iRant

my friend rich, has a post on his blog asking people for advice on what computer to buy. below is my response to him.......









here is my three cents.



get a mac.



and then run ALL THREE operating systems on that machine.





alternatively, you could buy a cheap PC, and install the mac os on it. HERE is one version of it, although i have seen various working models, including one installation on a $400 laptop.





now to convince you that you really should only buy a mac.......





i have been using macs since their first model back in 1984. i have used all kinds of other computers with all kinds of different OS's on them. i even used to have a xerox computer at home, (which was where apple got the idea for THEIR OS).



i studied computer programming, and network architecture on PC's.



i have used atari computing systems for generating music, and also used them for sequencing and slow, simple audio editing.



at the end of the day, i ALWAYS looked forward, when i could go home to my trusty mac.



it's not like the other companies are incapable of building a decent machine, but they simply just DON'T. dell/gateway/HP build computers with parts supplied by the lowest bidder. if they run out of a particular part, they substitute something else equally cheap.



microsoft strictly builds operating systems. not machines. one of the reasons their system crashes so frequently, is because they have to try and build a system that will work well with perhaps a MILLION combinations of bits of hardware.





apple builds the system, and it runs on an incredibly small variation of bits and pieces. it is this reason that makes them such stable machines to run. they may cost a little more to purchase outright, but if you try and build an equivalent windows-only PC, you will spend the same amount of money, if not more.



sure, there is more software available for a PC. that only makes sense, since the windows OS is so ubiquitous. but does this mean better? the answer is a simple "NO". the best way to prove my point is by using television as an example. is 600 channels of programming better than 30? nope.



600 channels means that all the programming that you would get from 30, is just spread out across ALL of the channels. and the content that you wouldn't normally get from only 30 channels, (meaning original programming), is so diluted and weak that it can hardly be considered worthwhile programming.



so just because there are more titles available for windows, doesn't mean that you are better off.





and guess which laptop runs windows the best? i posted about this one previously on my own blog.





anyway..... that's about all i have to say about that.











anyone care to comment?