I would have thought, if you used the same hardware as is in the mac computers themselves, then it would be a simple matter to get hackintosh to run... since the only different thing is that little chip apple puts in to stop people getting a good deal on hardware.

Sure osx is more user friendly than xp, where you came from. However things have moved on the last 2 years. We have vista now, so compare vista with osx instead of xp. Vista is stable, fast, and way more flexible than osx ever will be. Vista also has a spotlight equivalent, that is even a bit better than osx's spotlight.

Then there is the cost factor, apple being quite expensive, especially over here in the EU. Almost forget, games, expand the pc yourself, switch componentens for little money and so on.

Apple is great when you do not know much about computing or you just want a white conversation piece, osx however is not that good compared to vista.

I didn't think Vista had fanbois...obviously adsd has proved me wrong.

In what possible way is Vista superior to OSX? Everything in Vista is either copied from OSX or caters to PC-specific features and can't be compared. I've yet to encounter a Vista install that's stable or fast - even the crazy 64-bit Quad-core, 8GB RAM monster I played with in my local computer shop.

"Apple is great when you do not know much about computing" - what and Vista is for experience computer users? Why then is Vista full of those frustrating UAC alerts every second? And if OSX is for noobs then why do they offer so many features like terminal access, AppleScript and in-built file/web servers? Not saying that Vista doesn't, but OSX is hardly a beginner's-only OS.

Yes, that's all very interesting in terms of flashy specs from your recent past hardware set-ups. But what did you actually DO with all processing capability?
Macs are worth while, but you're going to be 'wowed' in any credible way, go back and rediscover both the pre-Intel Macs and further more, pre- OSX Macs - I'm talking about the era of OS9 and earlier. In those far flung and older OS environments exist some impressively creative programs and applications, it's also place where Microsoft would never be mentioned either.

As for installing and using Windows Vista of whatever variety, forget it... The business world has long since made up its collective mind, and has both refused to buy it or the 'hype' that surround its fanfare of introduction. The only way it has managed to get itself loaded onto any sizeable number of computers is through providing the 'newbie' consumer with no other choice, unless you call new PC pre-installed with Windows Vista a choice. In fact, the outlook for future of sales of Windows Vista to experienced computer users (who know an error-prone and plainly 'bad OS' when they see one)is so unlikely, that the great and far-sighted Microsoft corporation has already seriously understaken and considerable amount of work on the next replacement Windows Vista.
Not only is the currently version of Windows disliked by those who know about computing - IT professionals, techies, enthusiasts, etc- it represents probably the largest wasteful use of hard disk space and memory since personal computers became worth noting. Wether its a minimum install requiring 8 Gigabyes or up to 15 Gigabytes, it still defeats the object of acceptably swift performace without excessive investment in predictable new hardware. Anyway, it's lemon, and only worth side-stepping. Stay with Windows XP-because it makes a lot of practical sense!!

Lastly, let me just say that Macs are not for simple-minded people. OSX is, just to set the record straight, a commecial version of the much admired OS called UNIX. It was designed as a multi-user operating system from the beginning. Its only modern OS eqivalent that is even more widely available and in use (and free to reverse-engineer and add to)is of course Linus Torvald's reworking of the same into the Linux OS!

Microsoft's Windows Operating systems have only ever been attemping to equal the structure and utility of UNIX. As most pros and techies alike know, MS Windows has for the greater part of its history been a minefield of system security issues. With UNIX and the more popular Linux, the Command Line or Terminal mode is more detailed and powerful than the GUI whether KDE or Gnome. In relation, MS Windows has reduced the once useable and effective DOS command Line prompt to almost a ghost of its ealier incarnations. It is now left looking inadequate and overlooked by comparison.

Anyway, its been fun... Remember, think for yourself. Don't let Microsoft, or for that matter Apple blind you with spin because it's never what its made out to be when examined critically by those with time and experience rather than just and impulse and more money than sense...

Happy_Joe: don't get me wrong I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

Perhaps in my haste I neglected to clarify my position: I am a media professional who simply use computers, both PCs and Macs, to do my job and see everything I use for the benefits and flaws it has.

