Recommandation to Un*x-guys: Forget about MacOS-X. It's of very poor quality.

[zybork]

Once there was System6. You could only run one application at a time, you had a suitcase programme for your fonts, a trashcan that got emptied after shutdown, I never worked with it, I hardly know it, I can't say much about it.

Then came System7, and it was a revelation: Real drag and drop, a well designed window concept, userfriendly to the maximum, revolutionary concepts all over the place.

Then they created System8, and things still were cool, but not that cool: "Extensionitis" spread, people made their systems unstable by overusing system extensions but even if you disabled them all (does anyone remember the keys you had to press at startup to do that?), the system was not that stable as we expected. But it worked. Windoze was beyond any description these days, so System8 was still fine.

Then came System9, and that was the time when many people got PCs I think, however, that OS was something you could describe in one single rude word. Even Windoze was more stable than that crap, and we "penguins" just shook our heads - where will all that lead to?

It lead to something we did not expect: SYSTEM 10 aka MacOS-X, and yes!, the X was that of the great, the uni and only X that was eternal and beyond anything we mortals were worthy of: Unix.

They really used a *BSD for their new operating system, and we penguins rejoiced and frolicked and danced and sang Haleluja, for they had combined the divine power of Unix with the cunning user interface of MacOS and so did the best thing imaginable we thought.

And we all thought wrong.

One of the powers of Unices is the rigorisity concepts are implemented: Everything is a file, only the kernel can access the hardware, everything is standardised, there is a high level of abstraction everywhere because - most important! - there are clean and well defined interfaces, the system is highly customisable but whatever you do with it, the concepts remain intact, so the programmes run, no matter if they run on a pocket calculator or on a cluster. Unices are running factories, powerplants of all kinds and more, for example, the internet. And oh hell was that thing stable! The Santa Cruz Operation aka SCO, a that time great company, even gave you a guarantee that the system does not crash on any other means then hardware failure, if you could prove otherwise, you would get your money back, and if you happen to know how damn expensive a Unix-license was, you know what that means.

Now let's have a look at OS-X:

At the first glance, everything looks right. Good, they do not use the X-server, but so what. They also have a strange way how apps work, but that's okay, for all this is ported from somewhere else. We understand that they actually run non-un*x sofware on a un*x-system.

Let's have a look at the filesystem hierarchy... Looking ... looking ... where is it? It is not there. Let's go into configuration and change the name of the user in /etc/passwd. Why doesn't it work? I just broke my user. I change it back. Still doesn't work. Okay, use the GUI-configuration tools and recreate that user. Go into the remainders of that /etc. Graphical tools do not respond to manual changes in configuration files. WHAT??? And why don't they use /etc/fstab? The file exists, but there is only a line in it stating that this file is being ignored. Not even a "/dev/* auto auto auto"-line in it, it is meaningless.

But on one hand, why should I care? The system works, and the graphical interface still is amazing. But on the other hand: Who cares about standards, their purposes, intents and benefits? You could expect that they put their stuff in /opt and did not mess up the rest of the system, but standards are too hetero, so Apple doesn't need them, does it? ...

They have tons of security problems and other stuff, no wonder. OS-X is not BSD, OS-X is a System9 with a BSD-core. If you want to do anything (literally!) else than the things Apple intended you to do with your system (like having your home-directory on a USB-stick, getting rid of the display of the system clock or other things that should be very easy) you either need a ton of additional software and a week of time - or just the coolness to stomache the fact that it does not work.

With on word: dump that. Get a PC and run some real operating system on it. MacOS-X just sucks. I am the slave of that system, not it's master. It's a windows with a better user interface, that's all.

Forget about it.

[Rocinante]

At the first glance, everything looks right. Good, they do not use the X-server, but so what.

X11 has been available since.. 10.2?  And 10.5 even includes a nicer way of running it through launchd, no more "Cannot connect to display localhost:0.0" errors.

Let's have a look at the filesystem hierarchy... Looking ... looking ... where is it? It is not there. Let's go into configuration and change the name of the user in /etc/passwd. Why doesn't it work? I just broke my user. I change it back. Still doesn't work. Okay, use the GUI-configuration tools and recreate that user. Go into the remainders of that /etc. Graphical tools do not respond to manual changes in configuration files. WHAT??? And why don't they use /etc/fstab? The file exists, but there is only a line in it stating that this file is being ignored. Not even a "/dev/* auto auto auto"-line in it, it is meaningless.

