They've definitely got a point here (even if they are a bit over the top in their fanatacism). [Emphasis mine.]
Mac OS X 'Tiger' should be compared to what's available from other vendors. In Microsoft's case, that would be Windows XP SP2. Comparing Mac OS X 'Tiger' to vapor from other companies is patently idiotic and seems to us to be the only method Wintel-centric media outlets have left by which to continue prop up the Wintel hegemony as customers wait and wait and wait for something that, as promised today, won't even be able to measure up to what's been in their local Apple stores for years. Stating that one OS is due in days and the other in over a year and a half at the end of an article after treating them both as concrete products throughout doesn't suddenly transform the article into something meaningful.
Stunning. I... ahhh... greee... with... MacDailyNews. It hurts to say it. However, OS X 10.4 should be compared to XPsp2 - not Longhorn; and when Longhorn is released we should compare that to what Apple has at that time (10.4.3?). Although this point is right, the rest is fanboy fanatacism. Media outlets are windows specific because Windows represents 90% of the market (vs. < 5%). Just like Linux is a bastard step-child to your average non-techie American - so is OS X. Most people couldn't even tell the difference between XPsp2 and OS X (sad but true). Us "techies" are the exception. I for one, run both XPsp2 and OS X 10.3.9. I personally prefer OS X, and will indeed upgrade to 10.4. That's not to say that I think it's finished.. or that the schizophrenic UI makes sense (exhibit A: Mail 2.0 vs. Finder vs. TextEdit), or that OS X will ever be "finished" to my satisfaction. Or even that they'll get developers in the same way that Microsoft has with .NET. But for now, I'm using OS X for web browsing, email and media management (podcasts). ;)