On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:10:19 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>I have never been forced to upgrade hardware when
>I've upgraded an OS. Drivers yes, hardware or software, no

Sorry I called a driver "software". The word escaped me at the time.
Are you saying you don't have to upgrade video cards etc? Not that
I'd do it, just wondering. I don't build computers and I don't know
anyone who does.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-01-24, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > Ipod? Yeah, they were pretty expensive. Now starting at US$42.99:
>
> Such a deal. One gig and no screen. You can buy 2G players with 2" screen
> for $35. Don't argue Apple gear is a better deal. You'll lose.

Who's taking about a deal? I was just responding to your claim, which I
quote literally:

+++ iPods ....$300! +++

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

sf wrote:

> I don't build computers and I don't know anyone who does.


I do. Well more specifically I buy a bunch of parts and put the
computer together, but in essence I don't get an OS. I typically
download FreeBSD from the internet and use that. Or I will use the copy
of Windows XP I bought separately a couple of years ago.

While I know a lot of people who do the same, I will agree it is not the
norm.

Each time I go to build a new computer (done this several times now over
the years) I look at what I want to do with it and what applications I
want to run. I look at retail PCs and I look at Apple's offerings, and
each time I determine that I won't be 100% happy with either of them.

It's all about the software, really.

-J

On 2009-01-24, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> +++ iPods ....$300! +++

I've been trying to make the point, which you pointedly refuse to recognize,
that Apple gear is, comparatively, the most expensive hardware on the
market, by a huge margin. Your continued refusal to acknowledge this is
either due to the fact you are stubborn (nah!), you're a shill for Apple, or
you just plain suck at math. Further, anyone advocating Apple ANYTHING
while claiming M$ software is a "ripoff" is taking [1]absurdity,
[2)hipocrisy, [3]denial, to a whole new level of delusion.

Izzat clear enough or do I need to break out the crayons?

nb

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:02:41 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:10:19 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>
>>I have never been forced to upgrade hardware when
>>I've upgraded an OS. Drivers yes, hardware or software, no
>
>Sorry I called a driver "software". The word escaped me at the time.
>Are you saying you don't have to upgrade video cards etc? Not that
>I'd do it, just wondering. I don't build computers and I don't know
>anyone who does.

I have never had to replace a video card because of an OS upgrade.

Boron

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:18:09 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-24, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>> > Ipod? Yeah, they were pretty expensive. Now starting at US$42.99:
>>
>> Such a deal. One gig and no screen. You can buy 2G players with 2" screen
>> for $35. Don't argue Apple gear is a better deal. You'll lose.
>
>Who's taking about a deal? I was just responding to your claim, which I
>quote literally:
>
>+++ iPods ....$300! +++


But they can cost more than that, and the cheaper iPhones are the ones
with 8GB, not 16GB.

And the iPod you pointed to, the cheapest and oldest there, was what
it cost *after* a rebate. An iPod touch, top of the line, can be
$400.

Boron

On 2009-01-24, Boron Elgar > wrote:

> it cost *after* a rebate. An iPod touch, top of the line, can be
> $400.

It's a river in Egypt.

nb

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-01-24, Dan Abel > wrote:
> >
> > +++ iPods ....$300! +++
>
> I've been trying to make the point, which you pointedly refuse to recognize,
> that Apple gear is, comparatively, the most expensive hardware on the

I think everybody, except Stan, knows it's true. Since Stan is some
kind of sysadmin, and uses both, we need to give him some credence.

> market, by a huge margin. Your continued refusal to acknowledge this is

There's the argument. How much of a huge margin? I might accept twice
the price, but when you put hard US dollars in your post of US$600 for
an Iphone and US$300 for an Ipod, I'm going to call you on it, with hard
cites.

> either due to the fact you are stubborn (nah!), you're a shill for Apple, or
> you just plain suck at math. Further, anyone advocating Apple ANYTHING

I have two Mac Minis. They do everything I want and they were cheap.
You aren't going to save much money by buying something else.

> while claiming M$ software is a "ripoff" is taking [1]absurdity,
> [2)hipocrisy, [3]denial, to a whole new level of delusion.

Microsoft is a ripoff. That's how they got their start, and they've
never stopped. They've gotten rich and famous by never underestimating
the stupidity of their customers. Vista is a ripoff even if you get it
for free.

> Izzat clear enough or do I need to break out the crayons?

Skip the crayons. I'm not so good at graphics.

