I’m pretty sure MS will be gaining a lot of sales.  If you have that large of a market, and you announce a new product, then there is bound to be a large number of sales.  Heck, Apple could release a new iPod, and MS a new Zune, and many will predict that Apple’s sales will be bigger than MS’s because Apple currently has that market.  But if you release a failure like Vista and claim Windows 7 will make up for it, of course you’re going to see an increase in sales.  All of the people who bought Vista will want to upgrade, and all of the people still on XP might want to upgrade (if Windows 7 runs as well as people hope).

Apple gain a lot of people because Vista was a let-down.  Many are predicting that Snow Leopard will be a let down because it aims to improve upon Leopard, and not add hundreds of new features.  Leopard already added a bunch of new features, and I think every once in a while, it’s better to release something faster then something newer.

I’ve also heard that a lot of people think that the Windows 7 task bar is better than Mac’s dock.  I really like Mac’s dock.  Played with the Windows 7 taskbar, and sure it’s “good,” but it doesn’t work the way I work.  Windows 7 also added a lot more productivity features, but Mac’s Exposè is a lot nicer for me.

I also like the whole idea of the hard ware and the software coming from one place.  I don’t need to worry about compatability issues and stuff like that.  I also know most of my other hardware already works with Macs.  I don’t plan on upgrading my laptop to Snow Leopard until I can guarantee everything runs fine on my iMac (which hopefully, Snow Leopard comes out before I order).

One of the main reason’s I’m not switching to Windows 7 is the software available (odd, right?).  Things like Storyist, Scrivener, Nisus Writer, Pixelmator, and etc are only available on Macs.  Also, the number of things to use when developing applications for the Mac are much better (in my opinion) than Windows.

Another issue for me is the “editions” part to Windows.  I don’t really like seeing this in software.  I know the whole “pay for what you’ll use” approach to it, but the price difference between all of the different versions, “eek!”  I can’t afford “Ultimate,” but I can easily afford a Mac OS X upgrade.  I know that Mac OS upgrades are pretty much released yearly, but they do seem a bit more affordable in the long run (if you’re buying one of the upper end versions of Windows when it’s released).  It’s $129, no matter what you’re running previously.  I always do a clean install, so there’s not bloat from previous versions as well.

What were some of the other questions I’ve been asked… (I keep saying I’m buying a new iMac soon, and people want to know why ‘m not thinking about Windows 7)…

I have tried the Windows 7 Beta.  I am a Mac fanboy.  I don’t play computer games on my mac (that why I bought a PS2 and a Wii).  I like the Mac interface much more than Windows.  A lot of the applications’ interfaces seem more intuitive taking advantage of Mac’s features.  Windows 7 does offer some cool new features, but I like Mac’s better.

Mac only requires 512 MB of ram (at the moment), while Vista (non-Home Basic, Home Basic doesn’t compete with any OS in my opinion) needs at least 1 GB ram.

Aero isn’t too appealing to me.  At first I thought it was cool, but there doesn’t seem to be consistance between the window border and the content.  There’s no flow.  So some Mac applications lack a flow in the border and content of the application, but that’s being improved.

More onto editions…  The Windows XP “mode” everyone keeps telling me about is only available on the “Professional” version.  I’m guessing the price difference will reflect the inclusion of the Windows XP SP3 liscense.  I can run Windows XP on my Mac as well.  I guess you can install it under VirtualBox or something on one of the lower-end versions of Windows 7 as well.  To run it on my Mac, I do have to jump through the same hoops as the lower end versions of Windows 7, but I’m guessing, Mac OS X Snow Leopard will be cheaper than Windows 7 Home Premium.

Yeah…  There’s my rant.  I’ll stick with my Mac.  Don’t see me switching back any time soon.  If you’re wondering why I switched to mac in the first place, I’ve always wanted one, but was never allowed to get one until I graduated from High School.  The only reason I can see me switching back to Windows is when I need to use Turbo Tax, but then again, I think that run perfectly fine in a virtual machine.  Or if Mac’s become way out of budget and all of the software on my current Mac becomes way outdated and I’m forced to switch.  Or if I decide I really want to play fallout 3 and don’t want to buy an xBox 360.

