.:Computer Defense:.

OK, I’ve gone back and read your article again, just in case I was missing something and being a little harsh in my previous post.

But nope, I was right first time, you’re just a M$ fanboy, using exactly the same language, rhetoric and tunnel vision that you accuse Mac zealots of. Until the last paragraph, which is of course priceless.

Idiot.

Definitely not the first to say it, but you really ought to check your sources before you quote them. An extremist view of the Mac by an Artie MacStrawMan really shouldn’t be that hard to figure out.

The comments in regards to Microsoft charging Mac users extra to run Windows in a virtual environment is still very much valid. No matter how one attempts to throw confusion and disjointed arguments at the subject, it still holds true that in order to run Windows on a Mac Microsoft has chosen to charge a premium.

You DO realize that the Artie McStrawman is a colossal in-joke, don’t you?

Yeah, I thought not. The laugh’s on you, pal.

I think the trouble with the Mac vs Windows argument is that people who have been raised and brought up on Windows feel that the state of the art in computing user experience is Windows. And they cannot conceive of the possibility of it being different. I liken it to a 3 dimensional being trying to explain his world to a 2 dimensional being. Without a common frame of reference the 2 dimensional being cannot grasp what the 3 dimensional being is talking about

HT,

Thanks for this excellent post Haven’t laughed so much in ages! I promise you I’m not being ironic, as I see you have a little difficulty with irony…..

Do try and lighten up a bit. It’s only computers you know.

Digs

Here’s a question for you, Mr. Regz:

When you see Steven Cobert on Comedy Central, do you think he’s *really* trying to be Bill O’Reilly? My guess is you probably don’t.

“I love Apple, Mac OS X is invulnerable and I’d jump off a cliff if Steve asked me to.” and “The Mac is utterly impregnable to attack. I’ll never switch to Windows or Ubuntu or something.”

The above is actually satire — The name, ‘Artie MacStrawman” is a play on a type of argument called a “strawman” argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument

So, the object of the satire are the people who really believe that mac users believe that their Apple computers are always and in all cases perfect, invulnerable to security attack, etc. That is the strawman argument made by those who claim that mac users are “smug.” Some undoubtably are, but so are some PC users.

The difference between Artie McStrawman and ‘other sites’ are that the ‘other sites’ actually take Apple to task when they’re doing something wrong, or being inconsistent.

If you had been following, say, Daring Fireball for the past few years, you’d know that that site has had several posts about how inconsistent Apple’s user interface has been (and still is), how they have been slow to respond to some security issues, how various Apple managers have been complete tools, how Apple’s very own apps or services have sucked in various ways and so on. Hell, if you’ve been reading even 30 days, you’d have heard about immense critisism for not being able to install third-party applications on the upcoming iPhone, and everyone taking Steve Jobs to task for nonsensically claiming that third-party apps could “bring down the West Coast network”.

Certainly, there are a lot of unconditional zealots out there. This should not come as a raging shock to anyone. But the fact remains that most of the Apple community has no problem ragging on Apple when they do something wrong. Everyone hates QuickTime Player for demanding a ‘Pro’ fee to go fullscreen. Everyone hates the .Mac service for the few features, the high price and the bad value. Everyone hates the Backup application that comes with .Mac for forgetting data when restoring. That doesn’t stop some of us from poking fun at, for example, analysts when *they* do something wrong.

While you say that “no one cares to discuss the actual discussion that was present”, you criticize Macalope and Daring Fireball without actually disputing anything that they write, giving us the arrogant “everyone has had enough of a laugh at Mr. Gruber’s expense” as an explanation. I didn’t have the chance to see your post before it was updated, but none of the articles you link to support your claim. I imagine the Artie Macstrawman quotes did, but of course, that was their point.

“[Update] Page updated based on an error on my part …”

You update a blog by using strikethrough. Making it a moving target is just … unclassy, and further cements the impression that there’s very little to come here for. Sorry.

I’ll talk about the points you’ve made!

“I’ve got a Mac Mini (PPC 1.42 Ghz, 512MB of RAM)… it can barely handle OS X… If I open Firefox, iChat and a Terminal then it grinds to a halt… I can’t even think about opening an additional app…. Spotlight takes 10-15 minutes to search for anything… It runs extremely slow… Compares to my 1.8Ghz PC with 768MB of RAM which flies along with XP and GoogleTalk, MSN, AIM, FireFox, VMWare and generally some sort of music player.”