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

sf wrote:

> I'm thinking one of those $500 minis from Dell would be appropriate
> for me. I'd just use it for diddling on the internet and maybe a few
> Word Docs.

My guess is that most users are like that, including me sometimes. :-)

The new netbooks are purpose-build for usage which allows them to
operate in a high-efficiency mode. Most are built around an Intel Atom
processor which, I suspect was designed for foreign markets requiring a
low-cost, low-wattage, computer solution. I believe that the current
price on a cheap Dell netbook is $300. Of course, you're not gonna get
Vista or even XP at that price but the included Ubuntu Linux might work
well for you. The important word here is MIGHT. :-)

The advent of the Intel Atom and netbook computing and it's
incompatibility with Vista has forced Microsoft's hand to delay killing
off XP until sometime this year. It might be that if cheap netbooks take
off, Linux and especially Ubuntu Linux will have its best shot at
general acceptance.

So the folks here can hash over the economics of their favorite MS and
Apple OS/hardware but for much of the rest of the world, all that won't
matter much. :-)

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Skip the crayons. I'm not so good at graphics.
>
> :-)
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
>
>

which is the only reason to use a mac imo.


--
C.D

On 2009-01-24, Dan Abel > wrote:

> I think everybody, except Stan, knows it's true. Since Stan is some
> kind of sysadmin, and uses both, we need to give him some credence.

I'll give him some credence when he earns it. I spent years working with
degreed engineers that didn't have a clue.


> There's the argument. How much of a huge margin? I might accept twice
> the price,

What? That isn't enough to convince you?

> but when you put hard US dollars in your post of US$600 for
> an Iphone and US$300 for an Ipod, I'm going to call you on it, with hard
> cites.

Funny. I rounded up from $290, but saw quotes for $325. Other posts in
this thread have quoted $400. A river in Egypt.....

> I have two Mac Minis. They do everything I want and they were cheap.
> You aren't going to save much money by buying something else.

"Cons:

* Requires one to have, or to purchase, a display, keyboard, and mouse.
Depending on the desired configuration, it may be more cost effective to
purchase an all-in-one iMac.
* Internal expansion requires prying open the case and is extremely
limited. Maximum memory is 1.0 GB, the processor cannot be upgraded, there
are no extra hard drive bays, and no PCI slots. Apple does not support
individuals upgrading their own system.
* Limited to a single display."

I can buy a PC that does all these things for much less.


> Microsoft is a ripoff. That's how they got their start, and they've
> never stopped. They've gotten rich and famous by never underestimating
> the stupidity of their customers.

s/Microsoft/Apple/

> Skip the crayons. I'm not so good at graphics.

.....or reality.

nb

In article >,
Boron Elgar > wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:18:09 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > notbob > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-01-24, Dan Abel > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ipod? Yeah, they were pretty expensive. Now starting at US$42.99:
> >>
> >> Such a deal. One gig and no screen. You can buy 2G players with 2" screen
> >> for $35. Don't argue Apple gear is a better deal. You'll lose.
> >
> >Who's taking about a deal? I was just responding to your claim, which I
> >quote literally:
> >
> >+++ iPods ....$300! +++
>
>
> But they can cost more than that, and the cheaper iPhones are the ones
> with 8GB, not 16GB.
>
> And the iPod you pointed to, the cheapest and oldest there, was what
> it cost *after* a rebate. An iPod touch, top of the line, can be
> $400.

All true.

I guess what's to be learned here, is that when notbob quotes a price
for Apple stuff, it's for the high end, and when Dan quotes a price,
it's a starting price, and just goes up from there.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2009-01-25, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article >,
> Boron Elgar > wrote:

>> it cost *after* a rebate. An iPod touch, top of the line, can be
>> $400.
>
> All true.
>
> I guess what's to be learned here, is that when notbob quotes a price
> for Apple stuff, it's for the high end.....

What we've learned here is that when you post a reply, it's in complete
disregard of reality.

nb

In article > ,
dsi1 > wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking one of those $500 minis from Dell would be appropriate
> > for me. I'd just use it for diddling on the internet and maybe a few
> > Word Docs.
>
> My guess is that most users are like that, including me sometimes. :-)
>
> The new netbooks are purpose-build for usage which allows them to
> operate in a high-efficiency mode. Most are built around an Intel Atom
> processor which, I suspect was designed for foreign markets requiring a
> low-cost, low-wattage, computer solution. I believe that the current
> price on a cheap Dell netbook is $300. Of course, you're not gonna get
> Vista or even XP at that price but the included Ubuntu Linux might work
> well for you. The important word here is MIGHT. :-)

You got me curious. I looked at Costco. They are selling a Dell
netbook for US$450, with a 9" screen, no CD drive, and no traditional
hard drive, but rather a 16GB solid state drive. XP home and 1GB RAM.

