ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Fri Jun 05, 2020 9:49 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Mac vs. PC
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2004 8:00 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
*touches match to thread*

Okay, realizing that this is, potentially, a more divisive argument than the slavery question of the mid-1800s, I'm going to tentativly open up with just a couple arguments for both sides.

PCs
1. Cost. Your run-of-the-mill iMac will run you about $1500 to $2000, whereas a Dell, Compaq, etc. with the same starting processor and memory will probably be in the neighborhood of $1000, max.

2. Customability (don't know if that's actually a word). Let's face it, changing Mac hardware is a bitch, and you don't have a whole hell of a lot of options. PCs, on the other hand, are practically designed to play around with. In fact, half of them need a whole new set of internal components just to make them work well.

3. Processor speed. Pentiums routinely go higher than even the newest PowerPCs (the standard processor in Macs, if you don't know)

Macs
1. Virus-proof. Need I say more?

2. Front-bus speed. Yeah, the processing power of a Pentium makes your penis look big when you tell girls the number, but data can still only flow so fast. A G5 starts at 800MHz and can come with up to 1GHz without any custom upgrades.

3. Display. There just isn't a PC that can scratch the definiton of those 23" flatscreens, even if they did come with the same screen area. If you're into anything graphics-intensive, Mac is your best bet.

Go wild, boys.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2004 8:06 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
Hmm... I'm gonna try this tactic again, who knows, maybe it'll even work.

All I'm gonna say is that I like my PC, and that's all I care about.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2004 8:36 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 10548
Location: Bris-Vegas Australia
I prefer PCs for gaming more than anything else, while there are some decent titles on the Mac I just prefer to get them on my pc which is designed and built by me primarily for gaming.

If I did anything like photo or movie editing or I needed a laptop for work(obviously not my current job) then I would get a Mac.

Actor.

_________________
"Why can't we go back to living like cavemen? I know it was a rough and ready existence - the men where always rough and the women were always ready! " - Santa.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2004 11:50 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Mac's are hardly virus proof. There was, and as far as I know, still is a Trojan running around in OSX machines having fun. The reason there aren't many Mac viruses is simple and runs along the same lines of the firebombing principal: Why target two people when you can get thousands?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2004 12:15 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:12 pm
Posts: 3394
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
It this a box or OS debate?

_________________
A man said to the Universe, "Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the Universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."


- Stephen Crane


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2004 12:15 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1349
From one of our software and program development groups:
"The Machintosh systems provide desirable results for image processing on a 1 to 2 dimentional basis, and provide the user with a effective interface to produce high-quality graphics. They cannot however begin to handle the 3 dimentional processing needs of digital elevation modelers reguire, nor can it sustain repeatable and consistant accuracy requirements for the remote sensing program developers or the photogametry departments. Remote sensing would take a step backwards if they were to be required to use machintosh based programs or equipment. The use of windows, unix, and to some extent, linux based equipment and software is currently the only viable methods to producing accurate, and reliable geo-data for developers, providers and end-users."

Another:
"To impliment the use of machintosh hardware and software would likely result in a national stike by our current cartograhic community. While the liberal arts education system may celebrate, the nation may see a shutdown of the production and development of geographic data and programs. The effects to various government agencies would be extremely negative."

Comment from a cartographers group that I belong to (from a netmetting around 2 years ago):
"If the dickheads in charge decided to start using macs, I would have to save them all the time and trouble screwing up our system and boggin us down so badly that our jobs would no longer exist by just blowing up our entire office, and then the regional offices and each district office in turn."

Macs can make a pretty picture, but cannot deal with a 50 gig terrrain model, while a pc justs needs disk space.
It all depends on what you do, or want your computer to do. I will never be able to use a mac in its present state.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 06, 2004 3:45 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
I would also like to point out:


With a firewall and basic security installed, a PC is nearly virus free.

Processor speed isn't everything. It's not how fast you put things through, it's how much you put through each time.

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 2:20 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 521
Location: California
All I have to say is, where are all the people who build Mac computers from basic components and mod their cases? I like PC's better because you have many more options and so many manufacturers to choose from. When I have some time, I am going to build me an Athlon 64 system this summer. It will be awesome. :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 4:48 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
Treespeaker wrote:
1. Virus-proof. Need I say more?