512MB of RAM? Well, shit, son. What did you expect? I have a Mac Mini with 1GB of RAM and it does just fine with Firefox, Camino, Safari, ImageReady, iTunes, Terminal, Pages, wait… it’s too much effort to list them all.

I didn’t notice what you were responding to, but fine, for the sake of comparison, I’ll talk to you about my personal laptop, which is a four and a half year old 800mHz G3 iBook with 256MB of RAM. Which runs Camino (Firefox is very leaky, I have found) and iTunes and Adium (I don’t like iChat) and, say, Word. All at once.

Yes, there is slowness, but my laptop is approaching half a decade of ownership, so I’m not too unhappy with the bits of slowness. Can I also mention that with every update of OS X it has gotten FASTER?

I don’t know what other Mac users think about Vista and its requirements. I don’t care about Vista at all; I am forced to use a PC at work and I will take whatever they give me with a smile on my face.

You DO realize that not all Mac users (a) agree, (b) know each other, or (c) are in cahoots, right? That’s a given?

I don’t know what’s wrong with your Mac Mini, but mine is fine. If you want to whine that the computers as sold are underperformed, feel free. That’s why the first thing I do with every Mac I’ve ever bought is to upgrade the RAM as much as I am able to at the moment.

“moog,

I’m questioning how someone who uses OS X daily and supports many of it’s features can be a fanboy of another operating system…. That’s an interesting theory though…”

My advice: stop questioning, its clearly not your strong suit.

However if you insist on needing a clue: go back and read your post, then do a quick compare and contrast to some of the Mac sites you quoted (the real ones).

The bottom line here, with your original gaffe, and the subsequent lumbering double update, is you are either inept, or an extremely bad writer. You come across as a teenager in a sulk. I’m sure you’re not, but that’s the picture you’re painting. I’d quit while you’ve still got some dignity left.

Also, is there a reason you’re being so pissy about having your facts corrected? “Apparently it’s uncouth”? How about “I didn’t realize it was bad manners to correct something on the internet by removing the mistake”?

You sound like you’re being forced to apologize for hitting your little brother.

How about this…

Virtualization has some valid uses in the home. The average home Windows user may not have much use for a second, virtual Windows running at the same time, but Mac and Linux users do. It lets us use our primary operating system for most things, and be able to run the few Windows apps we need without rebooting our computers.

If the license were changed to say that only one copy of Home Windows may be installed per machine, whether intended for a virtual environment or not, far fewer people would be complaining.

Of course this argument is lost on Windows fanboys who can’t imagine that there are valid reasons for not using Windows all the time.

I’m sorry that I brought a well reasoned opinion to your otherwise excellent flame-bait post. Feel free to re-edit your post, again, and mark your home virtualization comment as a mistake, thus allowing you to mark my comment as “off-topic”

I do agree with you about OS X being the new linux, I remember red hat was a huge deal in CS class.

I also am writing this on OS X, and very well enjoy that fact. When I was a child, I had 2 different apple computers, the last of which was the apple IIGS, which is now in muesums. I went from that to windows 3.1 all the way to windows XP. The reason why I reverted back to my youth days of having the apple computer is simple… I built a very good XP machine, running an AMD chip… I had to get a new fan because the one that was supplied did not last maybe a year at most, I got a big beefy one that said it would fit for my then top-of-the-line chip. Come to find out a year later the machine I built and started up by myself, the first computer I managed to build, broke because the fan was too big for the processor and fried it and the motherboard. Needless to say, I was fed up with PC’s, and took a trip to see some friends who were touting some powerbooks, and I liked what I saw. now I love my apple computer, just as I did when I was a child, but now it has an even easier to understand UI.

Why this long drawn out story: I, like many others, chose apple computers and the operating system it makes because the alternative is a waste of money for my part and just too agrivating at times.

“Besides I believe that other users are sitting here telling me that OS X runs fine on any released Mac… now you’re telling me that it needs 1GB of RAM to operate?”

Those are two seperate issues, aren’t they? Some G3 iMacs with plenty of RAM can run Panther fine. Mac OS X, just like Windows, does better with more RAM. In the case of Mac OS X, al least, less RAM means that the computer must use virtual memory more often if more applications are open.

Also, check this out:

http://marmadukeexplained.blogspot.com/

Wow someone has a huge chip on their shoulders..the truth is now beginning to emerge

I wasn’t offended. I am not sure what made you think I was offended. You ARE phrasing it in a pissy way. You didn’t say “I was mistaken about a fact. Thanks to everyone for pointing it out to me!” You said, “apparently OS X users can’t let you live down a mistake.”

