I don't disagree with some of the sentiment, but there are factual problems with this post
On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Michael_google gmail_Gersten wrote: > Any sort of persistent storage support went bye-bye CoreData > (And why does it seem > like every other software upgrade requires a hardware upgrade?) A lot less so than microsoft. The first OS I can't run on my Core Duo mac mini is Lion. I believe it had 10.4 when it came out. So the 10.5 and 10.6 upgrades were all good to go. That is more than every other, and is a long period of time. I bought the Mac Mini around May 2006. So it was able to be upgraded a good 5 years and a few months and is still a great machine with 10.6.x on it and should last my MIL a few more years at least. I consider that good value and better than MS, where the HW specs seem to jump an order of magnitude with each OS release. My Core 2 Duo MBP I got end of 2007 runs Lion as does the 2008 MacBook and I expect to get many more years out of them. My main machine, Mac Pro from mid 2008 should be a great and powerful machine for years to come, even though it will be 4 years old soon. > Where I think the government is a fail: Why is any corporation lock-in > allowed, given that it restricts consumers, and at face seems to > violate various anti-trust/anti-monopoly/free competition laws on the > books? Lock-in? Exactly what are you talking about? Are you whining that Apple controls the OS? Any OS you choose will have "lock-in" of some sort. And as a strict constitutionalist, are you really calling for the government to do something about some bogus lock-in? Really? _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
