It's not so bad after all. It is installed on my new business laptop, and is
fairly straightforward and logical to use. Looking at the system
requirements, I imagine it might be cumbersome on lighter systems, but with
a 3.0 ghz processor, 4 gbs of memory and a 250 gb hard drive, it does fine.

(OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both mail
and news in the same interface, like OE.)

In article >,
"cybercat" > wrote:

> It's not so bad after all. It is installed on my new business laptop, and is
> fairly straightforward and logical to use. Looking at the system
> requirements, I imagine it might be cumbersome on lighter systems, but with
> a 3.0 ghz processor, 4 gbs of memory and a 250 gb hard drive, it does fine.
>
> (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both mail
> and news in the same interface, like OE.)

I am a Mac user, but I use Vista every day in small doses for work. My
Vista installation has hardly any software on it. Just MS Office 2007,
and two Java apps. Nothing else. I do not keep any data on that PC.
Period. I seriously doubt that anyone has a more bland and vanilla Vista
system as I do. Despite that, Vista has crashed on me hard several
times. I had to reinstall it at least three times before I finally got
it to a point where it is reasonably stable. I saw a demo of Windows 7
beta recently and it looks a lot better than Vista. The big thing about
Windows 7 that appeals to me is that Microsoft finally is taking out
those annoying pop up status balloons. They are so damned annoying in
Vista and XP. Windows 7 has those notifications, but they can be
configured to appear from within a system utility instead of being so
intrusive on the screen. Then again, I get almost all the functionality
of Windows 7 already on my Mac via Mac OS X. Vista only users had to
wait years for much of the functionality we Mac users have, and on top
of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:19:37 -0500, cybercat wrote:

> It's not so bad after all. It is installed on my new business laptop, and is
> fairly straightforward and logical to use. Looking at the system
> requirements, I imagine it might be cumbersome on lighter systems, but with
> a 3.0 ghz processor, 4 gbs of memory and a 250 gb hard drive, it does fine.
>
> (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both mail
> and news in the same interface, like OE.)

i have vista home premium (32-bit) on my new (in december) desktop machine,
and i found it very irritating until i turned off User Account Control
(UAC). (yes, i know there are security issues involved). now it now
longer asks for permission before i can scratch my butt. 3gb sdram and
2.66ghz, so it's presumably designed to handle whatever inherent
piggishness vista possesses.

there were a few other tweaks, and at least one program i used to use that
has no version for vista, but i'm reasonably content with it.

your pal,
blake

On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:

> of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.

Only a true Mac zealot could make a statement like that with a straight face.

nb

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> i have vista home premium (32-bit) on my new (in december) desktop
> machine,
> and i found it very irritating until i turned off User Account Control
> (UAC). (yes, i know there are security issues involved). now it now
> longer asks for permission before i can scratch my butt.

Hey that's a great idea. I'll try it.

>3gb sdram and
> 2.66ghz, so it's presumably designed to handle whatever inherent
> piggishness vista possesses.

You have a faster processor than I do.

>
> there were a few other tweaks, and at least one program i used to use that
> has no version for vista, but i'm reasonably content with it.
>

I got such a great deal at Tiger Direct (they have a store here in Raleigh)
that I didn't blink when it said it came with Vista. (I bought a new desktop
last May, and insisted it had XP Pro on it, though. I do most of my work
there, so I figured I can afford to try out Vista. If for any reason it
sucks in time, I will just reformat it and put XP on.

On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:

> of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.

Only an Apple zealot could make that statement with a straight face.

nb

In article
>
,
Stan Horwitz > wrote:

> In article >,
> "cybercat" > wrote:

> > (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both mail
> > and news in the same interface, like OE.)

We've all had wonderful experiences here with Windows Mail. "How could
you post such a thing?". "I never posted that!". "Yes you did". In
every case, somebody was using Windows Mail, which doesn't quote, so
what one person posted was attributed to another. Thanks, MicroSoft!