Netinfo sucked, but it was usable.  Now everything's done through the directory manager, and is a vast improvement over anything prior.  Why don't they use flat files?  Who cares if it works, if you're "smart" enough to know to edit /etc/fstab and munge a mountpoint, you're smart enough to open the directory admin tools and add them there (which is much more usable I might add).

They have tons of security problems and other stuff, no wonder. OS-X is not BSD, OS-X is a System9 with a BSD-core. If you want to do anything (literally!) else than the things Apple intended you to do with your system (like having your home-directory on a USB-stick, getting rid of the display of the system clock or other things that should be very easy) you either need a ton of additional software and a week of time - or just the coolness to stomache the fact that it does not work.

Wha?  Sorry, you're definitely wrong here.  We've got a handful of Macs that run users' home directories off of a NFS share, and it could just as easily be a USB device.  System clock?  Uh.. open date/time preferences, uncheck "Display date/time in menu bar".. that's been around forever.

With on word: dump that. Get a PC and run some real operating system on it. MacOS-X just sucks. I am the slave of that system, not it's master. It's a windows with a better user interface, that's all.
Forget about it.

Your opinion seems uninformed and uneducated.  While I use Linux for all of my heavy-duty computing, I've had Mac laptops over the last 6 years and now have two more Macs in the house for desktop functions.  I manage Linux machines at work, as well as the aforementioned Macs, and especially as of 10.5 the Macs are just as easy, just as user-friendly and just as good as the Linux machines.

[Death On Ice]

Rocinante is correct, maybe if you used the "Help" menu, which happens to be in every application, you would have more luck.

I think a quick study is not sufficient for evaluating the Macintosh.

[player1]

#12

add'd just for n00bz liek u

[Lava Croft]

Maybe if you didn't accept Apples from unknown old ladies, they would not be so bad for you.

[zybork]

X11 has been available since...

Rocinante, did not you read what I wrote? They definetely not use the X-server for their graphical display, they use something else - or does aqua run on X? That was my point, but this is not important for it does not matter.

So much for the system clock: I changed the settings, it just didn't work. We fiddled around for half an hour, then we gave up. But maybe this was just a bug.

What matters is, that they abandoned most of the interfaces known from the Un*x-world.

Who cares if it works, if you're "smart" enough to know to [...], you're smart enough to [...] (which is much more usable I might add).

You realize this is something you hear from the Windoze-zombies all the time when you mention that this or that does not work properly?

Now everything's done through the directory manager

• Where does this manager have it's configuration files?
• Which standards do these files follow?
• Are they editable easily by other programmes than that manager itself?
• What if you do not use a graphical user interface?

"Unix says" that configurations have to be transparent. They are to be stored in human readable files. They are to be stored in the places the standard defines.

Tell me: Why does a user get broken if I just change the name in /etc/passwd? This is certainly a flaw at a very basic level. Either the system does not use /etc/passwd-file, in that case it should be abandoned (like they did with /etc/fstab). Or they keep the /etc/passwd-file, in that case the process described should work without any trouble.

Also, you made a very important statement:

While I use Linux for all of my heavy-duty computing, I've had Mac laptops over the last 6 years and now have two more Macs in the house for desktop functions.

...for desktop functions. Desktop functions. But you do all your heavy-duty computing with Linux? Why?

I guess because you cannot use them for anything but desktop functions. For that they are great, but I am one of those who want to do more with a computer - or, in a certain way, have to - than just desktop work, they are simply unusable, or, more precisely, they are not better than a Windoze-box, while security is a matter that really matters:

http://www.heise-online.co.uk/security/Apple-closes-security-holes-in-Mac-OS-X--/news/110098
or
http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/Apple-security-update-fixes-46-bugs--/110356

If you read all that carefully, you will realize that they have (had (I hope)) a lot of security implications that do not exist in any BSD-branch anymore for a long time. Simply do not exist. Apples policy seems to be to use a new door of inforced steel, and just leave it open. They completely abandoned the BSD-firewall-mechanism (why???) and besides that, the rest that made that system one of the best performing and most secure.

