You need to get out of the 80s and use a Mac. Remember the "Intel inside"
ads on TV? Designed and run on Macs. How about special effects in movies?
MAC.
A friend's brother works for Spielberg. They use Macs. Home use only? I
think not.
Their designers may run on Macs. But their infrastructure doesn't. I
didn't mean
to say that you will never see a Mac in business. Our argument seem to stem
around
home computing so I had skewed my remarks towards that faction of users.
Yes Mac
is in business. In fact you can walk into any store and look at their
Point-Of-Sale
system and see it's anything but a Mac. You can walk into a company and
look at that
companies network infrastructure and never find a Mac either. Macs are
great for graphics
and video related work. But use it for application development, database
front-end or any
other business use and you will RARELY see it used in this capacity.
>Windows has been multi-tasking for eons.
>Hate to disagree with you, but it has NOT been true multi tasking.
I am referring to Windows NT 3.1 and up. NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 2000 and
now XP all have been.
Multitasking since 1993. But even what Win9x was doing was better than what
Apple previously offered.
>Windows98 was released on June 25th 1998
>In mass production, or Beta? The big joke when 2000 came out was it would
be
>released in 2001.
And what was the big joke as to what shape and when OS-X would come out???
>match the ease of use of the Mac.
>Need I say more?
Match the capability/flexibility of a PC. Need I say more?
>
>Hate to tell you, but Windows runs on a DOS shell-it needs DOS to run. Boot
>up your machine...what boots first, and shows on the screen as booting?
DOS.
> So, what you are saying is Windows needs to be an antique. The only reason
>DOS is still there is for the programmers out there who want to say their
>desktop machine is like their mainframe.
>I run Windows 98 on my Mac-and its faster than a Wintel machine. And it can
>run in DOS, too.
Windows NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 2K, XP and Windows ME don't need it. Windows95
and Windows98 did.
Once again all about providing your users backwards-compatibility to slowly
migrate to the next platform
which is what we have seen with XP.
Speed??? Well, things are always changing in CPU's and you can't make a
direct Apple to Windows comparison so I don't use this as a buying point.
>750 mHz in RISC is faster than 750 mHz in CISC. Probably faster than 500
>mHz. That's why the military has been going to PowerPC processors.
Really bad argument using the military as an example... ;) Now everything
in the military isn't going to run a PowerPC chip. Besides, WindowsNT used
to support that platform but found that there wasn't any demand from the
marketplace
for it. Apparently supporting a seldom purchased, average performance white
elephant
didn't make much sense. Besides if you ever notice that comparable
applications that
run on an Intel CISC and some other RISC processor that the binaries that
comprise the
application are LARGER for the RISC processor. What functions the RISC
doesn't contain
built into the chip must be written in the software. So it maybe able to
get more done
in one clock cycle, it has more work to do in the first place. I had
supported RISC based
servers and Intel servers and quite honestly it felt sluggish when working
on the RISC boxes
in contrast to the CISC boxes. Either way debating about this is pointless
seen as Intel
is always marching out a faster CPU every quarter.
> They just need to plug it in and have it do work
>Sounds like they had "plug and play" first, too.
IBM PS/2's had a similar architecture to Plug & Play when the first debuted
around 1984/85.
But you are absolutely right that Microsoft was a long time behind in
bringing that feature
to the masses. And even now it isn't as seamless as what a Mac can do.
>To each their own, but Microsoft's marketing is faster than any computer's
>processor.
Yep, Microsoft is the master of the spin. But that is what Steve Jobs is
renowned for as well,
in addition to his mammoth ego.
>BTW, many applications come out on the Mac platform before the Windows
>version, such as Photoshop.
BTW many applications come out on the Windows that are never even considered
for the Mac.
>Debate is fun, no?
Absolutely. Got two different sides, with equal counterpoints.
DAK CONTENT:
need to put suspension bushings in-100k miles and the upper control arm
bushings are disintegrating. I'm a po' boy, and would like to do urethane
bushings if it is affordable.
I would really like to change all the bushings along with ball joints, etc
while I have it apart. The ball joints, etc show no signs of wear, but I
figure if I'm going to have it apart, I may as well put in new pieces.
Any suggestions along with URLs and/or prices?
TIA,
Jon
STL MO
92 V6 auto long bed 2WD
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:04:25 EDT