The way I would look at it would be. If I'm going to go cheap, how can I get the best for the money?
A portable computer not much bigger than five DVDs stacked up together for $700 that will save you so much time, looks cool, is cool and runs the fabled Mac OS X is the best that cheap can buy. So how cheap are you? :-) -- G. On 7/7/06, Hari Kurup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The verdict according to moi:- Usability factor: Yes. very user friendly. Financial factor: No. Very pocket unfriendly. PS: i use an iMac but only because the company bought it :-) -- Hari Kurup On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:28 AM, Paul Bagyenda wrote: > At last, a well-considered opinion! > > Seriously, who has the time to tweak around with their computer? > Sure when one was younger (15-18 may be) and still found such > things interesting. But now? No way. Far more interesting things to > be doing with the PC than to be tweaking settings. > > I think Linux is "getting there" but the reasons "switching back > to Ubuntu" are dubious at best. > > When Linux gives me: > > - An Office Suite to match MS Office for Mac (no, Open Office is > not quite there yet) > - A desktop/command line integration that is as well-thoughout as > that of OSX > - Google in the box (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/spotlight/) > - The minimalism-with-power that I get with Safari & Apple Mail (to > name but a few) > - Virtualisation in the box (rumoured in next release to replace > BootCamp, but already possible) so I don't need to dual boot. > > Then I might switch back. Linux server? Yes please. Linux desktop? > Not yet. > > P. > > On Jul 06, 2006, at 13:18, Guido Sohne wrote: > >> Strange. I spent years switching back and forth between Linux and >> Windows. I'd go to Linux because it was easy to develop on, software >> is always being updated, so no waiting for the "next version, coming >> real soon now". Would have fun and tweak my system to my heart's >> content, wasting mucho time in the process. >> >> Then next there was always a nagging feeling. Somehow there weren't >> enough apps. I mean things you could just use without hassling over >> the details like font hinting in freetype and their bloody patented >> algorithm. Or downloading Bitstream Vera so that I could get a good >> quality font experience. Am not typical at all. I never use word >> processors, spreadsheets and the like. Rarely, maybe a letter, or a >> presentation. Rarely. Very rarely. >> >> A good web browser is now standard. Ditto email. Ditto chat. Many >> choices. Most more than capable. So what do you really get on Linux >> then? You have full control. And applications that feel like they are >> not yet quite done, but are a work forever in progress. Wine comes to >> mind immediately. >> >> After a while of this, I would reformat and install Windows and get >> all the little, tiny plenty applications that I could have. It's fine >> for a day or so. Then it just starts getting slow. Annoying things >> always want to popup. The computer always wants to "help" me. You >> never feel right because you wonder if you have been hacked, even >> with >> all your layers of voodoo defense. You realize that the applications >> have all these little annoyance. Everytime you want to save or open a >> file you have to go through some really shitty dialog box that >> doesn't >> really do anything but get in your way and offer too many ways to do >> things, that you have to waste time even deciding. Or stupid little >> repetitive actions such as keep on clicking until you get to where >> you >> want to. It makes no sense, because it is Frankenstein, stitched >> together by an army of drones deep inside the Borg colony. >> Eventually, >> I get disgusted and reformat to move to a nice clean fast stable >> Linux. >> >> Switching to OS X ended all of these problems for me. I have the >> decent, polished (better than Windows applications overall) >> applications and end user experience. Things just work. No endless >> tweaking. With a full Unix underneath, a few quirks here and there, >> but not command.com, we have bash, we have unix userland, we have a >> ports collection similar to BSD. There's X if you want it, but no one >> really likes it compared to the native apps. >> >> More people will switch as Linux gets better, but for now, OS X is >> very far ahead in terms of the user experience. Now, if only we could >> have OS X running on top of the Linux kernel, all would be perfect. >> The Solaris kernel and userland, that could be even better, maybe >> more >> interesting since Solaris has waaaaay more features than Linux. >> >> But last is what's the need and point of switching when you can >> wait a >> few months, or even buy the right hardware now and run all these >> systems under a hypervisor? Virtualization is here. Why switch any >> longer? You can have it all ... >> >> So the way I understand it is they are just making a statement, going >> on an adventure and they will be gone for a long while. If OS X gets >> enough better, they will surely switch back. If Linux gets enough >> better, I'll probably switch again ... >> >> -- G. >> >> On 7/4/06, Paul Bagyenda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/06/ >>> ubuntu_linux_a_threat_to_mac_o.html >>> >>> "If I were Apple, I'd be worried about this. Two lifelong Mac >>> fans are >>> switching away from Macs to PCs running Ubuntu Linux" >>> >>> --- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So what do the Ubuntu users on this list have to say? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LUG mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug >>> %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ >>> >>> The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them >>> (including >>> attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them >>> in any way. >>> --------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> LUG mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug >> %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ >> >> The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them >> (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible >> for them in any way. >> --------------------------------------- >> > > _______________________________________________ > LUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug > %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ > > The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them > (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible > for them in any way. > --------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