I don't know what the hell they were thinking when they replaced the BSD-password-mechanism by their own, the store passwords in cleartext in memory, something Unices stopped to do over twenty years ago! This is terrible! If you would such a thing at university, they'd boot you out of the campus for that! But one "good" thing: They are faster concerning mySQL-databases. You know why? Because they decided to cache fsync-calls. Not that POSIX does not allow this, but it disrecommends it for obvious reasons.

Hierarchy-standards, firewall, user managament, all weaked and scrambled up. What are standards for?

From a desktop-user's point of view, a Mac would certainly be a better choice than a Windows-box because of it's superior user interface. But unfortunately, this is the only reason. OS-X is in no way a unixlike system, and it should not be used for other means than desktop work, care about the firewall tough, for Apple's firewall does not work properly.

Apple missed the chance of their life.

[Lava Croft]

You changed the name of the topic. You are meh.

[NiTRoX]

Jeez and I wanted to but so much a mac book pro

[gareth]

sounds like someone just found half a maggot in his apple

[Rocinante]

I have family coming over soon, so I'm not going to reply to all of it.. however:

X11 has been available since...

Rocinante, did not you read what I wrote? They definetely not use the X-server for their graphical display, they use something else - or does aqua run on X? That was my point, but this is not important for it does not matter.

Yes, I read what you wrote.  And again, who cares whether or not they used X11 for the entire display?  It's available for things that need it.

Who cares if it works, if you're "smart" enough to know to [...], you're smart enough to [...] (which is much more usable I might add).

You realize this is something you hear from the Windoze-zombies all the time when you mention that this or that does not work properly?

Way to take things out of context.  The point is, if you're the type to go about editing things in /etc, then you can figure out directory utility easily.  If you're the type to just use gooey interfaces to edit system configurations, then the interfaces available are just as, if not moreso, sufficient.

Now everything's done through the directory manager

• Where does this manager have it's configuration files?
• Which standards do these files follow?
• Are they editable easily by other programmes than that manager itself?
• What if you do not use a graphical user interface?

Google is your friend.  Hint: OpenLDAP is the backend.

"Unix says" that configurations have to be transparent. They are to be stored in human readable files. They are to be stored in the places the standard defines.
Tell me: Why does a user get broken if I just change the name in /etc/passwd? This is certainly a flaw at a very basic level. Either the system does not use /etc/passwd-file, in that case it should be abandoned (like they did with /etc/fstab). Or they keep the /etc/passwd-file, in that case the process described should work without any trouble.

First, please point to where UNIX says this, and second it's no different than any other LDAP system.  My desktop at work has /etc/passwd, but my account is in LDAP.  /etc/passwd is for before LDAP is available (during boot or single-user mode).

Also, you made a very important statement:

While I use Linux for all of my heavy-duty computing, I've had Mac laptops over the last 6 years and now have two more Macs in the house for desktop functions.

...for desktop functions. Desktop functions. But you do all your heavy-duty computing with Linux? Why?

Because my desktops get powered off when I'm not using them.  My Linux machine stays on all the time.  At work, the cost of an Apple server is higher than that of a PC server running Linux.

I guess because you cannot use them for anything but desktop functions. For that they are great, but I am one of those who want to do more with a computer - or, in a certain way, have to - than just desktop work, they are simply unusable, or, more precisely, they are not better than a Windoze-box, while security is a matter that really matters:

You guess wrong.  All of the Macs at work that I maintain were purchased by people for the express purpose of doing heavy work on large astronomical datasets.  None of them are "just Desktops", and one in fact is never used as a desktop even though it was initially purchased for that reason.  If scientists with years of UNIX experience are seeking them out for an easier way to do their calculations, then apparently your assumption is flawed.

http://www.heise-online.co.uk/security/Apple-closes-security-holes-in-Mac-OS-X--/news/110098
or
http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/Apple-security-update-fixes-46-bugs--/110356
If you read all that carefully, you will realize that they have (had (I hope)) a lot of security implications that do not exist in any BSD-branch anymore for a long time. Simply do not exist. Apples policy seems to be to use a new door of inforced steel, and just leave it open. They completely abandoned the BSD-firewall-mechanism (why???) and besides that, the rest that made that system one of the best performing and most secure.

