A Skinny PC, Fat with Features

Once again, Macs fail.

once again, linux saves the day. they really need to make a simpler more user friendly version of wine or something, then the linux penguin could rule the world with a soft fin...

Linux can be kinda cool if you like to tinker, but putting Vista on anything pretty much junks it.

Still, it's not an Apple machine and falls short in the quality department.

Ummm - I think the point here is missed entirely. It's the operating system that is the Mac's main appeal. Yeah, it is cool and hippy chicks dig it, but the fact is, it is simply a tool. As a former MS systems engineer, I spent many years badmouthing the Mac and Apple. I couldn't get beyond the whole Prius and Birkenstock thing. Once I started using the Mac operating system however, I began to understand the appeal. The simple fact is that with the Mac OS, I'm not conscious of the machine, and can therefore put all of my focus on the project at hand. The computer serves its rightful purpose as a tool, nothing more. If it looks great, and makes hippy chicks think that I am cool, then that is just gravy. Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't get that, and believes that everyone who uses a computer wants to understand the inner workings of their PC. In fact, with Vista, the computer practically demands that you acknowledge it. It has become an entity unto itself...a two-year-old child screaming to be the center of attention. I like Linux, but I'm a geek. There is no doubt that the Voodoo looks awesome, but Linux notwithstanding, no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it will still be a pig. Besides, when I'm feeling lonesome for MS, or I just want frustration, I can fire up Fusion on my Mac and change the screaming two-year-old's diaper.

As an MS Engineer, surely you learned early on that a computer is only as good as the applications you can run on it.
The whole Apple/Microsoft thing is fun but growing more tedious.
Apple and Microsoft are not even in the same business.
Apple is a hardware maker. They make computers, IPods, IPhones and I-Whatever-else.
Microsoft is a software company. They make applcations and programs.

The estimate is that there are fewer than two thousand applications that you can run on a Mac.
There are over 5 million applications (including shareware) that you can run on various Windows platforms, and believe me, not every programmer takes that precautions necessary to keep your operating system safe. I always thought that Vista came to being for this very reason. I can only imagine that Microsoft is sick and tired of hearing about how the operating system crashes all the time; how the boot time is soooo slow. Microsoft has to take some of the blame but in my experience in the IT field, most people are very cavelier about what they will load up on their home computers, and often it is poorly written software that will swap out vital Windows drivers and crash the system. I work in a corporate environment on workstations running XP and Vista and they never crash. They run stable software, nobody is tinkering with them or tweaking them to death.
I'm a fan of Apple - I'm a fan of any OS that allows you to be more productive and give you accessibilty to the newest software. Vista IS a paranoid operating system for people who need to be constantly reminded that the software they load, the changes that are made to the registry can be costly and it is a worthy the warning, even if it is a pain in the ass.

Computers are productivity tools. If they get you laid, all the better but in the end, they are tools to fascillitate the ease of processing data and information (and having fun too). Everything else is idiotic vanity.

To claim that Windows platforms are some how superior due to the sheer numbers of applications available to run on them strikes me as somewhat of a shallow argument. I'm sure that there are over 5 million applications available to run on Windows platforms, but I would argue that for the average user, 4,999,900 of them are of little or no use. I agree that Windows can be a solid platform provided it is configured correctly and locked down tighter than a gnat's patootie. Given that standard though, doesn't the number of applications available become irrelevant since in order to ensure rock-steady performance, limits must be placed on what users can and can't install on a particular machine? In fact, isn't the best policy simply to impose a standard applications suite for use across the enterprise and deny users the rights necessary to screw things up?

That said, it was never my intention to rehash the Apple vs. MS argument. My objection is with the Voodoo being described as a "Mac Air killer". I believe that by describing it as such, the author misses the point of the Mac entirely. Yes, I am sure that there are plenty of people who will buy the Mac Air out of a desire for status. Among early adopters, that number probably approaches 100 percent. I'm a Mac OS user, and I'm extremely happy with what it does, but I am by no means a cultist. The limitations of the Mac Air are legion and I harbor no illusions as to its capabilities. In one respect however, it will always be superior to the Voodoo, and that is its ability to run the Mac OS as well as Windows and Linux. For this reason and this reason alone, the Mac Air gets my vote. Now, you get that Voodoo sucker to run OS X and we'll be having a different conversation. Either way, you won't catch me in Birkenstocks, but I'm still partial to hippie chicks.

first off i'd like to say i use both vista and Mac osx and like them both. i am a video editor hence i need both. i only own a vista computer mainly because they are cheaper for better performance (graphics and video acceleration). but i work on a mac on a regular basis.
The difference between programs is a big deal for me... i could not live without vista because some of my main editing tool are not compatible with mac.
there is really only one thing i like more in the mac than vista, and that is speed.... but this is not a big enough deal for me to pay an extra $600 for a computer!
NOTE* there is a way to dualboot mac osx on a microsoft computer-its called hackintosh...is it legal? i have no clue and dont use it but its supposed to be an exact copy of mac osx leopard... so the air has no bragging rights in that field...
when it comes down to it MS is just more compatible (at the time) and i believe it to be more stylish as well. i like the unlimited visual potential with vista.
all this said, mac is coming along though and i will definitely be purchasing one in the near future but for the money vista is just better...

If you are reading this, you have been BURNINATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The reason ultra portable were designed was to make them lighter, smaller, and basiclly more convient. However, both laptops lack one crucial component, and optical drive! I want to play CDs and DVDs so I can store music on it! I don't careif it run OSX or Vista or whatever. I just want to listen to music!

well...JL seems to have the whole Mac/MS thing covered. I just want to point out a few other points. (1) I agree w/ Trogdor-they need CD/DVD drives!! Most of the fun I have on my Windows Vista is because of the games I can play and the movies I can watch!(Vista has awesome color for movies). (2) I also agree w/ JL on the fact that most Windows programs are pointless. (3) Mac should stick to iPods and iPhones cuz those bring in tons of cash. Just face it-there are way more Windows users than Mac-Windows is just more apealing to the public for some reason(don't ask me why-i didn't interview the whole 6billion people in the world).

PS: JL-ur funny-i like the ongoing Hippie Chick joke =)