Whether Mac OS or Windows suits you best largely depends on what you value and what you want to use your PC for.

If you say the price and performance of these two computers are roughly equal, you might as well get the Mac. You can always run Windows on it if you find you prefer that platform. Or Linux, for that matter.

Mac's are hardware and software from the same company so it always (or atleast 99% of the time) goes well together. I've got some Apple nuts in my class who always complain about how slow and glitchy Windows. In the XP generation I found it laughable but with Vista I had to agree with them. Now that Windows 7 is out (best windows ever by far) they just need to shut up. It runs fast, steady and is just as good if not better then a Mac. Best of all it runs good on a PC half the price of a Mac and even runs in its basic form on a PC 1/4 of a mac's price if you really dont have a lot of money to spare. So whether or not a MAc is better then a PC compleetly depends on what hardware and software you combine on your PC but a new PC and a new Mac go head to head and the PC would win due to the lower price.

I'm mostly with you on this one. Usually, generally, Macs don't offer the same price/performance ratio as PCs, be them custom built or branded. Your best bet is to buy a Mac right after a product update, for example the new iMacs, especially the 27" model, are quite good value for money as a total package. And once the MacPros are updated, I'm confident they will once again offer very good performance when compared to other similar specced PCs.

It really is a shame that Amiga didn't gain the traction back at the day. Perhaps it was hindered by the image of it being a gaming machine. Those days PCs were all about work and no play so maybe the image really did hurt Amiga. Anyway, I kind of disagree with you on the inefficiency of OS X, though not completely. Not all parts of the OS are well optimized, Apple has a "policy" that it optimizes parts of code that most affect the end user experience, so there are pieces of code that have not been well optimized because they are rarely used, or the user doesn't experience much difference either way. But then there are things that are very well optimized and utilize the hardware well. I think it is a testament of this that (basically) the same OS can be used in a phone and a high end workstation. And that it runs fast even in the phone. Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, the iPhone OS fork is definitely very well optimized for the ARM architecture, but the desktop fork maybe not so well for Intel, although each successive version of the OS tends to be slightly faster than the previous.

One thing to note, in addition to the efficiency, is the development environment and frameworks. The cocoa frameworks are quite brilliant, IMO, but I don't know a single thing about Amiga development. I would suspect that it was/is more lower level stuff, that way it is possible to better leverage the hardware if you know what you're doing. Have you done any dev work on Amigas, can you shed some light on the frameworks and general development environment?

You do understand that design is way more than just how the device looks? As someone who has used Nokia phones, it is quite wrong to say that iPhone isn't near N95 and the likes. It is ok to like other phones, it is ok not to like Apple products, but don't try to make it seem like your opinion is the only right one and that the success of iPhone is just sheeps following marketing. Apple makes wonderful products that offer a superior user experience to most competition, and there are a lot of people who see the value in that.

lol, typical apple-tards.

All apple computer these days use your typical PC hardware, nothing is custom anymore, but hey if you wanna believe in a lie, then go right ahead, it's your own decision anyways XD

It's like compairing cherry gum to mint gum.

I agree that apple products are great and look awesome.but when you compare it with other heaviweights,its beaten down

Macs are better, unless you want something that is more economically, or allows you more flexibility and control of the platform, or to allow you a wide breathe or productivity software, and let's not forget about games, and of course periphals...so yeah...Macs are better for all the rest of the stuff...errr...

@ Plaupius

The core of the OS was heavily low-level optimised, higher level parts were mostly written in a C-like laguage (same roots) and later were rewritten in C.

The classic 32-bit AmigaOS development frameworks were technically very advanced for its time (80s) with shared libraries, universal scripting support, datatypes (for example allowed ancient paint/word processor/spreadsheet programs to use new image formats they were not designed for like PNG, etc) etc. There were many different dev tools and framework/GUI addons/replacements and after C= went out of business there was a lack of direction which eventually split up the development community into various different directions.

The OS is being revived by devs who loved the system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaOS_4

It depends at what you're doing. All formats are viable for different things.

I work extensively with the final cut studio editing suite. That software is only on macs and thus I use macs. Its not the only editing platform thats great (Avid is great and even premiere is widely used in some circles) but final cut pro is my personal preference and if I get the choice I'll thus be using a mac.

If you don't have a specific need for Linux or Mac osx then I would suggest windows but really its all about the specific things you're doing and what you're comfortable and use to using.

No platform is for all things for all people all the time.