Re: more on Macs

[J R FOX jr_fox@xxxxxxxxxx]

--- flash  wrote:

> 2. Macs are faster. No kidding. Really. Many
> independent tests have
> demonstrated this.
> One thing which put some people off Macs was
> that they appeared to
> be underpowered; they had less RAM and slower
> processors than pcs.
> Wrong. Don't be fooed by spec sheets. Macs with less
> 'power' than pcs,
> according to spec sheets, are still faster than pcs
> because they use
> memory differently (efficiently). PCs are
> brute-force machines; they try
> to solve all problems with more horsepower. Macs use
> finesse; clever use
> of resources. Like Xy.

Not looking to argue here, BUT:

I know people who use Macs -- one relative's family,
in particular -- and this does not entirely square
with what I have seen over there. I think they have
older G4 based machines, but would need to confirm
that. I've seen some document processing and
especially internet-related things just crawl on their
systems. For example, playing an audio-only podcast,
with numerous hiccups, stops, and re-starts.  The
P3/850 in my outdated tower can handle those same
files much better, without stumbling ! Some other
internet tasks were sub-par too, despite their having
cable modem service. They did have a few years foray
with one PC in the house, which had numerous *other*
problems (courtesy of Windoze itself), but not _those_
particular problems. I don't know how old or
underpowered the configuration of their Mac boxes may
have been, in terms of those common over the last
couple years.

Nevertheless, I know for a fact that they have *no
interest* in going back to Uncle Bill, regardless of
what processors the Macs happen to be using now.


 Jordan