T i m <news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[..]
> >Hmmm.
>
> You see there are so many variables and combinations that all 'just
> work' if you are willing to be a bit flexible you can often get a good
> deal. Like, I say to my mate 'could you get me the best VFM C2D cpu on
> the day' as the prices of this gear vary frequently. It's not unknown
> for a faster version on 'special' to be cheaper than a slower one?
If I wanted to do a build I see your point. However, like the reason for
buying a Honda car, I want to buy something to 'just work'.
> >> > but I'd still have to run an OS that doesn't suit
> >> >what I do,
> >>
> >> <snip OT OS / App issues>
> >
> >Hmmm.
>
> We were talking hardware. ;-)
Actually, it's the whole package. If I could build a PC and run Mac OSX
on it, I would.
[..]
> >I've always seen this as a positive, right back to when I bought my
> >first computer - an Atari XL800.
>
> Understood, horses for courses etc but as part of my enjoyment is
> having the freedom and flexibility of a vast range of compatible
> hardware I find anything that doesn't offer said 'limiting'. Maybe
> this is helped because *I* can get this stuff all working easier than
> some others? It's for the same reason I run a BMW motorbike or built a
> MK2 Escort based kitcar, the huge range of cheaply and readily
> available spares, accessories and options.
Or buy something that doesn't need repairing in the first place. I had a
BMW bike, and although it was reliable (in that it got from A to B),
there was always something that needed replacing.
> >> > Having a limited
> >> >combination of possible configurations means it's easier to develop
the
> >> >OS to work with it, and less chance of conflicts occuring.
> >>
> >> True, you are less likely to get into trouble wearing handcuffs ;-)
> >
> ><sigh>
>
> Isn't that what you (effectively) just said though?
No. I choose a Mac because it does just work out of the box, I have some
upgradeability, enough to enhance its use when needed.
> >Even as bloatware, it should have taken that long on a new machine.
>
> Correct. I just removed it from 'a new machine' and it took 7 mins
> tops (it felt longer, it was probably less). Incidentally this was a
> brand new Sony Vaio bought in the States and after a couple of weeks
> he got me to take Vista off and put XP on. Everything works now and a
> load faster.
Hmm, I wonder if this is just Vista then.
> >> Maybe the(ir) mistake was actually running the trial version in the
> >> first place? And how on earth did you uninstall it for it to take
that
> >> long, one file at a time!? Even though I agree with you in that it
> >> takes a while in comparison with most other apps it only generally
> >> takes 'a few minutes' in most cases (and I've probably removed at
> >> least tens of times).
> >
> >I used the built in Windows uninstaller -
>
> Ok ..
>
> >something that's (mostly)
> >unecessary on the Mac OS.
>
> And probably why you prefer it, especially after an hour and a half
> removing Norton! ;-)
Indeed.
> >
> >> No wonder you prefer Macs if this really is your perception of PCs ..
> >> ;-(
> >
> >Yes, and it has been for years.
>
> Maybe the next time Jenny and I are looking to go on a little ride-out
> I can knock up a mini box and bring it up for you to play with, just
> so you can see they *can* actually work reliably and predictably Andy!
> ;-)
But I know they can't. In one workplace I installed no less than 17
brand new Acer PCs with XP Pro on them. They were all delivered at the
same time. I installed them onto the network, copied across all the old
user files, and installed new versions of Office. They did not all
install exactly the same, although I used the same process to install
each machine. Some had to be fiddled with to get them to work on the
dealer 'intranet', where others just worked, amongst other issues.
--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>
|
