<4fj26r$rle at news.gate.net>, trussman at gate.net (trussman at gate.net) writes:
>>Two more points:
>>One:
>>for $$/computing power, PowerMacs are far faster than P5s, which is not
>>surprising because of the RISC technology. I mean, who wants two 486s
>>soldered back to back?? At least it keeps the room warm in winter. :)
>> RISC technology is not the be-all and end-all of chip design. In fact
> it is, IMHO, a great leap backward. Have the chip less capable but
> faster so that it can do 4 simple instructions at the speed of 1
> complex instruction? This reminds me of people who bought 20 mhz 80286
> machines instead of 16 mhz 386 machines. It doesn't always work.
> Witness the Pentium Pro. Second, P5's are not the slower chip, PPc's
> are, based on all tests I've read.
We're obviously reading different reports. The only reports I've seen which
favour the P5 were based on Microsoft software usage. Need I say more?
> I don't care how much it costs them to make it. I care what I have to
> pay for it. P5 costs me less and I can choose my software from a far
Less? hmmmmmmm
> wider variety pack. Show me one Roof Truss Design program on the Mac.
> I can show you 10 on the PC and I have personally used at least 5 of
> them, plus several that have been discontinued because they weren't
> competitive.
Oh please. How many [word processors/spreadsheets/design packages/publishing
packages] do you want?
There is PLENTY of software for Mac. Over 800 PPC-native programs that aren't
available for PCs. And a similar number of 'Mac-first' apps. Not to mention
the stuff that is multiplatform or PC-first and ported.
>>> Apple is in deep deep trouble - face it. The Amiga of the '90s.
> Well, he's wrong this time. Amiga is still out there, doing great
> business, but not where we're used to looking. They just announced
> that they're going to be building a PPc reference platform.
<snip>
> time. When was the last time you saw one. As far as licensing the OS,
> well lots of people copied IBM's OS by buying copies from Microsoft.
Well, that's because M$ bought DOS.
> The end result was not increased strength for IBM. As far as being
> real computers, keep it decent. Slinging of mud means that you'd
> better get teflon clothes. Frankly Apple doesn't know how to build
Sorry ;)
> computers. What they know is how to build a user friendly OS and make
> it integral to the hardware.
Yes, and the hardware is fantastic! I don't know what you want from the mac,
but have you seen the machines now, especially the tower series? What do you
call building computers????
But I don't want to get into a "yes they do, no they don't" argument.
> How many OS's can you run on your Mac? I
> have three on my 80x86, and could have many other's. OS/2, DOS, Win
> 3.1, Win95, Unix (in many variations), Pick OS
Again, how many do I _want_ to run? Or to be crude, so what?
I have, or can easily find, everything I need to be a molecular/cell biologist
using the Mac platform. (apart from data ;-)
And everyone in the lab prefers using the mac because
it's easier and faster to get things done. We had the choice just now whether
to get a (2nd hand) peecee for our platereader or a MacSE. The verdict was
unanimous; we went for the 8 yr old Mac. This is in a lab where the
'official' policy was to have ibm-compatibles only, no macs.
There are Unix emulators around for the Mac (or coming up), but _everyone_ at
this University has unlimited access to a central Unix box. I also have
access to OpenVMS on a DEC alpha. Every room in every building (except the
toilets ;) has an ethernet socket, so accessing these central machines is not
a problem. (Except, it seems, if you've got a peecee. This is not meant to be
provocative, but the Macs network a whole lot easier than the PCs. I've even
got a Mac at home on the dialin service that's connected via a PACE Mobifax
144 borrowed from a friend with a 486 - and the only software required to make
it run are the generic mac comms stuff - MacTCP, MacPPP and configPPP.)
Um, the point is, we don't need Unix on a desktop.
Phew, sorry, I didn't mean to go on. However, I felt it important to leap to
the defence of Apple because they make damn good machines that (generally -
with notable exception :-[ ) run fantastic software extremely well.
I'm a scientist, I don't really want to spend time in the insides of
computers (unless I get paid for it ;) - although I have to occasionally
because people get stuck.
Anyway, you keep to the stuff you're happy with, I'll keep to mine, and we'll
try not to make newbies too prejudiced... OK? :-)
Richard