Again, so?  My wife's Windows machine doesn't run a firewall at all.  None of my Macs do, including the laptop which ventures out into unknown networks all the time.  But since it runs no services that listen to incoming connections, by default even, I have no need for a firewall.

I don't know what the hell they were thinking when they replaced the BSD-password-mechanism by their own, the store passwords in cleartext in memory, something Unices stopped to do over twenty years ago! This is terrible! If you would such a thing at university, they'd boot you out of the campus for that! But one "good" thing: They are faster concerning mySQL-databases. You know why? Because they decided to cache fsync-calls. Not that POSIX does not allow this, but it disrecommends it for obvious reasons.
Hierarchy-standards, firewall, user managament, all weaked and scrambled up. What are standards for?

We've upped our standards, now up yours   Again, while some of your points may be valid, you lump them together with gross assumptions based on fallacy.

From a desktop-user's point of view, a Mac would certainly be a better choice than a Windows-box because of it's superior user interface. But unfortunately, this is the only reason. OS-X is in no way a unixlike system, and it should not be used for other means than desktop work, care about the firewall tough, for Apple's firewall does not work properly.
Apple missed the chance of their life.

OS X isn't Unixlike?  Funny, others don't agree.

[player1]

@Roc: <3

@zybork:

[Computer[SU]]

They have tons of security problems and other stuff, no wonder.

Macs have tons of security problems? And "other stuff"? What?

And by the way, you're not allowed to write a page-long blasting of anything until you can spell its name: Mac OS X. No dash, two spaces.

I'm surprised you could miss something so obvious while you were doing all of the diligent, thorough research necessary to back your claims in the OP (cheers to Roc).

[kevlarman]

i'm not sure why anyone would listen to the recommandations[sic] of someone who can't spell recommendation

[Taiyo.uk]

This forum does not need more unnecessary OS vs OS diatribe.

[NiTRoX]

X11 has been available since...

Rocinante, did not you read what I wrote? They definetely not use the X-server for their graphical display, they use something else - or does aqua run on X? That was my point, but this is not important for it does not matter.
..

Since Mac OS X is based on UNIX, most software packages written for BSD or Linux can be recompiled to run on it. Projects such as Fink, MacPorts and pkgsrc provide pre-compiled or pre-formatted packages. Since version 10.3, Mac OS X has included X11.app, Apple's version of the X Window System graphical interface for Unix applications, as an optional component during installation.[13] Up to and including Mac OS X v10.4 (Tiger), Apple's implementation was based on the X11 Licensed XFree86 4.3 and X11R6.6. All bundled versions of X11 feature a window manager which is similar to the Mac OS X look-and-feel and has fairly good integration with Mac OS X, also using the native Quartz rendering system. Earlier versions of Mac OS X (in which X11 has not been bundled) can also run X11 applications using XDarwin.

[Rocinante]

This forum does not need more unnecessary OS vs OS diatribe.

While I agree that OS flamewars are pointless, I also don't like seeing "facts" presented which are based on fallacy.  Personally, I couldn't care less about which OS people choose.  I can't stand anything with the Winders name on it, but that doesn't mean I'd try to talk people out of using it.  To each his/her own, use the right tool for the job, etc.  If this thread had started with something along the lines of "I tried using Mac OS X for a while, and here's all the things I didn't like about it and why I prefer Linux" then I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

I gave up long ago trying to convince people that any particular OS was better for them than another.  I'm happy to tell someone about the differences of which I'm aware, and my experience with different ones, but in the end they will decide based on their own experience and knowledge.  And whatever they choose isn't necessarily "wrong", I just try to make sure it's not an uninformed decision (or one based on false assumptions).

[NiTRoX]

This forum does not need more unnecessary OS vs OS diatribe.

While I agree that OS flamewars are pointless, I also don't like seeing "facts" presented which are based on fallacy.  Personally, I couldn't care less about which OS people choose.  I can't stand anything with the Winders name on it, but that doesn't mean I'd try to talk people out of using it.  To each his/her own, use the right tool for the job, etc.  If this thread had started with something along the lines of "I tried using Mac OS X for a while, and here's all the things I didn't like about it and why I prefer Linux" then I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

I gave up long ago trying to convince people that any particular OS was better for them than another.  I'm happy to tell someone about the differences of which I'm aware, and my experience with different ones, but in the end they will decide based on their own experience and knowledge.  And whatever they choose isn't necessarily "wrong", I just try to make sure it's not an uninformed decision (or one based on false assumptions).