> I am a Mac user,

I was a Mac user for a long time, both at work and at home. For some
years, I worked on an application that only ran on under Windows, so I
mostly used a PC then. I did occasional conversion work. I
particularly remember helping people who were switching from PC to Mac,
or vice versa. Switching to the Mac was trivial. In fact, most people
refused to believe me when I said that I was done. I hadn't taught them
anything! Going the other way caused a lot of hard feelings. They
sometimes got very angry at me. I would try to explain that IT didn't
decide that they should switch from Mac to PC, their boss had made that
decision. They often didn't believe me. Why would their boss screw
them over like that? Well, either their boss was more familiar with a
PC, or usually, they saw that they could save a few hundred dollars in
purchase cost.

I am retired now, and my wife and I use two Macs. The kids are in and
out, and my oldest son keeps a PC here (in fact, he lives here, although
he's only here a couple of days a week, and works four consecutive 24
hour shifts, and keeps his fancy PC at work in his bedroom).

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>
> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>
> Only a true Mac zealot could make a statement like that with a straight face.

That hasn't been what I've been hearing. The very best comments I've
heard about Vista personally have been things like "it's OK, I can get
what I need". I understand that if new computers weren't actually
selling at a premium if they had XP instead of Vista, it was certainly a
selling factor. My son was looking for a new PC, and I think he kept
looking until he could find one with XP on it.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2009-01-23, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article >,
> notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>>
>> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>>
>> Only a true Mac zealot could make a statement like that with a straight face.
>
> That hasn't been what I've been hearing. The very best comments I've
> heard about Vista personally have been things like "it's OK, I can get
> what I need". I understand that if new computers weren't actually
> selling at a premium if they had XP instead of Vista, it was certainly a
> selling factor. My son was looking for a new PC, and I think he kept
> looking until he could find one with XP on it.

Whoosh!!

The height of absurdity is a Mac owner making despariging remarks about the
hight cost of another platform.

nb

cybercat wrote:
> It's not so bad after all. It is installed on my new business laptop, and is
> fairly straightforward and logical to use. Looking at the system
> requirements, I imagine it might be cumbersome on lighter systems, but with
> a 3.0 ghz processor, 4 gbs of memory and a 250 gb hard drive, it does fine.

Vista ain't bad if you have a capable machine. It's awesome on my son's
fancy n' fast computer with 8Gs of RAM. I also have it on two of my
laptops which are fairly lightweight power-wise, they work well enough
although I would recommend turning off the Aero-interface on these.
Putting Vista on my 5 year old machines at work would be a big mistake.
I don't think it would be a smart move to install Vista on my newest
machine either - an Intel Atom based desktop with a motherboard that
allows a maximum RAM of 2 Gigs, although I would like some info from
folks that are running Vista on this configuration. What can I say? The
board was less than 80 bucks with the processor. :-)

>
> (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both mail
> and news in the same interface, like OE.)

How do you like Windows Mail? I'm kind of hung up on T-bird but willing
to try other programs. Speaking of trying new programs, My default
browser is Google's Chrome. Awesomely fast! I'll still use Firefox when
I need the tools. IE? What's IE? :-)

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:19:37 -0500, cybercat wrote:
>
>> It's not so bad after all. It is installed on my new business laptop, and
>> is
>> fairly straightforward and logical to use. Looking at the system
>> requirements, I imagine it might be cumbersome on lighter systems, but
>> with
>> a 3.0 ghz processor, 4 gbs of memory and a 250 gb hard drive, it does
>> fine.
>>
>> (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both
>> mail
>> and news in the same interface, like OE.)
>
> i have vista home premium (32-bit) on my new (in december) desktop
> machine,
> and i found it very irritating until i turned off User Account Control
> (UAC). (yes, i know there are security issues involved). now it now
> longer asks for permission before i can scratch my butt. 3gb sdram and
> 2.66ghz, so it's presumably designed to handle whatever inherent
> piggishness vista possesses.
>
> there were a few other tweaks, and at least one program i used to use that
> has no version for vista, but i'm reasonably content with it.