Not true really, although OSX is certainly virus-resistant (for lack of a better term), the main reason you do not hear about virii on Macintoshes (or any *nix OS; Linux, *BSD etc) is the fact that they do not have a significant enough market share to make writing a virus for them worth the time a person would have to dedicate to the task.

Treespeaker wrote:
3. Display. There just isn't a PC that can scratch the definition of those 23" flatscreens, even if they did come with the same screen area. If you're into anything graphics-intensive, Mac is your best bet.

Erm, I am sure that I could find an equivalent <em>monitor</em> for my PC if I wanted one, as for the old 'graphics intensive applications' (such as CAD etc) line that may have been true 10 or even 5 years ago but now this simply is not the case, sorry.

As I see it the main positives for PCs are as follows:
<ol><li>Choice of operating systems; although I know most pre-built machines come with Windows (Home or Pro) installed you are not limited to any one OS, and other than slackintosh (a linux distro based on slackware for macintoshes) I do not know of any other operating systems specifically designed to use with modern macs. Although I would like a iBook with Linux on *drools* (look! No winmodem!).
<li>Hardware; Treespeak already mentioned this but the sheer number of configuration options and relative ease of upgrading a machine beats macs hands down.
<li>Gaming; lets face it why wait 6months to never to play the latest releases?
</ol>

The main disadvantage as I see it with PC's running windows is security; lets face it, Windows does not have a good track record as far as security is concerned. And before anyone starts I know that with a firewall, basic antivirus and regularly running windows updates then your computer is as secure and reliable as most people need for a home machine. The problem is at least (personal guestimate) 50% of Windows machines have only one of these security 'features' implemented (Antivirus or Windows Updates), 45% probably have none of these implemented and the other 5% are knowledgeable users who keep there system/virus definition files upto date and are adequately firewalled. This means any new worm/Trojan/virus has the potential to infect ~50% of all Windows systems out there and turn them into zombies for DDOS attacks. Then there is the matter of Microsoft blocking known serials from working with their service packs so there are god knows how many illegal copies of MS Windows XP which do not even have SP1 installed?

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 9:17 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 5768
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
I love my Mac to bits, but then again I'm semi-retarded with computers, as proven by the monthly "OH NOES THE SITE IS BORKEN WHAT SI WRONG????" threads I post over at the Midlands, so I'm unable to effectively advocate it as a superior platform.

Whatever. My Mac does everything I need it to do, I don't mind waiting for games, if I tried to do the complicated upgrade gymnastics you can do with PCs or build my own computer I would probably electrocute myself*, and I'm infinitely comfortable working in the Mac OS X. No reason to piss away lots of money making the switch.



*The high point of my upgrading career was when I managed to install more RAM in my G4 tower in 2001. It has yet to combust. I feel this is a good sign.

_________________
iothera: a science fantasy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: [tard-fanboy with half a point]
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2004 8:00 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4330
Location: The Murky depths of Northern Virginia
OMG MAC MAK TEH ES COLORINZ!!!!1 TEH ARE TEH L33T!!!!!!!!11 MACZ ARE TEH RULZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111one

[/tard-fanboy with half a point]

Yea, from a personal standpoint, I find my mac just plain better. I've had it a year...and the only problem was a hard disk scare, which seems to have drifted away (and forever haunts me). Maybe my hatred of windows is the fact that I just can't find a good one that works OUT OF THE BOX. I'm sure if I took the time to learn, the (sometimes less) money to get stuff together, and time to put it together, I could build a PC better than ANY other. But I'm happy with my out-of-the-box PowerBook, and it's EXTREME ease of use. There's no programs running I don't know about, all the programs I want are at my fingertips yet don't suck up my desktop, and the case keeps me warm on those cold nights alone

...shit...i mean...uh...um...this ...yea...

yes it supports the waiting a year for good games, but you know what? I'm too busy with those older games like Starcraft that are only $20. So I save money too. :P

_________________
BDM was here


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2004 4:09 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
ptlis wrote:
The main disadvantage as I see it with PC's running windows is security; lets face it, Windows does not have a good track record as far as security is concerned.


