Scott and Aman: Please cut it right here, or have this discussion off list. For everyone else, please let's shut this thread down, NOW! Thank you and good evening.
Carolyn On Apr 30, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Aman Singer wrote: > Hi, Scott. > You write > Your message does mix a number of things here, but the end result is > the Mac is beyond what your willing to spend and that is pretty much > where it should > end. Any argument beyond that is pointless. > > I'm glad, Scott, that you know my motives better than I do. I must be > a bit irrational, though, given that the desktop I'm typing this on > cost more, originally, than most Macs. However, faced with > omniscience, I have nothing to say. We might as well say that I must > have been a bit off my rocker when I had it built. > You write > The most unrealistic part is breaking this down to components. The > average user is not at all interested in choosing an Asus board over > an Intel board. ALl they want is to turn it on and get their tasks > accomplished. > > That is precisely my point. Apple is targeting a certain type of user > and ignoring all others. This user is not interested in what > components go into the machine. He also lives in the developed world, > has an income which puts him into at least the lower middle-class, > regularly uses one, or at most two, machines, outside of work, and > possibly owns several other Apple products. If you don't fit that > mould, then the Apple products will not adapt to your circumstances. > You can deviate from that mould slightly, but deviate too much and > Apple OSX just don't work for you. Both Windows and Linux, on the > other hand, do not have such a mould. They will work on the machine > you put them on. They may work more slowly or rapidly, but they will > work. This is my understanding of adaptability, that the OS should > adapt to the user's circumstances and desires. The OS should be usable > by, and satisfactory to, the vast majority of users, not just the > "average user", with the word "average" being defined by Apple. OSX is > not adaptable in that sense, partially because of its artificial > hardware limitations. This is the entirety of my point about this > issue, and has been my point in this thread. > Aman > > > On 4/30/11, Scott Howell <[email protected]> wrote: >> Aman, >> >> Your message does mix a number of things here, but the end result is the Mac >> is beyond what your willing to spend and that is pretty much where it should >> end. Any argument beyond that is pointless. The most unrealistic part is >> breaking this down to components. The average user is not at all interested >> in choosing an Asus board over an Intel board. ALl they want is to turn it >> on and get their tasks accomplished. I used to build my own machines and >> spent a great deal of time and money trying to get the best box I could. If >> the Mac is more than you want to spend then fine, you get what works for >> you. ALl the rest of this is unnecessary pointless piffle. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MacVisionaries" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
