On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 12:36 -0500, Philip Thompson wrote: > On Sep 15, 2008, at 7:47 AM, tedd wrote: > > > At 12:54 AM -0600 9/15/08, Michael McGlothlin wrote: > >> I run an iMac with Linux and Windows in virtual machines (VMWare > >> Fusion) as my primary work machine and whenever possible I run > >> Linux on my servers (give or take an odd BSD, AIX, or Windows > >> server). If left to my choice I'll always choose a Mac for a client > >> machine. Not that Macs are perfect, I have quite a few issues with > >> them, but they are worlds better than Windows. My biggest complaint > >> about Macs is the up-front cost - if they could just cut it back a > >> little it'd help a lot. > > > > I used to be a smart-ass and reply "If you can't afford better, then > > don't buy it", but I don't say that anymore. :-) > > > > However, this reminds me of an old woman I knew who was suffering > > from macular degeneration and wanted a laptop with a large monitor > > so she could email. Considering that my mother suffered from that, I > > advised the woman to look into buying a Mac laptop -- at the time > > Apple had the largest laptop monitor, but these were also expensive. > > > > The woman said that cost was not an object. Additionally, I told her > > that if she bought a Mac I would hook it up and make sure that > > everything worked > > > > A month later I saw her and inquired if she had bought a Mac. She > > replied "No I bought a DELL, Mac's were far too expensive." > > > > Shortly after that she said that she was having trouble and asked if > > I would set her email up. I told her that my offer was on the > > condition that she had bought a Mac, for I don't work on windozes > > based machine. I further advised her to contact the store where she > > bought the machine and ask them for help. > > > > A year or so later, I saw her again and asked "How' it going with > > your email?" To which she replied "I never could get it to work, so > > I don't do email." > > > > Now, which machine was the most expensive -- the Mac she didn't buy > > or the machine that became an expensive paper weight? > > > > There's more to expense than the just original purchase price. > > tedd, I just love your storytelling. ;) If you hadn't said this, I was > going to make the same argument. Initial purchase price doesn't always > mean that Macs are more expensive. Just look at all the time (a huge > emphasis here) and money spent dealing with windoze-based machines and > software. Granted, each person will have their own experiences - some > good, some not so good - but from my experience, I know that I am more > efficient (and let's not forget less frustrated) when using my Mac. > > If time is money, I'm losing money each time I have to deal with the > inconveniences of M$ windoze. > > ~Philip > The thing is, she didn't suffer because of a cheap machine that couldn't do what it wanted, it was just the only person she found refused to help her out. I've always preferred PCs over Macs for one simple reason: bits are cheaper. I never buy a whole computer from a shop, as what the shop offers is more expensive than I could get the parts for, because I don't need to replace *everything* to upgrade. Thing is, I can only do this because I know about computers. If you really don't know what you're doing, you will listen to whoever you think is the most credible. If someone can really justify the extra cost of a Mac, and sound convincing enough about it, then a novice is likely to go with that. Listen to someone who is less convincing, and you'll go the PC route. Obviously, this is based on the presumption that money is no objective. Oh, and for the record, I run several computers, with various OS's: Fedora, Suse, XP & Vista (although, I never use Vista, it just came with the laptop) Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
