Originally posted by j763
Mac OS X does not "tax" processors at all! Where'd you get that from?
Oh, indeed it does tax the processors a lot! I'm not saying just the PowerPC G4, but also the GPU, the memory controller, etc. because Mac OS X is so damn big and the GUI is so bloated so it requires a gigahertz G4 and 2GB RAM to run Mac OS X's GUI as fast as Windows XP's on a 500 MHz PIII.
That's the entire point! Windows XP is incredibly bloated and has a massive overhead. As much as M$ like to pretend that there's not, there is in fact still a DOS system layer in there. M$ has got tons of layers in there... What happens when one gets busy? You wait.
Tell me again, WHAT massive overhead? Mac OS X has an incredibly slow microkernel, a slow UNIX, a slow processor. DOS doesn't exist on NT at all, just a "command line" (cmd.exe) window that people rarely run and programs rarely require. Yes, Microsoft's OS has a lot of layers, but so does Mac OS X. In fact, a PII 300 MHz or so would run Windows XP just fine, let's see, I'd need a 1 GHz G4 to run OS X satisfactorily. I've overflowed my Windows XP available RAM (I have 512MB, and have hit nearly 1GB with so many programs open and yet it's responsive, never had to wait because my processor is so much faster than the G4s. I'd be lucky to get that kind of performance out of Mac OS X on a "fast" 1 GHz. Just my experience.
That's why the Macs don't look so incredibly slow compared to machines running Windows -- Windows is so damn inefficient. You throw Linux on a PC and wow. Goodbye OS X.
Yeah, when I interact with a Mac it's all slow thanks to the PowerPC G4's status plus Mac OS X's overheads and so on, yet I'm much more productive on a PC (for now).
And Linux, as a desktop OS, haha, you've got to be kidding me. It's not going there anytime soon. Stick with Linux for servers.
You make that assumption based on what? I have actually used it FYI.
So you've used Longhorn? Where did you get it from? On what hardware did you install it on? etc.
um... who makes their decision as to what OS to use based on what the fricking sidebar or dock is like???
If their dock proves to be more useful than a competitors, then that's the benefit and my money is to that company who makes more useful products. PC's have been cheaper for me, more productive for me, faster, and provide the same level, if not more, of "usability."
The Mac OS X DP's were *far* more promising than this thing is. And as we all know, M$'s actual releases are *so different* to their alphas 
Yeah, because they've gone so far in the development cycle. When Windows XP was in alpha, it wasn't that much different from Windows 2000. But what do we have now? A different beast. That's a good thing. In fact, if I recall correctly, Mac OS X 10.0 and 10.1 did not have a GUI for a firewall, it was introduced in 10.2. Yet Windows XP had that in late 2001.
Btw, stike, in the About Windows for Windows Longhorn, it says version 2003. Who knows. It might be late 2003. No one knows yet what the final release date will be. 2005 is just an old date that the original NT 6.0 was scheduled for, but since they dropped 5.2 and moving straight to 6.0. It could be earlier.
Now back to kicking Motorola's ass for not producing faster G4s and waiting for the next Mac OS X version as it should be much more refined in speed and usability.
Some people just have higher expectations, some have lower expectations.