]

But Rocinante you have to get used to that (according to Zypork) Mac OS X sucks. Thus the name Mac OSuX : )

Just kidding, I never used Mac OS X but it looks pretty dam sweet.

[Revan]

Rocinante, did not you read what I wrote? They definetely not use the X-server for their graphical display, they use something else - or does aqua run on X? That was my point, but this is not important for it does not matter.

Are you blind and deaf as well as an idiot? the main interface is not X but when installing the system a simple check box will install it.

So much for the system clock: I changed the settings, it just didn't work. We fiddled around for half an hour, then we gave up. But maybe this was just a bug.

Really? I just tested it on 10.4.11 and it took all of about 10-15 seconds almost all of that was waiting for system preferences to open, if it was a bug that is fine, if you were too stupid to figure it out then obviously you cant operate a computer...

I hope this will enlighten you:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/

EDIT: typo

[player1]

This forum does not need more unnecessary OS vs OS diatribe.

It's more like a unitribe...

Don't worry, Rocinante, I doubt this was aimed at you. Besides, this hardly qualifies as a flamewar. It's just another thread where a forum regular is forced to step up and call out zybork for spewing ridiculousness with all the conviction of the ill-informed. For it to be a flamewar, either: A) zybork would have to know what he is talking about, and present a cogent argument, which he does not; or B) you'd have to be less than nice, which you seem completely incapable of being. No, you are far too nice, and zybork is far too stupid for this to be considered a flamewar. More like a kindly soul attempting to talk a suicidal jumper down from a window-ledge.

@zybork: Please cease from couching your inanities in terms of such certainty. It almost lends them some weight.  Way to back off of the thread title. Why don't you complete the cleanup operation and just delete the thread now? FYI, it's been done before. Yes, those are five separate occasions where we've had to endure this stupidity (and I'm too lazy to find the other three-thousand occurrences). Now kindly STFU about it, you recently-arrived know-not!!! P.S. Extra credit for trying to follow if Nitrox is trolling or finally drank the kool-aid as you peruse the links. I personally think he is either schizophrenic, spineless, or trying real hard to sound intelligent.

@Taiyo: I wholeheartedly agree. You said diatribe, not flamewar, and a diatribe can be just one idiot ranting at length about something which he knoweth not, which is exactly what zybork's OP is. The word contains connotations of lengthy boringness, unsubstantiated vehemence and just "tossing" an argument into the air to see who will try to refute it or attempting to "rub" someone's nose in a particular point of view like a puppy's in a turd. Again, the OP in and of itself is a lovely example of all of these qualities.

Your friends at You Might Be New Industries would like to remind readers that this thread has been classified as a Number Twelve Sin Against Humanity: The Wretched OS-Bashing Monologue of the Non-Knowing N00b.

edit'd because I enjoy editing

[NiTRoX]

@zybork: Please cease from couching your inanities in terms of such certainty. It almost lends them some weight. Way to back off of the thread title. Why don't you complete the cleanup operation and just delete the thread now? FYI, it's been done before. Now kindly STFU about it, you recently-arrived know-not!!! P.S. Extra credit for trying to follow if Nitrox is trolling or finally drank the kool-aid as you peruse the links. I personally think he is either schizophrenic, spineless, or trying real hard to sound intelligent.

@player1 will you make up your mind on what I am plz ?

@zybork Yes extra credit goes to you if you try to follow this topic regardless of my "trolling"

[+ OPTIMUS +]

in the work, i am on pc, but a macboocpro is next to me, a huge mac desktop behind me.

both on vista lol.

[NiTRoX]

in the work, i am on pc, but a macboocpro is next to me, a huge mac desktop behind me.

both on vista lol.

Why bother buy a mac then?

[player1]

@player1 will you make up your mind on what I am plz ?

@zybork extra credit goes to you if you try to follow my trolling

@'trox: As soon as you pick a personality and a consistent stance vis-a-vis Mac product, I shall attempt to label you with some sort of appellation. Until then I reserve the right to be as capricious about your opinions as you are. As of when would you date your conversion, and what would you say led to the revelation?

@'bork: rly try it, it'll drive you nuttier...

