BTW, Macs are Awesome.

[thorfinn]

Oh hi. I forgot to mention. Macs are awesome. Your next computer should be a Mac, assuming you just want a computer where you can do general average day to day stuff and Get Things Done.

If you want to do a specific weird thing (yes, hardcore computer game nerds, that mostly does mean you), then alright, you have special needs, and probably need more thought than just buying a Mac will necessarily get you. You already have the mad skillz needed to go do that. This message isn't for you.

However, for everyone else, if you just want to get connected to the internet, do email, browse the web, maybe do some word processing, download pictures off your digital camera, maybe upload some pictures to the interweb, even have automated hourly backups done for you... then absolutely just get a Mac already.

Oh, and if you're a unix tech-head, you really want a Mac too. Just think, a real Unix OS with a consumer grade UI on top.

See: http://morganjaffit.livejournal.com/34058.html

He says it better than I do.

Comments

[thorfinn]

Mm, sounds awfully like they've got insufficient RAM. The default off the shelf rarely actually has enough for great performance. That's even more true for PCs too (the shelf quantity is usually not even enough for normal performance, let alone good), it's just that most people who buy PCs always know to upgrade the default RAM to the maximum you can get. :-)

[zey.livejournal.com]

That's even more true for PCs too

Only really true if you're silly enough to use Vista though. Even the most basic PC hardware configuration in the shop will run XP with ease.

[thorfinn]

The same was true at the time XP was released. Nobody puts enough RAM in computers by default, because it's much more profitable to put in the cheapest smallest RAM you can get away with and wait for people to come back for more.

[zey.livejournal.com]

FWIW, nobody would compare Vista adoption to early Windows XP; It's much more widely and deeply unloved and in all markets. Think Windows ME (or perhaps even Microsoft Bob).

[thorfinn]

Well, yes. The point was simply about RAM requirements vs RAM supplied by typical vendor, not anything to do with popularity of a particular OS version. At the time that XP was released, the amount of RAM in a typical off-the-shelf PC was not enough to run XP properly.

Nowadays, sure, but that's because the bottom of the curve has, as usual, moved up to well above the original point.