On 8 Aug 2006 at 19:12, AJ Azure wrote: > > From: "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > > Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:04:54 -0400 > > To: <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Finale] OT: Mac Pro unveiled > > > > On 8 Aug 2006 at 18:49, AJ Azure wrote: > > > >> No one is mentioning this but, I can make it much simpler for you > >> all. MACS are better. One reason? The new platform runs OSX AND > >> WinXP. PCs can't do that yet right? If you need dual platform for > >> work and/or you may want software that one or the other does not > >> run. MACS are the only answer. > > > > But if you don't need either of those things, your first statement > > IS FALSE. Macs are only better if you have those needs. If you > > don't, they aren't. > > They're prettier too ;)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and is a very low item on my list of requirements for a PC. > Anyway, you may not need it at the time of purchase but, who knows > if you do and since such an investment spans at least 2 years, it > seems smarter to plan for the possibility. Why be limited when you > can be flexible? A mere two-year investment in a computer? I intend to use my PCs for *five* years when I buy them, based on anticipated upgrades. But I would never buy a machine on the possibility of something happening, something that I'm not going to user for a while. The idea that a PC user would buy a Mac just because they *might* want to use OS X is completely senseless. If a PC user lacks good strong reasons to use OS X, it makes no sense to buy on the cross- compatibility promise. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
