Ummm... Ok... That's enough... Stop buying macs...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 2 2007, 09:05 AM) [snapback]533904[/snapback]</div>

Michael Dell was feeling rather full of himself at the time.... Dell was on a roll and Apple had been experiencing some ...challenges.... But the moral of the story is don't ever short Steve Jobs. When he was forced out of Apple, I dumped the few shares I owned. When he returned, I bought as much as I could afford (but not enough). In retrospect, I should have taken out a second mortgage and bought more shares. Nothing like 20-20 hindsight....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Nov 2 2007, 08:34 AM) [snapback]533888[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Nov 2 2007, 09:05 AM) [snapback]533904[/snapback]</div>

According to my local Macintosh store:

First I'd have to visit an infected web site or play an infected media file (I wasn't sure which). Then I'd have to enter an admin password, not once, but at several stages of the "infection" process. If I did this, it would add an address to my DNS list, in the hopes of luring me to visit a spoofed web site. They'd actually have to have a web site that was a spoof of a site I normally visit. Then, if I failed to detect that the site was a spoof, it would try to lure me into giving my log-in and password, which they could then use to log on as me.

Worrying about this scenario is like the guy who puts heavy-duty bars on the doors of his house when any determined thief could just break a window to get in.

If I'm careless enough to be fooled by a spoofed web site, they would not have to go to all this trouble: They could simply send me an email with a link to their spoofed site. Even an unsophisticated computer user is not likely to give his computer admin password to a window that pops up while he's surfing for porn.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 31 2007, 11:59 PM) [snapback]533281[/snapback]</div>

The SKS on my Prius has not been modded and the doors will automatically lock again if I unlock them and walk away from the car. It can be a pain when unloading the cargo area. (The solution is to keep the fob on me or leave the doors open.)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 31 2007, 11:59 PM) [snapback]533281[/snapback]</div>

Actually, all you have to do is follow the on screen instructions or read the manual. Last time I checked, that wasn't very difficult. The included anti-spyware program in Vista does a good job and is automatically set to run at specific times without user intervention. The Vista firewall is also designed well, but it isn't needed if you have a router. AV software isn't even necessary if you use common sense when surfing the net. I've used every version of Windows since 3.1 (and every version of MacOS since the 5.25 floppy days) and have NEVER had a virus. I don't use AV software or User Account Control (it's annoying) either.
Concerning updates, the default in Vista is to automatically download/install them. There's not much Microsoft or Apple can do if the computer isn't powered on, so I wouldn't hold them responsible for that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 31 2007, 11:59 PM) [snapback]533281[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, it's not like Apple ever sent out software updates for some mobile communication device (which shall remain unnamed) that deleted the users' software or disabled the hardware.

As for the examples I used, I guess something got lost in the brain->keyboard->forum reader translation (as it often does). But I wouldn't say that the "locks are sold separately" with Windows, they just might be manual locks vs. power locks (Mac) that require more knowledge on the part of the user. Concerning example 2, I guess the point is that software makers can't idiot proof their software. Someone will always do the unexpected.

I have plenty of experience debating mac users (computer graphics class with lots of mac users), and I really don't like how the vast majority of them look down at (or feel pity) for us PC users. I like having choices when buying a computer, and PC's give me the most options.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hv74656 @ Nov 4 2007, 12:48 AM) [snapback]534577[/snapback]</div>

This is only if you touch the inside of the door handle, and then you do not open the door. Once you open the door, or if you leave the car after being inside, SKS will not automatically lock the doors.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hv74656 @ Nov 4 2007, 12:48 AM) [snapback]534577[/snapback]</div>

I have friends who are intelligent people but are not computer-literate. They get viruses. It's very easy to say that anyone can read the manual and follow the on-screen directions. But these can be mystifying to someone who comes into it without the cultural background of the habitual computer geek.

I don't know Vista. But the included security software in earlier versions of Windows was worthless, and frankly, given the generally poor quality of Windows itself, I would not trust MS security software.

