Skip to main content

Having coffee with Doctor Happy Mac

A couple of weeks ago I had coffee with Doctor Happy Mac. He may sound a bit like a cross between a Bond villain and a Macdonalds character, but Doctor H M (aka Andrew Stephens) is in fact the man to know in the Cirencester/Swindon area if you have problems with Apple products and want them fixed. Or just a bit of Appley advice.

As it happens our conversation was not primarily about computers, but I thought Andrew's invitation to have coffee at the particular location we ended up in made an excellent allegory for my deliberations on whether to buy a Mac or a PC as my next desktop computer. 'Come and have a coffee at Made by Bob,' he said, 'and you'll never fancy a Starbucks again.'

Now there is no doubt that the Made by Bob coffee was nicer than the equivalent in Starbucks, and the place certainly had more interesting food (not that I tried any). But the thing is, Starbucks is within walking distance of my office and provides free wi-fi. Made by Bob is a 10 mile drive away, and doesn't. Which is why today I am sipping a Starbucks. This seems like a nice allegory because the Mac is without doubt nicer than the PC. It looks better, it does some key tasks better, it oozes class. It's shiny and it cries out 'You want me!' But practicality means not always choosing the absolute best product, but rather the best fit under the circumstances. And that's why I think I'll end up knocking on Dell's door again.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous28 June 2015 at 10:44

    'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink' Sorry If you took the opportunity to try an Apple Mac in your workflow you would completely understand the science between the two systems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian Clegg28 June 2015 at 11:38

      Bear in mind this post is four years old. In the end I abandoned Dell and went for a Mac, and have never looked back.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more