John Savard wrote:
Since the availability of software for one's computer determines what
one is able to use it for, it really determines the value of a computer.
If it had been OS X competing against *Windows 3.1*, the first really
usable version of Windows (since it licensed TrueType from Apple, of
course) for most computer users, Windows 3.1 would still "win".

First, let me state that I *completely* agree with the above, with
barely a /remote/ /possibility/ of a /hint/ , /however/ /unlikely/ ,
of an exception for people who /might/ want to run Adobe Creative
Suite, Aperture, AppleScript, Dreamweaver, Final Cut Studio,
GarageBand, iMovie/iDVD, Keynote, LogicPro, Microsoft Office, RenderMan
Pro, Safari, Shake, and/or all the Unix applications that exist,
including optical-design software.

Not that anyone in the /real/ world would want to do any of the
foregoing, mind you. Even if they did, they would run into a brick wall
-- the lack of video poker and malware eradication applications for the
Mac. Macheads can only /dream/ of having something like Microsoft's
Malicious Software Removal Tool.

So I, with my Vaio laptop/XP Pro SP2, am a Believer.

It's Scot Finnie, the Windows maven at ComputerWorld
http://tinyurl.com/nffh8, that needs straightening out. That fool
wrote:

"...Apple has the best operating system this year, last year and next
year. It'll be interesting to see what the company delivers in its 10.5
Leopard version of Mac OS X.

"Meanwhile, I'm placing Windows Vista as a distant second-best to OS X.
I see Linux and Windows 2000 as being roughly tied another notch or two
below Vista, with XP being only a half step better than Win 2000."

Other than the fact that he is a complete fool, that statement tells me
just one thing about Scot Finnie: he doesn't live in Colorado.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com