 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | SCOTTSDALE, AZ |
| Posts: | 4759 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
RichardWilkinsIII wrote:Er, sorry, I mean boo mac, yeehaw blue screen of death!
Sometimes ya just gotta be an instigator. ;)
hehehe! Hey, don't you guys think it a little peculiar that Apple has worked so hard to get Bill's OS to run efficiently on their machine and BG and the PC manufactures could care less about vice-versa? Could it be because Apple/Mac has, comparativley, so little software available, or that PC simply "ate Apple alive" in the competitive world of business applications?
Actually, have nothing against Apple.........just never learned to use one because they were becoming extinct in the business world! They may certainly be better.......maybe they can get together with Sony and run BetaMax on it! :D:D:D
KEC, let's set the record straight here. I don't believe Apple has ever tried to "work so hard" to get $$Bills OS to run on their computers. The program I am currently using to run Windows XP on my Mac was originally designed and sold by Connectix. Then $$Bills company bought it and now it is a Micro$oft product. Apple has/had nothing to do with it. And FWIW, since Micro$oft bought the product and re-did it, it now runs much slower and is a bigger, fatter program.
On the new Intel based Mac's, it was inevitable you envious PC users would want to finally be able to run Windows on a cool designed Mac computer. So, if I'm Apple - should I let Micro$oft come out with a fix to enable (your fav word :D ) Windows to run on the Intel Macs? Or, should Apple do it. And, do it right so it works correctly. HMMmmmm. I think Apple made the right decision.:D:D:D:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P