Windows WT?!

[ihatepop]

Thats it...I'm switching to a Mac.

ihatepop

[mike_lang]

You will be happier for it.

[thalberg]

macs are the best

[leahcim]

Thats it...I'm switching to a Mac.

Heh, may I refer you to the reply I gave here...

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,11499.msg121171.html#msg121171

and here

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,11499.msg121381.html#msg121381

[chopininov]

Heh, may I refer you to the reply I gave here...

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,11499.msg121171.html#msg121171

and here

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,11499.msg121381.html#msg121381

Your second post is now wrong.

[soliloquy]

Macs are for three kinds of people:


people too poor to buy good PC's

people who don't want any of their programs to work right

people who think they're cool, but not cool enough for Linux

[chopininov]

Macs are for three kinds of people:


people too poor to buy good PC's

people who don't want any of their programs to work right

people who think they're cool, but not cool enough for Linux

So you're saying that "good" macs are cheaper than "good" pc's? Cool! 

[mike_lang]

Try one of these on for size:

https://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nnmm=browse&mco=7B72365D&node=home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro

[soliloquy]

So you're saying that "good" macs are cheaper than "good" pc's? Cool! 

No, I'm saying a "good" mac is trash compared to a "good" PC.  Read below.

Try one of these on for size:

https://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nnmm=browse&mco=7B72365D&node=home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro

Case and point; this is like top of the line for an apple.  I'm not any sort of wicked computer nerd or anything but I'm running:

Motherboard: Intel Asus P5E3 Deluxe
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6850
Memory: 2x 1024 OCZ PC3-14400 DDR3
Power: Seasonic ST1000 1000W
Hard drive: 2x Seagate SATA II 750GB
Video: Radeon HD2900 + PNY Quadro FX 5500 1GB PCI-E
Sound: Yamaha XWave 6000
LAN: Killer NIC M1


Which would slaughter any Mac.  And compared to like high-end gaming and graphics-editing PC's, that's not even remotely impressive.

[mcgillcomposer]

No, I'm saying a "good" mac is trash compared to a "good" PC.  Read below.


Case and point; this is like top of the line for an apple.  I'm not any sort of wicked computer nerd or anything but I'm running:

Motherboard: Intel Asus P5E3 Deluxe
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6850
Memory: 2x 1024 OCZ PC3-14400 DDR3
Power: Seasonic ST1000 1000W
Hard drive: 2x Seagate SATA II 750GB
Video: Radeon HD2900 + PNY Quadro FX 5500 1GB PCI-E
Sound: Yamaha XWave 6000
LAN: Killer NIC M1


Which would slaughter any Mac.  And compared to like high-end gaming and graphics-editing PC's, that's not even remotely impressive.

Perhaps...but the most important point is missing: the Mac will not slaughter itself...

[chopininov]

No, I'm saying a "good" mac is trash compared to a "good" PC.  Read below.


Case and point; this is like top of the line for an apple.  I'm not any sort of wicked computer nerd or anything but I'm running:

Motherboard: Intel Asus P5E3 Deluxe
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6850
Memory: 2x 1024 OCZ PC3-14400 DDR3
Power: Seasonic ST1000 1000W
Hard drive: 2x Seagate SATA II 750GB
Video: Radeon HD2900 + PNY Quadro FX 5500 1GB PCI-E
Sound: Yamaha XWave 6000
LAN: Killer NIC M1


Which would slaughter any Mac.  And compared to like high-end gaming and graphics-editing PC's, that's not even remotely impressive.

I'm sorry, did you have a point? Because last time I checked, it was a matter of preference. You are acting like you can only have Mac OSX on Mac hardware. You are confusing hardware with software.

Oh, and what exactly is a "good" PC?

[mcgillcomposer]

I must say, I think chop owned you on this one...

[leahcim]

Your second post is now wrong.

I don't see why?

(a) Steve Jobs is largely ipod / itunes and pixar. I didn't predict iphone, but the share of mac hasn't significantly grown over the many nights since I posted that, and it's still pretty insignificant relative to windows.