I have to echo C_D's earlier sentiments, are we arguing hardware or software?

As far as I know there are few or no alternative OSes for Apple hardware (yellowdog linux comes to mind, can anyone tell me if that'll run on a new G5, etc). So, Mac software is Apple hardware.

A PC is not Windows. A PC is also not just Intel or AMD. A PC is choice--Think different. :lol:

Security:
So, most of the statements above have said that a PCs greatest downside is the security issues. I am not aware of any innate security issue with PC hardware. Both AMD (Athlon 64s) and Intel (Prescott) have NX (no execute) support in their modern processors. So, PCs are not more insecure. Hell, I even know of a few CONSUMER PC mobos with stateful firewalls built-in to the chipset! Let's see a Apple with that.

As for the OS side with respect to security, I can throw OpenBSD on my PC if I want. Or maybe QNX. Plenty secure. So PC OSes are not inherently more insecure.

With respect to Windows versions:
I admit it, windows does have a track record of being insecure out of the box and hooked straight to the net. There is also a trend of non-user intervention exploits being found. Weather this is due to a greater scrutiny (since most people use windows it is the biggest target) or anything else is unknown. But it does happen. On the otherhand, given a little time spent disabling unneeded services, a proper firewall, antivirus software, etc one does not have to have security problems unless one is a fucking idiot who opens everything sent to him or her. In my time I have had exactly one virus (this was back in 97 or so) and no break-ins. The computers I secured for my family and then never touched again have had a similar track record, the only problems coming from a buffer-overflow in MSN messenger a family member used. It should be noted that I used Win98 (first edition) up to the release of 2k, and from that point on Win2k, up to 2k Sp4 currrently.

Windows is not insecure when properly managed.

On the otherhand, I've seen MacOSX machines set bare naked to the net that survived, thusfar, without a scratch. That is a point in their favor, they are heavily resistant to ignorance in administration.

When compared to Windows, and administered by users who do not know what they are doing, and do not care because they don't want to (they just want the computer to read the mail, browse the net, write a paper, etc), MacOSX is more secure.

So, I suppose we have to further qualify the debate to set what kind of end-user will be using the computer? Is it an enthusiast? Or is it someone who just wants to have things work? With respect to security in the Windows vs Macintosh: The former (geek) it is a tie, the later normal user, Macs win....of course, a Win98 box is nearly as secure as an OSX box (I would put forward both achieve this by being slightly less customizable).

Price:
PCs are cheaper (in both software and hardware). Macs are expensive(in both).

Upgrades:
It's cheaper, easier, and generally just better with PCs.
Macs are expensive and limited.

Performance:
An Athlon64 or Opteron will outperform a top of the line G5 in nearly all applications. The issue with bus speed mentioned is irrelevent, hell, Intel even has a 1Ghz stock bus speed coming down the line. Instructions per cycle? Well, the risc arcitecture (sp?) does have an advantage there, but it is less with every day. And that is something to look at, because of the competition in the PC hardware market improvements are very fast. I would contend this pressure and the many diverse companies competing tends to push PC technology faster than Apple hardware.

Software:
There is more PC software. More is better because you are more likely to find niche apps you like or those that are generally just 'nice'. This point isn't really even debatable. Oh, and the PC software, or at least a great deal of it, is free.

Specialty:
There exists a great range of PC products which are for niche markets. These markets are not large enough for it to be profitable for Apple to make products for. It is for smaller sized, more agile PC based companies with commodity parts. An example, can you find an Apple computer that'll run a modern OS that will fit into a match box? You can easily buy such sized PCs.

Display:
A non-issue. Displays can be had for any type of computer for similar costs. Though I do have one area in which I am unsure, can any apple system automatically extend the usable destop space when another graphics card is installed (so that one can hook up another monitor?) This is a software issue with respect to OS, primarily Windows, which can. And on the hardware side, can you even have multiple graphics cards in a Mac?

