Why Microsoft Should Fear Intel Macs" 536
Why Microsoft Should Fear Intel Macs" 537
Linux is not OS X, my friend. It DOES include the ability to better configure your...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:47:33 -0700, TheLetterK wrote
As they say, "Every cat has his own rat." My opinion of OS X's pooty-butted color scheme is just as valid as YOUR opinion of XP's color scheme.
Some people like a lot of color, some people don't. I happen to be one of those who like a lot of color.
No, sir, I'm complaining about Apple's lack of choice for its users. I'm also complaining about OS X's pooty-butted Desktop in general.
Does it matter? I had the most up-to-date Wintel PC, with a 3.2GHZ processor, with hyperthreading.
My Apple Intel PC only has a 1.83GHZ processor. Yet it still performs better. NOT because it is a newer processor, but because it is a BETTER processor. Anyway, it certainly doesn't matter. My Apple Intel PC is a better PC for XP all around.
That's your opinion. I have a different opinion.
Why waste 8GB, if I won't have to?
Been there, done that. I currently have TWO external drives: A 60GB IDE drive in an external enclosure with Firewire connector, used mostly for backup of Apple stuff, and a 250GB IDE in an external enclosure with USB 2.0 connector, which I use for backup of XP stuff (and with a small FAT32 parbreastion on it I use to pbutt data back and forth between XP and OS X.)
Both of them are just too noisy for my taste. You may have a different taste. That's your business. Personally, I believe that 160GB will be too small for Vista, which is why I want to upgrade my internal SATA to 250GB or larger.
Again, "K", it all boils down to PERSONAL preferences, which Apple chose NOT to give its customers when they engineered the Intel iMacs.