Re: Apple's new line of commercials..

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <mn1572hdu9pfi1dbqarc9brcq274d1p1vs@4ax.com>,
Mitchell Spector  <mitch2gs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Nama" <lord_philip@mac.com> wrote:

> In the present (2006) there is fundamentally no difference in hardware
> between the Mac and the PC

:-) ....try installing Win-XP on a Mac, or Mac OS-X on a PC, and you'll
quickly notice the difference.....

> And yes, it IS now all about the GUI operating system on top today.

That's nothing new really ... in the early 1990's, Mac, Atari and Amiga
users were fighting verbal wars over which GUI was the "best".... it
could be quite amusing to see the "arguments" brought up in these
discussions.


>>> Lack of choice is a good thing? And that is putting a lot of blind faith
>>> and belief that the one single product (versus a dozen or so for the PC)
>>> will always work the way you want it, flawless in design/features and
>>> automatically "the best". In any case, this may soon be moot as
>>> publishers just release Windows versions of software for Mac users.
>>
>> When did I ever say 'one single product'? Mac owners have choices too
>> you know, unless you are talking about games ;-)
> 
>     You mentioned while there is iPhoto on the Mac (one product) there are
> 15 equivalents on the PC side. There are limited choices in software on 
> MacOS X side though, and it's going to get far more limited now that the
> Mac is Windows compatible. At least that is my theory.

Otoh a limited choise saves you the time from having to evaluate a lot
of alternatives to find the best choice.  Just using the one and only
alternative which "Big Brother" has selected for you is indeed faster....
No, I dind't say it's good, just that it's faster.


>>>  In any case, saying you wouldn't use XP even if someone paid you is
>>> just reenforcing old stereotypes about previous versions of Windows (3.1,
>>> 95, 98 or ME). If you lump them all together and think of them as one,
>>> that's just wearing a blinder.
>>
>> Errr...I never mentioned 3.1, 95, 98 or ME. My machine runs XP as I
>> stated previously. Please don't put words into my mouth. It's not fair.
>> Anyway, I'm done with this pointless conversation. Probably best to
>> start a new topic if you want to talk about the lifespan of Apple IIGS,
>> and let this topic die the death it deserves. 
> 
> Yes, but your claiming that you won't touch Windows XP under any
> circumstance. I could understand reasons wanting to avoid pre-NT 
> versions of Windows but XP is pretty solid and robust. I certainly don't
> think its the holy grail of OSes or have a particular fondness for it, but
> it works well. So does MacOS X. I just sort of scratch my head when
> someone claims that OS X is so much better than the XP these days
> (cosmetic look aside).

The reason he refuses to touch XP under any circumstance is simple: the
Mac isn't really a computer, it's a religion.....

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Grev Turegatan 40,  SE-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW:     http://stjarnhimlen.se/