Re: Why I admire Gates more than Jobs

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-B5203A.09440130072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 7/30/07 8:44 AM:

In article <C2D2BEFC.8992F%CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <CSMA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-05B743.22003529072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 7/29/07 9:00 PM:


As far as an "elite little snob world", and your use of "snob toys"
Edwin,
clearly you are simply using derogatory terms to try to get a response.
My
response is my norm: I will ask you for support. I also would like to
see
you support thee claim that cheaper PCs "run rings around" Macs. In
what
way?

Speed per dollar spent. Look at the price of the high end Mac mini ($800)
Now look around at what you can get for 3/4 of that price in PC land.

Is your only judgment of the value of a computer its benchmarked speed?

No... I also value the size of the included storage, the amount of included
RAM, the upgradeability of the unit wrt things like graphics cards, A/V
type
I/O and/or processing cards... etc.

While I agree with you about those things being important, for me the value
of a tool is how much work it allows to be done, how quickly, how easily,
and other such things.

Not being able to insert an I/O card makes it hold far less value for me.


If so, do you judge cars solely by speed, too? Just curious.

Now you have your answer.

What do you think PCs do better?

Why do you keep asking the same questions over an over? These answer have
been given numerous times to your repeated denials. A faster computer for
the same or less money is "better" in the mind of any sane person. Are
you
going to now argue that a faster computer *isn't* "better"? Go ahead,
Snit... I can't wait;)

Again, Steve, is benchmark speed your only consideration? While it is *a*
consideration in my view, what a tool allows a user to do and how quickly
(which is not the same as benchmark speed) take far more precedence.

If you're talking about what a "tool allows"... I can upgrade a $600 PC in
ways that $800 Mini (or even the far more expensive iMacs) can be
upgraded.

Such talent. :)

Ok, let's assume you meant the exact opposite of what you wrote and that you
meant you can upgrade the PC in ways you can *not* upgrade a Mac.

Sorry... I did mean that I can upgrade a PC in ways that I can *not* upgrade a
mini or an iMac (not the towers, which is one of the main reasons why I buy
them)

If those
upgrades are things most people do not need or will not do then that is not
relevant.

You didn't ask "most people", you asked me. If the new topic is now "most
people"
we already know the Mac lost that war.

(snip irrelevant material by Snit where he doesn't stick to his own new topic)

A user will get faster at performing a task with the tools he uses... if
the
tools prevent him from performing that task altogether there is no
comparison... being unable to do something at all if you have a "need" for
it
isn't much of a selling point. If I want the same kind of upgradeability on
the Mac side I have to buy a tower. Suppose I need upgradeability but don't
need the max speed that the latest chips on the market offer? There is no
inexpensive Apple option for this.

See above.

Yes, I saw your irrelevant, anecdotal stories (I have to say that I don't
believe the one where going "from PCs to Macs" made the support costs jump
400% - perhaps you meant going from Macs to PCs?). The fact is, despite all
these kinds of stories... (note that I am now addressing *your* new topic
change) "most people" choose Windows boxes. Last year at this time (the 'back
to
school' period - the busiest period) sub $500 computer systems held 54% of
computer systems sold. Apple is a no show in that market. The average selling
price of a system then was around $800. The only unit that would allow a buyer
to put together a system for that price is the low end mini. People look at
the
fact that they have to do more work to cobble together a system, they look at
how upgradeable the mini isn't, they look at the speed differences... some
even
realize that the user himself might be the bottleneck for awhile... they then
reach the only conclusion that makes sense to them.

I also would like to see you support thee claim that cheaper PCs "run rings
around" Macs.

So far your "support" includes price and expandability. If I missed others
please state them.

I have noted that in my view there are things that are much more important
than that:

While I agree with you about those things being important,
for me the value of a tool is how much work it allows to be
done, how quickly, how easily, and other such things. The
things you list, of course, help lead to the things I list,
but they are simply not sufficient. A PC (from Apple or
other computer maker) for example, without an OS is crippled
as a tool (though you could add an OS on it, of course!)

I also have asked you in this thread:

Why, then, do you prefer the Mac? Does it give you any
tangible benefit?

Can you answer that question now?

--
? It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
? No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
? Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Real cost of the mini
    ... >> price of a comparable mac. ... Let us see what happens when we upgrade the mini: ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Mac mini or iMac?
    ... easily have its memory upgraded. ... Any idiot can upgrade the Mini's memory. ... installations in a Mini, I'd hardly call it an "any idiot" job. ... I would and would encourage any non-lobotomized PATIENT Mac ...
    (comp.sys.mac.misc)
  • Re: Google Earth for the Mac is out
    ... working on 10.3.9 support." ... I really see no compelling reason to pay the Apple Tax to upgrade at this point. ... Mac users in general had to wait a little while for the mac version of ... That's no surprise, though, because Garmin has never ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Are there any - Mac users here..?
    ... Anyone who had a 68k Mac got left in the dark when the PowerPC arrived, as more and more software required PowerPC, and anyone who bought one of the early PowerPC Macs without PCI got left in the dark when one of the OS updates required PCI. ... Anyway, PCs are just as bad with the main difference that instead of making you upgrade all your software to the new standard or use them with slow emulated subsystem of the OS, Windows makes you upgrade to the latest thing (inc. near compulsory hardware upgrade to support new and improved bloatware in the OS) as soon as someone writes a piece of software that you need to have that requires Vista, *and* the OS has a load of low level legacy crap in it to support old software as much as possible. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Leopard on October 26
    ... Since I have some hardware with support software that requires Classic, I have a bit of a dilemma. ... My dilemma is that there is some software I want to use that requires a system update (I suppose I could go to 10.4, but why upgrade to an old version?). ... I was hoping for one last software update on this 4-year-old Mac that I will continue using as long as possible -- not just for Classic but also for some expensive software that requires PowerPC. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)