• Parallels Desktop 3.0
• VMWare Fusion 2.0
• VirtualBox 2.2

All of my experiences are from installing Windows XP Professional-32 bit.  All guests has the same settings.

I originally purchased Parallels Desktop as it was the main option for Virtualization.  Parallels 3.0 is okay.  I’ve heard that 4.0 is an epic improvement.  Parallels 3.0 is sluggish and painful to use.  It has a better “coherence” mode than VirtualBox, but I can live without the eye candy (it’s a perk, but if it’s more sluggish, then why would I use it?).  I plan on upgrading to 4.0 this summer, but until then, Parallels 3.0 will remain as an outcast.  It was running slower than VirtualBox.  It was much faster than Q though.  The multi-monitor support on Parallels Desktop 3.0 is bad, almost horrible.  It just tells the guest that the screen resolution is (X2 – X1) by (Y2 – Y1)  So if you click maximize, you lose control of windows, windows might appear in regions you can’t see.  It’s find if all of your monitors are the same resolution and positioned in a square or a rectangle, but if you have a setup like mine (13-inch macBook and 20-inch monitor) it doesn’t work.

VirtualBox 2.2 is an awesome improvement from the 1.X version.  2.2 added much more support on Macs for other guest operating systems.  I’m fairly certain that VirtualBox was the first to offer a “seemless” mode for Linux guests.  The question being why would I want a seemless Linux guess on Mac when a lot of the stuff is ported over?  Just to be able to do it.  VirtualBox is fast and effecient.  One of the problems I have is it lacks multi-monitor support.  So for free, it does an awesome job, and the only perks of the paid software seems to be better support for some items (like 3-D gaming, Multi-monitor support, and some other things).  For my purposes (browser testing and cross-platform app testing) VirtualBox is fine, but if you know anything about me, I’d rather pay a lot for a name than to get something cheap or free.  VirtualBox rocks, but people like me tend to crave more and file for bankruptcy early on in life.

VMWare Fusion is so far my favorite.  I hear that Parallels Desktop 4.0 beats it hands down, but until I upgrade, VMWare Fusion is what I’ll use.  My one problem with it is that VirtualBox starts up a bit faster than it.  Once it gets up and running, I can’t really see any differences in speed, but I do see differences in functionality.  The multi-monitor support in Fusion is awesome.  The “Unity” mode does exactly what it’s called.  Windows works on my Mac just like it should.  The windows can be dragged anywhere and if I use the maximize button, it only maximizes in that monitor, not in all of them.  If feels like they’re working just fine together.  Parallels Desktop 3.0 makes me feel like Windows is running in a separate application, like it’s struggling to work.  VirtualBox works fine, and in a single-monitor setting, it’s fine, but Exposé doesn’t work as nice as it does in Parallels and Fusion.

So, in terms of cost, VirtualBox wins hands down.  You get the most for your money.  It runs fast, handles most of what you throw at it, has a “seemless” mode, and is good for those who can settle with it.

In terms of functionality, VMWare Fusion has my heart.  They added educational purchasing options, so for those poor unfortunate college students like me, you can grab a copy at $40 instead of $80 (heck, buying it new in school is cheaper than me upgrading to Parallels Desktop 4.0 at $57).

Parallels Desktop 4.0, I’ve been told, surpasses Fusion, so I’ll post an update on that later on.

If you’re wondering what I do, I basically test different web site designs and interfaces on different platforms.  VirtualBox is enough for that, but now I’m doing desktop application interface design and testing.  VirtualBox is enough for that, but the features in Parallels and Fusion make them better options as a Windows Virtual Machine in one of those integrates better with Mac OS X.

I don’t really do gaming or 3-D interface design, so I can’t review anything like that yet.  This summer, I should hopefully officially open my portfolio, so wish me luck with that.  Hopefully I can find a job next year >.<