I use Windows XP on my PCs and OSX on my Macs and given Microsoft's attempts to move everybody to Vista I have had a play with that as well on a variety of systems. As a result I'd like to think that I have good access to compare all these pieces of kit, and from what I've seen and used there is simply no argument anybody can give that would convince me Vista is any good. Citing my quad-core motherbeast was intended to be nothing more than an example that even with such power at its disposal, 64-bit Vista still operated like a pig, even with the "improvements" S1 was supposed to make.

To be honest, comparing Vista and OSX is like comparing apples and monkeys anyway, however it's adsd's comments of "Vista is fast, stable and way more flexible than OSX" that I find laughable, as is the notion that Apple is great when you "don't know what you're doing".

Hence my post.

Every OS is designed to be as user-friendly to newbies as possible while still providing access to the underlying power available to experts, however I have yet to see Vista offering that facility.

In a nutshell, Vista has failed on every level and is a waste of time and there's simply no arguement that can change it. Bringing comparisons to OSX into the mix just damage pro-Vista arguments even more.

Roll on Vienna!

^^ I've installed and built lots of Vista machines, all of which are fast AND stable. You can turn off the uac alerts you know. All the anti MS sh*t just for the sake of it is getting annoying. If you like Macs, great good for you, go buy one. If you have trouble getting Vista fast/stable on a quad with 8gb I think you need to think about getting another hobby.....

Yes I know you can turn off the UAC alerts, but I know what I'm doing - how does newbie John feel when practically every action he does results in his computer asking "are you sure you did that?", especially when some actions can generate 3 different comfirmation requests in a row.

But since when does an opinion based on personal experience of ONE MS OS make me a MS hater? And given that this is a discussion based on a news story and in response to original comments, I hardly think that any negative comments offered are "for the sake of it".

You tell me one thing I've said that's a sweeping anti-MS statement and I'll correct it or take it back, but suggesting something that simply is not the case just because I have an anti-Vista opinion and offered counter-points to the original anti-OSX comments really is more argumentative, fanboi and even troll-worthy than anything I've said.

Oh, and I shouldn't have to do anything to make Vista stable. I would understand if I'd messed about with it, but to have a fresh install out of the box on brand new hardware that ran gloriously under 64-bit XP to grind so horribly, crash so often and drain significant resources does not inspire confidence, further lessened by the number of other systems we all had a go with.

If you have Vista working fine then good for you, I'm glad it's worked for somebody. I'll just hang back with XP until a) I actually need DX10 b) real-time glass effects are actually worth paying for c) Vienna comes out.

Hi, I'm an infrastructure architect from a large enterprise.

Our perspective: XP has been great; manageable and stable. There is no compelling case to move to Vista. It's prettier, a little, but in terms of user productivity it's equivalent - perhaps even a retrograde whilst we retrain less technical users on a new interface.

In addition, most of our applications are built with server-based cross-platform web interfaces. That's a big deal. It hardly even matters what the client OS is, any more. We can pick and choose between them.

In point of fact, we've seen the early briefings for Apple's "Snow Leopard" OS X Server and got the hint: Apple are going after the enterprise market now. Look at the groupware upgrades in particular.

Plus, the next generation of the workforce - aka "Generation V" - has grown up with what we've been calling "Ubiquitous Computing"; every device is a computer now; everyone high school student has a facebook or myspace page. Heck, an iPhone has more MIPS than our soon-to-be-retired mainframe (okay it falls short in the I/O stakes). The point is, Apple is the clear leader in this area. In our estimation, Generation V would rather have an iMac than a PC on their desktop and rather have a company iPhone than a Blackberry or Nokia. And as an organisation that wants to attract bright young talent, we'll respond to that.

Even that bastion of conservative computing, Gartner, agrees that Apple will increase enterprise market share in the next two financial years.

Microsoft have never been a technology leader; their great strength has been to recognise trends, and productize and market them effectively. Obviously even this requires substantial top-tier engineering talent. But I believe the lack of a compelling case for Vista, or even for Office 2007, has ended the grip MS had on the market.

Hot tip: buy Apple stock.