Your Mac Mini doesn’t have limitations except that its owner doesn’t know enough to buy it RAM. Do you understand that my iBook, which is almost half a decade old, is running the current version of OS X? Now, is that possible on a PC? It’s been so long since I’ve owned one. Does 4.5 year old hardware have a hope of running Vista?

Rule #1: Hardware makers who write their own machine instructions instead of buying them from Microsoft should BE SHOT
Rule #2: People who run machine instructions written by someone other than Microsoft should keep their pie-holes shut.
Rule #3: People who write their own machine instructions are cheapskates. People who buy end-to-end systems are idiots.
Rule #4: Only options important to me are relevant.
Rule #5: People who disagree with me are worshippers of a false god, those religious zealots! But you should use what’s best for you. It’s just a tool.

“However I have a PC I built in 2003… If you want to buy me Vista, I’ll be more than happy to test it on four year old hardware.”

I take it back, you are a teenager.

HTRegz –

You are grossly uninformed about Mac user and Macs in general. Embarassingly so.

It’s obvious to everyone you’re spouting off spiteful indignation. Why? Maybe you’re a decent human committed to justice, maybe you’re a MS schill – who care? Not me, because what you write is grad F crap. I don’t find your uninformed opinion upsetting, just tedious.

Instead of spending so much cognitive energy figuring out how stupid and arrogant mac users are, why not invest that energy in bettering yourself, trying out the idea of objectivity, and give OSX a shot. You might just like it in the end, like many of us did. Like me, a former windows user who tried osx and thought, “Hey, this is pretty much how I want my computer to work.”

“and yes XP can run on 4.5 year old hardware”

Of course it can: XP is more than 4.5 years old! What a silly statement.

“overbearing support of an OS that you don’t technically understand… That’s where the problem lies…”

OK, so someone else who just doesn’t get it.

I don’t want to have to understand anything technically, and with Mac OS X, I can do that and still be able to do everything I want to be able to do with a computer. I need no technical knowledge. I am never asked to respond to a question posed in technical language where I do not understand the consequences of my response.

That is one very small example of why Mac OS X is more suited to being used by people like me. Note, I don’t say OS X is “better”.

At work, I use XP on a laptop where I have admin rights, install my own software (including relatively complex things like Apache, Tomcat, Oracle, IBM Websphere, compilers and various other fairly low level tools), I hammer away on Word, excel, powerpoint, I update the registry, tweak drivers until they work and have even been known to uninstall software successfully. My XP laptop is suited to the kind of work I do…plus it’s the only OS allowed in my company. It isn’t any good, but it is suited to the work I do.

At home, I choose a mac, where I don’t need to have any of that kind of knowledge, but can still get as much done in any given timeframe, if not more. Things like Windows Defender are a joyous memory when I am at home, and I can be as productive or as unproductive as *I* want to be, not as my OS allows me to be.

Am I smug? Yup.
Am I bothered that you don’t like that? Nope.

Do I feel sorry for people who have to put up with the stuff I suffer every day at work when they get home to the windows machine they chose? Nope.

“These guys have very selective hearing.. ignoring everything and picking any random comment they can in order to attack… (Even though they are ignoring the context of that comment)…”

Sounds to me like you’re describing every single argument on the Internet.

Haha, you made yourself out to be a fool!

Windows suxs.. I mean Mac OS sux.. I mean Linux sux…, I meant Disco sux

Your original comments on virtualisation show you have no idea what you are talking about in this field.

Hardware virtualisation used to live solely in the domain of the business world simply because it was not even available in consumer grade processors. It was expensive technology and that’s why it was far more common in big iron servers etc. Up until around a year ago hardware virtualisation just wasn’t possible on consumer grade computers.

That situation changed when both intel and AMD saw that hardware virtualisation could start to play a very important part in lives of general consumers. They then implemented the technology for the consumer domain. This kind of technology is present in consumer grade Pcs because it has a very bright future and is being used actively. It’s available because it has many uses for domestic users.

The fact that a product called Parallels Desktop has been a HUGE success only serves to demonstrate that hardware virtualisation technology is being used by consumers and is very much here to stay. Take note of the product name, that’s ‘Desktop’ not ‘Server’.

I really don’t don’t understand your comments on ‘hobbyists’ as it doesn’t make too much sense. No one in their right mind would use a virtualised environment as their main operating system. By definition people will be using virtualised environments for other purposes (of which there are many). The host system will be the main system for each user.

