There are over a dozen people working at our fair Gizmodo, but as a Windows user, I'm in a definite minority. I still rock XP, and I'm pretty happy with that. Why haven't I switched to Macs? Plenty of reasons, not least of which being that I'm just too smart to switch to a Mac. That's right, I'm too smart for Macs. As Bill Gates's retirement rapidly approaches I figured now is a good time to lay out why I'm loyal to his OS.

I grew up with Windows. Although my first computer was a Mac Classic (I was like 3 at the time, and I only used it to play that helicopter game where you have to drop the little man into the horse-drawn hay carriage), I've been using Windows PCs for nearly my entire life, learning how to fiddle with the command prompt in DOS and dealing with the rudimentary pile of crap that was Windows 3.1. I survived Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME for a short, painful time, Windows 2000 and now, finally, Windows XP. It hasn't always been pretty (see: Windows ME), but through it all I've figured out every little trick there is to know about running Windows. I'm a monster on Windows.

And yeah, while some of those earlier versions were essentially garbage, running Mac as your OS wasn't all that great a choice either, especially before OS X came out. Yes, fanboys, I know you love your Macs and everything, but come on: The OS never really came into its own as a real competitor to Windows until 2001. By then, it was too late for me.

And while I used to be pretty into PC gaming, the whole no-good-games-on-Macs thing doesn't bother me so much anymore. It's just that to me, when it comes down to it, the PC just feels more logical. Windows is an OS that feels structured and it makes sense just because I'm used to them. Macs feel more nebulous and more dumbed down, like the corners have been softened to not intimidate your mom when she uses your computer. Well, I like having the corners exposed. I like tinkering in the registry to improve performance, I like being able to really tweak the system at the base level. Windows has its engine exposed, and while it might not always be pretty, if you know what you're doing you really have access to the whole thing. And hardware choices are choices I cherish as are access to plenty of apps. Apple takes pride in hiding everything under the rug and keeping it out of your hands to not let you mess it up. I don't need kid gloves.

Furthermore, beyond the OS itself, I hate the cult of personality that surrounds Steve Jobs. I like the soon-to-be-retired Bill Gates way more than Steve Jobs, because the guy cares about more than just making enough money to build a castle for himself out of stacks of $100 bills (not that Bill can't do that). Bill Gates is going to be remembered for seriously impacting the global health climate for the better. After all, the Nobel Prize is named after the dude who invented TNT, but his name is invoked a lot more often for encouraging advancements in science, literature and peace. And chances are, if the Gates Foundation keeps chugging along, Gates may even win a Nobel. Steve Jobs, on the other hand, just makes pretty plastic objects, and when it comes down to it, he seems like kind of a greedy dick. I'm more than happy to not give him any more money.

And you know what? Macs are too hip. Oh, look at me! I do graphic design! I wear women's jeans and hang out in coffee shops! I'm a DJ! Well good for you. My computer is not a fashion statement. It's a computer.

But really, when it comes down to it, the main reason I still use Windows is this: I'm stubborn and lazy. I don't want to switch because it will amount to admitting that I've been wrong for the last 15 years or so. And it would be just a huge pain to do it even if I swallowed my pride, having to relearn all the shortcuts and commands and little nuances that make an OS tick. I know all those for Windows already. I am just far too lazy to relearn OS X, and I don't care how easy you claim it is. I've made my choice, and I'm sticking by it. At least until I buy my next computer, because I sure as hell don't want to have to use Vista. I mean, I like Windows, but I'm not crazy.

I'm sure military enthusiasts will geek out about this IMI Wildcat — A Hummer-replacing 4x4 MPC vehicle that can hold 12 soldiers, protect against 14.5 mm fire and RPGs, cross 900mm trenches, is C-130 transportable, yada yada yada, whoopdie freakin doo. But what makes this thing truly awesome is that it has a gun turret on top that can be remotely controlled from inside.

Called the IMI WAVE, it is a camera mounted next to the gun, soldiers can sit inside and assess the situation from a video control panel that can automatically lock on to targets. Not only is it the only vehicle of its type to have this tech, but it will the risk of soldiers getting hit while standing and firing outside a vehicle. Check out this earlier Discovery Channel clip of the WAVE in action. It's like the best video game ever. [Aviation Week]

Because of its use of stem cells, a skin regenerating gun would certainly cause a stir among conservative types—but if you were caught out on a battlefield with a gaping wound, you would be begging for technology like this. That is why the Armed Forces Institute for Regenerative Medicine invested $250 million in a project focused on therapies like the famous "Pixie Dust" that can help heal soldiers on the front lines in Iraq. One of the potential therapies is a "skin gun" that sprays skin-healing stem cells over a wound—helping it heal in a matter of hours.

Given the relatively small amount of funding and the potential ethical roadblocks the military would run into trying to develop a skin-gun, my guess is that we probably won't see a device like this in our local pharmacy anytime soon. But it is interesting to think that it could be possible somewhere down the line. [Pop Sci via io9 via DVICE]

You might already know that Google bought Android for $50 million in 2005 after Danger co-founder Andy Rubin just asked them for an endorsement of it. But did you know that Google feared Windows Mobile? Yep, that one, Wired's massive top-to-bottom Android feature (with awesome art) reveals. Google thought Microsoft had beat it to mobile—it had a quickly growing platform, tied to Microsoft's ends. Google, on the other hand, was having its apps, like mobile Picasa, shot down by carriers who wanted to extort users to do the same thing Google offered for free.

