Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

Tim wrote:
hk wrote:
...picked up my Mac today...and despite all my thumbs, I sorta
figured
some of it out. Maybe.
Harry, I know some people that are Mac addicts. They wouldn't
use any
other system.

Software issues aside .... are there any claims or evidence that
Mac hardware is better ... more reliable .... longer lasting ...
etc. than the typical CPUs and components used in PCs?

Eisboch

I don't see how that could be, as the main ingredients are pretty
much the same quality, and depend more on price. If you buy
certified memory, you are getting something that may be better than
uncertified memory. The drives are the same, the cpu's are the
same, the ergonomics are a lot different.

The CPU's are the same?
Just goes to show how ignorant I am about computers. Last I knew,
Apple had their own CPU's.

Eisboch

Intel is now making Apple CPUs.


Well, isn't *that* special.

So, what's the difference between a Mac running Windows (I've read
that it can) and a PC running Windows?

Eisboch


Eisboch, With all the problems everyone has been having with Vista, I
can understand why someone would want to buy a Mac.




"Everyone" isn't having "problems" running VISTA, but I can understand
how some might have problems running VISTA or XP or 98 or Tiger or
Leopard or MS-DOS or even an alarm clock.