What has Apple got to match this PC 2617

And it isn't. You also asked what Apple offers to match it -- and Apple makes general-purpose computers. Hence, the connection. You are also entirely wrong when you call this a PC-based solution. It does not include a PC, nor involve one in any way different from a Mac.

I did, at least seven times now. They have nothing to match that product. (They aren't supposed to, they shouldn't, and no one else expects them to.) They do offer a dozen hardware products and several software products to work WITH that device.

In this group, we refer to computers in the common sense -- not in the sense that anything with an IC chip counts as a computer. It's a discussion group about advocating Mac over other solutions. That restricts it to the common operations of systems which are comparable.

The newest Macs are not Wintel hardware -- they use normal components, as they have for years, CPUs from a major manufacturer, as they always have, and some newer techs which most manufacturers have not adopted, but which is definitely NOT typical of computers running Windows.

That's silly. Would you say your car is an Atoya if it had an alternator made by Atoya? BSD is the source of some of the code on which the OS is built. It is NO part of the UI at all, and it is the UI that Mac users are justly proud to use. The origination of minor components at the low end is usually not important, let alone the definition of the OS.

The 'integrated' Mac hardware was just the case design -- when you talk about compatiblity or components, you aren't talking about the case. Macs have often used the common parts, even inside those cases which had integrated the monitor and CPU case together -- as the iMacs do. Are you aware that those computers, although integrated, use the common components like IDE or SATA drives, industry-typical RAM, often the same exact graphics chipsets, etc.?

That was my point. Your sarcasm is misdirected when you support the other side's point.

Hmm. Because the uses I named are so common and so commonly the typical functions of every computer, huh? I would suggest there are functions of computers of a lot more interest to users than those examples. I did NOT suggest that Macs are not able to work in those areas -- I suggested they are NICHE areas, and common computer users are not concerned with them.

Neither of which has been established, and your one example obviously does nothing to support the claim. You were answered. Many times. You were also asked WHY any computer should be expected to match that product.

So let me challenge you instead, since you're interested: Show me any computer, from any company, running Windows, that does what TriCaster does. That means it offers multiple camera inputs, storage of overlays and clips, breastling, a standard-style controller device, and at least two industry-standard broadcast formats.

Yes, of course -- I refer only to the people replying in the thread, and the people who broached that particular part of the thread. That is how people discuss an argument -- in context, regarding the contributors and the relevant subjects. We don't expand the terms to envelop whole societies or terms from other industries, if that is what you meant.

How childish can you be? No, I am replying as an adult to someone who is having difficulty understanding a subject. Do I seem to be having trouble to you? Do I really have to justify MY reason for posting a reasonable and well-argued response to your post, or should you instead be expected to defend your broad and insulting claims?