JonB2004 wrote: Microsoft has designed Windows Vista. Its got a nice interface... and I can't really think of anything good.
Apple has designed Mac OS X. Mac OS X has a better looking interface than Windows Vista, it has super-low system requirements, it boots up fast on any computer and its extremely stable. Plus, most Windows applications are now designed to work on a Mac.
Now which one sounds better. Its pretty easy to see.
These are the Windows Vista minimum system requirements.
-A 800 Mhz processor
-512 MB RAM
-A 32 MB GPU
-11 GB of free hard disk space for installation
These are the Mac OS X minimum system requirements.
-A 300 Mhz G3 processor
-256 MB RAM
-4 GB of free hard disk space for installation
This only reaffirms what I've thought for many years now: Apple's Mac OS is light years ahead of MS Windows. I'm no Mac evangelist, I own both PCs and Macs and use both for work, and after working with computers for nearly a decade I still find very few redeeming qualities with the Windows OS.
I've tried the Windows Vista beta, it is no quantum leap (ahead of XP), and doesn't even come close to Tiger. Fair enough, Vista is still only in beta. On the other hand, I did try OSX 10.4 when it was in beta, and even in its early stages it was far more impressive than Vista is now.
Rather than attempt to innovate for a change, Microsoft has stuck to its (so far) successful strategy of copying features from other software programs. There's nothing wrong with this, in fact Microsoft has often improved on software features its reappropriated. However, this strategy doesn't always work. Just look at Vista's answer to Spotlight: it's sluggish and thoroughly disappointing.
11 GB to install an OS? That's ridiculous no matter how you look at it.