I suspect that SF is thinking about a desktop mini. She has mentioned
those several times. They come in many decorator colors. :-)

http://www.dell.com/content/products...sktop-studio-h
ybrid?c=us&cs=19&l=en&ref=dthp&s=dhs

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Boron replied:

> Look, we are a mixed family around here - PC and laptops with
> Windows, some with Linux and we have Apples, too. The only ones that
> have become truly obsolete are the Apples. The PCs can always be
> upgraded pretty easily and cheaply, especially with hardware.

Apparently I didn't make myself clear: I am most decidedly NOT a fan of
Apple. But I think Microsoft and Intel are definitely collaborating to force
consumers to buy stronger and stronger hardware just to run an operating
system. If I had *my* way, OS development would concentrate on streamlining
the systems which already exist to make them more secure and more efficient.
But that is not what I see happening, except in the open-source world -- and
there's just not that much software written for BSD or its kin. Why should I
have to buy stronger hardware to run Vista, when I get no greater
functionality than I already had with Windows 98?


>>Now suppose that a heinous security flaw was uncovered for your operating
>>system: There would be no way of making your computer secure, because
>>nobody
>>is writing security patches for that operating system anymore. You could
>>lose everything stored on your computer, and there's nothing you could do
>>about it.
>
> Um..you know much about Windows OSs? There are a gazillion 3rd party
> programs that will handle anything such as you mention. Now I've only
> been using home computers with various operating systems for 27 years,
> but I have NEVER encountered a situation such as you describe above.
> It ain't gonna happen to anyone with an anti-virus program and a brain
> bigger than a pea.

I subscribe to several newsletters about WinXP and Vista. I've been using
Windows operating systems since about 1990, having abandoned the Mac Plus I
bought to get through college. (I still have several programs which run in
DOS, for that matter, and I'm about to receive another one in the mail.)

Problem is, people *don't* run anti-virus programs, and even among those who
do, you often see people who don't use a firewall or who don't have any kind
of password protection for their data. It's only now becoming commonplace
for people to require passwords for their wireless LANs; I'd guess that I
could walk onto any college campus in the USA and find an unsecured wireless
network. Speaking of passwords, people often leave the default passwords in
place, or they choose passwords which are easy to guess. People fail to
realize the importance of backing up their data, so they're susceptible to
power spikes causing catastrophic losses. The degree of user ignorance is
appalling. Furthermore, anti-virus programs are not perfect. Users forget to
update the virus definitions, or they never realize that they *should* be
updated. No anti-virus program is comprehensive, either; there have been
numerous instances where (for example) McAfee will catch a known virus which
Norton misses, or vice versa. Most of the problems can be avoided by
sticking to trusted sites, but there are some people who just can't resist
clicking on that button which promises to give them a lower interest rate or
which offers them some kind of salacious chat.

In short, the problem isn't the computer. It's the users. (My personal
perspective is that of a CISSP who works in a Top-Secret environment. It
might not be the typical outlook.)


<snip negative paragraphs about Apple computers>
> Now, this isn't to say that there aren't peeps out there that will
> love their Apples, like I said, we have a bit of everything around
> here, but there isn't anything that makes them better than PCs running
> wither Windows or Linux.

As I wrote earlier, you seem to have gained the impression that I support
Apple in some way. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Bob

notbob wrote:

> If you want to pay exhorbitant prices, be limited in hard/software
> choices, and be locked into Apple drm, by all means, buy Apple.

There's a rumor in the wind that DRM will be going away in the near future.
Attach the usual "rumor" credence to it, but it might just happen.

Bob

On 2009-01-25, Bob Terwilliger > wrote:

> There's a rumor in the wind that DRM will be going away in the near future.
> Attach the usual "rumor" credence to it, but it might just happen.

Yeah, I've heard that rumor. Like the record industry is going to give up
its death grip on $$$. I know Apple is itching to break the record
industry's copyright control, but I have no doubt it's only so they can
exert their own management scheme. Apple relenquish control? Hah!

nb

My darling Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> As I wrote earlier, you seem to have gained the impression that I
> support Apple in some way. Nothing could be further from the truth.