(b) Macs are now, as we know, unix / intel boxes [although you can probably run windows too, the comment, in context, compared it with the idea posited by Apple and fanboys that Macs were better than PCs historically - because they had different processors / different hardware like scsi - even though PCs had scsi and so on]

Effectively a Mac being an expensive PC in a shiny plastic case today just says, as I said, "what PC folk had said all along", that the PC was better than those Macs which had different hardware and a non-unix OS. Ergo Steve has made the Mac into a PC proving either that PCs are better and always have been or modern Macs are now rubbish, take your pick

But, if you want to run windows and linux then you may as well get a PC, it's either the same as a Mac or better and cheaper depending on which particular hardware tech you care about.

So, whether you like Apple or not,  there's nothing added to Macs if they are like a PC because of the same hardware or because they run windows or whatever. The only logical thing that would make them better is something they have or do that PC hardware or software can't do, simply copying a PC [or anything else] just makes you the same or worse as that thing. There simply isn't anything in hardware terms and it's fairly self-evident that software doesn't have such a limitation by definition.

Can you prefer one to another? Sure, but that's about it and simple stats show where the preferences are.

(c) The windows xp and 2000 comments still apply - how could they not?
(d) The security comments still apply. All applications and OSes have security issues, there is no panacea.

Something else? You're suggesting the Mac now has applications? Other than photoshop? 

[chopininov]

I don't see why?

(a) Steve Jobs is largely ipod / itunes and pixar. I didn't predict iphone, but the share of mac hasn't significantly grown over the many nights since I posted that, and it's still pretty insignificant relative to windows.

(b) Macs are now, as we know, unix / intel boxes [although you can probably run windows too, the comment, in context, compared it with the idea posited by Apple and fanboys that Macs were better than PCs historically - because they had different processors / different hardware like scsi - even though PCs had scsi and so on]

Effectively a Mac being an expensive PC in a shiny plastic case today just says, as I said, "what PC folk had said all along", that the PC was better than those Macs which had different hardware and a non-unix OS. Ergo Steve has made the Mac into a PC proving either that PCs are better and always have been or modern Macs are now rubbish, take your pick

But, if you want to run windows and linux then you may as well get a PC, it's either the same as a Mac or better and cheaper depending on which particular hardware tech you care about.

So, whether you like Apple or not,  there's nothing added to Macs if they are like a PC because of the same hardware or because they run windows or whatever. The only logical thing that would make them better is something they have or do that PC hardware or software can't do, simply copying a PC [or anything else] just makes you the same or worse as that thing. There simply isn't anything in hardware terms and it's fairly self-evident that software doesn't have such a limitation by definition.

Can you prefer one to another? Sure, but that's about it and simple stats show where the preferences are.

(c) The windows xp and 2000 comments still apply - how could they not?
(d) The security comments still apply. All applications and OSes have security issues, there is no panacea.

Something else? You're suggesting the Mac now has applications? Other than photoshop? 

Wow you just wasted your time. I'll be nice and spare you the time of having to read a long, ranting, repetitive, rambling, inaccurate post.
(a) Steve Jobs is not Apple. They are two separate entities. And here: https://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071020/news_1b20apple.html
With the emphasis on "Mac shipments rose 37 percent, with Apple posting the fastest growth among the top five PC makers."

(b) Why yes they are.
And Macs were not turned into PC's, otherwise they would be.....PC's. Apple simply allowed customers to install Windows on their Macs. This was done because many Windows users that wanted to switch to Macs were afraid, because a lot of their data, software, and hardware is only compatible for Windows. It seems more that PC nerds got angry and jealous when Apple announced this feature because that meant that their precious droids would be converted to the "dark side."

Ergo Steve has made the Mac into a PC proving either that PCs are better and always have been or modern Macs are now rubbish, take your pick

Not everything is as you perceive them to be: black and white.

But, if you want to run windows and linux then you may as well get a PC, it's either the same as a Mac or better and cheaper depending on which particular hardware tech you care about.

Recent reports have pointed out that Macbook Pros actually run Windows Vista better than all the other "Windows" computers. Here: https://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/03/22/mac_fastest_core_duo_laptop/

So, whether you like Apple or not,  there's nothing added to Macs if they are like a PC because of the same hardware or because they run windows or whatever. The only logical thing that would make them better is something they have or do that PC hardware or software can't do, simply copying a PC [or anything else] just makes you the same or worse as that thing. There simply isn't anything in hardware terms and it's fairly self-evident that software doesn't have such a limitation by definition.

Well I must point out that Apple must be doing something right. There is a reason why Macbooks are on the top 5 most purchased laptops.