A router provides a level of protection. But when I used Windows I got my advice from PC Magazine, and they never said that an AV program was unnecessary. As for using "common sense" when surfing the web, this is poppycock because someone outside the computer culture has no idea what constitutes "common sense." Accidentally mis-spell a common web site by one letter and you are likely to land on a porn site. It may be "common sense" to check your typing three times, but the average home user has no idea that ebat-dot-com may be a very different kind of place than ebay-dot-com, and does not know that merely visiting such a site from his home computer can give him a virus.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hv74656 @ Nov 4 2007, 12:48 AM) [snapback]534577[/snapback]</div>

Well, the default may be to download, and that's good for the people I was talking about above, but again, it's a matter of trust, and Microsoft's reputation has justly garnered it much distrust, and I know people who have turned off automatic downloading of patches because of disastrous effects of previous patches.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hv74656 @ Nov 4 2007, 12:48 AM) [snapback]534577[/snapback]</div>

I do not look down on PC users, and I do not feel pity for them. I do feel that Microsoft, by dominating the market with insecure software, has created an environment in which spam, viruses, and other malware can flourish.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 4 2007, 08:08 AM) [snapback]534607[/snapback]</div>

Insecure software is only part of the problem. Inevitably, each time a new O/S is released by MS, your current PC is obsolete because of the voracious appetite for memory from MS. Just 1 year ago, I purchased a PC with 1Gb of RAM and XP Pro. 1Gb is plenty for XP Pro, any of the AV and AS programs, and having a couple of Office programs open at the same time. Vista changes all of that. 1Gb is barely adequate for Vista alone. Want to have other programs open at the same time? Then you are looking at a minimum at another 1Gb and probably another 2Gb of RAM. OS X doesn't exact the same toll on system resources with their O/S upgrades.

 

SAT question:

Macs are to computers as Hybrids are to ____________.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Oct 22 2007, 06:43 PM) [snapback]529038[/snapback]</div>

Stop Buying MACS????? :angry: :angry: :angry: Ok, any more suggestions like this and I'll switch back to Waffle House.... jf :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 4 2007, 04:08 PM) [snapback]534607[/snapback]</div>

Intelligent computer-illiterate people should buy Macs. Or learn more about PC's and Windows.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 4 2007, 04:08 PM) [snapback]534607[/snapback]</div>

What a blanket statement. Can you give any details on why Windows is of general poor quality? What version of windows are you referring to? Perhaps 98, and then I fully agree with you. But I'm curious to hear why Windows NT4, 2000 or XP professional are of poor quality. Especially because millions of people work(ed) with it every day, and find it a reliable workhorse that boosts their productivity.
As far as Vista is concerned, may I suggest you to learn a bit more about it? It will give you some actual arguments next time you want to knock down Windows. Or, perhaps, you will learn that it is a fine OS.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 4 2007, 04:08 PM) [snapback]534607[/snapback]</div>

PC Mag is not an unbiased source. They are making a business out of making people feel that they are necessary, and they are also tied to their advertisers. As a consequence, they always tend to over complicate things. It's a bit like car magazines: if you really do all the stuff they advise for your car maintenance, you end up a lot of time and money on your car. Again, some common sense is needed while reading such magazines.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 4 2007, 04:08 PM) [snapback]534607[/snapback]</div>

Actually, that common sense is needed anyway if you expose yourself to the internet, regardless of what computer you are using. If you receive an email that is seemingly coming from Bank of America and asks about all your account details, you need to realize that this is not the way a bank does business. The same holds for a phishing web site that differs one letter from the original or, even worse, was hacked over the original (most likely hacked on Linux/PHP, being a horribly insecure platform). But, every day, some people fall into this trap (or others), because they are naive and not well prepared for the darker part of the web. And that's pretty independent of the OS they are using.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 4 2007, 04:08 PM) [snapback]534607[/snapback]</div>

Again, some details are requested here. Can you give us some more information about those "disastrous effects" of previous patches? I have been using them from the very beginning on my private computers, and never encountered such a thing. The only SP that was somewhat intrusive was XP SP2, because that introduced a built-in firewall. Some 3rd party programs had problems with that because they were not prepared to run with firewalls. But that's just an example of sloppy 3rd party applications, and in fact was easily be resolved by re-configuring.
It is true that in many corporate environments automatic updates are switched off, and the distribution of them is done in a centralized, supervised way (Windows has features to support this). But that's just a business policy. For example, a certified company has to test and document any change done on their IT system.

