Well, since you've picked the car analogy... There are plenty of things that you can play with in OS X. You can even play with stuff that Apple says isn't supposed to by played with. But don't be surprised if the next upgrade replaces something you've tinkered with. Just like you wouldn't be suprised if you took your car to the dealer after installing a hydrogen injector to the engine to increase the MPG and the dealer said, "sorry, you've modified the engine, we won't work on it."
I've used Macs since the original 128 (and Apple ][ before that) and all my personal computers are Macs. I have to use Windows at work because some standards committee in some far flung part of the corporate beast decided it had to be that way. My personal servers are Linux (the $/usability ratio isn't low enough for my cheap wallet to host on OS X right now). Computers, whether they run OS X, Windows XP/Vista, or Linux, are complex machines that sometimes break for inexplicable reasons. I've worked on Macs that were buggy until I worked out the right combination of OS and third-party software. I've worked on Macs that are as stable as a rock (I can't remember the last time my PowerBook crashed). The same goes for my experiences with Windows. YMMV. While computer mfg/OS affiliations are akin to a religion, computers are tools nothing more. Everyone has their preferences (mine's a Mac running OS X). On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Dmitri Girski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, I don't think that is wrong - computers should be easy to > use. I presume that you don't know how do injectors work in your > car's engine. Neither do I. And this is good. But if you are a > mechanic and you want to work on Apple's car you will find that > everything consists of a roseish/shiny plastic things which don't > allow hammering/screwing and other actions. But their conform with > every National Standard. > -- Howard Fore, [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The universe tends toward maximum irony. Don't push it." - Jeff Atwood
