Who cares? Word processing is so low maintenance a BSOD for an operating system could do it...

Word processing is no longer a task that any computer should be measured by.

@jman, it depends on your budget. OS X is a great editing tool, but the hardware platform is very expensive for a word processor. So unless you are planning to take advantage of its other capabilities, I would say skip it. Windows running Office is also pricey just for a word processor, but Windows running OpenOffice is a little more offerdable. The cheapest option is Linux running OpenOffice. If all you want is word processing, email, and web browsing, Linux is your best option price wise.

I am of the opinion that Linux is only your best option if your time is worth nothing or you're stuck with old hardware, Mac is probably your best option if you don't know anything about computers and don't care to, and Windows covers the middle ground.

The "life's work" argument rings hollow since that is easily demonstrated to be true of a vast army of millions of Windows users -- almost certainly more than the sum total of Apple users.

Also, I don't know where flash came up with "Borland" (the only computer-related use of that name I'm aware of is the dev software company) but OS X is based on NetBSD and FreeBSD... Unix, basically. From the 70s. Or rather, the Mach kernel after the NExT guys got finished with it in the mid 90s.

Macs definitely start faster. It's the one thing I show my Windows-using friends when they notice (usually with surprise) that I also have a MacBook.

If anyone is tempted to buy into the "Macs don't have problems" thing, you need only visit Apple's support forums. They break like everything else. I'm not especially partial to any platform (although I mostly dislike Linux).

>I am of the opinion that Linux is only your best option if your time is worth nothing or you're stuck with old hardware

This used to be true (although you should also add: if you're very good with computers or want to learn). But now (as in, just the last few years) there are several user-friendly Linux distributions. There is a little extra set-up time if you want to be able to watch flash video and DVDs, but after that it's as easy as a contemporary Windows system.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that Linux really beats Windows with price, even if you accept the appearance of user-friendly distros. If you're a normal person, then you'll probably buy a new computer from a major company that comes with the OS installed, and the hardware costs dwarf the cost of Windows. Also, you don't have as many options to get Linux preinstalled; Dell is the only company that I can think of offhand.

However, you can definitely save a bundle by using OpenOffice instead of paying for Microsoft Office.

My 2 cents:
- Linux is, as Tony Bartels says, now much more user-friendly. I use a small linux machine running on an ion-itx board as a home media center. It performs beautifully and does everything I need it to. I can set up my linux distribution with all sorts of customizations and have it running at a small memory footprint, with low cpu use (important on an itx board).
- OSX is a wonderful developing environment, well worth the money. The equivalent hardware on a windows-based laptop would have cost me about the same after the apple student discount and the free iPod touch I subsequently sold.
- I do love my Windows machine for gaming and everyday use. And OpenOffice is not an acceptable substitute for Microsoft Office quite yet, though I find myself wishing PDF printing was built into Microsoft Office.

EJ you can get a plugin from MS for saving to PDF, it's the first thing I do when I install office

The old conception that Linux would require all your free time and a three year university degree should stay in the 20th century where it belongs. Yes, it was true for Slackware (and to some degree still is) but it took me all of three weeks to learn Ubuntu when I first tried Linux out. I'm dual-booting with Windows now, and use each OS where they perform best. For Windows, that's games, for Linux, pretty much everything else. More stable, quicker, and different, yes, but not necessarily harder to use. I've tried Slack and ArchLinux too, they require a bit more work but can be optimized even further - to me, Ubuntu is still the best mix between ease of use and control, though.

@NinjaPirateRobotZombie...

Borland was the name given to the Operating System running on the first graphic -interface Apple machines. As I said above, it was an experiment and a successful one in terms of public response (the machines, such as the IIe, sold out repeatedly). Apple made the mistake though of not making sure they had external developers writing for the system and users were somewhat limited to proprietary products. I am, of course, reporting from a very long time ago.

