🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 2 Aug 1997 15:37:35 -0400, "Aru Anidiot" <ecb...@oven.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Anton Smirnov wrote in article <5rrrna$k1c$1...@news1.bu.edu>...
>
>>JCT (jt...@mci2000.com) wrote:
>>: Exactly... well put.  "It doesn't matter who's first, but who's better."
>>: All in all, someone was bound to come up with that idea.  If Apple
>>: didn't buy the GUI idea from Xerox, back in the good ol' days, someone
>>: else would have bought it, or may have just produced something like it.
>>: Even though the Mac sucks so much, I certainly HOPE and WISH they don't
>>: go out of business completely.  Why?  Because if they went out of
>>: business, there would be basically very little competition, which would
>>: drive the cost of WinTel products and machines up.  Then again, it might
>>: not.  :)>  Maybe uSoft may drive their OS prices up.
>>
>>Umm, I hate to dissapoint, but the current Macs (Power Tower Pro, to be
>exact)
>>benchmarks as 20 % faster than the Pentium with MMX for doing graphics,
>> despite having inferior
>>software & a too slow buss speed (buss speed should not fall below 20% of
>CPU
>> speed. The Power Towers is under that). The Pentium II (with MMX) is about
>as
>>fast as the PowerTower, but the G3 chip that ships next month will make the
>>the PowerTower 40% faster (by benchmarks - we aren't talking clock
>>speed. clock speeds don't mean that much) than the current model
>
>Well I hate to disappoint, but no single measurement can be used to jugde
>"better".  The "better" that was being talked about was the OS and mechine
>in general, and the truth is that PC's generally have better implementation
>of new technologies and ideas than Apple mechines.  This, inspite of the
>fact that Apple is sometimes the first to impliment them.
>
>  Mechine speed, even in a well rounded benchmark, is not necessarily
>accurate in predicting the speed for all uses.  Price, upgradibility,
>usability, and many other factors must be considered to judge "better".
>Plus, what you're saying is the top of the line mechines are pretty equal in
>speed now, but something new is comming out for the Mac's.  New processors
>will also be comming for PC's, not to mention several advances for the
>motherboards in a short amount of time.  To quote Forest Gump, "that's all I
>have to say sbout that."
>
>
Well to be honest who the hell cares about speed when you can't run
anything on a mac. Sorry but the computer that has the most software
support is the most usefull faster or not.