Deathawk. I wasn't complaining, I was stating what I think is going on. Reread the post with that and mind, and it'll make a lot more sense.
To be honest, if it was down to picking an operating system, and I had to pick between Mac OS X and Windows, I'd pick OSX any day. Not only is the fact that it's a Unix system make my life that much easier (things like copy+paste takes 2 clicks as opposed to 5 in Windows), but I would assume it's actually
stable which is a long stretch for a Windows machine. Of course, it actually looks nice, too, which is something Apple does well, but their implementation of workspaces is
far inferior to Compiz's.
Hands down, OSX > Windows.
However, this is the debate, IMO, Linux > OSX.
I've looked at Apple's feature list, and frankly, most of those features have been implemented in Linux for some time, many of them in a far better fashion. For example, Apple's integration of virtual desktops doesn't seem to support doing anything neat with those spaces to make them look good. Wheras it's just flipping between them and viewing them all at once, whereas in Linux you have the option of rendering them all on a two-dimensional wall, a three dimensional prism (the system calls it a cube, but it can have any number of sides), or a plane. Also, it's limited to 16 (Who would use that many!?), whereas compiz is limited to 256 (OK, pointless, but then again, why limit the number when it doesn't create any overhead, unless someone designs a computer with half-bytes) The only features that jumped out at me were Time Machine, which seems like a good idea, but I would think it'd be difficult to implement well, and Automater sounds interesting, if I'm guessing its purpose right (a GUI based program to give an easy interface to shell-scripts, right?).
If you look at it all, though it doesn't actually look like a lot, at least to me it doesn't. If they added this much every 6 months it'd be good, but these came up after 3 years of work.
None.