I truly do not understand your taking exception to my 'life's work' comment though: it is a simple truth - I do not play games on my machines. When I buy, I consider only whether I can do my work effectively. I have very specific requirements and choose my machines accordingly. I am self-employed and the machines really do help me make money. I have posted here before (repeatedly) about having extremely serious problems with a Windows machine being taken over and my files stolen. On that occasion, it was reports and e-mails relating to a corruption case here in HK - I was lucky that I had already decided to isolate my work machines so none of my original writing was nicked.

I can only say that, once bitten, twice shy. I even commissioned a unique system for my main workstation and only one man in the world knows how it works - not even me. This machine is not connected to the internet and runs uniquely customised programs. It is very very fast at what it does, not surprisingly, and is absolutely safe. That is how serious I am about my work.

For other stuff, I just prefer to be able to be somewhat relaxed and not have to worry too much when the periodic warnings come through. I happen to find Macs very stable and excellent for photographic work in particular. I have never had to re-load a program and I have never had to clean off viruses - both of which are annoyingly routine on my son's Windows machine.

I am though amused when people (not you) use Operating Systems as some sort of measure of their computing prowess. I am a complete idiot in many ways with regard to computing, I am just a very experienced user. I do know the difference between using an Operating System and creating one though - it's measured in several orders of magnitude. And, this thread is supposed to be about whether people have had problems with viruses on Macs, not, 'I use Xpresso, so I'm two levels of Computer Speak above you lot'.

Since posting, I have done a bit of reading to check my history. The artist who mentioned above that Mac OS was based on Windows should be led away and terminated... But I was somewhat surprised at just how complex the UNIX history was/is. I recall a long time ago articles on 'Unix wars' but the complexity of development is more complex than I had realised.

Try this: http://www.levenez.com/unix/unix_a4.pdf

@flash, My response to your "life's work" comment was pretty clear, I thought. You seem to feel that Windows is not an adequate solution for someone who needs a computer to complete their "life's work"... and I was pointing out that simple market share clearly demonstrates this is almost certainly an incorrect assumption. (Not to mention your repeated comments about making money, or not... who comes to mind when somebody says "billionaire"? It ain't Jobs.) Good for you if it works, but that doesn't make it the only option, or even the best option.

I admit I chuckle every time I hear you refer to this magical secret unique system you use in your volcano base, or wherever you do your thing.

Led away and terminated? Did your historical reading mention that a great deal of what you're crediting to Apple pre-dated the Mac by more than two decades? Apple copied virtually all of the basic concepts from Stanford and PARC innovations.

@EmporerJake ... OSX is a wonderful development environment? Seriously? A good friend of mine observed yesterday that XCode will make you appreciate how great Visual Studio was 10 years ago. ObjectiveC should have been laid to rest a long, long time ago. Actually these lead to the core of my main problem with Apple -- much of the time they do things differently just for the sake of doing it differently. Its great when "pretty" is the primary criteria, but under the hood -- not so great. Apple's forte lies in hardware and "pretty"... personally I feel their software is awful. The big advantage with OS X is that they only have to focus on a single tightly-defined hardware platform. And they can't even get their own Vista drivers to work right on that.

As for Linux, I heard all the "recent user-friendly distro" arguments about SuSE. And Mandrake. And going all the way back to Yggdrasil. Anybody here even heard of that one? I have the 5.25" floppy somewhere in a closet if you're interested in seeing what user-friendly Linux meant around 1993. It ain't pretty. It still can't hang with Windows or OS X. Being a developer, I appreciate idealism, passion, and sheer effort that goes into it, but that effort is, as the say goes, like trying to boil the ocean. Everybody thought major corporate support from folks like IBM would cinch the deal, and that didn't happen. I expect it'll always be just behind the curve. Just my two cents.

And lest anyone think those replies make me some kind of Microsoftie, believe me, in a lifetime of working with Microsoft products, including quite a lot of time spent on-campus with various groups working on things like COM internals, I assure you I could bitch and rant about Microsoft for DAYS on end. But I admit that in general, I think they're probably the best solution due to sheer economy of scale. Nearly everything important runs on Windows, period.

It's hard to simply declare that irrelevant.

Are you seriously comparing the user-friendliness of a 1993 Linux distribution to OS X? Geez, I guess Linux sucks; that's not user-friendly at all!