Can you prefer one to another? Sure, but that's about it and simple stats show where the preferences are.

Yes, and the statistics that I linked to above point that out. [Notice I actually provide evidence]

Something else? You're suggesting the Mac now has applications? Other than photoshop?

I almost smirked at your sarcasm here, except that it wasn't very clever.

So far now, my dear confused friend, I think I will continue around the track once more on my high horse. Would you like a lift?

[soliloquy]

I'm sorry, did you have a point? Because last time I checked, it was a matter of preference. You are acting like you can only have Mac OSX on Mac hardware. You are confusing hardware with software.

I'm sorry; do you have a point?  Wait.  Let me rephrase.  Do you have a point that makes sense in the context of factual accuracy and the question that was asked?  If you'd like I can save you the time and tell you that you don't.  Please, show me a Mac that runs DDR3 (you probably don't know what that is because commercial Mac is always lightyears behind in hardware, but it's RAM).  Link me.  Assuming you can actually navigate in Opera, the most horrendous browser ever (even Netscape is more user-friendly and compatible, and that says a lot).  No how bout this; show me a Mac that is even capable of running DDR3.

So far now, my dear confused friend, I think I will continue around the track once more on my high horse. Would you like a lift?

The ultimate Mac-user stereotype.  And to think, people are under the impression that apple-whores actually don't envision themselves riding around on "high horses" just because they use a computer that, while possibly being more aerodynamic and colorful, is inferior to a PC in regards to speed, program compatibility and price.  I think macs should come with vibrators strapped to them so people can actually get f*cked by them, because it seems like most of their users would want nothing more.  I mean, how insanely ridiculous/funny.  You pull up one link, which is totally misleading considering it only refers to Apple Computers vs. Dell, only one of a million PC suppliers.  I don't know if you're gay or straight or even a guy/girl, but is it safe to assume you would lick Jobs' shoes clean if he asked?  Or didn't ask?  Now why don't you go put on your ergonomic little black rectangle glasses and buy some 8 dollar starbucks frappa-vanilla-barely-even-has-coffee-in-it with whipped cream and sit around in some internet cafe (because your DSL keeps screwing up because your apple crapbox keeps conflicting with your modem's IP) and scoff at all the people using laptops running windows as their computers work and your G4's battery dies in 10 minutes.  Then send it into Apple (AND ONLY APPLE!!!) to get the 300 dollar battery replaced every year, with a labor charge of 125 dollars an hour

Then you can get back to listening to bad music you think is progressive but is actually just wussy 90's emo knockoff-rock that 14 year olds girls used to like 5 years ago.  At 99 cents a track, because none of those other music programs really work.  At all   I'm sorry if I'm being stereotypical to what you like to drink and the music you like, but it's not my fault you're a stereotype.  And to think, you mac guys think you're being soooo "cool" and "individual" by using your semi-computers.  You're just being annoying (whoops, another mac-user stereotype).  You have fun on your high horse, I'm going to enjoy my computer surviving more than 3 years.

[leahcim]

Wow you just wasted your time. I'll be nice and spare you the time of having to read a long, ranting, repetitive, rambling, inaccurate post.
(a) Steve Jobs is not Apple. They are two separate entities. And here: https://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071020/news_1b20apple.html
With the emphasis on "Mac shipments rose 37 percent, with Apple posting the fastest growth among the top five PC makers."

Yes, but read what I said in that 2005 post and repeated though. IF it had doubled, which is more than 37% you'll find, it still would be peanuts...and thus, all you confirmed is what I said, it is still peanuts.

So no, that's not evidence, it's backing what I said. Get over it, it doesn't matter. I've managed to use linux for over a decade and can still accept that, on the desktop, it's peanuts. It's just plain daft to be arguing otherwise.

As for Steve Jobs not being Apple...he's the only thing they've got worth shouting about...and that's because of ipods et al, not macs.

And Macs were not turned into PC's, otherwise they would be.....PC's. Apple simply allowed customers to install Windows on their Macs.

They are and were...as your own story showed. But not because of windows. Now you're arguing with yourself. Earlier you said [quite rightly] not to mistake software and hardware. Now you talk about 'allowing windows' in response to someone talking about how the apple HARDWARE has turned into pc HARDWARE. D'oh. At the same time I also mentioned they've switched to unix too, which again has nothing to do with *allowing* anyone to install windows. So your response is just a red herring.

