«

"..." <> wrote in message
news:413Uf.7828$...
> Hi
> Plz comment on this i find this is some great plain apple came up
> with becouse there Computers are soo crap.
> And the advert saying that the intel CPUs have been traped in dull
> lil boxs. Im sure thats what apple is doing now to the poor things..
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers Spillage
>

Apple's are always going to be aimed at people who 'just want it to
work' and really don't care about bells and whistles, configurability,
or any other more 'advanced' user options.

Basically, the way I see it, an Apple computer is like many modern
cars. When you open the bonnet, the engine is covered up, and there
are three or four 'things' that are brightly coloured (oil, water,
screen wash, etc). It is saying to the 'user':

"You can touch this, this, and this. You don't know enough about me
to do anything else, so call a qualified mechanic if you think
something else needs attention."

That is why Apple's are perfect for little old ladies, technophobic
creative types, and anyone else who doesn't want to know how it all
works.

Windows sits somewhere in the middle, and most Linux distros are out
the other end - they are perfect for your petrolhead 'tinkerers' who
can't resist opening it up to tweak everything and want to know how it
*all* works.

That is why the arguments about which is 'best' are pointless - they
are all 'best' for different people.

My 2c worth.

Alan.


PS: You appear to be about four years behind the rest of us?

--

The views expressed are my own, and not those of my employer or anyone
else associated with me.

My current valid email address is:



This is valid as is. It is not munged, or altered at all.

It will be valid for AT LEAST one month from the date of this post.

If you are trying to contact me after that time,
it MAY still be valid, but may also have been
deactivated due to spam. If so, and you want
to contact me by email, try searching for a
more recent post by me to find my current
email address.

The following is a (probably!) totally unique
and meaningless string of characters that you
can use to find posts by me in a search engine:

ewygchvboocno43vb674b6nq46tvb

In article <Tl3Uf.7835$>,
"Alan" <> wrote:

> "..." <> wrote in message
> news:413Uf.7828$...
> > Hi
> > Plz comment on this i find this is some great plain apple came up
> > with becouse there Computers are soo crap.
> > And the advert saying that the intel CPUs have been traped in dull
> > lil boxs. Im sure thats what apple is doing now to the poor things..
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Cheers Spillage
> >
>
> Apple's are always going to be aimed at people who 'just want it to
> work' and really don't care about bells and whistles, configurability,
> or any other more 'advanced' user options.
>
> Basically, the way I see it, an Apple computer is like many modern
> cars. When you open the bonnet, the engine is covered up, and there
> are three or four 'things' that are brightly coloured (oil, water,
> screen wash, etc). It is saying to the 'user':
>
> "You can touch this, this, and this. You don't know enough about me
> to do anything else, so call a qualified mechanic if you think
> something else needs attention."
>
> That is why Apple's are perfect for little old ladies, technophobic
> creative types, and anyone else who doesn't want to know how it all
> works.
>
> Windows sits somewhere in the middle, and most Linux distros are out
> the other end - they are perfect for your petrolhead 'tinkerers' who
> can't resist opening it up to tweak everything and want to know how it
> *all* works.
>
> That is why the arguments about which is 'best' are pointless - they
> are all 'best' for different people.
>
> My 2c worth.
>
> Alan.
>

The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix, includes a full range of Unix
console-based tools with every installation, along with Apache, Perl,
Python, the latest version of Java and (optionally at no extra cost) a
complete suite of developer tools, all helps improve its appeal to
little old ladies and other technophobes, I suppose?

Having the whole thing wrapped in a user interface that does things
Microsoft won't match until some time next year just restricts your
options, no doubt.

Damn Apple, they're just not serious about computers!
--
Bystander

Bystander wrote:
> In article <Tl3Uf.7835$>,
> "Alan" <> wrote:
>
>> "..." <> wrote in message
>> news:413Uf.7828$...
>>> Hi
>>> Plz comment on this i find this is some great plain apple came up
>>> with becouse there Computers are soo crap.
>>> And the advert saying that the intel CPUs have been traped in dull
>>> lil boxs. Im sure thats what apple is doing now to the poor things..
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Cheers Spillage
>>>
>>
>> Apple's are always going to be aimed at people who 'just want it to
>> work' and really don't care about bells and whistles,
>> configurability, or any other more 'advanced' user options.
>>
>> Basically, the way I see it, an Apple computer is like many modern
>> cars. When you open the bonnet, the engine is covered up, and there
>> are three or four 'things' that are brightly coloured (oil, water,
>> screen wash, etc). It is saying to the 'user':
>>
>> "You can touch this, this, and this. You don't know enough about me
>> to do anything else, so call a qualified mechanic if you think
>> something else needs attention."
>>
>> That is why Apple's are perfect for little old ladies, technophobic
>> creative types, and anyone else who doesn't want to know how it all
>> works.
>>
>> Windows sits somewhere in the middle, and most Linux distros are out
>> the other end - they are perfect for your petrolhead 'tinkerers' who
>> can't resist opening it up to tweak everything and want to know how
>> it *all* works.
>>
>> That is why the arguments about which is 'best' are pointless - they
>> are all 'best' for different people.
>>
>> My 2c worth.
>>
>> Alan.
>>
>
> The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix, includes a full range of Unix
> console-based tools with every installation, along with Apache, Perl,
> Python, the latest version of Java and (optionally at no extra cost) a
> complete suite of developer tools, all helps improve its appeal to
> little old ladies and other technophobes, I suppose?
>
> Having the whole thing wrapped in a user interface that does things
> Microsoft won't match until some time next year just restricts your
> options, no doubt.
>
> Damn Apple, they're just not serious about computers!

