Mayor Of R'lyeh
On Mon, 12 May 2008 02:38:52 -0400, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid>wrote:

ZnU
In article <sckf24l7di9alnaoqgob99f28kiec8l9kb@4ax.com>, Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@gmail.com>wrote:

Mayor Of R'lyeh
On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:59:36 -0500, Chance Furlong <t-bone@megakatcity.com>wrote:

Chance Furlong
In article <rfhf24teh4oktrgobjans1hdr73g1unq7g@4ax.com>, Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@gmail.com>wrote:

Mayor Of R'lyeh
On Sun, 11 May 2008 22:12:47 -0600, Warchild <bob@bob.com> wrote:

Warchild
That old horseshoe has been disproved time and time again.

Mayor Of R'lyeh
Only when artificially skewed in the Mac's favor.

Chance Furlong
How is it artificially skewed in the Mac's favor? I ask for in formation only.

Mayor Of R'lyeh
The most glaring example of that is the insistence of using the Mac as the baseline instead of the user's wants and/or needs.

ZnU
Doing a cost comparison based on some hypothetical user's needs is useless in an advocacy group, though, because one can trivially define the user's needs to make the Mac look bad. For instance, insist that the user needs a particular graphics card only available in a high-end tower on the Mac side, but that can be tossed into a free slot on an $800 Windows tower, and then screech about how the Mac costs 5x as much, ignoring the fact that it's a vastly more powerful machine in every other way.

Mayor Of R'lyeh
Actually we don't need to do that. Sales figures do that for us.

And there's no need to use hypotheticals. We all know that most people just don't do anything very intense with their computers. There's no need to require certain models of graphics cards.

ZnU
and thus, while this argument might be compelling for certain individual users, it's largely irrelevant to the subject of which platform is better overall, the main focus of advocacy discussions.

Mayor Of R'lyeh
Whether or not most people avail themselves of an advantage it still remains an advantage.