Hello Listers:
One of the great things about todays nerds is that they no longer talk
English or anyother recognizable means of human communication. Does this
mean that they evolved into a new species. I hope this won't mean
intermarriage.
John
>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.
>
> 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).
>
>> 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.
>
>> I mean, hardware-wise, they are superior in almost every
>> conceivable way.
>
> Simply, no.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>> 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?
>
>>(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.
>
>--
>Trevor Boicey
>Ottawa, Canada
>tboicey@brit.ca
>http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
|