BTW, I still have an old computer at home running Win98SE (actually with a few WinME tweaks). There are a lot of old DOS utilities that I need for my lab work that have never been satisfactorily ported over to Windows or OS X, and Win98SE contains the last solid implementation of DOS in a convential OS. It’s remarkable how well the machine (and Win98SE) still runs in a modern, internet-based environment.

A little over a year ago my old computer, running Win 98 SE, reached point of imminent failure. Being out of work, I acquired a replacement running Kubuntu Linux 8.04.1 (Hardy Heron), kernel 2.6.24-14, KDE 3.5.10, and have concluded that Linux is:
annoying
aggrevating
frustrating
time wasting
ugly
lacking necessary utilities
lacking documentation
Not Ready for Prime Time
Unfinished, and never likely to be ‘finished’ and suitable for the average person to use to do Real Work.

The people putting together Linux (I know a couple of Linux ‘gurus’ with recognizable names.) are doing it for their own pleasure. There’s no mechanism for collecting feedback or suggestions from ‘lusers’, and no one interested in putting them into code if there was.

It’s likely to stay a ‘niche OS’ forever. Recommended only to youngsters wanting to learn about OS code. In other words, an educational toy.

I am hoping that I get a steady job in the near future, and can afford to upgrade to XP. (Note: I got my first PC in ‘86, have owned three Macs, wouldn’t get another even if I could afford one.)

Yours, John Desmond

So here’s the thing: Speaking for myself, I can say that the Macintosh is a tool I use to get my work done. Much as I love its industrial design—thru 20 years (this month) of Macintosh use, I’ve been more interested in getting that work done for my clients than in getting under the hood of my computer.

Then again, I’m not a kid who loves to poke around under the hood of my car, either. I just use it to get me where I want to go.

Real Business Quality desktop PCs with ECC memory and virus resistant operating system can be found here:
http://www.curtissystemssoftware.com/ComputingSystemsAndAccessories.html

With software it’s also often easier to replace software, or upgrade the O/S than it is with PCs. It’s another pervasive myth that Macs are black boxes. In fact, they are not.

I write this as someone with no particular axe to grind, I use a PC at home and a mixture of Macs and PCs at work. While I find Macs to be marginally more reliable in daily use, current generations of PCs with recent Windows O/Ss are pretty reliable, too. At the end of the day it depends which user interface you prefer as much as anything else, and whether you’d benefit from the ‘nix elements of OS X.

The difference between Mac and PC/Windows is in the distance the system places between itself and users.

A Mac is your typical black box – nobody knows how it works, not even how to open it… If it breaks, you HAVE TO call tech support – a diminishingly very limited number of people are capable of dealing with a Mac fault. But that’s the reason Mac devotees love it – they do not have to do absolutely anything with it. If it works, it works. If it breaks, they call someone to fix it… They also typically do not have any need or desire to do anything “out of bounds” of your regular, run-of-the-mill office work on the computer.

Not the case with PC/Windows – most devotees of the system not only can fix/upgrade/change it, but often do it themselves – be it upgrading hardware (more memory) or software (I’ve always wanted to try this app…) Therefore, these guys tend to be much more matter-of-fact about their machine. It’s something they WORK WITH, not something that works FOR THEM.

The phenomenon I find really interesting is rare but not freakishly so: the person who seems to make a particular type of computer crash simply by being in the environs. James Wallis can do this with Macs, I’ve seen it done, and I ran into a couple people who were like that with Windows when I worked in my university’s computer lab. I don’t know of any real effort to look into it, and would be curious.

Oh, it’s also true that a lot of software made for both Mac and Windows sucks in the Mac version.

Approx. time spent installing and configuring custom software (written for OS X and Windows) on Vista Home Premium (Acer) PC box at home – 20 min. Amount of time needed to install same software on iMac (OS X 10.5) at lab (including calls to local IT and Apple tech support) – 7 hours.

The fact that I like Apple’s design aesthetics and find them a good fit for my apartment helps, but it isn’t decisive. Nor is any of the above an assertion that anyone else is doing it wrong. I mean, I have friends who actively do find a certain rugged fun in troubleshooting mastery, and I can understand that as a hobby not all that much difference from shooter computer games. This is just why it makes sense for me.

MacBook – $999. This is the lowest priced laptop on the Apple website.

Desktops START at $1199 for apple. For Dell, try $299 (closer to $800 for a similarly outfitted machine).

The Apple had better be more stable and easier to use than the Vista machine – you could buy from 2 to 4 Vistas for the price of a single iMac.

Now, it is probably true that comparing ordinary Dell computers to Apples is unfair. The Dell XPS Studio line is probably a more fair comparison.

But that is the thing – most people don’t need that much machine. Windows computers are the machines of the common man. Macs are Lexi, or Infinitis, or other pretentious car brands kitted out with a moonroof, an automatic transmission with 7 or more gears, 8 airbags, and model numbers which helpfully rank each car in order of its exclusivity so you can keep score. A smug “you should get a Mac” to someone having trouble with a several-year-old Windows machine is the same as saying “you should get a Lexus” when someone talks about how their ‘02 Ford is in the shop. In other words, it is a way of publicizing the Lexus/Mac owner’s status and power to those of lesser means.