The average home user has little reason not to go Vista. Capable machines
to run it are very cheap these days as is memory which you'll need as much
as you can cram into it. Where Vista does not fit in is in a corporate
environment which is nothing less than a support nightmare and requires
heavy investments in new hardware and retraining.

Windows 7 is looking good. I instructed all my clients to pass on Vista for
as long as possible and now it appears Vista will have the shortest life of
any of M$'s OSs save for ME. The W7 rollout hopefully will coincide with
some finanancial lubrication and that means a lot of work for me.

Paul

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-01-23, Dan Abel > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > notbob > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
> >>
> >> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
> >>
> >> Only a true Mac zealot could make a statement like that with a straight
> >> face.
> >
> > That hasn't been what I've been hearing. The very best comments I've
> > heard about Vista personally have been things like "it's OK, I can get
> > what I need". I understand that if new computers weren't actually
> > selling at a premium if they had XP instead of Vista, it was certainly a
> > selling factor. My son was looking for a new PC, and I think he kept
> > looking until he could find one with XP on it.
>
> Whoosh!!
>
> The height of absurdity is a Mac owner making despariging remarks about the
> hight cost of another platform.

So who's doing that?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2009-01-23, Paul M. Cook > wrote:
>
> The average home user has little reason not to go Vista. Capable machines
> to run it are very cheap these days.....

Are they? I recall the $300 Vista boxes at Walmart. I also recall the
scandal over boxes (computers) that were lableled Vista ready when, in fact,
they were not. Plus, these same low end boxes come with Vista home edition,
the version that has none of the neato trick features that are supposed to
make Vista a good reason to upgrade. In the end, the need to buy a new
piece of hardware just to take advantage of a questionable new operation
system is just plain stupid. M$ and Intel have been foisting this scam off
on the public for a couple decades, now, and it's finally bit them both in
the ass.

nb

"Stan Horwitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "cybercat" > wrote:
>
>> It's not so bad after all.
>>
>> (OE is no more, but "Windows Mail" is essentially the same thing--both
>> mail
>> and news in the same interface, like OE.)
>

Yeah, Vista let's me killfile cybercat and lots of other people simply with
one click. I love Windows Mail.

Jill

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-01-23, Paul M. Cook > wrote:
>>
>> The average home user has little reason not to go Vista. Capable
>> machines
>> to run it are very cheap these days.....
>
> Are they? I recall the $300 Vista boxes at Walmart. I also recall the
> scandal over boxes (computers) that were lableled Vista ready when, in
> fact,
> they were not. Plus, these same low end boxes come with Vista home
> edition,
> the version that has none of the neato trick features that are supposed to
> make Vista a good reason to upgrade.

Anyone who buys a computer at WalMart deserves what the get. By cheap I
mean 700 bucks for a box with a fast core-2 duo, 4 gig of ram, 300 gig hard
drive, nice graphics card and usb ports galore, Vista Business plus a
warranty and tech support. Go get what you pay for.

In the end, the need to buy a new
> piece of hardware just to take advantage of a questionable new operation
> system is just plain stupid. M$ and Intel have been foisting this scam
> off
> on the public for a couple decades, now, and it's finally bit them both in
> the ass.

It is stupid. I see nothing in Vista that people actually need. It's
really got nothing new just a lot of changes to the old stuff. Neither do
most people disagree. They get Vista when they buy a new system which they
would have done anyway and sales have been flat since the time they released
Vista.

This time M$ blew it. It's really their first big blunder. The world just
reached saturation point and preferred stability to whiz bang. And the
corporate world had just finished amortizing their huge investment in XP
when they were presented with having to do it all over again.

Paul

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>
> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>
> Only an Apple zealot could make that statement with a straight face.
>
> nb

On the contrary, only a person who knows how to read prices online would
say that with a straight face. The Vista edition that's functionally
equivalent to Mac OS X is Home Ultimate. Amazon.com is offering Vista
Home Ultimate SP1 for $238.95 while Mac OS X is offered by amazon.com
for $109.99. In order for Windows Vista users to get the same level of
functionality that Mac OS X 10.5 users get, it costs them more than
twice as much money. And if you add Apple's new iLife '09 onto the
price, its still cheaper then Home Ultimate.

