Hmmm.....
I must be missing a part for the MGA. What type of computer came on the
ones manufactured in July of 1960? Or was that an dealer-add-on option? ;-)
Carol
At 09:43 AM 12/5/97 -0600, Jay Quinn wrote:
>At 12:50 AM 12/5/97 -0500, Trevor Boicey wrote:
>>J. Neil Doane wrote:
>>> And we all know Macs come with faster hard drives (SCSI built onboard,
>>> which _few_ PCs have)...
>>
>> That's a grossly unfair statement.
>
>It's not unfair, it's just plain wrong.
>
>Design it right, PC's come with faster HDD's with
>more throughput than Macs.
>
>
>>
>> PC users have the choice between economical EIDE or
>>faster SCSI. Mac users have no such choice.
>>
>> I have an all SCSI PC (running Linux).
>>
>
>PC users have a huge wide range of choices, MAC users have next to no
>choices once they take it home.
>
>
>>> And Macs are much more expandable than
>>> PCs...more devices will fit on the integrated SCSI bus than the EIDE bus
>>> on PCs.
>>
>> That statement is very wrong. Again, SCSI is SCSI, and
>>as for expandability, most PCs have a row of slots that
>>can handle millions of products. Most macs have a slot
>>or two that not many products work with.
>>
>
>
>Not only do PC's have rows and rows of slots, but PC's have rows and rows
>of all types of slots, ISA, EISA, PCI, AGP, VESA, etc...
>
>AND, there are several types of SCSI, as well. And many types of built in
>and add on SCSI cards, etc, etc...
>
>And guess what, they are made for the MAC!
>
>>> I mean, hardware-wise, they are superior in almost every
>>> conceivable way.
>>
>> Simply, no.
>>
>
>In a previous email, ... He just doen't get out much.
>
>
>
>
>>> Many of the comments so far have involved comments about Macs from a
>>> perspective of the OS. Granted, we all know that MacOS is slow and
>>> cumbersome and _doesn't_ perform as reliably as would we would like it to
>>> sometimes
>>
>> ...and the problem is that with Macs, that is what you
>>are pretty much stuck with.
>>
>
>How true.
>
>> There are more OSs available for Intel hardware than Mac
>>hardware. Not that it matters because everybody should just
>>run Linux anyways. ;>
>>
>>> BeOS and Linux also run on PowerPCs which makes for _powerful_
>>> servers...
>>
>> But the Mac version of Linux lags WAY behind the Intel
>>version, and also has no versions of a lot of software that
>>is only distributed in binary form.
>>
>
>This is the most common statement I hear from so many MAC and PC users,
>MAC ALWAYS LAGS BEHIND.
>
>
>>> I'm not sure I can think of any
>>> non-Windows95/98/NT OS that will run on an x86-based machine that won't
>>> run on a Mac better actually.
>>
>> Linux obviously. Hell, just about anything. What runs better
>>on a Mac than a PC?
>>
>
>The wonderful thing about Intel and Intel clone cpu's is a whole hell of a
>lot of OS's can run on them, some better than otehrs, but at worst, an OS'
>may perform as poorly on an Intel as a MAC running it's own native OS.
>
>>>(And I can run Windows 95 with VirtualPC on
>>> our G3 _faster_ than it will run on a Pentium 166...and that's while
>>> running MacOS _at the same time_.)
>>
>> So? Your Mac cost twice as much as that P-166, that's
>>no feat. "For twice the price I can run your software".
>>
>> And I run Mac software on my Intel Linux PC. Well, not
>>a lot of mac software because there isn't any.
>>
>
>:)=)
>
>
>>> Agreed, Windows 95 has more applications, but just because the parts are
>>> more available for a Chevy Camaro doesn't mean it's a better car than a
>>> Shelby or Lotus.
>>
>> Parts is an incorrect analogy.
>>
>> Roads are a better analogy. Owning a Mac is extremely
>>limiting in so many ways. A weak OS, weak software support,
>>and pricy hardware.
>>
>
>Well put.
>
>Q
>
>>--
>>Trevor Boicey
>>Ottawa, Canada
>>tboicey@brit.ca
>>http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
>>
>>
>--
>Jay Quinn
>jpquinn@cyberramp.net
>http://www.cyberramp.net/~jpquinn/index.htm
>
>1962 Austin-Healey Sprite MKII HAN6L2874
>
>
|