Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard: Which features should be compared? (Updated)

Last thing I hope... It has always annoyed me about Windows how apps can take Windowing focus for themselves even after I have pushed them to the back. A good example is when I scan in a large document the scanner app will take cursor focus at the beginning of every scan cycle. If I am scanning a 50 page document I would like to be able to type while the scanning is going on in the background. Window focus is handled much better on the mac. I have used the mac and when you hide a window it stays hidden and focus remains in the user's control. The only notion you get that the app is at a dialog, etc is that you get a bouncing icon. Dont get me wrong... I prefer and use Windows, but we are airing dirty laundry in the hope that someone will read this and improve Windows/Mac even further.

@ rr0de74@live.com - "How much simpler is Apple makes the hardware and the OS? Apple update pretty much does it for you. Unless you are specifically talking about third party hardware" For Microsoft - everything is third party hardware. So yes, I am talking about GENERAL hardware, meaning anything and everything. Since OS X is installed only on Apple hardware, this would be narrowed to add-in cards (graphics, sound, networking, TV tuners) and peripherals of any kind that's commonly used (from USB sticks to mobile phones). It is very important thing, as Windows offers wide hardware support both built-in and through the Windows Update services. Win7 pushed that even one step further, offering drivers by itself during hardware instalation, and this does include downloading third party utilities, tools, or at very list giving you direct link to driver download page of that exact hardware. So again - please do a comparision of hardware support, at least for "popular" hardware. @ mikegalos - regarding fair comparision, I agree.. it's a hard choice to be made by Paul. All I can say is - it seems highly unfair to just take a Windows/OSX box and review it on it's own, when most of people today have several computers, home servers, media extenders and such. And I'm talking about home users here, I won't even go to business environment where even SOHO scenario would turn tables pretty noticably... Anyway, whatever Paul does, I do hope he includes a bit wider view of things, at least a network of 3-4 computers and a small "server-like" computer.. That's the lowest point that makes sense, and you can just argue what else makes sense from that point on. And explanation is simple. Paul has 5-6-7 computers at his home. I have only 2 - at the moment, as it's just my wife and me, but I expect one more at least this year. My wife's family has 5 computers, and it's just 3 people in the house. My brothers family has 3 computers on 2 people. I have to admit me and my family don't use home servers, but it's more because of lack of funds (and space/infrastructure) than lack of need. So like I've said, a network of several computers is pretty much a norm even in everyday home use. Usually one of those computers acts as "server" or "storage", even if it is using just "client OS" and not a dedicated server OS. But that will change in the life time of Win7/OS X Snow leopard as well I believe. So to repeat once again - a small network scenario with 3-4 clients and perhaps one "server" should really be taken in consideration. Now, will this be a full featured server, a Home Server, or just a client-computer setup with basic Internet sharing, network storage, printer sharing, multimedia sharing and such..well, I'll leave that decision to Paul. Ofcourse, once we enter larger networks, and corporate environments, I think OS X would fail too much, so no need to go that wide.. @ daveinla - actually, a lot of us care about professional and business use, it's just that we're aware that OSX isn't tailored for the job. But Mike is right - should that be a "+" for Windows, or "-" for OSX? I could also argue that I don't need PDF creation, but that's not reason not to give a "+" to OSX for including it. Or support for mounting ISO images. Or anything similar. Btw, just to remind you - graphics studios, newspapers, audio/video studios and such, they all use Macs (mostly), so they can be used professionaly too, and people do want to know. But while applications that run ON TOP of OS are important to most professionals, they also want to know other things like management of large numbers of those computers, and such. But while OSX has it's own functions that Windows lacks completely (or barely touches), same is true other way around for other things. So I don't think it's unfair to compare even those functions that other side does not have. Actually - that's the whole point!

Mike the question????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Was asked a few days ago. My statement in this thread, was a statement. +1 for you for getting that part correct. You were asked, a few days ago, what the adoption rate of Vista was among corporations. It was thought that you might know this answer because you work for Microsoft. www.rif.org

So, here's what I understand: You don't care about Paul's opinion, but you do care about his alleged bias. This alleged bias prevents you from ignoring paul and contributes to this passive-aggressive behavior of yours. "Pogue, Mossberg, Ihnatko and Siracusa will make comparisons that can be believed, but you won't find that here." You're right. They will definitely come up with a comparison that Apple can use in its advertising.

@Kent It's a very valid point that a mac can run OSX AND Windows - and is very much worth considering. However, there are a lot of users for whom the advantage of being able to run OSX does not outweigh the cost increase to be able to do so. For example, in the studio, we considered getting a Mac Pro tower, so we could run any audio application a producer requested. However, we realised that we could build the equivalent workstation for far far less money than the Mac Pro, and opted to not support OSX, especially considering that the only apps we would be losing out on were Logic and Digital Performer. So, in certain circumstances, the "cost" of OSX is much greater than the the $129 price tag.