First a quick point... See my Newsgroups line... Yes, it contains references
to ONLY THE RELATED NEWSGROUPS (there is a lesson to be learnt here)...
Secondly, get over it... This type of discussion is endless, and bound to be
emotional rather than factual... I have used HEAPS of OS's (MS-DOS, PC-DOS,
DR-DOS, Workbench (Amiga), System X (Macintosh), Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, GEOS,
OS/2, numerous flavours of UNIX (including Linux)) and I admit that none is
inherently better than others...
For example, for sheer ease of use I prefer Amiga (with Mac a close second)
due to its simple interface (but the Amiga is kind of dead...)
On the PC (ie. Intel) front I prefer Linux and GEOS for totally different
reasons - Linux because it is UNIX (and anyone who has ever played with
UNIX knows that it has a lot of features that puts Windows, Mac etc to
shame - such as SECURITY) and GEOS because it is *ING fast (like
Windows on speed)... But then, I don't use Linux much (no apps), and GEOS
has only limited use (limited apps)...
And at home I use a PC, rather than a Mac, simply because there are more and
better programming languages available for it (Delphi, Eiffel etc)...
So, while I believe one platform may be technically superior to others, it
inevitably comes down to what you want to do, and what will let you do it...
Stop whinging that Mac beats OS/2 beats '95 beats Linux etc etc etc...
If it works for you, congratulations...
Otherwise, keep your *y whinging antics to yourself thanks...
Matthew J. Wills
PS. Flame me, see if I care...
: >The eternal question..."Why is this thread HERE?"
: >Of course the answer to the subject question is obvious...to those who
: >have worked with Mac OS. We tend to pity those poor unenlightened
: >**Windows95 is like Macintosh84**
: **Macintosh84 is like Macintosh96**
: "I'm standing in the middle of the desert | Colin D. Cashman
: Waiting for my ship to come in |
: But now no joker, no jack, no king | Computer Science Department