Since a Celeron based Windows PC clearly isn't in the same class as a Macbook we need to be comparing, well, Apples to apples.
So yu're
finally agreeing that the two are, indeed, not identical afterall. Thank-you.
If you need to run Windows based applications then buying a Mac isn't the brightest idea.
Without any afforded context of the so-called 'need', even though it is technically true, that statement is functionally worthless.
Afterall, why should someone not adopt OS X if their need for Windows is, for example, restricted to one 5 minute period every 2 years? (0.00005% of your life). Why can't they go use a Windows PC at the public library or something? The idea that Windows is an individual necessary backfires on itself here, because of its reason for existence: its ubiquity.
I agree with this point but the subset of OSX only apps in general usage where there isn't a Windows compatible version is very small indeed.
Sorry, but you can't try to have it both ways.
Specifically, since your argument essentially is that we must own our own Windows PC regardless of how small/infrequent the need, but when we replace Windows with the OSX environment, it somehow becomes OK to ignore it. For you to be internally consistent, you either must be willing to ' abandon' a platform, or demand accessibility to both.
It's horse for courses - I suspect most home users aren't going to have an issue with the paucity of applications because there are sufficient available of a good enough quality to meet their needs. The problem, as you point out, is in enterprise or some parts of academia.
Is this "Paucity" yet another myth? I keep on hearing this sort of claim and yet, when I ask for solid mainstream examples, never seem to get a straight reply.
FWIW, I don't dispute that there's fewer Apps, or that a specific vendor chooses to not compile an OSX version, or that there's niche applications (nipple piercing cataloging
). My point here is that when we look at the question from the
Capability provided by the sum of the Appilication solutions, precisely where are these huge gaping black holes of non-solution within OSX that are apparently huge, significant barriers to adoption that we keep on hearing about?
Afterall, if they're big enough to have so much time talking about them, then we should be able to cite several real world examples...if they exist.
For example, between just MacOffice, iWork and OpenOffice as OSX solutions, what do you want to claim are utterly missing from the sum of the three that clearly and obviously impacts over 50% of general consumers from using them as a product solution?
Are all three of them incapable of displaying lower case based text?
No, so its not that.
How about some esoteric formatting features?
No, they fail the "sufficently used by enough' criteria.
And so on. Just looking for some specifics to provide any level of pragmatic credibility this all-too-oft-heard claim.
-hh