I'd like to add that my desktop PC is currently attached via 4GBit fibrechannel to volumes on a 80TB Hitachi 9990 RAID10 storage array with 15KRPM drives and 32GB of storage cache, via a pair of Brocade 48000 non-blocking fabric directors.

Disk performance: scorching.
Cost: astronomical. several million bucks.

No, I don't get to keep it. It's for a data warehouse project. But it's been fun to plug the desktop into :-)

I use windows since 3.11. By far the best windows is XP. It's release version had some issues but everything was sorted on SP1.
Windows Vista is a joke. I'm using Vista only because of DX10. If they manage to hack DX10 on XP I will throw Vista in the garbage can without second though.
My vista uses 1 Giga RAM while my XP version uses only 130 Mega. This is an insult. what the hell Microsoft did with vista? I bet all the libraries are being loaded into the memory just to make it run faster.

( And lots of other issues i removed because this post was getting to long )

OK now you may be thinking about how MacOS is better or Linux is fantastic. Actually no. MacOS could be better at start but is just a matter of time until you notice that all softwares you want and the ones your friends are talking about won't run on MacOS(Ask how many MacOS users have a Windows VM or a emulator on their computers).
Linux is a joke. It takes years to install, to go through all packages you need, gather all the beta drivers available(if there are any) and when you finally manages to have it properly running(if you manages) you will see the range of features it lacks. I'm talking about from basic stuff like customizing your mouse settings to profissional softwares you required. You will run Linux for 2 weeks most and have windows installed back. I remember a friend who was running Linux on his work laptop just to look "cleaver" and on the background a Windows VM installed to be able to access his work email via outlook.

BTW my office machine ( XP ) is running without restarting for longer than 8 months. I managed to make it run using 90 M RAM only.

@Lephuronn

Vista crashing? - you are either exaggerating or you have a hardware problem. Whatever else might be wrong with Vista crashing is not a problem. It is slow, bloated and looks hideous, the UAC idea was poorly implemented and driver support on release was pathetic. Indexing for fast search was a good idea but the price appeared to be ridiculously long copy and move times. But crashing is not something that it suffers from.

I might try it again now that SP1 is available but I probably won't bother because there is nothing I need to do that xp doesn't handle.

Vista's basic problem is that it is completely uneccessary given the existence of XP.

@nafurahi

Microsoft products are always different things to different people. My XP builds have always been stable as a rock with the exception of one Athlon XP which has never worked properly. In contrast my gf and family members have always had problems with their XPs.

By the same token my experience with Vista is the same. A few of us built a number of different systems and Vista SP1 was never massively reliable - long hangs, 100% CPU usage for no apparent reason and even the occassional total lock-up. We ruled out hardware issues and defective install media yet just never got the reliabiity or the performance.

So, as I've said before, if your Vista installs are fine then good for you, but in my experience and line of work, Vista simply is not a viable option and a waste of time.

@LePhuronn
Wth, are you talking about??? Since when is Vista not running stable and fast? I'm running Vista 64 Enterprise (legal copy) on my workstation with an Intel Quadcore and 8GB Ram with the page file turned off - which makes it faster! And you know for what I'm using it? For 3D ANIMATION and MODELLING!!! So don't come and tell me that you got to use Mac's because you work with Media!!! Oh by the way, if you got no clue how to deactivate UAC, then you really shouldn't be using a Pc anyway!

OK, how many times do I have to say this: MY Vista has always played up. If yours works then good for you and I'm glad you like it, but for ME it has always been a problem.

Clear? How can I spell this out any better, or do I have to wrap it up in an Aero interface for you to take notice?

I'm so happy that your 3D rig works wonderfully Element2k3. I really am. My 3D and motion graphics rig works wonderfully now that I've moved it back to XP64.

And since f*cking when did I say I use Macs because I'm in media? Where did I say "only proper media guys use Macs"? If you could be bothered to read what I said instead of making ill-informed, half-assed remarks just because my viewpoint is counter-Vista, you'll find I said I use BOTH PCs and Macs.