 

No one writes malware for MAC because there is no fun in kicking a cripple. Have you ever heard how boxers always get challenged by drunks to fights? It's way more fun to kick a tough guy's butt.
Sorry I was carried away by the mob on page 1.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Nov 5 2007, 12:51 AM) [snapback]534855[/snapback]</div>

Thank you. This is my point.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Nov 5 2007, 12:51 AM) [snapback]534855[/snapback]</div>

More than the average person of average intelligence and average interests wants to have to learn.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Nov 5 2007, 12:51 AM) [snapback]534855[/snapback]</div>

I am referring to all the versions of Windows I have used, plus 3.1 which I never used. I used 95, 98, ME, and XP (Pro on the desktop, Home on the laptop.) My specific complaints were instability (XP was a big improvement over the others) and the need to run all that security software. You dispute the need for any security software, but everyone I ever consulted or read insisted that it was necessary. Eventually the security software began to affect performance beyond what was acceptable. I've already mentioned the half-day of work it took to upgrade all the patches on my laptop before every trip, since I only used it for travel. Often running an MS program would cause MS Windows to crash. This happened much less with XP but still did happen.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Nov 5 2007, 12:51 AM) [snapback]534855[/snapback]</div>

I no longer care about new MS software. They have lost my trust. Perhaps you are right about Vista. But to me MS is like a compulsive liar. I just don't believe him any more. MS has shafted me with its rotten software for too long.

I am not going to waste my time in intensive study of an OS from a company that has lost my trust, merely to be able to argue more effectively.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Nov 5 2007, 12:51 AM) [snapback]534855[/snapback]</div>

Granted that they are dependent on advertisers, and that one must read them in this light. But that does not mean that their advice is meaningless.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Nov 5 2007, 12:51 AM) [snapback]534855[/snapback]</div>

Partly true. Sure, fishing emails (I hate the contrived word "phishing") may lure any sufficiently-ignorant person into giving away personal or banking information, just as scam snail mail may convince a sufficiently-gullible person to mail a large check to a crook.

But OS X asks me for an administrator's name and password before installing any program on my computer. Windows lets malware pop up a window which does not even have to have the "Yes" and "No" buttons properly labeled. In effect allowing a malicious web site to install software on my computer. You will probably answer that a "properly-configured" Vista requires the password also. Well, I made a real effort to get XP to be as secure as I could, and I am not a stupid person, but I could not figure out how to accomplish what OS X requires.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Nov 5 2007, 12:51 AM) [snapback]534855[/snapback]</div>

Sorry. I read about this. I read laments (from PC Mag) that many people were failing to install patches because of problems with earlier ones. I don't know details.

Oh, and BTW, does Vista still have the Registry? The Registry alone would have been sufficient reason for me to switch from Windows to the Mac. Just think! A single file (or whatever it is) that any program can alter, that is necessary for any program to run, but corrupting it will effectively render a computer inoperable, and which I gather makes it essentially impossible to completely remove any program from the computer unless that program provides an uninstall routine, and even then, most uninstall routines leave garbage in the Registry, so that in time this already humongous file becomes gargantuan beyond imagining. And half the "fixes" for whatever ails a misbehaving computer or program require the user to edit the registry, with the warning that if you do it wrong your computer may not work any longer. Really bright idea there, Microsoft!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(apriusfan @ Nov 4 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]534626[/snapback]</div>

That brings up an interesting point, actually... most OS's out there focus on developing their kernel to score well on certain benchmarks, when in reality those benchmarks may not do anything to help the average user. Apple actually focuses on the user experience - They'll spend their time working on something that gives them a 2x improvement in speed for the user experience instead of something that gives them a 10x improvement in speed on something that doesn't effect the users experience.

Also, The problem you described is due more to the release schedule than it is the companies. Apple has had so many more releases in the past 6 years than Microsoft, so they've been able to slowly up their system requirements. Something that would work for 10.0 (roughly the equivalent to XP in terms of release schedule) won't even run todays 10.5. But thats not much of a problem, as no one has computers that old. So if you bought something a year ago that runs Tiger, it'll still run Leopard, because it's not a dramatic change between the two.

