Re: I really do like OS X but . . .

In article <5ticr15u5tgbgh7jo87h305b238hj22uro@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:22:37 -0500, Tim Murray <no-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:06:02 -0500, foo@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> and there is certainly no evidence that Macs are less productive. But
> >>> there is plenty of evidence that Macs are the MORE productive of the two
> >>> platforms.
> >>
> >> Not in a long, long time have I seen Gartner and similar for modern
> >> Mac systems.
> >
> >Sure, it's from 2002, but the basics have not changed: see
> >http://www.macworld.com/news/2002/06/13/deal/
>
> Sorry but the *** hit the fan and everyone headed for the tall grass

Pffffftte! Hah! The clever use of "*** hit the fan" and "tall grass" is a
masterful stroke of humorous intent. Very good!



> when it got leaked that Apple had funded that study.
> http://www.cio-today.com/perl/story/18338.html
>
> >Go ahead and find one that says Windows is more productive. I'll wait.
>
> There's never been a valid study comparing the two. The closest that
> we have are the 'results' from the 'Gistics' study that Maccies like
> to cite but can never prove actually happened. The results that
> Maccies like to 'cite' showed that the TCO of Unix based systems like
> MacOS X are twice what are for Windows.

Hheeehee! Rofl, Mayor. Rofl.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
.

Quantcast