features aren't quite as compelling—especially when compared to what comes in XP' : iPhoto, youPhoto, we all use iPhoto, ...

+ 'although XP comes out ahead in some areas' : Again, much claimed for little said and less proven.

+ 'As stable as OS X is, it won't matter unless the applications you need are available in that environment' + 'Beyond that, however, it's a waiting game' : And here they are: http://www.apple.com/macosx/applications/

By the way, as QuickTime concerns, have a look at http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qt/ and http://www.apple.com/quicktime/specifications.html.

I AM CONVERTING TO MAC!

I'm back a few years later to speak my mind again.

Anyway, a few good years have passed since this article was writen and since I added my two cents in a comment about six or seven pages up from this.

And in this time XP is still cr@p and OS X has become better and better. However, this time I'm not going to spend too much time explaining why. That fact is: Windows is garbage, still crashes all the damned time (although less than years ago - it still experiances serious slow downs and serious fatal errors). OS X is pretty damned stable, pretty damned feature rich, pretty damned true multi-tasking, pretty damned unix (a REAL command line for you DOS heads), pretty damned pretty.

XP still looks like a fisher-price 'My First Computer' <--- Ha ha ha. That ought to be a document folder in XP --> My First Computer OS.

I can't stand the "XP looks like Fisher Price" comment. Right click on the desktop>Properties>Theme pull-down menu>Select Windows Classic>Press OK. That's it! If XP's default theme looks like a child's toy than OS X is a box of colored glass and candy. As for stability: my(emphasis MY) XP Pro system never experiences fatal errors, the worst I experience are badly written little programs, but they don't bring the OS down, only themselves. You can't say that Windows crashing all the time is a fact, because you simply can't make blanket claims like that. USER EXPERIENCE WILL VARY!

Oh and grow up with your "My First Computer" joke. Please, it does nothing but demonstrate a lack of maturity.

Wow, i like this forum, it just keeps on going. That said the guy who wrote this article doesnt really know what he's talking about.

When you say that the WMA format is superior, well in what way? and i think you've got a bit of a grudge on Macs, have'nt you now.

this is a great software please send me this software on my EMAIL ADRESS please, please, please, please send me this

READER COMMENTS: We want to hear what you have to say about this article!     Acceptable Use Policy Your Comments (required): Your email is only used if our editors need to contact you. It is not used or stored for any other purpose, nor posted with your comments. Enter the text from the image below Please refresh the page if you have trouble reading this text.