Vista, however, is like 5 different versions of OSX all rolled into one - it's a huge change that requires a significant bump in computer resources. Now, that doesn't change the fact that computers bought just a year ago are barely adequate to run Vista, and two years ago the only computers that would have been able to run it were high end, $5000+ machines...

It just gets back to what you want in a release schedule. 12-18 months, or 5-6 years? Apple is aiming for 12-18 months for 10.6. Microsoft is aiming for 2011, but then again it was also aiming for 2004 for Vista... Sure, more frequent releases means you have to shell out money more frequently for it. but no one says you have to buy the latest and greatest - and with only a year or two between releases, it's not inconceivable to skip a release completely.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 5 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]534898[/snapback]</div>

A nice example of selective partial quoting. I expected better from you <_< . But nevermind, I don't have the slightest problem with that partial statement. I have been recommending Macs on that basis for years. But what I do find disturbing is that many Mac users are so narrow-minded, and stubbornly fail to see why PC's make sense to a lot of other people. For an experienced computers user who wants to go further, Windows PC's have a lot to offer. For corporate applications, PC's and Windows also make a lot of sense for many reasons that I tried to explain extensively in previous posts.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 5 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]534898[/snapback]</div>

The 95-98-Me line was rubbish. I have always used the NT-2000 line, and enjoyed stable, reliable and powerful OS'es. And I do not "dispute the need for any security software" (you are invited to show me where I did). A good firewall is an absolute must, but it doesn't necessarily have to be running on the desktop machines. The need of an antivirus program depends to a large extent on how you are using your computer, for what purposes and in what environment.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 5 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]534898[/snapback]</div>

I guess you must have had a very slow network connection, or you are exaggerating your point. In half a day, I can completely re-download Windows XP. Anyway, for a computer that is used on a regular basis, automatic updates is a very non-intrusive action that runs completely in the background. Most people even don't notice.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 5 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]534898[/snapback]</div>

A fact: in the last 6 or so years, I haven't had a single OS crash on any of my PC's. And I do a lot of deep stuff in C++ on my machines. I had a few blue screens, but they were all hardware related. One was with a defective memory bank, and another was with a toshiba laptop with an early USB port that sometimes froze when a new device was connected. But nothing caused by the OS or any application. Nada.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 5 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]534898[/snapback]</div>

That's perfectly OK of course. But do realise that, if you keep arguing, your arguments will start to sound hollow.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 5 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]534898[/snapback]</div>

Vista uses the same logic by default. You would need to actively change the system to make it behave different. XP can be configured in a similarly secure way by making a non-admin account with limited privileges, and use that one for daily use. A 5 minutes task that has been described several times in your trusted PC Mag. But it does not have the dynamic elevation feature, which means that you need to temporarily change user to an admin if you want to do installation taks.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 5 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]534898[/snapback]</div>

OK, let me start with those things that are just plain wrong. It's not true that just any program can alter it. It has internal, layered user privileges just like the file system itself. Important parts of it are restricted to admin privileges. There are many files, on any OS, that render the computer inoperable when corrupted. Just like any other modern OS, XP offers automatic recovery methods to revert to an earlier version of crucial system files should things go bad. Every decent program has an uninstall procedure that cleans itself from the registry (and other places) in a proper way. It is true that there exists some sloppy 3rd part apps that don't do that, but that's a consequence of the open approach of the Windows system.

Then, let's move to some points which you obviously don't understand very well. The registry is just a replacement for hundreds of individual configuration files scattered all over the file system, like you typically find in Unix-derived systems such as Linux. It's a faster approach, offers more control and is a lot more manageable. Just take a look at the /etc directory (the name!) in Unix if you want to see what I mean. It's a totall mess. And if you have admin rights, you can screw up things equally fast in /etc than you can in XP in the registry. Vista builds further on this by offering powerful sandboxing techniques for applications that access the registry, so that older 3rd party software can run happily in it's own little space.

And you fear that the registry is just a single file and thus somehow vulnerable is ridiculous. It's a database, and databases are typically stored in single files, or a relatively small amount of large files if things get huge. This is true for the most important databases you find in the world. This doesn't say anything about the security or robustness of the system. In fact, on modern OS'es, the file system itself resembles more and more a database. It offers more performance and flexibility such as indexing options and transactions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Nov 5 2007, 11:59 AM) [snapback]535027[/snapback]</div>

Rather than go on beating a dead horse, I'll leave most of this. I'll just say that I have broadband cable, that on a good day from a fast server, a megabyte downloads in an eyeblink, and a long audio book or Teaching Company lecture series downloads in maybe ten minutes or so.

