In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote:

If you can't justify your position, then you're merely spewing.
Harlan Ellison agrees.

(Then I guess you were spewing when you said that PCs are
"superior in every respect" to Macs, because I'm pretty damn
sure that there isn't a shred of evidence anywhere in the world
to substantiate such a ridiculous claim.)

I said nothing of the sort. You read what you wanted to read.

I apologize for misquoting you. Your actual words we

"Windows-based computers are, overall, superior."

No problem. I misread, too.

I ought to clarify what I meant (if I haven't already). The thing that makes
the Macintosh so appealing -- that it is, to some degree, a closed system --
is what works against it if the particular piece of software or hardware you
need isn't available for it. As a programmer-writer, I need and use software
that just isn't available for the Mac.

Windows is an open system -- too much, perhaps. It has to handle a wider
range of software and hardware, and Microsoft doesn't do enough to enforce
standards that would minimize or eliminate conflicts or crashes.

When the day comes that you can buy a Macintosh that runs Mac and Windows
software simultaneously, and allows for data interchange between Mac and
Windows software, I'll buy one. This seems extremely difficult to do, but it
seems both necessary and inevitable.

By the way, Microsoft is supposedly working on the next version of Windows,
which will have a complete rewrite of the Windows "core", modularizing it
and removing most of the software dependencies that cause so many problems.
This will (supposedly) grossly reduce its size, improve its stability, and
make it easier to add features.

Well, this is interesting. For my money, the *only* advantage a PC has
over a Mac, is program availability. In every other regard, the Mac is
*far* superior. You already can run windows on a Mac. Why do you want to
run both OSs simultaneously?

I wonder whether you'd say that a Beta VCR is better than a VHS machine,
or vice versa. Many on this forum would probably say that the Beta
machine was better engineered, by a significant margin. Yet, how useful
is it, if all the tapes you can find are VHS? So which is "better?"
Depends, obviously, on the nature of the parameters being compared.
(Please don't remind me that videotapes are like, totally, last century.)

Now let's take one more dip into the Bose thing. If you agree that VCRs
and computers can be evaluated on different aspects, why are you so
one-sided on this issue? You obviously believe that the *only* parameter
on which to judge a music system is sound quality gained per dollar
spent. Can you accept the idea that not everyone has the same agenda?

Some people hate the idea of separate components, taking up space, with
wires all over the damn place. And some people love the idea of having a
cute little radio with the name Bose on it. They don't care about
dynamic range or frequency response, and they wouldn't recognize spatial
imaging if they were sitting in a concert hall. I wonder why that's not
OK with you.