Come on, in 1993, Macintosh was the only OS that came close to being user-friendly in today's terms (and it fell short too, of course). Windows then was a joke, so I know that you don't want to go there.

Today's Ubuntu is still less user-friendly than today's Windows or Apple, this is true. But if you're still comparing yesterday's SuSE to today's Windows, then then fact is that you are not making the relevant comparison.

First the operating system used by early Apples: I merely gave it the name - it was called Borland at that time. I do not know why, but it was. Whether Apple used it with full rights I know not either. But I am correct in stating that the system was very well received and the early machines sold out consistently.

As for a company using someone else's system, I seem to recall Mr Gates buying DOS on the cheap when he was pitching to IBM - his mum being on the IBM Board of Directors for that pitch being a very nice side story.

My point about 'my life's work' is that I was talking about my own computers and, as these are the tools of my trade, I am picky, very picky. I live or die commercially on the basis of reliability and security. My machines are chosen accordingly. I am not using machines provided by my 'employer', I am the employer.

The unique Operating System on my main workstation is just that, unique. It was originally written as an AI shell for a project and adapted. It uses LISP. I have no idea how it works but the man who set it up was/is an AI specialist with a healthy contempt for all things ordinary. For obvious reasons - well, obvious if you know LISP - I cannot run the system on an ordinary machine. So, my Macs (2) and PCs (2) are used for different tasks entirely.

I will add that the work that went into the OS was impressive at a very high level. The project was designed to, among other things, create a system that would run on about one tenth the code of anything else out there - hence the use of LISP. It was completed in about 1990. I have had programs written for it and was lucky in that a couple of very big commercial ones would run on it - again, don't ask me how, but I know it mimics DOS part of the time and hitches a ride on a windows-like interface that came with the original Xerox Ventura. I do not launch missiles with it, I go from writing to publication of notes and books. It has three main advantages: speed, security and, I can produce materials that are distinctive - it does things that normal publishing programs cannot. Obviously, my work hardly plumbs the depths of the OS. But that is irrelevant. I was given the opportunity to use it and have not regretted that for one moment.

As you say you are a developer, I would expect you to at least recognise the difficulty of creating a complete OS. Several orders of magnitude indeed.

Er, the 'you' in the above, is my dear friend the Zombie...

Don't worry, I knew it wasn't me. (^_^)

NPRZ: I rather liked XCode, though at the moment I find myself using Code:Blocks. I never liked Visual Studio, it felt clunky and awkward to me. That was 2005, and I suppose it could have improved since then, but I doubt it.

my uncle was arguing with me that macs don't have viruses.
all i could do was laugh.
sure, there are far fewer viruses out there for macs, but macs have the same vulnerability as a fully updated PC. not much better or much worse

@ veqryn:

Interesting point: just how often do you need to tweak a PC to keep it 'fully updated'? I have to do things on a boringly regular schedule with one of our PCs and, because that has included complete wipes - a really off-pissing process - I have to say that having Macs around is kind of nice. I don't need to pay for anti-virus support either.

The hardware is not unbreakable; the OS is not invulnerable; in no way are they perfect, but there is far less out there trying to take them down. That alone makes them safer right now and in need of very little up-keep. For an end-user like me, that's the deal I am looking for. My virus ratio, Macs to PCs, after six years of having both running is still at zero. That isn't hearsay or urban myth, that is my experience.

I watched one of our PCs go through a 'medical check' last week after a memory stick from it showed up HIV positive on another machine. It was embarrassing: the other machine was in a hospital and we had been asked to collect files (photo-images taken before and after corneal eye surgery). The stick was clean before being used by my son on his PC, a machine that was telling him it was completely clean. The MS software and the anti-virus programs were telling him that everything was okay. Using a machine like that is a bit like playing Diplomacy. The time taken to re-set the PC was a problem also: very inconvenient.

I posted (far) above that my BIL (brother in law) had been hit by a bad program on his Mac, I know what can happen. But in the context of the original post, I can only say that it hasn't happened yet to me and would have to happen with considerable frequency over the next six years to balance out that virus ratio. I cannot see anything remotely funny in that.