Sorry you’re getting “piled on,” but that’s kind of a hazard of being on the internet. Get linked for saying something silly and dozens of people will appear to tell you, and that’s going to very quickly displace whatever point you were originally trying to make whether or not the point was good. Look on the bright side: you’re not Rob Enderle!

But seriously, let’s talk about your original point (gasp). Is it fair to criticize Microsoft for this kind of anti-virtualization EULA, and not Apple? Maybe not, no. Apple has a serious political motivation for *not* making it easy to run OS X, legally or not, on PC hardware, though, which doesn’t hold true in reverse: a copy of Windows bought that’s intended to run on Mac hardware is just another software sale for Microsoft, but a copy of OS X bought that’s intended to run on “generic PC” hardware is an assault on Windows.

That may sound like hyperbole, but look at how Microsoft responded to less worthy competitors over the years; paranoia is deeply ingrained in their corporate culture. Now consider that OS X is by far the most competitive “alternative OS” that’s out there: not only is it feature-competitive for desktop use in a way nothing else really is (Ubuntu may be working on it, but it’s not there yet), it’s got a thriving commercial software market with big name apps in it (including, of course, Microsoft Office). No one would argue, I don’t think, that it’s possible for an average user to exist 100% in OS X without Windows.

And because of that, if OS X can run on PCs in a way that an average user can manage — even requiring something akin to Parallels — Microsoft will consider that tantamount to an act of war. Unless Apple is ready for that fight, they’re going to be bastards, at least passively, when it comes to running OS X on non-Apple hardware.

So, you know, that may not let Apple off the hook, but I think it *is* fair to note the difference: Apple doesn’t want OS X on non-Apple hardware because they do not want to get into the brawl that will entail with Microsoft. Microsoft doesn’t want “home” versions of Windows running under virtualization because, hey, they just want more money.

Maybe they’re not that diferent after all: In the first case, it’s preemptively stalling Microsoft from being jerks; in the second case, it’s just Microsoft being jerks.

Here are some of my real needs for VT:

1. I need to make cross-platform Excel documents that use VB. Currently, docs created under both Office v.X and Office 2004 have to work in Windows XP environments. VT is a godsend right now as switching between OSes is so much easier now. If I ever needed to support Windows 98 then it would be just as easy to fire up a virtual machine for that system and run it alongside Win XP.

2. This year I will have to create various websites that will eventually be presented to course examiners by PC users. These sites will be thoroughly tested thanks to what VT offers.

3. The government sponsored application that I can use to complete my tax return is Windows only.

4. My brother-in-law wants to create and cross-platform database front end for my wife (this app will run on Mac at home and Win at work). The app itself will probably be developed on our mac as testing for Windows will be made so much easier by VT.

5. My brother-in-law is a Linux user too. I will probably download a readymade Linux distro image for him to play with, should he need some app that is not available on Windows or Mac.

As I said, these are all secondary uses for this computer. I own a Mac as OS X is my main OS. By definition all the rest is secondary. I don’t consider myself a hobbyist though when it comes to VT. None of the above uses for VT are necessary for my job. I just help people out when I can and participate on some projects as an unofficial problem solver.

I very much expect to be running OS X as a guest within OS X by the end of this year. The makers of the most popular virtualisation apps have already stated that newer versions of their software will inevitably lead to OS X being hosted inside OS X or Windows. This would be a by product of the technology. I think Apple will have no other option but to modify its EULA.

“None of the above uses for VT are necessary for my job. I just help people out when I can and participate on some projects as an unofficial problem solver.”

Ummm…. you just defined hobbyist…

Cheers,
cgkanchi

HTEgz you said; “I’d be interested in seeing you write that… I don’t think you could blog about security nonsense in Vista… it actually has security measures built in (unlike OS X)…”

Oh, sorry, do you mean like an inbuilt firewall with stealth mode, not automatically loading pictures in e-mails, anti pop-up built in, automatic warning that a download contains an executable, requiring authorization before an App first runs, password required before installation, not being constantly logged in as an administrator, inbuilt parental controls and a Kernal based on officialy the most secure system in the world (BSD Unix) that gets regular updates as soon as any potential exploit is noticed which ensure there is never any actual exploit in the wild (not that any so far could do more than annoy anyway).

Is that what you mean by taking security seriously?