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-01-23, Dan Abel > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > notbob > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
> >>
> >> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
> >>
> >> Only a true Mac zealot could make a statement like that with a straight
> >> face.
> >
> > That hasn't been what I've been hearing. The very best comments I've
> > heard about Vista personally have been things like "it's OK, I can get
> > what I need". I understand that if new computers weren't actually
> > selling at a premium if they had XP instead of Vista, it was certainly a
> > selling factor. My son was looking for a new PC, and I think he kept
> > looking until he could find one with XP on it.
>
> Whoosh!!
>
> 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, but the others don't include anywhere near
the amount and qualify of media software that came on my MacBook Pro
right out of the box.

sf wrote:

> The average home user has little reason to switch OS.

That depends on how often you buy a new computer. Suppose, hypothetically,
that your home computer was running an operating system which was obsolete.
(Windows 98, for example, is no longer supported by Microsoft. Windows XP
*would* have already been consigned to the "obsolete bin" if not for the
outcry about how shitty an operating system Vista is.)

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.

If you buy a new computer every time a new OS comes out, then you're right;
you don't need to switch your OS -- because you spend fifteen times as much
to buy a whole new computer instead.

Bob

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. At least you seem to catch the drift of
my statement, which is ....for you thicker respondents.... that EVERYTHING
Apples makes is insanely overpriced and has been since their inception. I
woulda probably been an early Apple user, but even with student discounts,
the hardware was so far out of my budget as to be nothing but a pipe dream.
That same greed in ol' Steve's marketing plan continues to this day. iPhones
.....$600!! iPods ....$300! Puh-leeze. Apple's OS pricing is probably the
only sane aspect of owning an Apple.

nb

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:47:55 -0500, Stan Horwitz >
wrote:

>In article >,
> notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>>
>> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>>
>> Only an Apple zealot could make that statement with a straight face.
>>
>> nb
>
>On the contrary, only a person who knows how to read prices online would
>say that with a straight face. The Vista edition that's functionally
>equivalent to Mac OS X is Home Ultimate. Amazon.com is offering Vista
>Home Ultimate SP1 for $238.95 while Mac OS X is offered by amazon.com
>for $109.99. In order for Windows Vista users to get the same level of
>functionality that Mac OS X 10.5 users get, it costs them more than
>twice as much money. And if you add Apple's new iLife '09 onto the
>price, its still cheaper then Home Ultimate.

Now go compare prices for PCs and Macs to run those systems and come
back and talk.

Boron

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:56:20 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> The average home user has little reason to switch OS.
>
>That depends on how often you buy a new computer. Suppose, hypothetically,
>that your home computer was running an operating system which was obsolete.
>(Windows 98, for example, is no longer supported by Microsoft. Windows XP
>*would* have already been consigned to the "obsolete bin" if not for the
>outcry about how shitty an operating system Vista is.)

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.

>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.

In fact, the only person I know who ever lost everything, wiped her
Apple drive in a flash. Yeah, she knew her way around, even well
enough so that she had a full back up.
>
>If you buy a new computer every time a new OS comes out, then you're right;
>you don't need to switch your OS -- because you spend fifteen times as much
>to buy a whole new computer instead.

I have machines that run Win 95, 98, Xp and Vista in this house. I
have never lost my data, found them unusable, had them hacked or
completely obsolete. Apple has a tendency to just stop supporting its
old machines, too, you know. If you know enough about them, you'd know
that. For what it would have cost to get a new, dual processor Apple
to use the software I wanted to do digital video editing (home
style, not professional), I could have bought TWO new PCs.

I can take apart any PC in this house, right down to the board and
tinker with it and upgrade it and futz with it all want. The damn
Apples are not owner serviceable. The only extended warranty I ever
bought for a computer was for an Apple. Damn good thing, too, as the
video repair would have been $800 without it. That only makes sense
to me because I won stock in the company.