...it's really a non-issue if you are a power user. PCs are better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2004 5:13 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
ALL SHALL WORSHIP THE CLONES> WE ARE THE FUTURE> WE WILL BE AS ONE> IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME> SEND IN THE CLONES

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 30, 2004 1:03 pm 
Offline
n00b
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 8:14 am
Posts: 15
Location: A place where lights flicker omniously and monitors line the walls
For the sake of debate: How would you define a "PC".

For example: Does my Intel chipset architecture running windows 2k count as a PC? How about my AMD chipset architecture running Debian linux? What about the SUN SPARC architecture with Solaris that I use at college, or the Intel/OpenBSD box that runs my web server?

Many people make the gross generalization as saying that a PowerPC processor filled with propeitary(sp?) hardware, running some flavour of Mac OS on a computer in flashy colors is a mac, and everything else is a PC. Or if we're to be lenient, everything else that comes in a box that fits under most peoples desks constitutes a PC.

In this instance, the "PC" always wins. Why? Because the second group of architectures allows me to build a box tailored to whatever specific task you are using for comparsion. Heck, because we aren't locked down on the architecture, a reasonably competent code monkey with access to synthetizing hardware could use SystemC, Gezel or a similar language to write custom hardware to the task at hand.

Macs are PCs. Sorry everyone who tossed an extra $1000 at their plastic cabinets to avoid beige, but they're just another architecture. (An architecture being the combination of a assembler-level set of machine instructions fed to a processor (commonly called a CPU) and an operating system that allows you to execute series of machine instructions on that processor). They have things they excel at, things they can do and things they fail horribly at, just like every other arhitecture out there.

In fact, since no restirictions seem to have been placed upon what you call a "PC", I'll simply stick the fastest hardware into a [Intel|AMD]/Windows[2k|xp] architecture and run this:

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7085

The Mac is now inside my "PC". How can it be better if I can run it with full functionality on another system AND do the things a mac cannot as well?

_________________
By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion. By the beans of Java do the thoughts acquire speed, do the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning; By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2004 3:50 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
SegFaulty wrote:
For the sake of debate: How would you define a "PC".


I think by PC most people think of x86 architecture; IBM originally coined the phrase personal computer and developed the x86 architecture specification so from a technical and historical POV this is true. It is only if you take the literal meaning of the words that a personal computer becomes a computer, regardless of underlying architecture, which is only intended for a handfull of people to use.

Superkuh wrote:
ptlis wrote:
The main disadvantage as I see it with PC's running windows is security; lets face it, Windows does not have a good track record as far as security is concerned.


I have to echo C_D's earlier sentiments, are we arguing hardware or software?


I included this because Windows <em>is</em> the OS 95% or more of the population use, and for most of them it is the only OS they know of so to them Windows <em>is</em> a PC; and my point is that out of the box windows is very insecure (especially connected to an ADSL modem, not router). My issue is the fact that it is these people are the majority and have no idea how to adequately lock-down a Windows machine so there are untold millions of machines out there which are totally vulnerable to any script-kiddie/spammer/whatever.

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 31, 2004 3:06 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
ptlis wrote:
Superkuh wrote:
ptlis wrote:
The main disadvantage as I see it with PC's running windows is security; lets face it, Windows does not have a good track record as far as security is concerned.


I have to echo C_D's earlier sentiments, are we arguing hardware or software?


I included this because Windows <em>is</em> the OS 95% or more of the population use, and for most of them it is the only OS they know of so to them Windows <em>is</em> a PC; and my point is that out of the box windows is very insecure (especially connected to an ADSL modem, not router). My issue is the fact that it is these people are the majority and have no idea how to adequately lock-down a Windows machine so there are untold millions of machines out there which are totally vulnerable to any script-kiddie/spammer/whatever.

That's more of a user problem than a problem with the machine. Most OSs are not perfectly secure by default. There are almost always some compromises between security and ease of use, as well as out and out exploitable holes.

Consider this:
Honeynet.org wrote:
Between April and December 2000, seven default installations of Red Hat 6.2 servers were attacked within three days of connecting to the Internet. Based on this, we estimate the life expectancy of a default installation of Red Hat 6.2 server to be less then 72 hours. The last time we attempted to confirm this, the system was compromised in less than eight hours. The fastest time ever for a system to be compromised was 15 minutes. This means the system was scanned, probed, and exploited within 15 minutes of connecting to the Internet.