Running windows is just a side effect of making it into a PC. A better notion, if you want to learn a bit about software and OSes, would be if you'd argued that Microsoft allowed it - [that would have been incorrect of course, but at least it would have made some logical sense]

Because if Macs weren't PCs then Apple wouldn't need to allow, it would be MS that would have to do stuff to allow it. i.e What they did to their applications to get them to run on Mac hardware when Macs really weren't PCs, many years ago - port them to the Mac.

Now MS didn't have to of course. Geddit? It's because it's already a PC. If it had run linux you'd have had a better argument, because linux does run on a plethora of different architectures and hardware whereas Windows XP runs on PCs.

Besides, here you see :-
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4816520.stm
far from being *allowed*, initially it was done irrespective [permitted later perhaps but you see their permission or whatever you think happened, wasn't needed] and it ran with just changes to installation stuff, to cater for different boot up.

So far now, my dear confused friend, I think I will continue around the track once more on my high horse. Would you like a lift?

It looks more like an ass than a horse from here

Especially when you start linking to stories about Macs being better at running windows xp because of photoshop benchmarks. Whilst missing far more apt facts like the graphics chip not being capable of being fully utilised under xp at that time - and the last paragraph too.

At best you could've [but failed to] argue that the article showed a specific Apple made PC was quicker than some other manufs PCs on a specific benchmark. This is a better argument than claiming it isn't a PC. But even so, had you made a valid argument, it's not surprising in the PC world. PC magazines run comparisons against different PCs month in and month out. The manuf places continually change, especially between different machine types and price points - and a PC with a graphics chip you can't use wouldn't be likely to score highly.

If you ignored history and accepted the benchmarks on face value, if you bought an apple pc and wanted  to run windows the single thing you wouldn't be doing that for is to run photoshop.

It was largely the failure of Apple for years [before they started to churn out Intel PCs] they'd publish fake photoshop benchmarks often via fanboy sites that were quickly dismissed for the deceit they often were. But yes, they sold macs to the tiny percentage of folks who need and use photoshop in anger - the rest of the world used different apps and PCs [or they edit one photo a year with their pirated copy and it doesn't matter a jot if some filters run a few %age points quicker or slower]

Unix / linux have the advantage that rather than being cobbled to use the internet [like windows], the internet was cobbled together for them and they have apps. Now Jobs has to take from both - he wants PCs that can run applications quickly - multicore and all that jazz, he wants some apps, and he needs them to connect to the internet, rather than connect via whatever apple networking crud [like windows networking crud] that failed miserably alongside the internet.

So he makes Macs just that - turns them into Intel / unix boxes. He's not daft, but in the process he did make pretty much every apple fanboy comment from threads like these, years ago, look like the nonsense it was. If you don't believe that, go and read their comments about Intel Chips, Networking and IDE and so on and so on, instead of making more of them now That's pretty much what I said in 2005, together with other stuff - and it's still apt today. If you had a valid reason or argument for it not to be, you probably would have said it, rather than just saying I was wrong with no other comment. You certainly haven't added anything yet to show why I was wrong in 2005 by cutting and pasting my more recent post either, you just went off with other FUD.

Nevertheless it is ironic that the photoshop benchmark that mac fanboys have relied on for years to diss windows / pc over Mac / ppc is now being used by a fanboy to show photoshop on windows xp is better  Perhaps not their intent Whatever, that alone kills the Mac stone dead by their own hand. Long live the Apple PC I guess, but it's a tough market - the fact that most of us have PCs doesn't lend itself to us buying apple's PCs, no more than we buy Dell / HP or whatever else.

[mike_lang]

And to think, you mac guys think you're being soooo "cool" and "individual" by using your semi-computers.  You're just being annoying (whoops, another mac-user stereotype).  You have fun on your high horse, I'm going to enjoy my computer surviving more than 3 years.

It's true that PCs are beginning to become part of the counterculture, so to use a Mac is no longer to be "thinking different."  Nevertheless, I've never had the problems with my Mac that I had with my Dell, and I've been quite happy with the experience so far.  I use a PowerBook, so I certainly do not do any sort of hardcore video editing or gaming, but for the applications I use most (Safari, Mail, Word, iTunes), it is more than sufficient.

[leahcim]

Nevertheless, I've never had the problems with my Mac that I had with my Dell, and I've been quite happy with the experience so far.

