"Roger Long" wrote in message
...

One would hope for greater efficiency than your lame attempt at spelling
efficiency . ..

Wilbur Hubbard

On 2007-04-21 19:43:56 -0400, Justin C said:

In article , Larry wrote:

While 95 was better than 3.1, which was simply a gui put over DOS 3.3
with a few toys, they weren't competing with the MAC, a computer I have
no use for because of its closed environment and expensive software.

Sorry, I can't let that just sit there. In what way is OS X a closed
environment? You get free development tools with the OS, more than can
be said for Windows. Also, it's based on Unix, which is far more stable
than anything MS has produced so far ... and they've had plenty of time
and $deity knows how much money to throw at the problem. As a multi-user
environment it's second to none, program install and removal is better
the MS, no registry to foul up, and no stray files around your system.

Ahhh, don't bother trying to change a mind as tightly closed as Windoze.

I just upgraded to a new Intel iMac and refreshed all of my programs on
a whim, eliminating all Micros..t programs. For instance, I replaced
Office with NeoOffice (freeware). Because I'm both a programmer and
writer/editor, I have quite a few unusual programs and have to exchange
files transparently, but since the basic Mac programs are so good and
there's so much good shareware and freeware, I haven't gotten to $200
yet, even including a couple of "impulse" buys. That doesn't even pay
for Office. I'm afraid to see how much .NET and MSSQL costs. The Mac
equivalent is free, though it takes a while to download a 900+ MB
(zipped) file.

Microsoft is the closed, proprietary system now.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's new pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI pages: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/