A mid-90s study by my employer that reviewed the pros and cons of each system budgeted an expected *extra 50%* for IT support costs, if our institute standardized on a PC-based system!But we live, and choose our software and hardware, in the present, which makes all of this water under the bridge.Like their appearances and features, conversion problems between the two systems for the primary software packages (Word, Powerpoint, &c) have dwindled. If there were better copyright protection for ideas, PCs would probably still be based on keyboard-written commands - remember DOS? (which, come to think of it, was cheaply lifted from a couple of naive garage-based nerds by Bill Gates). I have not used the latest Windows version, however, so they're probably more similar now than when I was using both.Windows has been imitating and "catching up" with Mac's GUI system since Xerox invented the GUI. In my work I have used both systems and (like most "average", everyday users who've tried both, I suspect) I prefer a Mac.
Programs written for Windows, which was designed as a graphical user interface (GUI) system on top of DOS rather than an actual operating system, tended to have corrections and kluges heaped upon kluges in order to achieve similar-looking results, which is why Windows-based systems tended to hang every time you turned around.I'm not a computer geek, but I am a codger who's watched this competition since its beginnings. Right on, KK.But no one has mentioned one Mac advantage: the wonderful consistency among programs written for Mac operating systems, maintained since Day 1.
0 kommentar(er)
