3 ms·

Thanks for partially decoding - what is the sliderule then? Also other than saying 'ChromeOS is the future, windows is outdated' does this analogy offer any in

• joshstrange 13y ago
  Sorry, I didn't mention those and that was what you specifically asked about. He is saying why use a computer (Chromebook) when a slide rule (Windows) is on sale (sale referring to MS slashing licensing costs 70%). Another way to put his analogy is you (All other things being normal) wouldn't choose to take a train over an airplane just because the train is cheaper (I have no clue to going cost for train vs air travel but bear with me). Even though the train is cheaper it will also take a much longer time to get to where you are going so the money you saved can be counted as lost due to the extra time it took. Here Windows is the train and Chromebooks are the planes, again I am not saying I agree just trying to help explain the point of view.
  • gress 13y ago
    Thanks again, that is actually what I originally through the meant. My problem in understanding is that analogies usually work because there is some similarity between the qualities of the analogical objects and the objects they refer to. In this case, referring to a chromebook as a computer while a windows machine is a sliderule is not an analogy because nothing about the computer<>sliderule relationship holds true about the chromebook<>windows relationship other than the fact that the op prefers chromebooks over windows and presumes that computers are also universally preferred offer sliderules. I.e. There is nothing analogical about the statement. It's just an expression of preference dressed up to look like an analogy. It has the same explanatory value as chromebooks:windows::hamburgers:cyanide