Rarely do I post private comments, but this time I can't resist. On the Mac user alias someone posted a link to this blog entry from PC World, which is so ridiculously flawed that I couldn't help but write this response:
I stopped reading PC World, which I had subscribed to at one point, a while back, and after reading this blog entry, I'm even more glad I did. So much erroneous BS disguised as journalism is disgusting.I hope Microsoft pays you a good amount of money for ruining your reputation as a reporter with this completely idiotic entry.
After many years of DOS and Windows up to Vista, I switched to MAC OS last year and never looked back. I rarely switch on my PC at home anymore, and if I do, I find several virus programs asking me to download the newest patches.
Let's start with the cost. I had the opportunity to run Vista for free in the beta program. I ran the installer over my hardware and it came back complaining that the PC running Windows XP was insufficient to run Vista. I needed a new graphics card, more memory and a faster CPU. So what are you comparing here, Mister? We all know that a license for Leopard is cheaper than a license for Vista. We also know that VISTA doesn't have features like Time Machine, and that one would have to buy expensive third party software to run a decent backup. So you are assuming you have to buy a new Mac to run Leopard, just like you have when you want to "upgrade" from Windows XP to Vista. Wrong again. My first MAC was a MAC mini my wife bought me as a gift. It came with Tiger and I bought a $79 upgrade to Leopard, which runs w/o problems - much less upgrade pain than from XP to Vista.
I think you just don't know what you are talking about!
I eventually did get VISTA when I bought a Laptop. What a pain. Much of the drivers that worked with XP didn't work with Vista, so now I couldn't use my print server, my multi function printer and my scanner anymore. My Netgear NAS backup wouldn't work because they didn't have drivers for Vista. On top of that, some of the software I use for scientific work (SPSS, Endnote) wasn't available for VISTA. I ended up giving the Laptop to my wife, and now use a Macbook pro. And guess what: I open it and can just work. No 10 minutes waiting until it finally lets me do what I brought it for. I also like that every application has to ask for permission to be installed. Can you imagine Windows without spyware and useless gadgets that you don't have to download because all comes with the OS. But I also like that I can after installation work w/o giving permission all the time, like on VISTA.
Anyway. You are right that Leopard is not open. Apple and Microsoft are brothers in arms against open source. Apple is even a bit more ruthless. because they took BSD and gave it a pretty face so they can charge for it, whereas Microsoft developed VISTA on their own dime. But - calling Vista open is like calling waterboarding a recreational activity. No, Mac OS is not open, but it works. And if I have to chose between proprietary, doesn't work, and proprietary, works, I take the latter. Oh, Sir, if you are looking for open source, ever heard of Open Solaris or Linux?
I'm not a militant Mac user, and I wear collared shirts at work. But I'm a recent converted and know both worlds, and boy am I glad I did get to experience a Mac. It cost a little more upfront, but you save a lot of money and grief down the road. I wish next time before you'll write an article, you did something that real Journalists call "research".
![[my boss] about public sector (Government, Education and Health care)](http://www.unitedfeatures.com/ufs/images/comics/characters/cast_dilbert_The_Boss_sm.gif)