Is that because you've had lots of problems with hardware, or because you've had a better experience with OSX than [presumably] Windows xp?

[mike_lang]

Is that because you've had lots of problems with hardware, or because you've had a better experience with OSX than [presumably] Windows xp?

I ask this question in all honesty because I don't know - what is the difference between a Mac and a PC beyond software?

[chopininov]

Yes, but read what I said in that 2005 post and repeated though. IF it had doubled, which is more than 37% you'll find, it still would be peanuts...and thus, all you confirmed is what I said, it is still peanuts.

So no, that's not evidence, it's backing what I said. Get over it, it doesn't matter. I've managed to use linux for over a decade and can still accept that, on the desktop, it's peanuts. It's just plain daft to be arguing otherwise.

As for Steve Jobs not being Apple...he's the only thing they've got worth shouting about...and that's because of ipods et al, not macs.

They are and were...as your own story showed. But not because of windows. Now you're arguing with yourself. Earlier you said [quite rightly] not to mistake software and hardware. Now you talk about 'allowing windows' in response to someone talking about how the apple HARDWARE has turned into pc HARDWARE. D'oh. At the same time I also mentioned they've switched to unix too, which again has nothing to do with *allowing* anyone to install windows. So your response is just a red herring.

Running windows is just a side effect of making it into a PC. A better notion, if you want to learn a bit about software and OSes, would be if you'd argued that Microsoft allowed it - [that would have been incorrect of course, but at least it would have made some logical sense]

Because if Macs weren't PCs then Apple wouldn't need to allow, it would be MS that would have to do stuff to allow it. i.e What they did to their applications to get them to run on Mac hardware when Macs really weren't PCs, many years ago - port them to the Mac.

Now MS didn't have to of course. Geddit? It's because it's already a PC. If it had run linux you'd have had a better argument, because linux does run on a plethora of different architectures and hardware whereas Windows XP runs on PCs.

Besides, here you see :-
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4816520.stm
far from being *allowed*, initially it was done irrespective [permitted later perhaps but you see their permission or whatever you think happened, wasn't needed] and it ran with just changes to installation stuff, to cater for different boot up.

It looks more like an ass than a horse from here

Especially when you start linking to stories about Macs being better at running windows xp because of photoshop benchmarks. Whilst missing far more apt facts like the graphics chip not being capable of being fully utilised under xp at that time - and the last paragraph too.

At best you could've [but failed to] argue that the article showed a specific Apple made PC was quicker than some other manufs PCs on a specific benchmark. This is a better argument than claiming it isn't a PC. But even so, had you made a valid argument, it's not surprising in the PC world. PC magazines run comparisons against different PCs month in and month out. The manuf places continually change, especially between different machine types and price points - and a PC with a graphics chip you can't use wouldn't be likely to score highly.

If you ignored history and accepted the benchmarks on face value, if you bought an apple pc and wanted  to run windows the single thing you wouldn't be doing that for is to run photoshop.

It was largely the failure of Apple for years [before they started to churn out Intel PCs] they'd publish fake photoshop benchmarks often via fanboy sites that were quickly dismissed for the deceit they often were. But yes, they sold macs to the tiny percentage of folks who need and use photoshop in anger - the rest of the world used different apps and PCs [or they edit one photo a year with their pirated copy and it doesn't matter a jot if some filters run a few %age points quicker or slower]

Unix / linux have the advantage that rather than being cobbled to use the internet [like windows], the internet was cobbled together for them and they have apps. Now Jobs has to take from both - he wants PCs that can run applications quickly - multicore and all that jazz, he wants some apps, and he needs them to connect to the internet, rather than connect via whatever apple networking crud [like windows networking crud] that failed miserably alongside the internet.

So he makes Macs just that - turns them into Intel / unix boxes. He's not daft, but in the process he did make pretty much every apple fanboy comment from threads like these, years ago, look like the nonsense it was. If you don't believe that, go and read their comments about Intel Chips, Networking and IDE and so on and so on, instead of making more of them now That's pretty much what I said in 2005, together with other stuff - and it's still apt today. If you had a valid reason or argument for it not to be, you probably would have said it, rather than just saying I was wrong with no other comment. You certainly haven't added anything yet to show why I was wrong in 2005 by cutting and pasting my more recent post either, you just went off with other FUD.