Try synching half the smartphones out there with Apples. Try getting
the business apps you need for Apples. Apples are great for artists
and music folks and they have a chunk of that market, but really,
otherwise they are cute to look at and play with and they work really
well with iPods and iPhones. It is only recently that you could even
function with a Blackberry and an Apple.

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.

On 2009-01-24, Boron Elgar > wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:56:20 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>>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.

I have, on a w98 box. Corrupted a whole 60G hdd. Granted, I had only a
couple of after-the-fact free malware scanners, not being able to afford the
"gazillion 3rd part programs" that typically charge $30-60 each.

> It ain't gonna happen to anyone with an anti-virus program and a brain
> bigger than a pea.

Yes, it will happen. The net is lousy with client-side webscripts and
drive-by downloads are an everyday occurance. As for the other, anyone with
a brain bigger than a pea will dump Windows and run linux, which provides a
very high level of security and costs zip.

> I can take apart any PC in this house, right down to the board and
> tinker with it and upgrade it and futz with it all want. The damn
> Apples are not owner serviceable. The only extended warranty I ever
> bought for a computer was for an Apple. Damn good thing, too, as the
> video repair would have been $800 without it. That only makes sense
> to me because I won stock in the company.

Amen.

> Try synching half the smartphones out there with Apples. Try getting
> the business apps you need for Apples. Apples are great for artists
> and music folks and they have a chunk of that market, but really,
> otherwise they are cute to look at and play with and they work really
> well with iPods and iPhones. It is only recently that you could even
> function with a Blackberry and an Apple.

Yep, and even that is somewhat of a myth. All the serious cinema computer
graphics are done on linux boxes, not macs. My lifelong friend, a commercial
photographer/graphics person, changed from macs to PCs years ago. My ex
fortune 500 company dumped all apple stuff for lack of business software. I
can think of a couple of good reasons to recommend a mac, but for me, never
gonna happen. Too expensive, too restrictive, too limited.


> 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.

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

nb

In article >,
says...
>
> sf wrote:
>
> > The average home user has little reason to switch OS.
>
> That depends on how often you buy a new computer. Suppose, hypothetically,
> that your home computer was running an operating system which was obsolete.
> (Windows 98, for example, is no longer supported by Microsoft. Windows XP
> *would* have already been consigned to the "obsolete bin" if not for the
> outcry about how shitty an operating system Vista is.)
>
> 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.
>
> If you buy a new computer every time a new OS comes out, then you're right;
> you don't need to switch your OS -- because you spend fifteen times as much
> to buy a whole new computer instead.
>
> Bob

I ran Windows 2000 for a good long time before I jumped to XP. 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.

In article >, says...
>
> On 2009-01-24, Boron Elgar > wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:56:20 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
> >>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.
>
> I have, on a w98 box. Corrupted a whole 60G hdd. Granted, I had only a
> couple of after-the-fact free malware scanners, not being able to afford the
> "gazillion 3rd part programs" that typically charge $30-60 each.
>
> > It ain't gonna happen to anyone with an anti-virus program and a brain
> > bigger than a pea.
>
> Yes, it will happen. The net is lousy with client-side webscripts and
> drive-by downloads are an everyday occurance. As for the other, anyone with
> a brain bigger than a pea will dump Windows and run linux, which provides a
> very high level of security and costs zip.
>
> > I can take apart any PC in this house, right down to the board and
> > tinker with it and upgrade it and futz with it all want. The damn
> > Apples are not owner serviceable. The only extended warranty I ever
> > bought for a computer was for an Apple. Damn good thing, too, as the
> > video repair would have been $800 without it. That only makes sense
> > to me because I won stock in the company.
>
> Amen.
>
> > Try synching half the smartphones out there with Apples. Try getting
> > the business apps you need for Apples. Apples are great for artists
> > and music folks and they have a chunk of that market, but really,
> > otherwise they are cute to look at and play with and they work really
> > well with iPods and iPhones. It is only recently that you could even
> > function with a Blackberry and an Apple.
>
> Yep, and even that is somewhat of a myth. All the serious cinema computer
> graphics are done on linux boxes, not macs. My lifelong friend, a commercial
> photographer/graphics person, changed from macs to PCs years ago. My ex
> fortune 500 company dumped all apple stuff for lack of business software. I
> can think of a couple of good reasons to recommend a mac, but for me, never
> gonna happen. Too expensive, too restrictive, too limited.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> If you want to pay exhorbitant prices, be limited in hard/software choices,
> and be locked into Apple drm, by all means, buy Apple.
>
> nb


The problem with the Intel/Windows boxes is even if you buy the box
without Windows you still pay the Windows 'tax'.

