That's right; it was adapted from 86-DOS written by Tim Paterson.

You won't find me defending Microsoft products, either - although I do think that for most general users, a PC running XP is a more effective desktop solution than a Mac, especially in terms of cost.

But again, I'm not saying it's terrible necessarily; that's a straw man argument. I think my position could be summed as saying that there is often or usually a better alternative to an Apple product, and it's usually less expensive (and in the case of the iMacs I've had the misfortune to have to work with, a lot more reliable).

You seem to have a lot more faith in the judgement of the public than I do. It's partly a fashion thing, as well as marketing, though.

It's unfortunate, I think, that popular science fiction has gained a reputation of being lowbrow entertainment for juveniles. For me the defining feature of science fiction is that it is an expression of imagination, and at least potentially I would argue that it is the most cerebral genre of all. There have been some stunning, classic films in that genre - Alien, for example. 2001, for another.

Terminator 2 is a very good film, but the lower budget The Terminator is the best of all the Terminator flicks. The third is disposable; it's really only a remake of the second.

That is because of the popularity of Apple products. Again, for me that says more about the success of their marketing than the quality of the hardware / software.

Note that any operating system is, to a degree, susceptible to viruses. Now in my opinion Apple's OS, for example, is inherently less susceptible than Windows. That's because it's built around an OS kernel which is inherently more secure by design (and which wasn't designed by Apple, by the way - it's actually, at its core and origin, an old Unix kernel from the '80s).

But the main reason that Windows is more susceptible is that it's more popular. Viruses and trojans written for it are more likely to find a victim, hence that's where the miscreants who like to write them concentrate their efforts.

Neither; I don't accept the premise of your question. Real life isn't quite so black and white as that, of course. There are a large number of alternative hypotheses between those two extremes. I would say that, in many cases, a relatively poor product has been purchased at an exaggerated price because of the success of a marketing strategy.

I did read your response; I'm afraid I just don't find it convincing. I've worked with Apple products for too long to change my opinion of them, I'm afraid. I do own an iPod, but would never have bought one if I hadn't been fortunate enough to get it for half price. Even on that, I avoid Apple's firmware; I use Rockbox (http://www.rockbox.org/)

No. It wasn't pointed at anyone in this thread in particular, and certainly not every contributing Mac user.

An Apple victim, in lonegroover parlance, is someone who falls prey to Apple's marketing to the point where they believe that Apple makes the best possible computer / phone / MP3 player / whatever, their competitor products are pale imitations (or in some cases, they aren't aware that competitor versions exist) and they just have to have one, whatever it costs, because (for example) a Sony MP3 player just wouldn't be an iPod. It wouldn't be cool to have one of those.

Well, that's just it. In reality, it will, I think, be competing with laptops for people who want a mobile email / browsing / other experience that they can take out of the house with them; one that will provide a bigger screen and (presumably, or at least hopefully) a more usable keyboard than (say) a Blackberry or an iPhone, or a Nokia Internet tablet.

That particular niche is, currently, squarely the domain of the netbook or the laptop. In that respect then, it's only fair to point at that the iPad, while it might become the latest cool toy to have for many, has real limitations in comparison to other, equally portable devices.

The best thing I can think to say about it is that its screen is proportionately large in comparison to its overall size, but even then the touch screen 'soft' keyboard will take up a large chunk of screen real estate when in use.

Against that, it doesn't have a physical keyboard, it has a much less useful range of applications than a laptop can offer, and even the browser is compromised by an inability to run Flash apps, though that will change at some point I imagine.

I also suspect it will be more expensive even than a 3G-enabled netbook, but we'll have to wait and see.

I don't think I am. I'm only pointing it out here because it's pertinent to the discussion, not because it's a unique phenomenon. I only wish it were.