best cheap laptop

[hemmy]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant

 

[catdude33]

Guys listen, PC drivers are totally outdated and the apps you can get for them won't even allow the OS to function with the hardware properly.  We all know this.  However, what I think some of you are forgetting is that it is the OS that must mesh with the driver and the hardware or else the virus control won't do what it's it was designed to do.  This is exactly why I chose a Mac instead of netbook operating on the Vista driver OS system with Windows ME and XP.  I prefer the specs of the Mac driver embedded in the OS firewall.  Just personal preference though, you know?

[hemmy]

I don't know anything about computers.

QFT

[hemmy]

My opinions of Vista are irrelevant. You're using public perception as an argument.  The public is full of retards who think their $30 Lexmark printer from 1997 should work with Vista. It doesn't, so Vista sucks and Microsoft is to blame. ME was full of new features that eventually spelled it's doom. It's the first os with system restore. While that feature is great in XP and Vista, it royally f'ed the crap out of Windows ME.

So when people compare the two, it's pretty stupid. If anything, compare it to Windows 2000. I can't wait for the day 32 bit OS's are dropped from the face of the earth and retards everywhere are flung back to the stoneage.

I agree your opinions of Vista are irrelevant, but for some reason you insisted on offering them.

The public buys the computers.  The public doesn't care why the OS doesn't work like they think it should, all they care about is that it doesn't.  You're apparently arguing from a technical standpoint that Vista can't be compared to ME because Vista's problems were driver issues and installation on sub-par hardware, while ME's problems were new features that didn't work yet.  Yeah, we know:  Vista is not the same product as ME, nor does it have identical issues.

From a consumer's standpoint, an OS that doesn't work is an OS that doesn't work.  The comparison of Vista to ME in terms of a "marketing and sales disaster" (i.e., public perception) is not a new or uncommon one. 

Windows Vista even at beta stage (I used beta 2 and RC1) was MILES above windows ME.

Nothing ever worked with that OS, I used it for 2 years

[pissclams]

My opinions of Vista are irrelevant. You're using public perception as an argument.  The public is full of retards who think their $30 Lexmark printer from 1997 should work with Vista. It doesn't, so Vista sucks and Microsoft is to blame. ME was full of new features that eventually spelled it's doom. It's the first os with system restore. While that feature is great in XP and Vista, it royally f'ed the crap out of Windows ME.

So when people compare the two, it's pretty stupid. If anything, compare it to Windows 2000. I can't wait for the day 32 bit OS's are dropped from the face of the earth and retards everywhere are flung back to the stoneage.

I agree your opinions of Vista are irrelevant, but for some reason you insisted on offering them.

The public buys the computers.  The public doesn't care why the OS doesn't work like they think it should, all they care about is that it doesn't.  You're apparently arguing from a technical standpoint that Vista can't be compared to ME because Vista's problems were driver issues and installation on sub-par hardware, while ME's problems were new features that didn't work yet.  Yeah, we know:  Vista is not the same product as ME, nor does it have identical issues.

From a consumer's standpoint, an OS that doesn't work is an OS that doesn't work.  The comparison of Vista to ME in terms of a "marketing and sales disaster" (i.e., public perception) is not a new or uncommon one. 

Windows Vista even at beta stage (I used beta 2 and RC1) was MILES above windows ME.

Nothing ever worked with that OS, I used it for 2 years

you would (because you're an idiot that knows nothing about computers)

[Kat Kid]