There are reasons of course - just not necessarily reasonable ones.
My first computer was a Mac and I've been there ever since.
It's not like switching from Canon to Nikon - it's several orders of
magnitude worse.
To me Windoze seems clumsy and unnecessarily difficult.
(That's partly me but not entirely I suspect).
The only time I use Windoze is in the workplace when I'm doing nasty
boring stuff.
In those places I seem to be surrounded by persons who are constantly
experiencing problems.
Problems which tend not to be problems on a Mac.
Of course, they'd prolly have problems on any kind of system.
I usually configure a PC to look a lot like a Mac and then it isn't
too bad.
To me, Bootcamp etc. are a way to help people who come to a Mac with
a lot of baggage.
I don't. It's a level of complexity I don't need.
I'm sure that you'd find it useful - I had a friend who said that the
only difference between Windoze on a PC and in emulation on a Mac was
that on a Mac, it was stable.
The only regret I have is that if Mac was the dominant system, my
next computer would cost half as much.
Of course, it would also tend to crash and there'd be a horde of
virii out to get it as well.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 26/01/2008, at 11:18 AM, Marc Lawrence wrote:
> Oh, yes, I forgot the Mac thing. Is there any reason (apart from
> perhaps
> cost or disliking it intensely enough) that you don't run Windows via
> Parallels or Fusion or Bootcamp (I've no idea which of these is the
> best, or whether they're all even applicable). I'm not trying to
> advocate it; it's just that, as someone whose household may migrate to
> being Mac-centred (if Peter gets his way), it has always seemed like a
> way to cover all, or most, bases, as with the example of the Momento
> software.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|