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
|