It is built into the machine pricing.

On 2009-01-24, T > wrote:

> The problem with the Intel/Windows boxes is even if you buy the box
> without Windows you still pay the Windows 'tax'.
>
> It is built into the machine pricing.

Not if you buy separate components and build your own box.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Building a PC isn't much different from
wiring together a home entertainment system. You buy what's called a
"barebones" box (motherboard, cpu, power supply, case) which includes no OS.
Then buy memory, hdd, audi/vid cards and simply plug them in. I could teach
a 10 yr old kid to do it in 30 mins. Basically, all your doing is putting
cards in predetermined slots and connecting storage media to supplied
connectors. If you can work a screwdriver, you can build a computer. It
used to be that the hardest part was partitioning the hdd and installing the
operating system. Now, even linux is easier to install than Windows.


nb

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:51:10 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:47:55 -0500, Stan Horwitz >
>wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> notbob > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>>>
>>> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>>>
>>> Only an Apple zealot could make that statement with a straight face.
>>>
>>> nb
>>
>>On the contrary, only a person who knows how to read prices online would
>>say that with a straight face. The Vista edition that's functionally
>>equivalent to Mac OS X is Home Ultimate. Amazon.com is offering Vista
>>Home Ultimate SP1 for $238.95 while Mac OS X is offered by amazon.com
>>for $109.99. In order for Windows Vista users to get the same level of
>>functionality that Mac OS X 10.5 users get, it costs them more than
>>twice as much money. And if you add Apple's new iLife '09 onto the
>>price, its still cheaper then Home Ultimate.
>
>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? I don't know a single
soul. I use my computers until they die and they die with the OS that
came with it. I don't "upgrade" operating systems. That would be
opening up a can of worms because I'd need to upgrade all sorts of
hardware and software too. Might as well buy a new computer.


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

Mae West

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:03:07 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

> My default
>browser is Google's Chrome. Awesomely fast! I'll still use Firefox when
>I need the tools.

This is the first positive review I've read about chrome. Do you find
most websites are written to accommodate it now?


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

Mae West

"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.

On 2009-01-24, sf > wrote:

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

Several million people.

>I don't know a single soul.

[shrug]

nb

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:56:20 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
>>sf wrote:
>>
>>> The average home user has little reason to switch OS.
>>
>>That depends on how often you buy a new computer. Suppose, hypothetically,
>>that your home computer was running an operating system which was
>>obsolete.
>>(Windows 98, for example, is no longer supported by Microsoft. Windows XP
>>*would* have already been consigned to the "obsolete bin" if not for the
>>outcry about how shitty an operating system Vista is.)
>
> 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.
>
>>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.

You're talking to "Bob" here.

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.

> That same greed in ol' Steve's marketing plan continues to this day. iPhones
> ....$600!! iPods ....$300! Puh-leeze. Apple's OS pricing is probably the
> only sane aspect of owning an Apple.

My daughter wanted an Iphone, too. At the price, she could do without,
not to mention the monthly fee.

There's a second generation Iphone now, and no exorbitant monthly fee.
She has an Iphone.

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-pho...ones/apple.jsp

US$200, less US$50 if you'll take a refurb.

