"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
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.

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.

Probably, but tell that to people whose needs aren't supported by the Mac.


You already can run Windows on a Mac. Why do you want to
run both OSs simultaneously?

For the reason I stated. I want Mac and Windows programs to be able to
cooperate. Otherwise, you might as well have separate computers. (Well...)


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.

You're making my point for me. Beta was a superbly well-compromised consumer
product. VHS was crap.

For me, the answer was "LV". (I used Beta for time-shifting.)


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?

I don't understand exactly what you mean. Obviously not everyone can afford
to buy higher-quality equipment, which often costs more. There's room for
all kinds of equipment, to meet different needs.

My experience has been that when people are exposed to "better" things, they
recognized the superiority on their own, without having to be told or
"convinced". As the people in this group are generally much more
knowledgable about consumer electronics that the average person, are we not
obliged to inform them that they can spend less and get more, when that is
indeed the case?


Some people hate the idea of separate components, taking up space,
with wires all over the damn place.

Actually, a component system with a small receiver and an outboard CD player
requires only two power cords, two speaker cables, and one audio cable.
Hardly Laocoon-ish.

In my opionion, Bose's success is largely due to perfecting a "no-brainer"
interface, of the sort Band & Olufsen never got right. (If you know how to
operate a conventional audio system, a B&O product can be thoroughly
confusing.)


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.

It would perfectly okay with me if BOSE didn't so blatantly LIE about the
quality of their products.