Posted on 09/11/2003 4:24:04 AM PDT by epluribus_2
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS03-039.asp
is where you can get the latest patch if your windows update just goes to lala land like mine did this morning.
Too funny.
Well, until you do upgrade your OS to something less bug-prone than windows, remember the mantra: Update early, update often!
Let's see there are three main chooses as to getting a new computer.
The kiddy looking, DMR riddled version of Windows 2000, known as Windows XP.
The over-priced, modern art reject looking MACs.
Or you could get one of the many Linux favors and risk being sued by SCO.
Well none of these options look so great right now.
Personally, I'll just keep using my Windows 2000 Pro until things calm down in a year or so.
There's no way in the world an individual user is gonna get sued by SCO. The pockets aren't deep enough, they don't have a case, and they don't own a thing in the code.
Have you looked at the price of Mac's lately? The desktops are quite competative for what they offer (an eMac starts at $800 and includes a 17" flat panel display) and the laptops are a better value than any Windows laptops I've been able to find (the iBook starts just under $1000 and is built like a tank). And while you may not like the fact that the iMac now looks like a funky desk lamp, the iBook, Powerbook, G5 Tower, and even the eMac hardly look like modern art rejects unless you've got a total aversion to style. You can even add Microsoft Office for another $350 (less if you are a student or teacher) if AppleWorks isn't good enough for you. As added bonuses, OSX is based on BSD Unix and can run a ton of open source software and you won't have to worry nearly as much about viruses.
Complaining about Macs based on problems they had 5 years ago is like Mac and Linux advocates talking about problems with Windows that newer version such as 2000 and XP no longer have. Price is not the problem it once was and the newer Macs look less like modern art toys than the first iMacs did.
It gets difficult to tell in these threads sometimes. I'll simply say that "overpriced" is an impression that continues to haunt Macs despite substantial price reductions. I actually consider Macs pretty cheap these days.
In the case of laptops, I disagree. The iBook, at $1000, includes features that would push a comparable Dell into a similar price range, if not make it more expensive. That machine is as solid as a brick and I've had few fears about simply carrying the thing around in a canvas bag with no padding on airline flights. It also gets 3-5 hours of battery life, something few low-cost Windows laptops can match. I did a direct laptop comparison for Bush2000 a while back and can repeat the excercise if you really want.
Also note that I would not want a Windows laptop with XP Home -- I'd want XP professional, which pushes the price of a Windows laptop up by about $80. I don't have to worry about OS versions like that with a Mac.
As for the desktops, given the 17" flat panel and all of the output ports, I think the eMac (not the iMac) should similarly be priced favorably against a comparable desktop PC with similar monitor and capabilities. I haven't compared directly but I have priced Dell desktops (to compare against a laptop) and note that the price of both laptops and desktops in the Windows world escallates pretty quickly from the very low base price if you add any features or improvements.
The one continuing liability of Macs remains the software. Windows does have more of it. The only place where I've ever felt that this was a problem, however, was games. I have a Playstation if I really want to play games.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.