[NiTRoX]

@player1 will you make up your mind on what I am plz ?

@zybork extra credit goes to you if you try to follow my trolling

@'trox: As soon as you pick a personality and a consistent stance vis-a-vis Mac product, I shall attempt to label you with some sort of appellation. Until then I reserve the right to be as capricious about your opinions as you are. As of when would you date your conversion, and what would you say led to the revelation?

@'bork: rly try it, it'll drive you nuttier...

@'ayer1:

Jeez and I wanted to but so much a mac book pro

[zybork]

Player1: If everything got deleted that seems to be senseless/a flamewar/whatever, how many threads you think would be left...?    So let the show go on

Revan: Would you be so kind to read what I wrote? I stated that the main interface does not run on X. Was I wrong?

To the one who sent my this: http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/26/24-hours-of-leopard-unix-certification I'll reply with that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX

POSIX defines APIs, if you compare that to a car, POSIX would define that a car has four wheels, a motor, a steering wheel, basic things. It does not tell you to have doors in your car or even an ignition lock, not to mention airbags. Apple conforms to POSIX because BSD brings all those basics with it I guess, but Unices tend to be a bunch of interfaces, like the already mentioned Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, quote: "The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard [...] is a formalization and extension of common UNIX practices."

FHS for example serves an important purpose: It devides the filesystem tree into certain branches, /, /usr, /usr/local, var-directories, /tmp, you name it. Each of those has certain characteristics and purposes, e.g. you can savely mount everything but var-directories readonly etc.etc.etc.

Apropos POSIX:

They are faster concerning mySQL-databases. You know why? Because they decided to cache fsync-calls. Not that POSIX does not allow this, but it disrecommends it for obvious reasons.

;-)

POSIX allows to cache fsync()-calls, altough it disrecommends it. So nobody caches (except Apple, of course) for an obvious reason, because a sync that does not sync is a bit strange, isn't it?

Why the hell they store passwords in memory in cleartext???
Why do graphical configuration tools not respond to manual changes in setup-files?
Why do they abandon important standards like FHS?
Why do they replace long used and well developed software packages by their own stuff? (heise.de offered quite a lot of stories about Apples security issues I recall)

All signs of b-a-d design.

Whatever, I looked up www.opendarwin.org, just to find out that the site's down. Just look what I found here: http://www.opendarwin.info ... seems that Apple wants to profit from the OpenSource community, but not contribute to it...

And now, the important part:

I have a Mac. Not joking. And I owned Macs before. (That's why I was able to talk about System7, 8 and 9, I actually used them, all of them.) I (have to, unfortunately ) work with Windoze. I have a Linux box at home (money sometimes really does matter). And I am in no way a religious type, because if you wanna do work, you do it best with the right tools.

I displeasingly had to find out that I would use Macs for desktops only, not for a firewall, not for a server, (not for gaming, of course, it would use Windows for that), only for a desktop. Because everything else can be done by other system in a far better way.

In memory of my old MacIntosh IIsi, who died in 1996 on a broken hearthdisk, I mean, harddisk, I will always remember you - but I'll forget about your descendants right away, because the company that made them is more and more turning into a second Microsoft. And we don't need the first one even, for it all cost us more than enough money.

[Revan]

Revan: Would you be so kind to read what I wrote? I stated that the main interface does not run on X. Was I wrong?

[...]

but I'll forget about your descendants right away, because the company that made them is more and more turning into a second Microsoft. And we don't need the first one even, for it all cost us more than enough money.

First: Ok I missed that I take back what I said about you being blind and deaf.

Second: Microsoft? I take back the line above this one, the best I can do is to point you to that link I posted (or in my sig).

[player1]

As of when would you date your conversion, and what would you say led to the revelation?

[NiTRoX]

As of when would you date your conversion, and what would you say led to the revelation?

I did not understand that.

[techhead]

Are you trying to do stuff in console that you can easily do using system preferences?
If the software gives you a GUI to do something that you could do the long, slow, and hard way using command line, I would take the GUI approach.

[+ OPTIMUS +]

in the work, i am on pc, but a macboocpro is next to me, a huge mac desktop behind me.

both on vista lol.

Why bother buy a mac then?

merely because of software issues. funny to see blue death screen on the neat applez with pixels you'd rather call BRICKS :-DDD