I do not buy tech things that will be unsupportable in a short period of time. I do not think older technologies are generally worth pursuing. The hardware breaks sooner. The software stops working with the new hardware sooner, and also with new software. These are all general truths. Maybe you don't see them because all of your models of comparison involve Microsoft?
Thank you, Mark Snyder -----Original Message----- > It should be obvious that if one model is 6-7 years old, and one is > new, buy the new one. I'm sorry, but that is not at all obvious. What if you want a lot of storage? You have to get the newer product anyway, because it's newer? Even though it's much more expensive? Buying something that is more expensive and not what you want simply because it's newer seems just, well, silly. Incidentally, your axiom doesn't seem to apply to XP and Vista as far as a number of people on this list are concerned. There have been plenty of posts discussing how to get new machines with XP, which is now 7 years old. I don't want to get into another XP/Vista discussion; the point is that newer is not always better in all users' opinions. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
