On 10/18/2011 3:57 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
On 10/18/11 5:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 10/18/2011 1:21 PM, D Peter Maus wrote:


...
Not everything you disagree with is BS.


More importantly, who uses which computer operating system is really
about as unimportant an argument as things get. The output is the same.
The output is what matters. How one gets there has to do with choices
based on priorities intrinsic to the individual. Your priorities and
your choices create no incumbency on anyone but yourself.


That is the most ignorant BS I have ever seen, at least it equals the
worst I have ever seen ... it is the person operating the equipment
which is the only concern, really ... sit a physicist from CERN next to
a hick newsgroup reader who is a government clerk and you can see the
truth in action.

Further which O/S is better depends on application and the users' needs.
Again, only the output matters.


The best OS will be the one which supports the full spectrum of uses,
can be used by a child in elementary school as well as the physicist at
CERN, encompassing the entertainment industry, fast fourier transform,
etc. And, the OS which runs of the most up-to-date, is updated the most
frequently, used by the largest number (data sharing without
translation), etc. simply sinks it home. Not only is the PC there, it
almost always has been ...

If that crapola you just posted was true, we'd all be using it. But
Windows and most other desktop OS's represent a set of compromises so
they can do what they do in a mostly good fashion.

There are and continue to be, other OS's that are better suited to some
particular task but they don't get in the news and aren't used by many.

And PC World did a very interesting article a year or so ago, so you
can, in fact, look it up, (and they did an update again, this year,) in
which they compared Apples to PC's point for point on performance, and
found that to purchase the same performance that comes standard in an
Apple, a PC user would have to spend, while buying the most cost
effective solutions available at the time, nearly $1000 more than the
price of the Apple. And they found this to be true of notebooks AND
desktops.

So, again, not everything you disagree with is BS.


Yeah, they compared a mid-power PC to a MAC ... my nephews blows them
out of the water ... and, if it the article I am viewing, the comparison
is to a 400 Mhz processor on the PC, and single core to boot!

The PC is superior to MAC in many if not most ways ... but that can ONLY
be appreciated by the people which run them ... or, simply, I would not
ask a garbage collector for "his opinion" ...

Yeah OK, good fodder from a gamer! That's who the whole tech world
really listens to...

Fact is, soon as you buy a MAC, you are going to find out here are tons
of applications and hardware which is not supported and is beyond your
use ... ever ...

Most all of which you won't actually care about, that is IF you even
knew of the problem. For the vast majority of users, the OS isn't all
that big a deal.


People are the ONLY importance ... the computer is just a tool ...

Regards,
JS



Even more insane BS ... as anyone purchasing a MAC, and using software
for demanding tasks (well, even video games, for that matter), will
shortly find out ...

If you don't need a powerful computer, you can probably get by with a
MAC and remain ignorant to the differences ... that is like, DUH MAN!
roflol

Or, simply, why buy a Peterbilt if everything you haul fits in your
pickup ...

Regards,
JS