🚀 go-pugleaf

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