Having said that I really hate the way the Mac deals with menus. I suppose you get used to it if you use it all the time but I think right clicking in a window for a context menu is a much more intutive and user firendly way of doing things
All OS X Apps have context menus, I believe they've been there since OS X first came out. The menu bar at the top is analagous to the App menu bar of Windows. It was years ago that Macs didn't utilise context menus.
Indeed Macbooks have the most fantastic way to right-click on any laptop I've used — instead of two buttons, you put two finger-tips on the trackpad and use the same button. This is ergonomically brilliant (*very fast* to move your left index finger a few millimeters, rather than your right hand centimeters to another button). Two fingers also scrolls, no need for those annoying Synaptics scroll zones (lugging finger tips to little marcated zones) or moving to extra scroll buttons. Actually, does anyone know if there are windows drivers to enable two-finger functions for Windows / Linux?
In all fairness I don't experience those problems under Windows XP. OK I have had occasional glitches to deal with - but usually it is my fault for installing some crappy bit of software that screws things up!
But this is the exact point
. Count how many registry cleaners and special uninstaller apps there are. There is no clear demarcation of system / user / app preferences so crappy software, failed installs and the like can wreak havoc. In OS X and *nix there is no central registry that mixes the whole panoply of preferences for your whole machine from hardware to screensavers into one monolithic hive. There is a clear demarcation of where apps can install things (DLL hell anyone?); most applications are self-contained bundles you can drag around and they run wherever you put them (only a few Apps use system kexts which even then have a clearly defined folder and root access needed before install). And my preferences are simple XML files in my home folder. I can simply drag my home and Apps folder and I've migrated. How about this: I can boot just a generic pristine OS X system from an external harddrive, and use aliases to my existing home directory - in effect I can swap out my OS install with ease. This is just not possible with windows, an OS image is tied to the hardware.
As for malware - that is just a function of scale.
There are two responses to that:
1) There are substantial technical arguments why *nix systems are more secure than Windows up to XP. It wasn't just that 9x and NTx was a larger target, it afforded more attack vectors. Vista was substantially about plugging the holes. This argument was also made when for example comparing IEs pathetic security record against other browsers - "they are all as vulnerable but IE is more visible". Hogwash. There were many more attack vectors available in IE than there were in Opera. I am *not* saying there are no attack vectors, and some Mac users can be far too glib about security, but technical differences thanks to the BSD heritage do make substantial differences compared to windows up to XP.
2) *And* Macs are less visible targets, so it is even better
As a small technical followup my post above, I spoke about some of the benefits that integration of core OS X technologies bring. On this post about tagging I give a simple example of that:http://www.donationc...69.msg82090#msg82090
By building unified OS X cocoa frameworks easily usable by any app, Apple (and the user) gains a whole heap of usability. This system is globally available and not proprietary, and the fact that Quicksilver can do tagging so effortlessly is what I meant when I suggested that the framework architecture allows an application to do so much more. Armando gave a suggestion for windows, tag2find, but he worried that the tagging there is proprietry and not even visible in Explorer, and he is right to be concerned.
Thought experiment: If FARR wanted to add tagging, what options are available to mouser; could it offer something as universal and elegant?