OS9 and older had cooperative multitasking and not preemptive so it was up to the applications and developer to determine if it was to allow multitasking, and for that reason, many applications did not multitask.
The Mac Pro is not overpriced for what it is, but some people would like a tower style computer which will hold add on cards and multiple internal drives, and for those people, the Mac Pro is an expensive solution. If apple had a Core2 or quad core based non xeon tower that could hold a couple drives and a PCI-E card for like 1/2 the price of a Mac Pro, then I think many would be happy.
In the test you're speaking of, Vista just barely ran faster on the Mac Pro than the next closes laptop which was a Dell I believe. Funny thing was that the Dell was clocked lower and it was like 99.5% the speed. If it was clocked the same, it would have suprassed the Macbook Pro in that test. Anyway not sure what this was supposed to prove. 1 week later the same test could have gone the other way because Dell could have sent a different notebook for testing... A good test would be to use a Macbook Pro and run some intesive app like Cinebench and see if it runs faster on Vista or OSX. IIRC, someone did this and Cinebench was a tad faster in Windows but that could just be a difference in compilers.
Also about stability, windows itself is not unstable. Windows server for example is not much different than the desktop in terms of kernel and stuff like that. If you google server uptime you will see that OSX is far below windows as far as server uptimes. That may not prove much but it does show that windows boxes can have very long uptimes.
I can place a windows box right out in the open with no router to protect it and it will not just magically get a virus. Yes years back (pre XP SP2 which was around 2004) it was a prob but not anymore). Even with windows, someone HAS to do SOMETHING to make a virus get onto it. You have to one way or other install something or allow something to be installed by clicking OK, go ahead and install (like an activeX object). It cant just get infected without some user intervention so in the end, the user is to blame.
Sure, OSX might be less dangerous in the hands of novice since there is less malware and viruses for it, but if someone uses windows and has a bit of a clue, then they dont have to worry. I've been running no AV since 2003 on any of my boxes except for my server because it has an FTP open which I allow my friends to use and god knows if they use any common sense or not.
Anyway it boils down to this. The greatest bottleneck in stability and performance and reliability is the user. If a user knows their OS and system fine, it will be stable for them.
And people are buying them, meaning they're not too expensive.
Because you're not buying for the graphics, you're buying for the processors.
I've been using Apple's OS' since 1994. All the way back to System 7, multitasking has always been possible.
2.93GHz Gainestown Mac Pro, 6GB RAM, Radeon 4870 + GT 120.
Also, since you're being pathetic and thinking that I'm agreeing with you, it isn't. Guess what notebook ran Windows Vista the fastest in 2007? A MACBOOK PRO.
So a program crashed, but not the OS.
Prove to me that a piece of software can download itself onto my Mac and run, doing damage without me putting in my password.
That's what a virus is. I didn't think I'd need to stoop to definitions.
Not a virus.
It might be rather difficult to learn though, if the abrasiveness tone is often prevalent. Members may go for the ignore function, rather than reply with information that could be useful.
