chadlybear, just because you claim to beta test for MS doesn't mean your opinion means any more than someone who doesn't. For all we know you got Beta 1 off of IRC, and your really a warezbaby. The fact of the matter is, Paul's article is pointless and meaningless. Apple doesn't have a viable version of OS X that can run on a PC and that they are willing to sell as software. In the future, maybe. But for now, if you want OS X you have to buy a MAC. In conclusion, Paul is comparing apples and oranges, and his article should be taken as a lame attempt to compare the two. Now if Apple ever starts selling an x86 version of OS X, then comparisons would be more meaning full. However, the x86 version of OS X is still in its infant stages and lacks a lot of the features present in the Mac version of OS X. P.S. I'm also a beta tester for MS, and you should take that for what it's worth. Not much. I just get to play with a new toy earlier than others.

That was a horrible article, just horrible. The only thing the writer succeeded in was sounding like an absolute OS X fanboy. It's not critical at all when it comes to OS X it seems. I don't like where Vista is going with Windows, I think it's a bit overboard on the "ease of use". That's just me maybe... but OS X is worse on that factor. It's so "easy" to use that it hinders you when you want to do something the developers did not consider. A good OS is a OS that allows you to do what you want, quickly. Whatever that may be. Good for people that see computers as advanced typewriters though...