Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> 1. You have to reboot the machine to do that.
> > 
> >   And the difference with Win9x/DOS is...?

> You can switch without rebooting.

  Debatable. Just because you can shut down Windows and boot to DOS (and
the other way around) without going through the BIOS bootup sequence
doesn't necessarily make them tied together. It may just mean that Win9x
supports booting to DOS without having to go through BIOS bootup.

> >> 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.

  Oh, my. ;)

> 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.

  The PowerMac line has always been quite configurable and extendable.
Heck, it's even 10 times easier to open than a PC. With the typical PC
you need a screwdriver, and accessing the things inside is not the easiest
possible task. With a typical PowerMac you press a button, open the
computer and everything is nicely laid out there. (Well, at least this
was so in the past.)

> >> 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...)

  Switches exist. They aren't even expensive.

> >> 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.

  What kind of software? I bet you don't spend thousands of pounds in
software, so that must be free software? What kind of free software?
What is it that you do that requires Windows-only software?

  If you play games, I agree. I have that situation too. That's why I have
a dual boot. But games are just a very small portion of everything I do.

> 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.

  There we go again.

> 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.

  You still have this obsession that you have to throw out your Windows
machine (or Windows altogether). Nobody is forcing you.


> think that has Mac drivers.

  Probably not, because MacOS X probably supports it out of the box.

> >> 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.

  How does that counter my sarcasm? I think it's still valid.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message