Ipod? Yeah, they were pretty expensive. Now starting at US$42.99:

http://www.macmall.com/macmall/ipod/...acmall.com/&wt
..mc_id=25635

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

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.

nb

sf wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:03:07 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
>
>> My default
>> browser is Google's Chrome. Awesomely fast! I'll still use Firefox when
>> I need the tools.
>
> This is the first positive review I've read about chrome. Do you find
> most websites are written to accommodate it now?
>
>

I don't think very many websites are being written or adapted for
Chrome, I'm guessing that it's Chrome being updated although I don't
really recall the browser getting updated. Currently, I don't have many
problems with compatibility. This is remarkable considering how new
Chrome is. Your mileage may vary. :-)

The goofy thing is that Chrome used to have problems playing the vids on
the Google-owned Youtube site, now there's no problems. It could very
well be that Youtube has been changed to accommodate Chrome.

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.

Oddly enough, Chrome is based on the same open-source application engine
as Apple's Safari. I tried Safari on my PC for a short while and didn't
care much for it but my guess is that they're probably similar. Chrome
probably has a better chance of being accepted by PC users.

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.
>



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

Mae West

sf wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:30:13 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Annoying, ain't it? Firefox needs an extension that loads up first and
prevents all the other extensions from loading and updating until you
need them. OTOH, I think that even a clean load of Firefox would have a
tough time of matching the speed of Chrome.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:44:07 -0500, cybercat wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> i have vista home premium (32-bit) on my new (in december) desktop
>> machine,
>> and i found it very irritating until i turned off User Account Control
>> (UAC). (yes, i know there are security issues involved). now it now
>> longer asks for permission before i can scratch my butt.
>
> Hey that's a great idea. I'll try it.
>

this is the drill, in case you don't know:

Open up Control Panel, and type in "UAC" into the search box. You'll see a
link for "Turn User Account Control (UAC) on or off":

On the next screen you should uncheck the box for "Use User Account Control
(UAC)", and then click on the OK button.

You'll need to reboot your computer before the changes take effect, but you
should be all done with annoying prompts.


>>3gb sdram and
>> 2.66ghz, so it's presumably designed to handle whatever inherent
>> piggishness vista possesses.
>
> You have a faster processor than I do.
>
well, it's very much quicker than my steam-powered millennium machine.
videos don't look like stop-motion photography anymore.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:35:27 GMT, notbob wrote:

> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>
>> of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>
> Only an Apple zealot could make that statement with a straight face.
>
> nb

this got a chuckle from me as well.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:45:27 -0800, 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

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.


--
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 08:59:00 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:51:10 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:47:55 -0500, Stan Horwitz >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> notbob > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-01-23, Stan Horwitz > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > of that, the cost to buy the full featured Vista is an outright rip off.
>>>>
>>>> Only an Apple zealot could make that statement with a straight face.
>>>>
>>>> nb
>>>
>>>On the contrary, only a person who knows how to read prices online would
>>>say that with a straight face. The Vista edition that's functionally
>>>equivalent to Mac OS X is Home Ultimate. Amazon.com is offering Vista
>>>Home Ultimate SP1 for $238.95 while Mac OS X is offered by amazon.com
>>>for $109.99. In order for Windows Vista users to get the same level of
>>>functionality that Mac OS X 10.5 users get, it costs them more than
>>>twice as much money. And if you add Apple's new iLife '09 onto the
>>>price, its still cheaper then Home Ultimate.
>>
>>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.

>I don't know a single
>soul. I use my computers until they die and they die with the OS that
>came with it. I don't "upgrade" operating systems. That would be
>opening up a can of worms because I'd need to upgrade all sorts of
>hardware and software too.

I have upgraded from the early Win systems to 95, some computers from
95 to 98, some from 98 to Xp (nothing to ME). It really isn't hard to
upgrade and most everything you use would have been backward
compatible. Vista made things a bit tricky with a few items, but that
was only early on. I have never been forced to upgrade hardware when
I've upgraded an OS. Drivers yes, hardware or software, no. Sometimes
I have upgraded an OS because I wanted to upgrade a piece of hardware
or software, though.

>Might as well buy a new computer.

That's fun, too.

Boron

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:02:48 GMT, 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.
>
>nb

I have an 8G Sansa MP3 player. I think it cost me $30-40 on Woot.
Great little toy.

Boron