Yes, perhaps I was exaggerating the time it took to patch my laptop between trips. But it was LOOOOOONG! Linux, when and if there are updates, takes a few minutes.

Once I had to re-install XP Home on my laptop. I had put Linux on it and decided to revert to XP. (It's back to Linux now, but a different distro.)

It actually took me two days. I was not sitting at the computer for two eight-hour days, but it was overall a two-day process. My OEM system disk was XP SP1. It took a good long while to install, then it went on line and downloaded and installed patches for some hours, and then it went on line and downloaded SP2, which took a LOOONG time, and installed that, and then it went on line and downloaded patches for that, and installed them. And it insisted on re-booting at numerous stages of the process.

It was extremely frustrating and required my intervention a lot.

You say that 95/98/ME were bad but that NT/2000 were good. But those latter never came on any of my computers. The former did. And with those, Microsoft has lost my trust. I do not trust them and for me, that is the bottom line.

Tom_06 posted a nice link in this post. You won't like the video linked in his post, but I love it. For me, it says it all.

This is the link from Tom's post.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 6 2007, 03:09 AM) [snapback]535205[/snapback]</div>

A dead horse, what an understatement! That horse is so dead that even flies avoid it. But you can always leave it to Mac users to resurrect it. I have been posting on numerous web boards, and in the overwhelming majority of cases where such threads emerge, it is because a Mac user posted some kind of negative remark about PC's and/or Windows. It's very rare (these days) that such a thread is started by a PC user posting something negative about a Mac. This forum is no exception. Someone has a problem with his/her PC, posts a question, and the thread gets flooded with remarks telling how much better Mac's are and that this person should buy a Mac. And, very soon down the road of that discussion, you start to see grossly exaggerated claims about how unstable and how completely unusable PC's are. How childish. I call this intolerant and narrow-minded behaviour.
It baffles me every time why so many Mac users seem to be compelled to do that every time again and again. Most PC users I know don't care a bit about how things go in the Mac world. The nice thing about the PC platform is that you can find an answer to any challenge. There is more stuff out there for PC's than for any other platform. More options, more possibilities, more freedom. I can do things on PC/Windows that you will never be able to do on Mac/OSX. It's just not always obvious to use, and not particularly user friendly. But many computer users with sufficient knowledge don't have the slightest problem with that. The other ones, please go to Macs, use them and be happy. But try to broaden your mind and realize that, for other people with other needs and other knowledge, PC/Windows is a great platform.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 6 2007, 03:09 AM) [snapback]535205[/snapback]</div>

Well, the fact that you did not chose the NT/2000 line is an indication that Mac's are a better choice for you. Your profile is perhaps more that of a consumer with limited interest in computers.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 6 2007, 03:09 AM) [snapback]535205[/snapback]</div>

That's perfectly OK of course, and I have full respect for your opinion. I don't trust MS myself. I use my own judgment to evaluate every product that they make and that potentially interests me. Some of them are total cr@p (like 98/ME), others are truly great (like .NET and their latest series of compilers). But in fact, I don't trust any company. I don't trust Apple. I evaluate their products and see what I can use. Quite likely, I have used more different Apple/Jobs computers than most people on this forum. My first program was on an Apple IIe, I worked on the first Macintoshes, made a side step to NeXT and developed some stuff on NeXtStep, worked on iMacs, ... I know the strengths and the weaknesses of that company, just like I do with Microsoft.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 6 2007, 03:09 AM) [snapback]535205[/snapback]</div>

I have a good sense of humor, and I appreciate any good joke about Microsoft, such as the recent advertisements made by Apple. But that video is just boring and lame. If that "says" anything to you, then I guess I my arguments are totally waisted on you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Nov 6 2007, 02:46 AM) [snapback]535386[/snapback]</div>

I used Windows for several years. I had lots of problems, which I believe were due to bad programming. When I learned that OS X is Unix, I switched, and have been very happy. So I recommend to others the solution I found. I also vent against the company that made my computing so unpleasant for so long.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Nov 6 2007, 02:46 AM) [snapback]535386[/snapback]</div>

I saw no reason why I should pay extra for an OS for a computer that came with an OS. Why did Microsoft market admittedly trashy operating systems (95, 98, ME) if they had good OSs available?

