Jan Kijlstra wrote:

> If you do want the best results you do want the best software.
> That never means an older version -- not in case of an operating
> system, not in case of an application software.

That's simply not true.  I'm speaking as an experienced UNIX system
administrator: upgrades, by definition, _break things_.  If the
system works, and does everything you need it to do, then it is not
at all worth the effort to upgrade.

In the Microsoft world, there is a pervading attitude of "upgrade for
the sake of upgrading".  Upgrades are only advantageous if you find the
current version you are using to be insufficient, in either security,
reliability or features.  If it's not broken, don't fix it.  I will
also note that it is entirely possible for software to get WORSE as
new versions come out.

> The Mac once was a miracle, thanks to Steve Jobs, but above all its
> developer, Steve Wozniak.  But miracles don't last forever...

Well, the Intel x86 architecture has huge performance problems which
cannot be addressed within the bounds of architectural backwards
compatibility.  It was a very dumb design even in 1980.  The Motorola
[68000 family] chip used in Macs, however, is a much more intelligent
design.  In hardware, the Macintosh is a decidedly superior machine
to the PC.

Paul Anderson