Re: The Windiots/Wintrolls/WinNuts are getting frisky...

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:44:04 -0800, StormDrain wrote
(in article <Liberty-FC46FF.08440412032006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

In article <CJ5Qf.46742$H71.27715@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"John Slade" <hitman86@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

What it boils down to is that the WinNuts can't stand to see someone
with choice who has had the courage to make their choice. The WinNuts
are content to follow( and contend we drink the kool-aid). But a big
difference remains.

Horse ***. Pure horse ***. Most Windows users who post in here
contradict the stupid claims insecure dolts like you make. PC users have
more choices for hardware and software than you do. More choices for Unix
and and Linux distributions and more choices for hardware. A PC user can
tailor a system to suit their needs easier than you can a Mac. Macs have
limited hardware choices. You can't just pop in any AGP video card and have
it work, it has to be specially made for the Mac. Jimmy, that limits your
choices. I can choose the company that makes my CPU and Motherboard to suit
my needs. I can save money or increase perfomance. The thing is it's my
choice. With Macs, you have few choices.

Yea, but we looked at all those "choices" and chose a Mac. Kinda gets
your goat eh?

Of course not.

Those who use Windows regularly, and remain with Windows when they don't have
to (I believe that particular group comprises the majority of Windows users)
chose Windows and an Intel PC because of the options available to them. Many
of them could have chosen Macs rather than Intel PCs, but chose a PC rather
than a Mac. Does this "get YOUR goat"?


You're wrong about software too. I can run OSS, windows and Mac

What is "OSS"? During the 2nd World War, the beginnings of the CIA was
called the "OSS" (Office of Special Services). The OS I use is called "OS X
10.4.5". Perhaps that is what you meant.

software on this machine. Software selection is wide open. It comes
standard with apache and all the Unix dodads. Often used utilities like
search, the file system, programs and dropping points are one click
away, not buried in contextual menus. OS X contains features like
text-to-speech which are not standard on any other system. Out of the
box OS X comes with two 'light weight' development environment Automator
and applescript, a heavy weight development environment, XCode,

Does it really matter WHO provides the Development Environment we use?
Third-Party, or OEM-supplied. "Six of one, half a dozen of another".

Professionals do not mind paying for professional development tools. They
can just write their purchase price off as a business expense at the end of
the year.

Many Mac developers do not regulary use XCode. They use CodeWarrior instead
(or another commercial IDE).

plus
all the pearly stuff in between. And this is just a fraction of the
stuff I take for granted on a Mac that makes windows so aggravating

Little reason _not_ to choose a Mac IMO,

Considering that the majority of corporations use Windows, and many of those
use EXCLUSIVELY Windows, purchasing a Mac for your corporate desktop is a
sure-fire way to send you down a path of negative career growth very quickly.
unless you run such a sluggish
OS you enjoy those constant hardware upgrades

You mean the "constant AirPort upgrades necessary after every major upgrade
to OS X"?

How about the (sometimes) necessity to purchase a $99 adaptor to use a DVI
connector with your old Apple Studio Display when you upgrade to a new Apple?
I'm sure there are other examples of having to upgrade hardware and other
components with newer major versions of OS X, even with newer minor versions.
But contrary to your misinformation, most upgrades to Windows do not require
upgraded hardware. All that is usually necessary is to obtain a newer driver
for your devices. Usually, the only time one must purchase a new hardware
device is when the hardware is simply outmoded and no longer under
development by the OEM, or there is a complete sea-change in hardware or
software requirements or OS architecture (such as when PC users upgraded from
Windows 95/9x to XP or 2ooo.) For example, when I upgraded Windows 9x to XP,
all I had to do was add a compatible driver for my sound card (if I remember
correctly, there was a Windows driver provided for my video card on the XP
install disk). It was a simple matter to go to Creative's site and download
an XP-compatible driver for my card. Usually, Microsoft goes all-out to
provide for hardware compatiblity with existing devices in an upgrade. Very
few devices fail to work with Windows nowadays, even right out of the box.

There will be a necessity (in some cases) for people to upgrade their
hardware when Vista is released. This will only be necessary if one wants to
use the advanced video features of Vista. But this will be necessary because
of the complete change in the Windows Graphics Foundation of Vista. The
majority of PC owners will have to make absolutely NO hardware changes when
they upgrade to Vista. However, if they want to take advantage of Vista's
advance Graphics facilities, they may have to install a better video card,
more memory, or a faster processor (or all three).

Obviously, owners of older PCs (pre-Pentium IV) will not even be able to
install Vista (like the old [XT/286/386/486/Pentium I, II, III] PC you might
have in the garage or a closet gathering dust.)

or depend on PC users for
a living.

Macs may be great and all, but "when in Rome, shoot Roman candles", as the
old saw says.
--

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may remain intact
==========================================

.