His confusion may be that you support me and I'm the Mac power-user in
the house.

I promised myself I wouldn't get in on this over-worked platform war.
It's growing quite tiresome. How often do we cycle the same crap each
year? Fact of the matter is, we love the boxes we use and you can't
easily sway someone to the dark side (whichever side that might be).
I've used Windows and all the Mac OS's from the beginning in business
and for pleasure. My comfort and productivity level is with the latter,
but I can do Windows in a pinch. I update, service and support my own
machine. I've installed a SuperDrive, a larger hard drive, extra RAM,
and a pro video card without involving the Geek Squad or the IT
department. I don't get viruses, nor do I worry about them. Oh, and this
particular box is about eight years old and I have NEVER had to wipe it
and reinstall software. It runs Adobe's Creative Suite, Quark Xpress,
the entire Microsoft Office package, and a few other "sundry" programs
AT THE SAME TIME with nary a hiccup.

I've taken Bob's Windows laptop with me traveling, but anymore I'm more
than happy with my iPhone. Does everything I need it to do while on the
road without the extra weight.

And this is all I have to say on the matter.

Talking about FOOD in a FOOD GROUP sounds a lot better to me. Sheesh.

--Lin ("Blended" family with cats and a dog sleeping together, and Mac
and PC on the same network. See, we CAN all get along!)

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-01-24, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > I think everybody, except Stan, knows it's true. Since Stan is some
> > kind of sysadmin, and uses both, we need to give him some credence.
>
> I'll give him some credence when he earns it. I spent years working with
> degreed engineers that didn't have a clue.
>
>
> > There's the argument. How much of a huge margin? I might accept twice
> > the price,
>
> What? That isn't enough to convince you?

Convince me of what? Are you arguing with me or with Stan? We are
different people.

Next computer I buy, I'll look around. Things keep changing.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2009-01-25, Lin > wrote:

> and reinstall software. It runs Adobe's Creative Suite.....

$400-500

> Quark Xpress....

$300

> the entire Microsoft Office....

$150

Such a deal! ...and on top of the most expensive hardware.

Wait! What's this? Oh gee, I can do all this on hardware one third the cost
and pay nothing. It's called Linux!!

Oops! There's a downside. I actually gotta think! Ahhhh.... I knew there
was a catch.

nb (the end

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> notbob > wrote:
>
> > On 2009-01-24, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > notbob > wrote:
> >
> > >> The height of absurdity is a Mac owner making despariging remarks about
> > >> the
> > >> hight cost of another platform.
> > >
> > > Really? I am using a 15" 2.4 GHz MacBook Pro laptop now. It has 2GB RAM,
> > > a high res display, a 250GB hard drive, and dual graphics cards. I
> > > purchased it nearly a month ago. A laptop with similar specifications
> > > and features as mine, but with a Sony, Toshiba, or HP label on it would
> > > have been similarly priced.......
> >
> > Strange. I can find HP lattops with "similar specifications" for less than
> > half of what a Macbook Pro costs.
>
> For the functionality, maybe. For someone who wants that MacBook, only
> that will do. My daughter bought one recently. It's very pretty. If I
> had US$3,000 lying around that I didn't know what else to do with, I'd
> buy one, too. Except that I have little use for a laptop.

$3,000 for a MacBook? You have got to be kidding. The starting price for
a brand new Apple MacBook is $999. The top of the line is $1599. Perhaps
you are confused with the MacBook Pro, but the starting price of that
model is well under $3000 and only those who do high end video work
would have good justification to spend $3,000 on an upgraded MacBook Pro.

In article
>
,
Stan Horwitz > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Dan Abel > wrote:

> > For the functionality, maybe. For someone who wants that MacBook, only
> > that will do. My daughter bought one recently. It's very pretty. If I
> > had US$3,000 lying around that I didn't know what else to do with, I'd
> > buy one, too. Except that I have little use for a laptop.
>
> $3,000 for a MacBook? You have got to be kidding. The starting price for
> a brand new Apple MacBook is $999. The top of the line is $1599. Perhaps
> you are confused with the MacBook Pro, but the starting price of that
> model is well under $3000 and only those who do high end video work
> would have good justification to spend $3,000 on an upgraded MacBook Pro.

