🚀 go-pugleaf

Alex Barsamian wrote:
> 
> swanlee <swa...@avana.net> wrote in article
> <33e7cd0a...@news.avana.net>...
> > 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.
> 
> Amen to that.  That, and, this fabled "G3" chip..... is going to cost _HOW_
> much?  'Nuff said.  Besides, Apple is an incredibly unethical company that
> I'd never support even if I was rich/stupid enough to.  I mean, withholding
> the spec on Rhapsody from clone-makers just so that anyone who doesn't want
> to use the old, crusty, and broken MacOS 7.6 _has_ to buy from Apple?  What
> a crock.  Apple can go straight to hell for all I care, and I'll be
> building my dual processor Pentuim-II system for probably half the cost of
> Apple's poster-boy Power-Tower
> whatever-the-hell-the-marketing-bozos-down-there-call-it.
> 
> And to quote a spokesperson from Apple on CNN recently: "Apple is not like
> other companies.  We're here to make the world a better place."  Bullshit.
> Apple is here to make money, just like every other company.  Unfortunately,
> to do that, you need to make quality product at competitive price.  Sorry,
> Apple. :-)
> 
> ps- I'm sorta of psyched for some reason, and when I'm psyched, I say stuff
> I wouldn't normally say... If I offended anyone, I'm sorry. Hey! They're
> only the facts :-)
> 
> regards,
> Alex
> 
*Sigh* Okay you guys are usin a lot of terms extremely losely. First of
all you cant draw a line this broadly. I personally use both OS's. Ive
got a PII 233 and a PPC 225. Both have there upsides and there lowsides.
The comment on mac's having no software is uncalled for. First of all
the percentage is lower because. 
A. The marketshare of Mac's to PC's is unfortunately 1:9 or so. Anyone
with Economic's trainign understands the simple fact that if theres more
of a market theres going to be more people/companies competing for there
piece of the pie.
B. Mac's have long long as far as '86 or so when I got my first Plus.
Had a far superior share/freeware system. The simple fact that 90% of
mac's (At least with my experiences) Run Disinfectant as there primary
Anti-Virus program. Is a good illsutartion. This program is freeware. No
charge and is in my opinion as a Macintosh consultant all a user really
needs for protection from mac-virus's. Unless there a Virus-engineer or
something then get SAM. Anyway my point is that for as long as mac's
have been around there has been a rash of amateur programmers into
writing programs that are in my opinion a step above the PC industries.
(Not in all cases but in general). 
C. The second problem your not addressing with the software comment is
that the majority of mac's are in use for "Home Office" Environments.
This in my opinion means mom and dad own a Machine that they do there
business on. With the kiddies using it for games and stuff. With this in
mind the business mom and dad are involved in could be anything. Ive
fixed OS conflicts/problems in graphical designers, Web Designers, and
in some cases Assembly/C++ Types. Now with this inmind that these are
the majority of what Mac's are being used for it becomes apparent why
most mac users arent real worried about the lack of software. If your a
graphical designers you use either Photoshop, QuarkExpress, Painter,
Illustrator or any other of the graphical programs (And there are many). 
If you look at the web designing aspect theres also a huge market.
Everthing from high end programs like Claris Homepage to using straight
Simpletext. Same thing goes for developers. MPW (Macintosh Programmers
Workshop) Is by far the "industry" standard among professional
developers. While its pricetag (round $500) is up there. It is in my
opinion one of the best compilers ever made. Marathon was made using
this compiler. 
	Anyway my point is the lack of software isnt neccesarily as all
empowering as you guy's are stating. The majority of Programs used by PC
& Mac users alike are rather general. Now A days most get by with a
Combo Spreadsheet/word Processor (Like Office for PC or Clarisworks for
Mac) Perhaps a few games (Yes mac does have games contrary to the
media's lies) and a Web Navigator as well as telnet/FTP/News apps for
there PPP Connection. Of which Mac's have plenty. 

Anyway the other problems Ive had with these comments are as follows.
A. Hardware is a issue. It is what most educated computer buyers
consider most when buying a computer is it not? Its almost funny to me
that for so long PC users would dis Mac's by stating that they where to
expensive. Now that hardware and computer prices have dropped for them
they start pulling lines like this. I just got a PPC 225 with a 1.6G HD.
32 megs. 12X Cd-rom. 15" monitor, etc. All for $1600. Now factor what it
would take to grab a PC with a chip that fast with comparable shit
including the monitor. Make sure you factor in full SCSI as well and
having it pre-built. No putting it together yourself. (Not that I
disagree with doing this. It just cant be allowed for a fair comparison)
I know I just bought a tad better PII from Dell and it cost me $3700
(6.3G HD/17"/16X/64megs/etc). Even downgrading these Id still be hard
pressed to find a deal like Apples including the monitor. 
	Now dont get all aggressive. To clear things up on my experience witht
he two computers ill list my experiences with them. I got my first Plus
in about '86-'87. So ive had close to 10 years experience using macs. On
the other side around '90 I started rebuilding and reselling used
8088's/286's/386's and lately ive worked a lot with more updated
machines. In general I consider fights over which computer is better or
which OS is better immature and stupid. Ive had experience with Unix,
MacOS 6-7.5.6, Dos5-6.22, Win3.1, Win95, etc...... They all share
similiar things and in my opinion it doesnt really matter. Despite my
recent acquirings. I havent had a lot of experience with top of the line
machines. For about 8 years I used what I could find be it C64, Mac,
8088. Whatever it was it was a computer. In my opinion this is the true
test of a persons computer skills. Being able to adjust to new
requirements without bitching, whining, etc. 

	Your welcome to come back to this. Sorry about the length of this post
but I felt it was important to have someone comment on this without
personal involvements with one side or the other. (I fight like this
when someone disses PC's as well.) 
	You guys are welcome to try to convince yourself that one machine is
"better" then another. The fact is there isnt one. My personal favorite
is Unix and even it for all its godliness cant do everything It could
potentially be required to. (Say it aint so, Say it aint so). Hope this
helps.....