That's just one reason it needed Android. Unlike Windows Mobile, which is all tangled up with Windows, Android's totally centered the web—where people naturally go to Google. While Android vs. iPhone is shaping up to be the new Windows vs. Mac (or open vs. closed), the iPhone actually proved the thesis that easy mobile net access is really easy access to Google: Christmas Day, the iPhone, "fewer than 5 percent of all smartphones worldwide, drove more traffic to Google than any other mobile device." By making Android all about net connectivity and giving developers a common platform to develop for hundreds of phone, the bet is that even with tons of third-party apps, it all comes back to Google. The web is the platform as much as the actual code-y bits.

Naturally, handset makers fear losing their brand in the hype, even as Google argues it means they don't have to waste time on the OS, but can concentrate on hardware and their own proprietary apps. (Course, if you're of the mind it's all about software now, then Google's argument is funky bunk. Hardware will matter maybe as much as Dell vs. HP—maybe that's a lot to you, maybe not so much. Besides, has HTC really had an identity in the first place?) Motorola is actually betting big, putting the original team behind the Razr on its Android phones, hoping it'll be a path to newfound glory.

Even if it (or anyone else) succeeds, ultimately they'll still just be a cog in the Android machine. By the same token, even if Android itself bombs out, as long as it forces open access to the internet, Google still stands to rake in the rewards. [Wired]

Intel, Microsoft's BFF, is not going to upgrade its computers to Windows Vista. That's hands down the most hardcore corporate rebuke of Vista yet given how tight the two are, even though the source for the info says that it's not really "dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista." Whatever, man.

Intel and many others—Gartner estimates a higher percentage of companies will skip Vista than the 30 percent that typically bypass a new Windows release. Windows 7 looming is no doubt a factor, but will it see a higher than average adoption rate in return? Anyone else decided to just "skip" Vista? [NYT]

How does one design a propulsion system that combines a full-scale turbine engine and a Constant Volume Combustion (CVC) engine that is capable of delivering 12,000 pounds of payload up to 9,000 nautical miles from the continental United States in less than two hours? DARPA has released new details on how they plan on tackling this issue with their Vulcan engine—a ramjet / scramjet hybrid that will take an aircraft like the Falcon HTV-3X from 0 to Mach 4 with a traditional turbine engine, then kick in the CVC to push it to Mach 6 and beyond.

Obviously, that would streamline a process that currently requires a second aircraft to take the plane up to the supersonic speeds necessary to engage a CVC "scramjet" engine. Like all of DARPAs projects, the Vulcan engine is definitely an ambitious undertaking—and the 2012 date they set to have a working prototype doesn't help matters. Check out Aviation Week for more technical details on Vulcan. [Aviationweek via Crave via DVICE]

One of the things that irritates me about iPhone ownership is how my computer speakers buzz whenever the phone gets too close. It wouldn't be that big of a deal except for the fact that my desk is the most logical place to charge my phone. Fortunately, someone has come up with a simple MacGyver-esque solution to this problem using nothing more than a Red Bull can and some double stick tape. The creator warns that it could interfere with your reception, but it shouldn't pose much of a problem. Besides, your desk is probably littered with empty soda cans as it is. Hit the link for the full set of instructions. [Project Page]

We have all heard about how it pays to go green when you ditch your power guzzling incandescent bulbs for money saving, eco-friendly CFLs—but have you given any thought to what type of CFLs work best in a particular room? Wired has, which is why they came up with a guide that covers the best lighting solutions for reading, brushing your teeth and the all-important "business time." Hit the link for the full list. [Wired]

According to Marketing Week, Sony may be considering launching a PlayStation branded phone by Christmas 2009. Naturally that would raise some questions about the health of their relationship with Swedish mobile company Ericsson. The report goes on to say that Sony is leaning towards modifying the PSP to incorporate a phone—which would seem like the most logical route.

Citing industry sources, Marketing Week heard that the relationship between the two companies has become "frosty" and that Sony would “never give its PlayStation branding” to a Sony Ericsson joint venture. If it were true, it could go a long way in explaining the recently released F305 which is certainly not PlayStation branded and seems to fall well short of a fabled PSP phone. Could it be that Sony is throwing Ericsson scraps while they keep the juicy ideas to themselves? There have been a lot of rumors thrown out there about a PSP phone, and so far nothing has materialized. We will just have to wait and see. [Marketing Week]

Besides getting the entire video history of Dyson Vacuums as narrated by the world's most boring voice, Crunchgear also go James Dyson to simulate what it would be like to drop the crap out of his own vacuum. The actual "drop test" machine was broken. See how confident Dyson is in his engineering that he's willing to do this on camera. Can we get Bill Gates doing this to an Xbox 360 on video? Or Jobs to a MacBook Pro? [Crunchgear]