Or do you mean writing your own Anti-Virus to try and protect your leaky legacy code whilst finally implementing some kind of suface level only password protection and issueing a Service pack afer a couple of years?

Please, we Mac users all know about security, it’s just we don’t need to fret about it so much.

“I don’t think that’s a fair comparison for Vista vs OS X… Wait for Leopard before making that comparison… and yes XP can run on 4.5 year old hardware… Also you could argue that OS X should run on 4.5 year old software since OS X is always referred to as a single OS”

Of course XP runs on 4.5 year old hardware, it’s 6 years old. However Emily didn’t ask that. She asked if Vista would run on 4.5 year old hardware? Asking if XP runs on 4.5 year old hardware is like asking if OS 9 will run on 4.5 year old hardware. The graphics technologies are about the same.

As for RAM, OS X runs fine on my Powerbook G4, which is getting on for 5 years old now. It has 1GB of ram. I used to have an iBook G3 which would be 6 years old now, that had 640MB of ram, Tiger ran fine on it. Of course if you want to have lots of applications open at once you’ll need more ram, but any computer has that requirement regardless of the OS.

But yeah, claiming that XP runs faster than OS X on hardware of the same age is just stupid. OS X does far more than XP, especially in terms of graphics technologies. If XP had all of Vista’s graphics technologies I doubt it would run anywhere near as well on old hardware as it does now.

However, what people have been trying to point out is that you can run a 5 year old Mac and get all stuff like Aqua, transparencies, genie effect etc, all these cool effects and such that are being introduced in Vista, but you’d be hard pushed to do the same with a PC. Now while some people may see this as a technical deficiency on Vista’s part (and in a way it is) it does make sense. Vista makes heavy use of the GPU and much of it’s graphics are hardware based. OS X started out with mostly software based graphics that have gradually been moved to the GPU as it grew in power. This has meant that Apple has had the software base. When most people buying Vista will get it on a new machine which will likely have a graphics card capable of handling Aero, what is the point of adding in software based graphics for all those who won’t have the graphics cards needed (and lets face it, most of those buying Vista in a box are the sort of people who will be upgrading their graphics card)

I wasn’t entering the Vista debate just refuting your claim that virtualisation was basically a thing for businesses. All five uses I presented are, or will be strictly consumer uses. Even the database frontend, while obviously related to work, will be for personal use only. However, there is a possibility that if the app can be created with no major issues, that my brother-in-law (who absolutely hates Apple, Macs and OSX) might decide to try a larger cross-platform project. The more people that are willing improve their knowledge on cross-platform development, the better.

“I’ve got a Mac Mini (PPC 1.42 Ghz, 512MB of RAM)… it can barely handle OS X… If I open Firefox, iChat and a Terminal then it grinds to a halt… I can’t even think about opening an additional app…. Spotlight takes 10-15 minutes to search for anything… It runs extremely slow… ”

You really don’t know much about operating systems, especially Unix based systems do you? Your Mac Mini is RAM starved. Theres a big difference between how Unix based systems use RAM vs. Windows operating systems. Unix system will use all available RAM at the start for caches, and as you load applications, decrease their respective cache sizes. If you would just up your RAM to about 1 GB, you’ll see that OS X just flies thereafter.

I currently have 1.5GB of RAM on my Powerbook G4 1.33 Ghz, and I am currently running the following with no slowdowns:

Finder
Overboard
Mail
Adium
Journaler
Safari
Terminal
MS Word
Eclipse
Aqua Data Studio

Also in the background but still active:
MySQL 5.x
Apache 1.3.x
OpenBase
Growl
Dashboard
Spotlight mdimport
Main Menu
Menu Calendar

All this has been running for the last 6 days. Prior to that I had been running for 28 days prior to a Security Update causing a reboot event. As a Windows XP/2000 convert from a couple of years ago , I have never ever had this stability and securiity.

cgkanchi,

Perhaps you are beginning to understand why I stated earlier that the use of the term ‘hobbyist’ didn’t make much sense to me.

Are you saying that all users who use computers for non-work related tasks are, in fact, hobbyists?

I think your definition needs some tweaking.

Thank you for your kind words, HTRegz.

Did you disagree with my arguments that an integrated OS is too unwieldy to be prime time? And that is why Longhorn failed and Microsoft had to put a pretty face on Windows XP?

Did you disagree that Apple has been able to put out five upgrades since 1990, because it has good NExT foundations to build on? Meanwhile, Microsoft struggled to put out an equivalent of NExTStep for ten years and failed.

