PlastiC Mac
Feb 5th 2007 | 10:26 pm
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 12:28:12 +0100, Deeply Filled Mortician
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>Let is be knownst that on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:38:26 +0100, Martin
><[email protected]> writted:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:25:21 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, B Vaughan
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>>>
>>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>>>> generally have less computing power. But my first gut instinct when I
>>>> saw one was that I hated this thing. The ad slogan then was, "You
>>>> already know how to use it." My retort was, "...because it doesn't do
>>>> much of anything." In those days, PCs ran DOS and didn't have any sort
>>>> of GUI.
>>>
>>>That slogan was NOT in existence w/ PCs ran DOS.
>>>
>>>Macs do NOT have less computing power than PCs, they have more.
>>
>>It depends on which models of Macs and PCs you are comparing..
>>
>>Perhaps you would like to tell us?
>
>Note he said 'computing power', which could in effect mean anything.
First the models and then what he means.
--
Martin
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>Let is be knownst that on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:38:26 +0100, Martin
><[email protected]> writted:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:25:21 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, B Vaughan
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>>>
>>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>>>> generally have less computing power. But my first gut instinct when I
>>>> saw one was that I hated this thing. The ad slogan then was, "You
>>>> already know how to use it." My retort was, "...because it doesn't do
>>>> much of anything." In those days, PCs ran DOS and didn't have any sort
>>>> of GUI.
>>>
>>>That slogan was NOT in existence w/ PCs ran DOS.
>>>
>>>Macs do NOT have less computing power than PCs, they have more.
>>
>>It depends on which models of Macs and PCs you are comparing..
>>
>>Perhaps you would like to tell us?
>
>Note he said 'computing power', which could in effect mean anything.
First the models and then what he means.
--
Martin
Feb 5th 2007 | 10:28 pm
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
Let is be knownst that on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:38:26 +0100, Martin
<[email protected]> writted:
>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:25:21 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, B Vaughan
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>>
>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>>> generally have less computing power. But my first gut instinct when I
>>> saw one was that I hated this thing. The ad slogan then was, "You
>>> already know how to use it." My retort was, "...because it doesn't do
>>> much of anything." In those days, PCs ran DOS and didn't have any sort
>>> of GUI.
>>
>>That slogan was NOT in existence w/ PCs ran DOS.
>>
>>Macs do NOT have less computing power than PCs, they have more.
>
>It depends on which models of Macs and PCs you are comparing..
>
>Perhaps you would like to tell us?
Note he said 'computing power', which could in effect mean anything.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
<[email protected]> writted:
>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:25:21 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, B Vaughan
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>>
>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>>> generally have less computing power. But my first gut instinct when I
>>> saw one was that I hated this thing. The ad slogan then was, "You
>>> already know how to use it." My retort was, "...because it doesn't do
>>> much of anything." In those days, PCs ran DOS and didn't have any sort
>>> of GUI.
>>
>>That slogan was NOT in existence w/ PCs ran DOS.
>>
>>Macs do NOT have less computing power than PCs, they have more.
>
>It depends on which models of Macs and PCs you are comparing..
>
>Perhaps you would like to tell us?
Note he said 'computing power', which could in effect mean anything.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Feb 5th 2007 | 11:23 pm
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
On 5 feb, 16:00, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
Apart from the obvious inaccuracies in the article (one button mouse,
more expensive, etc etc etc) the problem with this little rant is that
it just isn't very funny. You could have got a better laugh by cutting
and pasting any of DFM's Mac-phobic ramblings from the last month or
so.
B;
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
Apart from the obvious inaccuracies in the article (one button mouse,
more expensive, etc etc etc) the problem with this little rant is that
it just isn't very funny. You could have got a better laugh by cutting
and pasting any of DFM's Mac-phobic ramblings from the last month or
so.
B;
Feb 5th 2007 | 11:24 pm
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>
> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
> generally have less computing power.
Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
make a more convincing case than he did?
B;
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>
> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
> generally have less computing power.
Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
make a more convincing case than he did?
B;
Feb 5th 2007 | 11:25 pm
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
On 6 feb, 12:28, Deeply Filled Mortician
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
> Let is be knownst that on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:38:26 +0100, Martin
> <[email protected]> writted:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:25:21 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>In article <[email protected]>, B Vaughan
> >><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>
> >>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
> >>> generally have less computing power. But my first gut instinct when I
> >>> saw one was that I hated this thing. The ad slogan then was, "You
> >>> already know how to use it." My retort was, "...because it doesn't do
> >>> much of anything." In those days, PCs ran DOS and didn't have any sort
> >>> of GUI.
>
> >>That slogan was NOT in existence w/ PCs ran DOS.
>
> >>Macs do NOT have less computing power than PCs, they have more.
>
> >It depends on which models of Macs and PCs you are comparing..
>
> >Perhaps you would like to tell us?
>
> Note he said 'computing power', which could in effect mean anything.
As did you.
As did (originally) Babs.
B;
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
> Let is be knownst that on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:38:26 +0100, Martin
> <[email protected]> writted:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:25:21 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>In article <[email protected]>, B Vaughan
> >><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>
> >>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
> >>> generally have less computing power. But my first gut instinct when I
> >>> saw one was that I hated this thing. The ad slogan then was, "You
> >>> already know how to use it." My retort was, "...because it doesn't do
> >>> much of anything." In those days, PCs ran DOS and didn't have any sort
> >>> of GUI.
>
> >>That slogan was NOT in existence w/ PCs ran DOS.
>
> >>Macs do NOT have less computing power than PCs, they have more.
>
> >It depends on which models of Macs and PCs you are comparing..
>
> >Perhaps you would like to tell us?
>
> Note he said 'computing power', which could in effect mean anything.
As did you.
As did (originally) Babs.
B;
Feb 6th 2007 | 1:34 am
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
Let is be knownst that on 6 Feb 2007 04:25:52 -0800,
[email protected] writted:
>On 6 feb, 12:28, Deeply Filled Mortician
><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>> Let is be knownst that on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:38:26 +0100, Martin
>> <[email protected]> writted:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:25:21 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>In article <[email protected]>, B Vaughan
>> >><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>
>> >>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>> >>> generally have less computing power. But my first gut instinct when I
>> >>> saw one was that I hated this thing. The ad slogan then was, "You
>> >>> already know how to use it." My retort was, "...because it doesn't do
>> >>> much of anything." In those days, PCs ran DOS and didn't have any sort
>> >>> of GUI.
>>
>> >>That slogan was NOT in existence w/ PCs ran DOS.
>>
>> >>Macs do NOT have less computing power than PCs, they have more.
>>
>> >It depends on which models of Macs and PCs you are comparing..
>>
>> >Perhaps you would like to tell us?
>>
>> Note he said 'computing power', which could in effect mean anything.
>
>As did you.
I was being fascetious. Again.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
[email protected] writted:
>On 6 feb, 12:28, Deeply Filled Mortician
><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>> Let is be knownst that on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:38:26 +0100, Martin
>> <[email protected]> writted:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:25:21 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>In article <[email protected]>, B Vaughan
>> >><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>
>> >>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>> >>> generally have less computing power. But my first gut instinct when I
>> >>> saw one was that I hated this thing. The ad slogan then was, "You
>> >>> already know how to use it." My retort was, "...because it doesn't do
>> >>> much of anything." In those days, PCs ran DOS and didn't have any sort
>> >>> of GUI.
>>
>> >>That slogan was NOT in existence w/ PCs ran DOS.
>>
>> >>Macs do NOT have less computing power than PCs, they have more.
>>
>> >It depends on which models of Macs and PCs you are comparing..
>>
>> >Perhaps you would like to tell us?
