Hardware, zap2

HardWare is not the main thing, i(assume many others) would rather have a Mac Mini running OS X then a Duel Xeon running Windows 95

Click to expand...

I didn't want to drag the other fellow's thread off-topic so I created a new one.

First and foremost, zap, that is an incredibly skewed comparison; essentially like comparing apples and office furniture. The fellow in the other thread wasn't going to be buying a machine running Windows 95. And yes, I realize it was just a hypothetical.

I, of course, would have rather have a Mac Mini running OS X than a dual Xeon running WindowsXP (95 and 98 never supported SMP, btw)! But that comparison works both ways - would you rather have a Mac Mini running OS9 or a kitted-out AthlonFX box running a tight installation of WindowsXP?

Zap, I really do understand what you're getting at, but you're not making a fair comparison, either. An operating system is absolutely meaningless without the hardware that runs it. And for those of us who enjoy building our own systems, the Wintel platform (alas) offers an advantage. But in sheer usability and enjoyable experience, OSX is the clear winner by a long shot.

That doesn't mean hardware isn't the major factor in computer performance. The entire "computing experience," if you will, is one thing - raw performance is quite another.

Of course, HardWare by itself will do little, as will an OS by itself,but IMO the OS is more important then hardware(which means a Mac with lower spec is still better then a XP box with nice specs). I guess it comes down to personaly choice but i find the OS as the most thing.