Yeah, it's the MacBook Pro. And it was top of the line. And it was
about three grand. And I don't know if it's justified, but it wasn't my
decision. She convinced her roommate to upgrade also, but I don't know
what she got, except that it was a new Mac laptop. They both have old
Mac laptops. My daughter had a perfectly good top of the line
powerbook. My daughter and her roommate both love their new computers.
They are gamers, which might explain part of it.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:

> You got me curious. I looked at Costco. They are selling a Dell
> netbook for US$450, with a 9" screen, no CD drive, and no traditional
> hard drive, but rather a 16GB solid state drive. XP home and 1GB RAM.

The price seems a bit steep for that stripped down machine. As I recall,
a 9" screen is tough to read. I think if they can make a netbook with
the same specs with a Linux OS and sell it for $199, it would be a great
and successful product. OTOH, I suppose there might not be a need for
such a device - we'll be using our cell phones in place of netbooks.

>
> I suspect that SF is thinking about a desktop mini. She has mentioned
> those several times. They come in many decorator colors. :-)

The decorator colors sound shocking. First there was beige, then there
was white. Finally at long last the color barrier was broken and the big
thing was black. Then there was mat black, then really shiny black. I'm
not sure that folks are ready for decorator colors! :-)

>
> http://www.dell.com/content/products...sktop-studio-h
> ybrid?c=us&cs=19&l=en&ref=dthp&s=dhs
>

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:01:16 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>You got me curious. I looked at Costco. They are selling a Dell
>netbook for US$450, with a 9" screen, no CD drive, and no traditional
>hard drive, but rather a 16GB solid state drive. XP home and 1GB RAM.
>
That's what I was talking about (new kick). I'm thinking a mini is
perfect to take on vacation. Internet cafes with computers to rent
are a PITA to find.

>I suspect that SF is thinking about a desktop mini. She has mentioned
>those several times. They come in many decorator colors. :-)
>
>http://www.dell.com/content/products...sktop-studio-h
>ybrid?c=us&cs=19&l=en&ref=dthp&s=dhs

Love them! I'm getting one after this tower dies.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:35:14 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

>I'm not sure that folks are ready for decorator colors! :-)

I am! I am!



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:30:12 -0800, Lin >
wrote:

>Talking about FOOD in a FOOD GROUP sounds a lot better to me. Sheesh.

I think computer talk is more relevant than some OTs.... because
that's how we access the group and the internet. However, I do agree
that there is no point in denigrating the other guys OS during any
discussion because you're not going to change their minds.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

In article >, dsi1 > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:

> > I suspect that SF is thinking about a desktop mini. She has mentioned
> > those several times. They come in many decorator colors. :-)
>
> The decorator colors sound shocking. First there was beige, then there
> was white. Finally at long last the color barrier was broken and the big
> thing was black. Then there was mat black, then really shiny black. I'm
> not sure that folks are ready for decorator colors! :-)
>
> >
> > http://www.dell.com/content/products...sktop-studio-h
> > ybrid?c=us&cs=19&l=en&ref=dthp&s=dhs
> >

Well, they *ought* to be ready:

"Announced in January 1999, the Rev. C iMac came in 5 dazzling new
colors: Blueberry, Strawberry, Lime, Tangerine and Grape."

My son bought a Blueberry, with a major memory upgrade.

[pics and tech specs, select on right]:

http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=imac

We had bought the rev B earlier, only available in indigo.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:10:19 -0500, Boron Elgar wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:59:00 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:51:10 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>>>
>>>Now go compare prices for PCs and Macs to run those systems and come
>>>back and talk.
>>>
>>
>>Who buys a computer without a pre-installed OS?
>
> We do at times. I assure you, we are not alone. Someone is out there
> buying this stuff, don't you think? My son has built at 2-3 gaming
> computers along the way and needed to install an OS in it.
>

sure, some people do that, but they have an interest in it. most people
want a computer in order to some pretty simple things - surf the web,
email, and some hardy individuals like usenet. they are not going to be
bothered to build, or even fully understand, their machines. why should
they?

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:59:24 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:30:13 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
>
>>The main advantage of Chrome is it's speed. I use it as the default
>>browser because if I click on a link in an email, it opens and is up
>>there very fast. The Firefox browser takes a while - a long while. The
>>problem being that I have a lot of tools that take some time to load
>>when I open Firefox. Typically, the browser also will look for updates
>>for these extensions before opening. All this takes time and action on
>>my part. The utility value of Firefox is undeniable but most of the time
>>it's more than I need.
>
> I love all those little apps, but it's a two edged sword and that's
> what I don't like about FF also. After the updates are fetched then
> you have to install them etc. etc. I end up grrrrring a lot and the
> fun of following a link is lost in housekeeping.
>>

aren't you usually offered the choice to do the update later if you wish?

