>> In a real multitasking OS, several programs can "do stuff" at once. 
> 
>   And so they can in a cooperative multitasking OS. I don't really see
> the difference.

Right... So cooperative multitasking is a kind of multitasking. Not 
disputing that. I'm disputing whether Windows 3.11 could multitask.

>> Really? That's news to me. I was told that only the program that owns 
>> the active window can actually use the CPU.
> 
>   You were told wrong.

OK, fair enough.

>> 1. You have to reboot the machine to do that.
> 
>   And the difference with Win9x/DOS is...?

You can switch without rebooting.

>> I don't recall ever complaining about the hardware being closed, or the 
>> OS being tied to it. [Though obviously it *is* a bit of a pitty that 
>> Macs come in a fixed set of configurations and cannot be changed.] 
> 
>   How many times have you changed the configuration of a PC (other than
> eg. adding an additional hard drive or RAM, both of which you can
> perfectly well do to a Mac)?

Thrice.

I changed the graphics card, later I changed the CPU, and later still I 
changed the soundcard.

It's more the fact that Apple will only sell you a Mac in one of a small 
number of possible configurations. You can have a Mac with X, Y and Z, 
or a Mac with A, B and C. But you cannot purchase a Mac with X, Y and C. 
Not a major catastrophy, just a bit of a pitty.

>> 1. A Mac is a very expensive piece of hardware [assuming you can find 
>> somebody who sells them].
> 
>   You still have this misconception and you just don't want to let go
> of it.
> 
>   Sure, Apple doesn't offer almost anything in the below-crappy and
> laughably cheap range, but their prices seem very competitive to me
> when compared to PCs with *equivalent* specs.

I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation. I go online and look up 
specs, and a PC of a similar spec usually comes out several percent 
cheaper than a Mac.

>> 2. I would have to throw away all my existing software.
> 
>   That doesn't make even the least bit of sense. Are you saying that if
> you buy a second computer, you have to throw away the first one? Why?
> How does that make any sense?

My bedroom has finite volume? (Not to mention power supplies. And space 
for a keyboard, mouse and monitor...)

>> Apple are quick to claim that it's "easy" to get a Mac to talk to other 
>> Windows PCs. But given that I have two Windows PCs and they don't want 
>> to talk to each other, what are the chances of them talking to a 
>> complete alien? ;-)
> 
>   The chances are pretty good when you install the software which Apple
> gives you.

Well... I guess it's possible that a Mac might be better at talking to 
PCs than other PCs are. After all, OpenOffice is better at reading Word 
documents than Word itself is. ;-)

>> If I was going to go down this road, I'd need to know for sure that I'd 
>> actually be able to do something *useful* with a Mac.
> 
>   Like what?

I'm just saying, the quantity of software I can find for a Mac has to be 
large enough that it's worth turning the thing on at least occasionally.

I guess I could just use the Mac as a rendering machine - but then, if 
you want a Mac with serious CPU power, it gets *frighteningly* 
expensive. So that's not really gonna work.

>> I played this game 
>> with Linux; I had both Windoze and Linux installed, but since 98% of the 
>> software I want to use is on Windoze
> 
>   Exactly what software is that?
> 
>   Personally, the *only* software I need which is only available for
> Windows is computer games. I boot to Windows only to play (and I do
> that relatively rarely).

Well, obviously there's all the games I play. But for example, I have a 

it's completely useless on a Mac. I'm sure there exists Mac software 
that does something similar - but I do not own that software. I own Cubase.


*believe* should actually work on a Mac. [I'm not sure what the product 
activation system would make of it though. It might bawk at me trying to 
activate the product on another platform.]

Next there's my brand new graphics tablet. It comes with a copy of 
PhotoShop Elements. Now I'm fairly sure that can be run on a Mac - but I 
don't know if *my* copy can be. I think the CD I have is PC-only.


think that has Mac drivers.

The majority of the software I use is actually freeware. Some of it 
exists on the Mac, some of it doen't. Most of it probably has 
alternatives. So that's not such a big issue. I'm more worried about the 
software I've shelled out my hard-earned cash for.

Provided I can find enough useful things to do on a Mac, it's worth 
having one.

[Hypothetically, I guess some kind of laptop would be a good start. But 
those are really expensive, so...]

>> Eventually I got tired of Linux being catestrophically 
>> broken every time any item of hardware changed, so I just removed it 
>> completely.
> 
>   Right, no other linux user ever changes their hardware and thus
> avoids all problems, which is why linux is never fixed. You are the
> only person in the world to do that.

Linux is an OS "designed by experts, for experts". I am not an expert.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message