iMac & OS X: 3, Windows XP: 0 - More Press Declare iMac & OS X Winners

Appleis Hot News never prints an article that has something disparaging to say about the iMac or OS X, so its no surprise to find three or more press items which glorify our computer and OS of choice. At the same time, Apple seldom, if ever, prints anything disparaging about Windows either. What is interesting about the following three articles we found at Appleis Hot News is that each comes up with the same conclusion: the iMac and OS X are winners, and in one case, that "Windows XP means Xtra Pain."

First up is an article from the Orlando Sentinel titled iThis year, iMac is Apple of his eyei, in which Chris Cobb says:

Appleis iMac is the most talked-about computer of the year for a good reason -- it shows how bad PC design has been.

Mr. Cobb goes on to offer some suggestions for improving the iMac, but says:

The iMac has its flaws and room for design improvement, but itis almost certain to spur computer makers to give us machines that work more like we do.

Next up is an article from the Washington Times titled iMac OS X works rock-solid on Macintosh systemi, where Mark Kellner laments:

Itis been about six weeks since Iive switched over to Apple Computeris Macintosh operating system for the bulk of my work. So far, so good. Not perfect, mind you, but pretty darned good overall.

The best part: Mac OS X is pretty rock-solid. It takes a lot -- and I mean a whole lot -- to make this operating system hiccup, let alone freeze. In fact, I canit recall a single "freeze" or "crash" in using OS X, version 10.1.3 (donit ask; I didnit name it) and heaven knows, Iive tried to bring it down. Because this operating system has the older (by about 30 years) Unix operating system at its core, the odds are pretty good that itill hold up just fine.

Apparently, Mr. Kellner is thinking of following David Coursey and making a Mac his computer of choice. He ends his article by saying:

Iim moving dangerously close to making a lifetime commitment here -- at least for the "lifetime" of my next computer. Will it all work out? Shall I take the plunge? Stay tuned -- and feel free to e-mail me with your questions and comments on your own Mac experiences.

And finally, thereis this article from Stewart Alsop of Fortune titled iiXP Means Extra Paini, in which he looked at Windows XP recently and declared:

...Thereis nothing in Windows XP to cause anyone to go out of his way to get it. In fact, I wonder why such an amazing giant of technology as Microsoft--which argues vociferously for its right to integrate new technology into its operating system--canit do better than this. XP was supposed to finally replace old-world MS-DOS with a modern, stable platform that can be modified for new technologies without the pain and suffering we all experienced in the past. So why doesnit XP work a whole lot better?

Mr. Alsop goes on to list some of the problems he found with XP, then concludes his article this way:

As many readers know, Iive been using the Macintosh more and more at home. Apple recently upgraded its operating system to whatis known as OS X. That is based on Unix. You donit have to restart your computer all the time. Managing programs and data is even easier than before. Of course, Apple is still the same old company too. But Iim beginning to think that Apple might actually be able to use such advantages to compete effectively. And Iim beginning to think that Microsoft looks like a company too wedded to past practices to keep up. Heck, what do they need to worry about with $38 billion in cash and net profits close to 30% on every dollar they collect? Yes, indeed, what does Microsoft have to worry about?

All three seem to agree, computing is better the Apple way. Stop by Appleis Hot news and give each article a read (or use the direct links provided above). Itis time well spent. Join in on the discussion on whether or not Mac OS X and the new iMac are bringing new people to the Mac platform.