zync said:
I realize that. I mean it's something else to carry around so that you're not left without functionality. IE, if I had an extra battery in and I needed a Superdrive out in the field, I'd have to make sure I had it with me just in case.
Still comes down to the fact that you have a choice - if you don't want to have the extra thing to carry around and have the possibility of using the drive in the field - leave the drive in the machine. If it's a Core Duo machine, you are still talking ballpark same battery life as the MBP. I can understand why you may not choose to utilise it, I still don't understand why you *hate* it though.
Even then, you could just get a PC without that functionality. I'm not advocating that these choices should be at the expense of the current MBP model - I'm just saying that it's a good thing about the PC market that these choices exist, and I wish we had the same freedom with Apple. You can't fit the entire computer market into 4 boxes - but as things stand, Apple/OS X can only take market share from the part of the market that can be forced into 4 boxes.
zync said:
That problem is not due to fragmentation alone. If you defrag the drives regularly Windows still slows down due to the registry. When you have programs that don't remove themselves correctly, the computer has to sort through flawed entries.
Oh, I grant you programs don't remove themselves correctly, and that can cause problems (same can be said of OS X though - particularly as applications can have installers that shove things in the library, but often don't have uninstallers that remove those items). That can cause things to stop working - not necessarily slow things down.
But it's still pretty quick to use the registry - simple test is to fire up the registry editor... even on pretty naffed up machines, it's still fast to navigate the registry (pretty much instantaneous). Only searching through the registry is slow, but then applications don't do that - they access named keys.
Yes, you can accumulate crap and slow down Windows over time. You can do that on OS X too. What you do have on Windows is a lot more idiots that install shedloads of crap without realising that they are naffing up their system.
zync said:
It's a reason to hate both, actually. Because IE is bundled with the system, most uneducated users tend to use it. Most uneducated users don't realize that another browser exists (they barely even realize that other operating systems exist). Since uneducated users make up the majority of computer users, IE is the most widely used.
Well, in a (wider) sense yes. You could just as easily hate Apple for using (and forking) KHTML in Safari - it may be standards based, but it's still another rendering engine getting significant market share, it's still something else that may have a bug, etc.
That isn't the same as making a choice of a platform that will enable you to do the things you want/need to do, and at the right value.
The fact is that there are things I don't like about all of the platforms that exist. Each one also has it's unique benefits too. It's all about compromise, and by the end of the year, Windows will present me with the fewest compromises.
If they just produced a remote they'd be smart because it would work on all BT Macs.