Now granted, security all around has been improving since 2000, but the point is that linuxes have a better security record in part because they <i>aren't</i> used by the unwashed masses of the internet. Some people still haven't gotten the idea that you don't have to know the particulars of how your computer works in order to use it safely. So they just give up and hope for the best.

If you can operate a car and not drive into trees without understanding fuel-injection, you should be capable of not opening strange attachments and not connecting your box directly to the internet. Frankly, that'll take care of most of the problems default installs are prone to. And it's a great deal easier to explain to someone than telling them how to install an antivirus scanner or firewall pack.

On the other hand, some people are just impossible to protect from themselves.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 5:41 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
Thinman wrote:
That's more of a user problem than a problem with the machine. Most OSs are not perfectly secure by default. There are almost always some compromises between security and ease of use, as well as out and out exploitable holes.

This is infact my point, the average windows user knows very little or nothing about computers, never mind making them secure and keeping them that way; for this exact reason I believe Microsoft should have a bigger burden to make the base Windows installation as secure as possible, and in my opinion upto and including SP SP1 they have not done this (I won't comment on SP2 yet because it is still in the technical release state and the last longhorn beta I played with was to all intents and pourposes just XP with a tweaked GUI). The average linux user though knows alot more about computers (although this is slowly changing) so at the moment the burden must be on their shoulders (ignoring the fact there is no one company to blame unless you have forked out a security contract with say, Red Hat).

Thinman wrote:
Consider this:
Honeynet.org wrote:
Between April and December 2000, seven default installations of Red Hat 6.2 servers were attacked within three days of connecting to the Internet. Based on this, we estimate the life expectancy of a default installation of Red Hat 6.2 server to be less then 72 hours. The last time we attempted to confirm this, the system was compromised in less than eight hours. The fastest time ever for a system to be compromised was 15 minutes. This means the system was scanned, probed, and exploited within 15 minutes of connecting to the Internet.

Now granted, security all around has been improving since 2000, but the point is that linuxes have a better security record in part because they <i>aren't</i> used by the unwashed masses of the internet. Some people still haven't gotten the idea that you don't have to know the particulars of how your computer works in order to use it safely. So they just give up and hope for the best.

See, this kind of anecdotal evidence proves nothing; there is no background information but I would assume that this server was setup on a single static IP address in which case the script kiddie who kept attacking the box probably made a note of it while scanning that range of addresses then kept coming back to it. If it had been a fair test then it would have to have been connected to the internet on several different ip addresses is several different ranges. All this proves is that the the same vulnerable setup connected on the same ip address of the last setup that was comprimised will be attacked again. No duh.

Thinman wrote:
If you can operate a car and not drive into trees without understanding fuel-injection, you should be capable of not opening strange attachments and not connecting your box directly to the internet. Frankly, that'll take care of most of the problems default installs are prone to. And it's a great deal easier to explain to someone than telling them how to install an antivirus scanner or firewall pack.

On the other hand, some people are just impossible to protect from themselves.

Once again this is somewhat my point,
<b>FACT</b> People who do not uderstand the technical ins-and-out of computers use Windows (I know macs and OSX falls into this category, but face it they're in the minority by alot)
<b>FACT</b> Windows as setup by default is like swiss cheese as far as security is concerned.
<b>FACT</b> The average user does not want to learn the ins-and-outs of security. They want to play games/surf the net/send emails/download music from kazaa...

I was going to write more but I have to go so consider this post a work in progess of sorts.

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:37 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
So, we all agree Macs are best for ignorant apathetics? Good. Do we all agree that PCs are best for those users that are technically inclined?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:08 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4330
Location: The Murky depths of Northern Virginia
Superkuh wrote:
So, we all agree Macs are best for ignorant apathetics?


Meh...

_________________
BDM was here


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:38 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
Superkuh wrote:
So, we all agree Macs are best for ignorant apathetics? Good. Do we all agree that PCs are best for those users that are technically inclined?


Yep :D, that was pretty much what I was trying to prove.

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group