[PLUG-TALK] Blog Server Themes and Browser Skins

[Michael M.]

Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2006, Michael M. wrote:
>
>> It's really quite simple.  It's because Apple uses blue.  Therefore, 
>> blue
>> is correct. Other color schemes are incorrect. Because Apple doesn't use
>> them.
>
>   Oh. I thought it was all Microsoft's fault.
>
>> Don't you know anything?
>
>   What I don't know can overflow the Internet. When they first came 
> out, I
> briefly used an Apple ][e and III, but thought they were ugly, slow 
> beasts
> compared with the HP-125. In the late 1980s I tried a graphic artist 
> friend's
> Mac and locked it up tightly in less than 2 minuts of pointing and 
> clicking.
> He had to unplug the box and would not let me touch it again. That's 
> my total
> direct, hands-on experience with Apple computers.
>
>   Thank you for enlightening me.
>
> Rich
>

As I'm sure was obvious, I was trying to take the piss on Apple fanboys, 
who are a breed unto themselves.  All OS's -- even Windows -- seem to 
have their more rabid contingents of boosters, but IMO some Macheads 
take it to a whole new level.  It's off-putting, or at least I find it 
so.  But once you get past that, Apple hardware and OS X has some really 
attractive qualities and I think it's getting more attractive now that 
Apple has made the switch to Intel hardware.  Of course, given the 
prices they charge, it better be damned attractive.

I'm probably going to get a laptop sometime over the next few months 
(not before the fall, possibly a little later), so I've been trying to 
pay attention somewhat to recent developments and options.  Apple's 
line-up really looks enticing, in comparison to what else is out there.  
It shouldn't be too much longer before more Linux distros adapt to the 
new hardware, and the virtualization options seem to be getting better 
and better.  OS X and Linux, I think, is overall a more appealing combo 
than Windows and Linux, in part because there is so much *nix-ish 
software that will run on OS X natively, through projects like Fink and 
Darwinports.  Apple even offers it's own X implementation.  Not that 
there's anything wrong with OS X itself, unaugmented, but it's nice to 
have options that are more integrated than running emulation on Windows 
or dual-booting.  Personally, I don't think OS X is exactly "all that," 
but I do like it better than Windows and it has some really nice 
software built-in and available for download.  I've yet to find a web 
browser I like as much as Camino, for instance.  Yeah, it's just a web 
browser, and Firefox (on Windows or Linux) is fine, Konqueror and Safari 
are ok, Epiphany is nice if you're running Gnome, but still -- using 
Camino is just that much more of pleasure than using anything else.  
Apple has done an amazing job with providing clear and consistent 
guidelines for developers, so that end-users have a very limited 
learning curve.  Once you grok how OS X works, you pretty much know how 
everything on it works, because of the consistency across apps.  Linux 
is a shambles by comparison, and Windows not much better.  Of course, 
you give up a lot for that consistency, so it's a trade-off.  But with 
the move to Intel hardware, you gain some of it back.

All of which is just a long-winded, think-out-loud way of saying, you 
might give Apple another look some time ... you will probably be 
pleasantly surprised.

-- 
Michael M. ++ Portland, OR ++ USA
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream." --S. Jackson