Re: To make movies, get a Macintosh

Tim Crowley wrote:
ed wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
In article <cz9fg.40839$q13.283929@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, NRen2k5
<nomore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tim Crowley wrote:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/business/technology/14677951.htm

<Repeated bull*** SNIPPED>

Shill.

- NRen2k5
Wow. There's nothing like a point-by-point refutation of an
argument.

And that was *nothing* like a point-by-point refutation of an
argument.
a point-by-point refutation would be a neat trick given that the og
article doesn't even list the programs he's 'testing', nevermind mention any particular reasons why he has issues with them. ;D

He made the point very well that the Mac solution was easy, intuitive
and produced results that look classy and professional.

He didn't MAKE the point, he only stated it. He didn't back it up at all, so the only ones likely to believe it are those - like yourself - who already agreed before they even read the article.

My experience has been the same - with the Mac "It's easy, it's fun
and the results are first-class. What more could you want?" you
can attempt to refute that, but I think you would have little
success.

Not worth refuting. Equivalent Windows software is also easy, fun and
produces first-class results.

- NRen2k5
.

Quantcast