Or was it that Mac OSX isn’t modern? I suggest that you look at how NExT “Openstep” was created. It was so modern that Steve Jobs couldn’t get developers to work on it. Of course, that was modern for the early ’90′s. How has the latest theory of OS design changed?

It would be difficult to get any new design implemented now because OS’s are so huge and there are so many legacy problems. Linux hasn’t made any headway on the Desktop yet, but there are reasons for that to change. Apple’s Darwin, FreeBSD based operating system, is constantly being worked on by both Apple and Open Source BSD developers. Apple uses Open Source when it can and often improves it when it isn’t good enough. Launchd is a good example; Linux would be better off if they adopted Launchd.

Although I prefer the Mac, I have nothing against Microsoft or Windows. I merely see that it has serious flaws and vulnerabilities. The reason that Microsoft prospered was not because it’s products were either good or satisfied its consumers needs. Digital Research’s GUI, GEM, was a better OS than Windows 3.1. IBM’s OS/2 was a better OS than Windows NT. Microsoft got its near monopoly from its exclusive arrangements with the Wintel manufacturers. That, and Microsoft’s Office which tied the business computers to Microsoft based machines.

All that is good marketing on Microsoft’s part. But, many of Windows design compromises are coming back to haunt Microsoft. The international computer market is rolling off (a mere 5% increase last year.) Many of the hardware improvements that Intel wanted to make were held up because Microsoft could not change its OS to operate on them. EPIC is a good case.

What I see is that reality is setting in for Microsoft. MS’s near monopoly is in jeopardy. Changes in hardware in ten years will put “computers on a chip” into every computer component. The price of a complete computer will dip toward $100, so the $50 dollars that MS charges OEMs becomes an excessive expense. So, both India and China have good reasons to escape the Microsoft tax by improving Linux. Google wants to bypass MS by web based applications. Apple merely wants the most profitable half of the consumer market.

None of these events bode well for Microsoft. Not when it ships Windows Vista that doesn’t compare well to Tiger 10.4, let alone Leopard 10.5.

Ps. I have an 800 Mhz flatscreen iMac that will be over five years old when I buy a 24 inch iMac when Leopard 10.5 comes out. Leopard will probably run fine on that old computer; it should out perform Vista in many ways. I’ll sell the old iMac for $250 or donate it to a school. Will the school take it? Sure. It still has three years of life in it.

Would that school take a five year old PC? Not on your life. Not when most two year old PC’s won’t run Areo Vista.

> A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

>>?That says I can’t install OS X on my PC, so why should we expect Microsoft to allow the opposite… In this case, I’d say that Apple hit first and that Microsoft is only responding in kind.

The business models are different. Apple makes computers to run the Apple OS. Microsoft makes an OS to run on other people’s computers. Apple makes computers. Why should it matter to Microsoft that you run it under emulation? Microsoft is making people who want to run other OSes in additiona to Windows (in this way) have buy more expensive versions of their software. Because they can, and people who are going to run Windows in emulation will have to buy it. I wouldn’t call it a tax, but there is certainly no reason for it. Except for money, of course.

It’s great to be a fanboy.

The world would be better served by analyzing why Apple inspires such loyalty. It is a large group and gaining momentum.

Dell and HP would kill to get the secret to Apple’s growing legion of fanboys. Dell most of all. Apple’s sales of Macintosh computers have been growing faster than the rest of the industry for a while.

Everybody wants to argue whether that’s right or wrong. Who decides which is the right or wrong computer? Who cares anyway?

The facts remain. Apple owns portable digital entertainment. OWNS. Everybody else is scrambling for the orts. Macintosh computers are selling like space heaters at a Nome nudist camp. The iPhone is the coolest piece of hardware anyone has ever seen.

Believe what and whom you want. The numbers are there.

Vista, Zune, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are selling Macs better than they could if they were going door-to-door. You can not believe it as you choose, but I’m not going to sell any shares of Apple any time soon.

You should stick to writing about what you know.

Obviously you know close to nothing about Apple, Unix or OS X

and insulting Mac users shows you don’t even know anything about
why millions of computer users around the world choose to use OS X.

Computer defense? Is that some poor Canadian flunky hang out?

Are you just envious of the people that use Apple?

What a sorry excuse for a blog.

I am sure nobody who read your sorry excuse for a post is going to
bookmark your site — I for sure hope to never again land here.

You don’t write thoughts or ideas. You just write garbage. Must
be all that is there in your brain.