Nevertheless it is ironic that the photoshop benchmark that mac fanboys have relied on for years to diss windows / pc over Mac / ppc is now being used by a fanboy to show photoshop on windows xp is better  Perhaps not their intent Whatever, that alone kills the Mac stone dead by their own hand. Long live the Apple PC I guess, but it's a tough market - the fact that most of us have PCs doesn't lend itself to us buying apple's PCs, no more than we buy Dell / HP or whatever else.

Um..yeah. I have a dentists appointment, so I don't really have time to be reading all of this. So let me just end by saying that (a) you are arguing an opinion, which from the looks of it, you are trying to change, (b) please continue taking the beliefs and statements of alleged 'mac fanboys' because as you all know, they represent all mac users, (c) all corporations like Apple and Microsoft need competition; the result is often better products and services for the consumers.
I'm done arguing with you both (leahcim, and soliloquy). I have neither the time nor the energy to be the opposition of your firmly held Windows vs. Mac beliefs. Try a PC forum.

[gyzzzmo]

Eh, why would you change to Mac? a mac is a completely different type of pc, ment for other (usually specialised) tasks. Windows is a very crappy system yes, but why not change to Linux?

[soliloquy]

Um..yeah. I have a dentists appointment, so I don't really have time to be reading all of this. So let me just end by saying that (a) you are arguing an opinion, which from the looks of it, you are trying to change, (b) please continue taking the beliefs and statements of alleged 'mac fanboys' because as you all know, they represent all mac users, (c) all corporations like Apple and Microsoft need competition; the result is often better products and services for the consumers.
I'm done arguing with you both (leahcim, and soliloquy). I have neither the time nor the energy to be the opposition of your firmly held Windows vs. Mac beliefs. Try a PC forum.

pwn'd.  Can't even respond to a single statement that Michael and I made.

[chopininov]

pwn'd.  Can't even respond to a single statement that Michael and I made.

Why? Would you like to continue this little debate?
You must be young soliloquy if you don't realize that debates like this are perpetual and very pointless. I chose not to correct your errors (again) because that would only encourage your rambling.
Bicker with someone else little boy.

[mike_lang]

Why? Would you like to continue this little debate?
You must be young soliloquy if you don't realize that debates like this are perpetual and very pointless. I chose not to correct your errors (again) because that would only encourage your rambling.
Bicker with someone else little boy.

Why don't you just let it go?  It really doesn't matter.  I would like to know for my own information, though, if anyone can answer, what the difference is in hardware between a PC and Mac.

Thanks,
Michael

[gyzzzmo]

Too many kids on this forum i gues :p

[leahcim]

Um..yeah. I have a dentists appointment, so I don't really have time to be reading all of this.

I guess you learned something about the reason for good dental hygiene then

Anyway,  your new idea of posting "I don't want to argue...but you're wrong, here's my opinion..." would probably better realised with a blog. Nevertheless, I shan't bother going over the same ground again.

As for your orthoganal point about competition. Yes it's good, but in reference to your previous posts I'd say it's completely asinine to believe that, if you buy a piece of hardware from Apple, then Apple "allow you to run windows on it"

That concept, that you need permission to do what you like with something you've bought is pretty much the antithesis of the competition idea you claim is good, presumably because you believe apple provides it.

Not that they are alone in that but pretty much everything they sell these days appears designed to cut out competition rather than be competitive.

[soliloquy]

Why? Would you like to continue this little debate?
You must be young soliloquy if you don't realize that debates like this are perpetual and very pointless. I chose not to correct your errors (again) because that would only encourage your rambling.
Bicker with someone else little boy.

And yet you keep responding, attempting to assert factual supremacy sans any facts, which just looks pathetic.  Oh and INSANELY immature.  Hypocrite

[richard black]

I must say, having used PCs and Macs extensively, that the most unstable system I ever used was a Mac, or rather a networked bunch of Macs. In terms of day-to-day applications I can hardly tell which system I'm using - obviously the fonts and little details like position of buttons give it away, but apart from that there's practically bugger-all in it. But I've never owned a Mac simply because there isn't the variety of software available for it. Not least audio editing - the most powerful application, Adobe Audition, is and always has been (since it was Cool Edit in the mid 1990s) PC only.

As a nerd, I also like the fact that I can specify me own PC component by component and build it myself, ditto repair and upgrade. Mind you, maybe that's possible with Macs these days - ?