True. By "equivalent to the [Mac] OS and built-in applications" I meant the OS should be equivalently robust, stable, and flexible, and the applications should cover the same functional capabilities. No requirement that it actually -be- Mac OS-X -- there are Windows equivalents of most or all of the Mac built-in apps, and IMO Win7 is getting pretty close to Mac OS in terms of robustness and stability; it may beat Mac OS-X for overall flexibility since Apple is fairly restrictive.
> As far as whether a modern Windows PC is "equivalent" to it's Mac counterpart that's pretty subjective. As long as there is any difference, someone will find it significant enough to justify saying they are not "equivalent".
As a constant daily user of both, usually simultaneously, my comment is that if we're talking Windows 7 Pro or Ultimate 64-bit and Mac OS-X 10.6 Snow Leopard, they're awful darn close in most important functional respects. Yes, each one has some things the other does not -- but I eschew partisan arguments whenever possible. :)
The only major architectural item missing from Windows 7 is Unix underneath. I install Cygwin over it to gain the most critical Unix-like functions, but that isn't the same as having it at the OS level. It's the one thing Mac OS-X has that makes me prefer the Mac over Windows for my daily use. And it's so silly -- Microsoft was a Unix house long ago, and knows that it's the right way to do things.
Someday, when Microsoft finally sh*tcans the NT codebase and puts the Windows GUI over Unix, they'll have achieved Satori. But they'll have to put Ballmer permanently out to pasture before that happens. Hell may have to freeze first.
That would be a monumental task. There's a hell of a lot more to Microsoft's codebase than Windows.
What do you think the chances are that somebody over at Apple is busy porting Powershell to OSX?