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:10:07 -0500, cybercat wrote:

> "T" > wrote
>> I ran Windows 2000 for a good long time before I jumped to XP.
>
> I was among the first to try XP on a new computer, and was I ever sorry. I
> was careful not to get a computer with Vista when I needed a new desktop
> last Spring, but this time this laptop was just too good a deal.
>
> I decided
>> to completely skip over Vista and I'll be honest, I've been playing with
>> the Alpha of Windows 7 and I'm not impressed.
>>
>> My next jump will either be to Linux or OS-X on a Mac.
>>
>
> Too many software issues, and when I tried a Mac, it was just not something
> I was comfortable with. But many swear by them.

swear by them? some practically bow down and worship them.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:28:50 -0500, C.D wrote:

> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Skip the crayons. I'm not so good at graphics.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dan Abel
>> Petaluma, California USA
>>
>>
>
> which is the only reason to use a mac imo.

that's my understanding also. though i've read than many graphics-type
people are switching back to p.c.'s due to compatibility issues with the
machines the wider philistine world uses.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy > wrote:

>sure, some people do that, but they have an interest in it. most people
>want a computer in order to some pretty simple things - surf the web,
>email, and some hardy individuals like usenet. they are not going to be
>bothered to build, or even fully understand, their machines. why should
>they?

Because we're in a phase where the main product offering from
Microsoft is NFG, so one must improvise?

Seriously, it's a relief that some classes of machines are
still available with XP, but if you want a more powerful
computer and want to run Windows you're best off either downgrading,
or installing XP from scratch. This situation will continue
at least until Windows 7 is in full release.

Steve

Dan Abel wrote:

> Well, they *ought* to be ready:
>
> "Announced in January 1999, the Rev. C iMac came in 5 dazzling new
> colors: Blueberry, Strawberry, Lime, Tangerine and Grape."
>
> My son bought a Blueberry, with a major memory upgrade.
>
> [pics and tech specs, select on right]:
>
> http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=imac
>
> We had bought the rev B earlier, only available in indigo.
>

I remember those transparent colors! They were cool. I can't say that
I'm too hip on Apple computers. Aren't most of the Apple computers white
these days?

On 2009-01-25, blake murphy > wrote:

> bothered to build, or even fully understand, their machines. why should
> they?

Why should they wake up in the morning?

nb

On 2009-01-25, dsi1 > wrote:

> I remember those transparent colors! They were cool.

Yep. All flash and no pan.

nb

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:13:50 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:10:19 -0500, Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:59:00 -0800, sf > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:51:10 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Now go compare prices for PCs and Macs to run those systems and come
>>>>back and talk.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Who buys a computer without a pre-installed OS?
>>
>> We do at times. I assure you, we are not alone. Someone is out there
>> buying this stuff, don't you think? My son has built at 2-3 gaming
>> computers along the way and needed to install an OS in it.
>>
>
>sure, some people do that, but they have an interest in it. most people
>want a computer in order to some pretty simple things - surf the web,
>email, and some hardy individuals like usenet. they are not going to be
>bothered to build, or even fully understand, their machines. why should
>they?
>
>your pal,
>blake

I never said there is any requirement to do so, nor a personal
shortcoming if the interest were not there. Look above to the what was
asked

>>>Who buys a computer without a pre-installed OS?

I gave a straight answer, but in no way implied that the other poster
should be interested in buying a PC without one, just that such
purchases are made with some frequency.

Boron

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-25, dsi1 > wrote:
>
>> I remember those transparent colors! They were cool.
>
> Yep. All flash and no pan.
>
> nb

Folks have always been willing to pay a premium for design, or a higher
class of product or an extra coolness factor. I think most folks think
Apple designs a cool product. Some are even willing to pay for this -
you are not Bob. :-)

On 2009-01-26, dsi1 > wrote:

> you are not Bob. :-)

My name is not Bob.

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-26, dsi1 > wrote:
>
>> you are not Bob. :-)
>
> My name is not Bob.

Oh, sorry about that. Heck, my name is not Bob either - what's yours?

>
> nb

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:54:24 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

>I remember those transparent colors! They were cool. I can't say that
>I'm too hip on Apple computers. Aren't most of the Apple computers white
>these days?

I think you can tell how old an Apple is the color and I see only
white Macs these days.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West