Re: To Upgrade or Not. What's the difference?

On May 3, 7:51 pm, Steven Pampling <steve.pampl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article <4edc16ff88j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Cartmell

<j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What he has said is not true.

I don't think you can say that, and you're next two sentences indicate why:

This:

The A9 is a complete, working, machine.

Disagrees with this:

Aspects are missing but it works perfectly barring those.

Clearly you two different heads on while writing the above. :-)


The crazy thing is that he can make both assertions if he uses
sufficiently twisted logic. Try this - the A9 is complete in a
*hardware sense* - it has all the requisite ports. He could then say
the machine is complete.

The OS is missing some features that controls how the *hardware* works
- so it works perfectly except for the bits the missing OS components
would handle.

Yes in that way John could hold two contradictory positions and
recommend to people to purchase a "complete machine" that doesn't work
completely.

Belies belief I know - but there you have it.

The trouble is that this form of sophistry raises peoples expectations
and then the reality dashes them. But that's not John's problem - yes
a few irate people will vent spleen and then leave (have a gander at
the thread "Goodbye and thanks for all the fish" for a flavour) - that
may not be a problem to him but what good does it do the platform -
not a whole lot I'd say.

--

Steve Pampling


Regards

Annraoi

.