1) Plug & Play - Windows' device manager actually shows me when a device is present, and exactly what its status is. And the 12,000+ devices supported out of the box by the latest Windows releases is far, far greater number than the Mac's paltry few. Windows advantage x 2
Bandwagon logical error.
2) Adding Peripherals - Show me a mainstream Windows box with less expansion potential than an iMac. Show me a market-leading peripheral that doesn't support Windows. Windows advantage x 2.
Right. The iMac is for consumers. Compare it to the easy open, quick to upgrade, G4 or the Xserve.
3) Driver Management - Every windows driver can be added and removed via a single control panel. The latest windows releases have system file protection and require driver signing to ensure that old drivers don't corrupt the system. There's a driver rollback to automatically restore the old driver, should the new one cause problems. The Mac has none of these features. Windows advantage x 4
Old drivers don't corrupt the system. I have never had the experience of a driver ever corrupting my Macintosh. Typically, all necessary drivers come with the OS, anyways in the Mac.
4) Integrated User Interface - What should we compare? Aqua versus Luna? Windows Me vs. Mac OS 9.1? Each has advantages. I will, however, say that Aqua requires more relearning than Luna, and at least Windows XP lets users revert to the old familiar Windows interface if they don't want to learn a new interface. Considering all the complaints I've seen about some of Aqua's design decisions, perhaps Apple should offer this option, too. Windows advantage x 2
Amusingly enough, we all know that Luna is a copy of Aqua. So, for Aqua sucking ... what would that say about an ill-concieved copy?
5) No 'Mystery' Files - A moot point. They both have lots. However, Windows can arbitrarily hide or show file type identifiers and protected system files. The Mac cannot. And the Windows installer doesn't overwrite and break symbolic links the way the one in Mac OS X does. Windows advantage x 2.
I will agree on this point. However, Mac OS X can show file type identifiers as well. Get info, show file extension. Not that hard. As for protected files, is that a feature you'd want to have easy access to? I mean, especially for new users, the risk of screwing up one's system rises. In Mac Os X, to see invisible files, on can enable the root account - almost guranteeing they would be a technical user, access the files through terminal or use Tinkertool.
6) More Versatile Networking - Internet Connection Sharing, VPN, NetBeui, AppleTalk, FTP, Web services, Vines, TCP/IP, IPX, and a ton of others are directly supported by Windows 2000. Netmeeting (or the new Remote Assistance) allows remote app sharing and document sharing, instant chat, and more. Then, there's the other Windows features: multiuser Terminal Services, multihoming, tunneling, DNS services, etc., etc. Windows is WAY, way ahead here. But, with its Unix-based underpinnings, Mac OS X is no slouch, either.
For being as old as it is, UNIX still is a competitor to even the most modern of MS operating systems? You'd think, after 30 or so years, that architecture would have died, right? Just goes to show how much "better" MS is.
7) Flexible Monitor Support - I'm not aware of any significant difference in multimonitor support at this point. But PC graphics cards are provably faster, and PCs tend to be better at switching resolutions on the fly. My dual 500 MHz G4 and 22" Cinema Display often get stuck at a lower res after playing a game or a movie. And yes, Windows supports the widescreen 1600x1024 resolution of the Cinema Display and similar panoramic format flat panels.
That's a Hardware issue, not an OS issue. However, Apple - as you know - has been using top of the line cards from GeForce, such as the GeForce3 and 4. In fact, the GeForce 3 was first demo'ed on a Mac!
8) Better Telephony Support - Windows can "gang" several modems and aggregate their bandwidth. Windows can share a single dial-up internet connection between several computers. (Actually, Mac OS X can do this, too, but it's fairly complicated to configure without a program such as BrickHouse.) Windows has built in utilities for performing TraceRoute, PING and FTP functions. Does the Mac?
The Mac (duh!) based on UNIX, of course, has such Utilities. Also, we have Network Utility . And, you, youself admitted that the Mac has the same advantage.
9) Easier Installation - Both Macs and PCs can boot an installer from a CD. For me, a more meaningful distinction is the fact that I can boot a PC and enable recording to CD-R or copying files over a network with a single floppy disk. I can't do that on a Mac.
Two words: Boot ROM.
10) Ready for year 2000 - The Mac was better equipped for this, to be sure.
We knew that the Millenium was going to end. Guess you guys were clinging to the past.
11) No Registries - I have two complaints with "anti-Registry" arguments. The Mac's desktop database, while fundamentally different in some ways, isn't necessarily easier to manage. In fact, being invisible by default, and requiring a "rebuild desktop" operation to work properly from time to time, makes the Mac desktop more idiosyncratic in some ways. Yes, the Windows registry is big and complicated, but it's readily editable and all the necessary tools are provided in the operating system. Apple's "Resedit" remains an unsupported hack. And at least Windows gives you the ability to back up, edit and restore the registry. Apple pretends ResEdit doesn't exist. And why is a registry a bad thing? It allows object linking and embedding, interapplication communication, and other advantages that would have appeared in OpenDoc, had it ever made it beyond Apple's tentative steps in a few mid-nineties Mac OS releases.
A registry is a bad thing in that one bad install can corrupt not only the program associated with that install, but others as well - throught the registry. Also, you switch argumentive points. First, you bash OS X, then OS 9. Pick one OS. OS X doesn't have the Desktop database.
12) Boot from CD-ROM - Every PC I know of can do this, and recent Windows retail and upgrade CDs are not hardware-specific. They work on virtually all PCs. It's easier to create a bootable CD on a PC than a Mac, too. And PC CDs can have longer file names than those on the Mac. And CD Extra discs are easy to create on a PC (and very, very tough with Toast.)
Again, your arguments are a joke. It's sort of unfair to use inconsistant comparisons. The Mac supports more characters, in different language scripts, in various levels of capitalization than a PC. And, long file names are supported as well. Try naming a file " " on a PC. Try giving it a /. Try doing any of that on a PC. The only non-supported character in Mac file names is the colon.
13) Dependable Aliases - The Mac is still ahead here, thanks to the invisible desktop database. The Windows PC's ability to automatically search for missing executables is nice, though. And the Mac desktop database has a few issues of its own, such as what happens when apps have been removed and it needs rebuilding, or applications are not available to open registered document types.
OS 9 argument. No comment. Apple says OS 9 is dead!
14) Easier OS Management - The Mac lacks a single control panel for adding and removing all programs. The Mac lacks a single control panel that reveals the presence and status of all devices (Apple System, Profiler is not bad, though.). The Mac is behind here, in my opinion.
System Preferences = Single Control Panel. As for adding/removing programs, the typical Mac application (Cocoa) is one file. You tell me: drag a file to the trash and empty it, or run an "uninstaller"? Hmm.... I will admit, however, that preference file clutter can sometimes result.
15) No DLL Problems - Realistically, both systems have problems here. However, Windows 2000's system file protection and driver signing is an attempt to minimize these issues. Mac OS X's inability to easily uninstall hotfixes makes Apple's "Software Update" pretty much a one-way ticket.
Good point. Typically, though, Mac OS installs are pretty stable and there's no need for a roll back. MS, on the other hand is constantly releasing service packs and patches for their (infamously) buggy software.
