Well in THAT case then yes Mac OS has a superior "OOTB" experience, but that's redundant, cause it's not hard to install the added driver cds. =P

I've also found that with Vista I haven't needed any of my other driver cds. It managed to install my G15, G9, etc all on it's own. The only thing I needed drivers for was my wireless card off the cd. Was impressed with that, XP needed drivers for everything. =]

PC forever. =P I'm a gamer, so I don't have much of a choice anyway. But I personally find Mac's OS look/layout to be rather shabby looking, and slighly ugly. =|

What the hoot?

Dude, shut off your motormouth.

It is not up for you to say that.

Important thing is, to let people decide what's the best for their usage, such as apple laptop.

And you [censored] didn't mention anything about linux.

And more like 70% of games on pc, you dumb---

lol - f****p you *****. i can say whatever i want, and myself and Rick resolved our debate perfectly fine without you needing to add your useless two cents.

oh wow, let's be specific with percentages, it was a general statement I was making. And yes in that circumstance, that means Linux is superior to both Mac and PC, but because the issue was about Mac VS PC I didn't see the need to include it.

Terribly sorry, I'll make sure to include every minor, accurate and irrelevant detail in the future for all the few k**bs out that who lurk this board. =]

I'd like to voice comment on this one too. Personally i think that there is no real 'better' OS. One OS is better at the other in many other things.

For starters, i feel that if you want customisability and basically alot of things to fiddle around with, and also perhaps do some intense gaming, PC is definitely the way.

For Mac, i think its more suited for the simple computer user, who does word processing, listening to music, basically do what a PC does in essence and not worry bout anything else, that includes viruses.

HOWEVER, with the PC, if you know your way around it it can provide the same amount of service and more, but thats only if you know how to maintain it well and also work your way around its kinks >_> by no mean is XP or any windows operating system perfect. The number of times it makes my Photoshop CS3 crash on me is just frustrating... yet i wouldn't trade it in for a mac because for starters i know it can do much more than a mac, and i don't really need that level of simplicity, as i myself am sort of a hardware enthusiast.

Secondly, i think that even if i were to get a mac i'd think again. I did mention that macs would be used for the simpler aspects of computing, but i also think that the free Linux OSes such as Ubuntu, Fedora, or any other linux distro can do the same, and you don't need to pay the insane prices of a mac book.

Personally, i think Mac is just a fad, just like the ipod. Its a symbol more than a machine itself and its bought for that purpose. Thats just my view, and if you can prove me wrong i'd be delighted to hear your *VALID* reasons.

Though I have never really used a MAC (though I bought my first computer 1982 so I would say I am fairly experienced PC user... well when I say computer I mean it in its loosest form as it was a ZX81) and I use to hate MAC and its users with a vengeance in the 90ties (since then I have slightly matured). But I remember my first IT Admin job where I introduced a PC only policy so I could get rid of all the macs

Anyway to say "i think its more suited for the simple computer user" I think is doing mac users in justice.

I think what has always appealed to me about PCs is that you can take them apart, tweak every aspect of them. To try to squeeze out a bit more power, though I always use the argument that I need a more frames per second for games in reality is the tinkering a goal in it self. And I think that is true for many "advanced" PC users. So though when I say I am an advanced PC user, I never actually mean I do anything particularly advanced computing with my computers
All my computer usage is about maximizing the performance out of the existing hardware/software, without actually using that power for anything else but games.

When I hear of MAC users who just get on with their computers, no BSDs etc I always think Apple has got it far more right then Windows. But it think the issue for MS has always been that there is no standard set of hardware.

So in my humble opinion these days I would recommend a MAC to people who just want to use it for just what it is and perhaps that is "simple" users though I think that is slightly unfair.
And if you love tinkering pushing the system etc, and you dont mind that every now and then you will have to rebuild the system then PCs are ones to go for.
Though after running FreeNAS off an USB stick am I starting to get more and more tempted by Linux, if it wasnt for my beloved games. Especially as Linux requires even more tinkering than Windows.

Well that is just my 5 pence worth

Isn't this all "apples an oranges", when you consider that OSX is built for a specific platform. So "OOTB" operation is both expected and required. Windows runs on an open hardware spec roughly based around x86/x64 architecture. Despite this an installation of Windows tends to install/run relatively trouble free with maybe the odd problem due to a particular device not being supported. But isn't this to be expected when Windows has to cope with millions of different possible combinations of hardware, whereas OSX only has to deal with... well a Mac of some kind that it has already been tested on anyway?!

@jonisaksson: Alas this is what the thread needs, more unbiased commenting. I agree with you all the way, despite the fact its pretty much reiterating what i just said

Julio, shouldn't you have brought the padlock?:haha: