You do not want to go down THAT road!
There have been adamant discussions about X vs XP.
I think that windows is taking a "hint" from the possitive publicity of X so that is why it looks the way it does.
I have read all pertinant articles and some say it's a copy, and others say it mimincs the MSN color schemes. I think it's a (bad) copy but cant say more than that since I have not used XP as of this writting.
They're entirely different in how they look and feel.
They are similar in that they both represent a new "engine" for each company's consumer-line operating system, albeit the Windows 2000 core is not so great a leap as going from ancient OS 9 to BSD OS X.
No, Windows-XP is the first true generation of no more Win9x kernel for the desktop market. It's kernel is based on WinNT (now 2000). It's like windows 2000 (NT-5) but more features and a facelift. I don't like the generic face it has but I'm sure its very changeable (always has been......as long as you know how :0) ).
I think its a good move for them, hell I like using NT for my workstation (well 2000) and it's nice having protected memory spaces, NTFS-5, ect.....Photoshop, Dreamweaver and everything else runs fine for me.
Until the ports of all my favorite apps come to FreeBsd or Linux ....I have to stick with WinBlows.
M$ did rip off some elements of the Mac OS in xp; however, to compare that Fisher Price pile of crap to the Mac OS is an insult. If you can find an uglier, more bloated OS than winblows xp (xp is the emoticon for bleck btw) I will be amazed.
<sarcasm>What is wrong with the PC architecture that needs redesigning? Hmm.. Could it be the PCI bus or the AGP bus? Well both were developed by Intel so they must suck and Macs would never use anything that's crap. I know, it could be PC133 SDRAM. Yeah that's something that needs to be better. Don't they have DDR SDRAM now? That's right PCs have that, Mac don't.</sarcasm>
It sounds like about the only thing that's different between Macs and PCs is the CPU, (ok Macs have cooler cases, but I can't put 2 5 1/4" half height drives in a mac). So I guess you can go back the RISC vs CISC debate. I won't even get into that, smarter people then me are still debating that one.
Apple is really starting to hurt because of the AMD/Intel chip war. Before the massive ramp up on Mhz started they were pretty even, as far as Mhz, with x86. We all know that PPC is mhz for mhz faster then x86. With the x86 chips really pushing the limits PPC has fallen behind. Motorola doesn't have someone to compete in the desktop cpu market with for king of the hill. It's not competing with IBM. Both are filling different niches of Apple's line.
Personally I would love to see Macs open up their hardware a little more. I would love to be able to build a mac from parts, I guess I'm just a geek like that.
I would also love to see apple start using broader range of PPC chips. It seems like it would be very easy to make a subcompact notebook, using one of Motorola or IBM's low power embedded chip like the ppc440.
The problem does not lie in the expansion buses. And yes we would all like to see Macs go to the newer RAM. I'm sure they will soon, as it's been about a year since Apple redid their desktop line signifcantly, so I think we'll probably see that next, now that the laptops have all been updated.
The problem lies in the intel CPUs, motherboard, the firmware, and the insanely high priority on backward compatibility in those areas that has kept the platform from improving in the last few years.
It's not really about Megahertz, that rating is only useful when comparing a CPU to another CPU by the same manufacturer in the same class.
Sure, the Megahertz are going up, but are the machines really getting faster? No. At this point it's all marketing, and the only thing that's improving is the video cards...
I think Apple is really going to slay everybody with the G5 - which will have the capability of having four processors on a single chip