I do not like working on my car. So I bought my Prius because I knew that Toyota does not sell crappy cars. Most of their line does not suit me, but I know that their whole like is top quality. I also do not like having to "fix" the OS in my computer, so I bought a computer with an OS that does not need to be "fixed."

If someone buys a car and the engine is bad, do you tell them that instead of complaining about the manufacturer they ought to just buy a new engine because there is a perfectly good engine available and all they have to do is throw away the engine that came in the car and buy and install a brand new one?

 

Just my two cents. No voting, or arguing. I'm a relatively smart person I would guess. When I saw my first MAC I simply realized it was better. I've been using them from the beginning for that reason only. They've always been better, and they still are. Now with the new MAC OS running Windows as well or better than PC's, it's a serious no brainer.
I don't put PC users down. Sometimes money is an issue. Whatever. I use MACS because they are simply better.

CBarn

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 6 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]535489[/snapback]</div>

Come on. Injecting every thread that mentions PC's and or Windows with comments on how inferior Windows is, and how much better Macs are has nothing to do with recommending a solution you found. Perhaps venting frustration indeed. But, above all, it is arrogant and misplaced. And, thinking that what works best for you also works best for everybody else is simply a proof of a narrow mind. Sorry if my words start to sound harsh. I guess I'm losing my patience with this utterly pointless discussion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 6 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]535489[/snapback]</div>

Now that is a good remark that comes close to the center of the problems MS has had for a long time. Insiders in the industry have been asking this question for many years. Why didn't they dump the 98-ME path much earlier? Especially ME should never have existed. I guess the answer to that is buried deep somewhere inside the internal politics of MS. MS definitely has produced it's share of $hit. And, in fact, they are doing the same right now with Vista Home Basic. That's a completely pointless product.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 6 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]535489[/snapback]</div>

Before I buy a car, I test drive it so that I know it's strengths and weaknesses and how I can get around them. If you don't like how XP does things, why did you chose it in the first place? The things you sum up as fatal problems weren't exactly secrets. Macs have be around for a very long time, and they always have been more user-friendly than PC's, every single version of it. Do your homework rather than venting your frustration afterwards. As I said many times, lots of people do actively chose for PC/Windows, for good and important reasons, knowing the strong and weak points and how to get around them. Finally try to realise that, what works best for you doesn't necessarily work best for everybody else, and vice versa.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 6 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]535489[/snapback]</div>

I have no idea what that comparison is supposed to tell. I have always bought my PC's and laptops directly with the pro line of MS software, and never needed to change the "engine".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CatahoulaB @ Nov 6 2007, 05:17 PM) [snapback]535518[/snapback]</div>

I can 100% understand your opinion, and can easily see why you say that.
But I would suggest to consider changing it into "I use MACS because they are simply better for my needs."
Other people may have other needs and priorities, and may come to different conclusions.

 

I have read your comments. Thank you. I'm done with this thread now.

Peace.

 

You know, this argument reminds me of those who argue between using the King James version of the Bible (trusted by many, used for years), and the newer version of the Bible, the New International. You have the same underpinnings (both Windows and Mac use OX's based on GUI), and yet are almost completely different (like comparing verses in the two bibles, often they say different things, yet are the same verse).


Anyway, that may only apply to me.

If I do often come down on the side of Macs now, it's because I spent years wasting money on Windows PC'S/Laptops, and frankly, wish I had just been with Macs all along. I would listen to the arguments before, and not get a Mac based on the stubborn belief that Windows was better due to it's having more programs. But in the long(er) run, it's better for me to spend more now, on one computer, that will last longer, with less issues, then to waste money on Windows.

IMO, of course.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 4 2007, 06:59 PM) [snapback]534753[/snapback]</div>

Staff (sp?) infection?

But on a serious note, something I ran across today that you MAC users should be aware of. The malware slugs are starting to become aware of the growing number of Macs out there... http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=3595 IMO for your own good I would suggest replacing Mac smugness with an eye that you are no longer imune.