Similarly, you'd also find that I never said I couldn't switch off UAC - I'm not a moron - I was MERELY offering the point that if power users have to resort to switching off UAC and have the knowledge to do so, how must Joe Average feel when they're not sure what they're doing and are stuck with it?

Now are we all on the same page here? Do you all now understand what I am saying? If you like Vista then fine but please don't start going argumentative, half-assed fanboi accusing me of being Mac elitist or some UAC retard just because I don't f*cking like the thing.

Good god if Tom's UK's failing quality isn't enough to put you off coming here then the patrons will...

If we stick to talking about our own experiences then we can say anything. My OSX crashes every 5 secs then explodes my mac. Of course its just mine im sure yours is fine. Point is Vista has had alot of negative press from a lot of people who dont like change or just listened to the opinions of others without trying it for themselves for more than a month. I found vista SP1 to be comparably fast to XP, very stable and it brought many little features that I find to be genually usefull.

For example the seperation of apps from the Kernel so if an app crashes it doesnt take everything down with it was excellent. Most of the bad press has come from bad drivers in my experience, something for which i dont think microsoft should be held accountable.

Honesty time, I justed Macs a total of 4 or 5 times at m8's house or the library. I didnt like it. It wasnt what i was used to and I found it to be slower. It was prob slower cos they werent very good Macs, in comparison to my home built PC. Point being I cant compare the 2 systems/Operating Systems fairly. But I can say that many of the so called problems of vista have an easy fix or arent there at all.

BTW every UAC window has a link as to how to turn it off.

Can anyone give a good reason to switch from Vista to XP? I can't actually think of one. Vista isn't rubbish by any means but how will Vista make a person more productive than using XP? Answer it won't. What is the compelling reason to change from XP to Vista? The reason it seems is because Vista is something new as we've had XP for 7 years now. That's not a good enough reason to change to Vista though. The same goes for OSX, I happen to think it's an excellent OS but there's no compelling reason to switch to a mac unless you work in an industry where the mac is the industry standard e.g. Audio production.

The best thing about Linux is it's free, the worst thing about Linux is that it's not for the average computer user. Yes it works great to browse the net and do basic things that an average user would want, but as soon as they want to add or change a driver or do something that's easy with XP they soon come unstuck as Linux is at the bottom of the pile for user friendliness. Linux needs a heck of a lot of work in this area for average users to adopt it en masse.

I like XP, Linux and OSX. Vista as I've said is perfectly fine, just it has no place on my desktop pc as there's absolutely nothing that it does to improve my productivity over XP and that's the main 'failing' of Vista. You can argue Vista is more secure etc, but any one who knows how to use XP.

What is Vista's killer feature that makes you jump up and say goddamn I must wipe XP from my pc and my life and migrate to the full fat goodness of Vista? Who took the fat out of my Vista and made it semi skimmed? Answers on a postcard to the usual address.

"but any one who knows how to use XP." can secure it.

It was late that's my excuse

The only people I know who have willingly adopted Vista are gamers, and that's purely because of its DX10 functionality. Other than that I have yet to see a compelling reason for migrating from XP. In fact the only reason I use XP at all is to burn downloaded .nrg files in Nero and play Trackmania - my MacBook and Xbox 360 do everything else I could wish for ;-)

LePhuronn, don't try an argue with the Vista Fanbois. Competing in special olympics - win or loose, etc... Even the MS fanatics at work think Vista sucks for numerous reasons, most of them complaining about inefficient/slow UI.
I was suprised so see anyone was fanatically devoted to praising Vista as I never seen one in real life. I guess it relates to something I noticed many years ago.
People 100% occupied keeping up with one technology often feels technology-stress. They will praise what they devote 100% of their time on and emotionally argue against anything else (like the "you're incompetent" attacks we seen).
Otherwise they might have no choice but to try and analyse other technologies in order to get valid comparisons. But being 100% occupied with trying to get the grips of one technology already, spreading the time to 80/20 (or 50/20/20/10 or whatever) would only increase the stress they feel at not being able to keep up, plus add the stress you may feel when you start out as a "clueless newbie" with something completely new.

So just realize the problems they battling and be nice to them.

lol@Anonymouz

True, very true.