Re: Re: Why MS Won't Retire Browsers -- was: Interntet Explorer 8 beater 2

At 4:15 PM -0400 9/15/08, Robert Cummings wrote:

On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 08:47 -0400, tedd wrote:

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.

I think you've garbled the logic here. She didn't pay more for the windblows machine, she paid more for incompetence.

Incompetence comes in all forms -- you can even find it in the product. The story here was that she wanted the largest monitor laptop at the time and cost was no object. At that time, it was a Mac, but the price turned her off. A year later, she still didn't have what she wanted so what she "saved" didn't make any difference -- it was all a waste. I'm not saying that one couldn't do email with a cheaper machine, but what I am saying is that 1) The largest monitor laptop at the time was a Mac; 2) the "savings" she thought she was getting didn't do anything other than costing her.

I would wager that an Intel or AMD machine running linux by a person of competence would be cheaper than a Mac anyday.

Perhaps, but it still wouldn't be a Mac.

So the question is, can I get a comparable Mac system at the same price point?

I dunno -- I don't know what windbows machines cost. I just know what I have to pay when I want something -- and that will be a Mac. Savings doesn't enter into the equation for me because I don't want to trade $$$ for ease of operation. It hard to say this without being offensive, but no offense meant -- sometimes trying to explain "ease of operation" to a windoze owner is like trying to explain the concept of fire to a fish -- they just don't get it. But then again, maybe I don't get it -- I like Macs and I see enough misery around to stop me from trading my Mac in on a windoze machine (the idea makes me shudder). Cheers, tedd -- ------- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com