Deeply Filled Mortician
wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:41:22 +0000,
> this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of
> the royal duchy of city south and deansgate) wrote:
>
> >The Reid wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:03:33 +0000,
> >> this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of
> >> the royal duchy of city south and deansgate) wrote:
> >>
> >> >I think you're missing the point. Without getting into platform wars,
> >> >which are always counterproductive, Figgy's point is that the Mac OS has
> >> >been intuitive from the beginning-
> >>
> >> and maybe now they have been overtaken? This is history, maybe Mac
> >> live in the past?
> >
> >Given I use both windows and mac operating systems (the mac is actually
> >one of the fastest windows machines around)
>
> When it comes to "bang for your buck", PCs win hands down.
PCs are cheaper- I'll agree with that. I've never owned a windows
machine, so I can't comment on how reliable they are generally, but in
the 13 years that I've owned a computer, I've never had a problem with
one. Not once. No calls to customer support, nothing. That more than
pays for itself IMO.
> >I'd say I'm in a position to
> >judge which I find more intuitive, and there is no question that it's
> >mac. You're ranting about something you don't know anything about.
>
> The intuitiveness varies, but at least there is variety. I
> occasionally use Macs, but I find them a bit frustrating, only because
> I need to use a different mentality to use them.
And what mentality is that?
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://www.davidhorne.net/pictures.html http://soundjunction.org |