And how you are willing to accept anything written on the Web as gospel truth.
The reason Ed Bott was being brought to task is that he marked OS X as not having features that were in the Pro and Ultimate versions of Windows7 that we Mac users KNOW are in OS X Leopard.
Bott was doing the exact same thing, either through ignorance or deliberately, that some of the anti-Mac/Apple zealots do on FR—making ex cathedra assertions intended to establish Strawman points so he could knock them down with his ignorant claims. He was, in a not-so-subtle way, misrepresenting the capabilities of OS X to make it look less capable than the MS offering in an article that was supposedly only about the differences between Window7 Home Premium and the more powerful pro and ultimate versions of 7.
As was pointed out by even Windows advocates, for the purposes of his article the inclusion of OS X in the discussion was totally irrelevant to the purported purpose—especially in such a prominent position, often in the last sentence in his comparisons, making the judgement on OS X the conclusion of the paragraph. Certainly none of the OS X discussion in the article was probative on which version of Windows7 a Windows user should choose for his upgrade.
Bott is a professional journalist; it's hard for me to believe that he wrote in this manner carelessly. I think it was intended to ignite exactly the flurry of opposition and correction it did, generating hits for the ads on the web site. It certainly did that.
I reviewed the comments on both sides. I saw some errors in the Mac advocates' claims as well as on Ed Bott's and his supporters as well. Had I been earlier in the discussion there, I would have registered and called the Mac users on their claims and corrected the information. I would also have done what I do here... rebutted Ed's points with links showing the correct information, not just making ex cathedra pronouncements. However, at 583 comments, it was far too late to do any of that and have it relevant to the errors... the damage was already done on both sides.
I have the critical WinXP software running under Parallels and, thanks to MacPorts, have all the Open Source Linux code running. There is one package that uses old Motif calls that doesn't play well with 24 bit color that has issues, but everything else just runs. It has been amazing to see users in science and engineering move steadily to MacOSX. There is a helpful community to assist new users. I had a great experience at the Apple Store and will continue to shop there.
It pains me to see so many disparaging comments here, especially from a couple of posters who seem to have 'axes to grind' and little to no experience with Apple products. Thank you for your time refuting the FUD.
I do have one observation to add to the debate: my reading tells me that Win7 will not be totally backwards-compatible and will require some legacy software to run in some kind of virtual environment. I don't see that as a bad move by Microsoft. However, having to run legacy software in a virtual environment anyway, it seems this decision will permit MS users to consider virtualization under other operating systems that might suit their need. Virtualization under MacOSX certainly works for me.