I just wish it ran on PC hardware. I have a small LAN that I've built up
over the years from largely donated or bartered parts. Can't afford to
change my hardware.
--
~Shaun~

In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
says...
> In article <Tl3Uf.7835$>,
> "Alan" <> wrote:
>
> > "..." <> wrote in message
> > news:413Uf.7828$...
> > > Hi
> > > Plz comment on this i find this is some great plain apple came up
> > > with becouse there Computers are soo crap.
> > > And the advert saying that the intel CPUs have been traped in dull
> > > lil boxs. Im sure thats what apple is doing now to the poor things..
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Cheers Spillage
> > >
> >
> > Apple's are always going to be aimed at people who 'just want it to
> > work' and really don't care about bells and whistles, configurability,
> > or any other more 'advanced' user options.
> >
> > Basically, the way I see it, an Apple computer is like many modern
> > cars. When you open the bonnet, the engine is covered up, and there
> > are three or four 'things' that are brightly coloured (oil, water,
> > screen wash, etc). It is saying to the 'user':
> >
> > "You can touch this, this, and this. You don't know enough about me
> > to do anything else, so call a qualified mechanic if you think
> > something else needs attention."
> >
> > That is why Apple's are perfect for little old ladies, technophobic
> > creative types, and anyone else who doesn't want to know how it all
> > works.
> >
> > Windows sits somewhere in the middle, and most Linux distros are out
> > the other end - they are perfect for your petrolhead 'tinkerers' who
> > can't resist opening it up to tweak everything and want to know how it
> > *all* works.
> >
> > That is why the arguments about which is 'best' are pointless - they
> > are all 'best' for different people.
> >
> > My 2c worth.
> >
> > Alan.
> >
>
> The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,

No it's not.

In article <>,
RJ <> wrote:

> In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
> says...

..
..
..

> > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,
>
> No it's not.

Well, yes it is.

Or do you have some eye-wateringly lame nit-picking you want to do on
the topic?
--
Bystander

In article <e05ksk$d9t$>,
Bystander <> wrote:

> In article <>,
> RJ <> wrote:
>
> > In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
> > says...
>
> .
> .
> .
>
> > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,
> >
> > No it's not.
>
> Well, yes it is.
>
> Or do you have some eye-wateringly lame nit-picking you want to do on
> the topic?

Unlike Apple's previous Mac/Unix hybrid operating system, A/UX, OS X is
not certified as a Unix by The Open Group, currently custodians of the
Unix trademark.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

In article <e05ksk$d9t$>, lid
says...
> In article <>,
> RJ <> wrote:
>
> > In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
> > says...
>
> .
> .
> .
>
> > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,
> >
> > No it's not.
>
> Well, yes it is.

Well no, because Apple's proprietary parts of the Mac OSX, obviously,
are not Unix.

In article <bruce->,
Bruce Hoult <> wrote:

> In article <e05ksk$d9t$>,
> Bystander <> wrote:
>
> > In article <>,
> > RJ <> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
> > > says...
> >
> > .
> > .
> > .
> >
> > > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,
> > >
> > > No it's not.
> >
> > Well, yes it is.
> >
> > Or do you have some eye-wateringly lame nit-picking you want to do on
> > the topic?
>
> Unlike Apple's previous Mac/Unix hybrid operating system, A/UX, OS X is
> not certified as a Unix by The Open Group, currently custodians of the
> Unix trademark.

Ah, that'll be it!

The company that has sold more Unix systems than anyone else over the
past five years ... hasn't, because it's not "really" Unix.

Ooo, are my eyes watering now!
--
Bystander

In article <>, RJ <>
wrote:

> In article <e05ksk$d9t$>, lid
> says...
> > In article <>,
> > RJ <> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
> > > says...
> >
> > .
> > .
> > .
> >
> > > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,
> > >
> > > No it's not.
> >
> > Well, yes it is.
>
> Well no, because Apple's proprietary parts of the Mac OSX, obviously,
> are not Unix.

Oh right -- so a computer running Unix and any other software isn't
entirely Unix. Yeah, that's it. I get it.

And Windows XP isn't all Windows, because it's Win2K plus XP bits, or
Knoppix isn't really all Linux because it's got Knoppix-y bits added ...
but I digress.

What was the point of this lame yes-it-is no-it's-not stuff? Did you
have anything relevant or useful to say about the subject at hand? Do
you even recall what that was?
--
Bystander

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 22:39:00 +1200, Bystander
<> wrote:

>In article <>, RJ <>
>wrote:
>
>> In article <e05ksk$d9t$>, lid
>> says...
>> > In article <>,
>> > RJ <> wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <e04brg$1vn$>, lid
>> > > says...
>> >
>> > .
>> > .
>> > .
>> >
>> > > > The fact that Mac OSX is entirely Unix,
>> > >
>> > > No it's not.
>> >
>> > Well, yes it is.
>>
>> Well no, because Apple's proprietary parts of the Mac OSX, obviously,
>> are not Unix.
>
>Oh right -- so a computer running Unix and any other software isn't
>entirely Unix. Yeah, that's it. I get it.
>
>And Windows XP isn't all Windows, because it's Win2K plus XP bits, or
>Knoppix isn't really all Linux because it's got Knoppix-y bits added ...
>but I digress.
>
>What was the point of this lame yes-it-is no-it's-not stuff? Did you
>have anything relevant or useful to say about the subject at hand? Do
>you even recall what that was?

He was trying to educate you, I don't suppose anyone else will bother
now.