Originally posted by feldon28
Using HP, Compaq, Packard Bell, and eMachines to try to argue why Windows is inferior to Mac is like trying to use the Chevy Nova and Ford Pinto to argue why nobody should buy any American cars.
A properly built Windows 2000 PC has the same exact stability as a G4 running Mac OS X. I agree that the ActiveX/Spyware garbage is entirely Microsoft's fault, but by using a better e-mail client and web browser, these problems can almost entirely be avoided.
There are two issues on our friendly table:
(1) A well-designed PC works better with Windows (or Linux for that matter). The challenge is to find which PC is well-designed.
We agree there are low-end or low-cost version of PCs that are a BUGGER to upgrade and expand, and we listed HP, Compaq, Packard Bell, Microtel, and eMacines. That does reflect on computers in general and on Windows in particular, by association. Given how many PCs sold are below the $1000 mark, I shudder to think about upgrading any of them.
A macintosh is an example of a well-designed computer. Curiously you won't find a new Mac priced much under $1000.
(2) The casual user, newbie, etc, uses IE because it's there. I agree we all would be better off using FireFox or Mozilla for our surfing and email needs.
But the regular windows user isn't going to have the wherewithal to switch. And in corporate America the IT department dictates what employees surf with and email with.
And some websites are written such that ONLY IE will work with them. This makes my hair stand on end!
"The problem is choice" - Neo