JohnH":254aqpdn said:
Neil":254aqpdn said:
Listen, you can object to my opinion on the subject as much as you like...
I haven't objected to your opinion once. I merely joked that you
have an opinion, while trying to disguise yourself as the objective observer.
Well in some aspects, my opinion is objective on the subject (in context, and in the round with other OSs / platforms I work on - as I said, I'm not touting or advocating one or the other) - and in some ways my opinion will be subjective on the matter - mainly many of the vocal claims about Macs, and the oft form over function.
JohnH":254aqpdn said:
Neil":254aqpdn said:
My comments on integration are still salient - given context. Macs are not some panacea. For some people, they may be best fit. For others, a lifestyle or fashion thing. You may opine they are common sense - indeed, they may be for you.
Fine. I only commented on this thread to set the record straight. Mac owners seem to do a lot of that, given the quantity of people on the web who freely offer their opinion of the Apple Mac despite never having used one.
Well I've used several, and had a fair amount of integration to do with them and many other OSs and platforms. And I'm not meaning to be overly critical of Mac OS. Merely that when people talk about the whole "just work" thing, that has to be put in context.
For many they may just work for the scenarios you talk about - but then, these days, so do things like Windows and Linux. They all have their pros and cons, and many are still unfairly tarnished by their history.
JohnH":254aqpdn said:
Neil":254aqpdn said:
But here's the thing that advocates never seem to get - they are simply no silver bullet. Perhaps for some they are ideal appliances, but in big environments they are largely an artifact, not sufficiently enough of one thing or the other, so require a fair degree of effort to make them play nice with other OSs or platforms.
For the average hairy-arsed RetroBiker, concerns about integrating their desktop into a "big environment" is probably less of a concern than just having a computer that reliably boots and connects to the net with the smallest possible chance of malware infection.
It's the assertion that because of historical criticisms of other OSs, that's only really tenable with Mac OS that's the flaw.
Windows OSs have come on leaps and bounds in recent times, in terms of making them less susceptible to attack. The Windows PCs I've sorted for family / friends / acquaintances don't have issues with malware or virus, because they have tools installed, updated on them, and (probably unbeknownst to them) I ensure they're only used as normal (ie non-admin) users.
Linux OSs on the desktop have probably all the same claims on stability, robustness, and resilience to attack. Rarely do I read quite the same orgasmic adulation about them, though - although, still, plenty of fervent advocacy.
People should be rightly sceptical of anybody saying "I have the answers to all your needs" - because normally they have an axe to grind. That's all I'm saying, here, about the trite, and clichéd OS advocacy that often goes on - nearly all is predicated on out-of-date FUD and inaccuracies about other types.
