Deny joins in with his own "Friday Humorous" contribution:
> I would point out you have been navigating under a misapprehension.  Whilst
> the HP e3000 is a better, more stable environment that you pay a lot more
> for, Apple and the MacOS do not fit that description.  Indeed, Windows NT,
> 2000 and XP systems are a lot more stable and faster operating systems than
> Mac OS.  If one brings up OS X, it is my understanding it is a "work in
> progress" and lacks many features.  In time, I am quite sure it will gain
> all the needed features and may even have the stability of NT (2000/XP,) but
> that day isn't here yet and 2000 has been shipping since 1999.

I agree with Denys on one point.  When he says, "Whilst the HP e3000 is a
better, more stable environment that you pay a lot more for, Apple and the
MacOS do not fit that description," he is exactly right.  Apple prices are
becoming more reasonable :-).

Wanting an OS X box more every time I get a BSOD,
Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([log in to unmask]) | From the Tom Swifty collection:
Southern Adventist University    | "I've made a study of girls", said Tom
Deep thought to be found at      | lassitudinously.
http://www.southern.edu/~ashted  |

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *