Bernd D. Ratsch wrote:
> They're slower than a 'Vette? (The Dakota's of course) ;)
I guarantee my Dak can outrun a 'Vette. Your Dak too. Just let me
choose the race course. Or, we could race underwater and let Tom beat
both of us.
> Seriously though...even PC Mag (and a few other PC Geek magazines) tested
> the new Mac vs. the higher-end PC machines (AMD and Intel).
Gee, that doesn't sound like it'll be biased at all.
> While the Mac is still (almost) King in the video department, the PC's are better in the
> rest of the benchmark tests...including application availability (not saying
> that the Mac doesn't have applications, but just look in the software aisles
> for yourself).
I don't run benchmarks for my daily tasks, I use real applications and
real data in real situations. And with the amount of benchmark
tampering that has been done on PCs (especially when it comes to
gaming), I have trouble putting any faith in them.
If the apps I need run acceptably, I don't care what the benchmarks say.
In fact, the 2.4GHz Dell I have at work runs like crap compared to the
1.33GHz beige box I have here at home (which hasn't been upgraded at all
in the 2+ years I've had it because it does everything I need). Maybe
if I was doing some ridiculously large number crunching it might make a
difference. But I'm not. And as far as I can tell, everything I
need/use I can get (or a suitable replacement for) on a Mac.
> Personally, I'd like to see them compare the new 64-Bit machines against the
> Mac's...WHO'S YOUR DADDY NOW! :)
Not really worth the time and effort until you have a full 64-bit OS
running on each.
-- -andyhttp://home.twcny.rr.com/andylevy/dakota - andy-dml@levyclan.us -------------------------------------------- "Whatever Adam does, do the opposite and you'll be fine" -Bob Tom --------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:47:07 EST