>>
>> Note he said 'computing power', which could in effect mean anything.
>
>As did you.
I was being fascetious. Again.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Feb 6th 2007 | 1:35 am
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
Let is be knownst that on 6 Feb 2007 04:23:21 -0800,
[email protected] writted:
>On 5 feb, 16:00, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>
>Apart from the obvious inaccuracies in the article (one button mouse,
>more expensive, etc etc etc) the problem with this little rant is that
>it just isn't very funny. You could have got a better laugh by cutting
>and pasting any of DFM's Mac-phobic ramblings from the last month or
>so.
No, that wasn't me.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
[email protected] writted:
>On 5 feb, 16:00, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>
>Apart from the obvious inaccuracies in the article (one button mouse,
>more expensive, etc etc etc) the problem with this little rant is that
>it just isn't very funny. You could have got a better laugh by cutting
>and pasting any of DFM's Mac-phobic ramblings from the last month or
>so.
No, that wasn't me.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Feb 6th 2007 | 2:54 am
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
In article <[email protected]>, Deeply Filled
Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
> Let is be knownst that on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:38:26 +0100, Martin
> <[email protected]> writted:
>
> >On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:25:21 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <[email protected]>, B Vaughan
> >><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
> >>>
> >>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
> >>> generally have less computing power. But my first gut instinct when I
> >>> saw one was that I hated this thing. The ad slogan then was, "You
> >>> already know how to use it." My retort was, "...because it doesn't do
> >>> much of anything." In those days, PCs ran DOS and didn't have any sort
> >>> of GUI.
> >>
> >>That slogan was NOT in existence w/ PCs ran DOS.
> >>
> >>Macs do NOT have less computing power than PCs, they have more.
> >
> >It depends on which models of Macs and PCs you are comparing..
> >
> >Perhaps you would like to tell us?
>
> Note he said 'computing power', which could in effect mean anything.
Not my choice of terms.
More important than the models, is the standard they are tested against.
jay
Tue Feb 06, 2007
mailto:[email protected]
Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
> Let is be knownst that on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:38:26 +0100, Martin
> <[email protected]> writted:
>
> >On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:25:21 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <[email protected]>, B Vaughan
> >><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
> >>>
> >>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
> >>> generally have less computing power. But my first gut instinct when I
> >>> saw one was that I hated this thing. The ad slogan then was, "You
> >>> already know how to use it." My retort was, "...because it doesn't do
> >>> much of anything." In those days, PCs ran DOS and didn't have any sort
> >>> of GUI.
> >>
> >>That slogan was NOT in existence w/ PCs ran DOS.
> >>
> >>Macs do NOT have less computing power than PCs, they have more.
> >
> >It depends on which models of Macs and PCs you are comparing..
> >
> >Perhaps you would like to tell us?
>
> Note he said 'computing power', which could in effect mean anything.
Not my choice of terms.
More important than the models, is the standard they are tested against.
jay
Tue Feb 06, 2007
mailto:[email protected]
Feb 6th 2007 | 3:13 am
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:54:54 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Deeply Filled
>Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>
>> Let is be knownst that on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:38:26 +0100, Martin
>> <[email protected]> writted:
>>
>> >On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:25:21 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <[email protected]>, B Vaughan
>> >><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>> >>>
>> >>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>> >>> generally have less computing power. But my first gut instinct when I
>> >>> saw one was that I hated this thing. The ad slogan then was, "You
>> >>> already know how to use it." My retort was, "...because it doesn't do
>> >>> much of anything." In those days, PCs ran DOS and didn't have any sort
>> >>> of GUI.
>> >>
>> >>That slogan was NOT in existence w/ PCs ran DOS.
>> >>
>> >>Macs do NOT have less computing power than PCs, they have more.
>> >
>> >It depends on which models of Macs and PCs you are comparing..
>> >
>> >Perhaps you would like to tell us?
>>
>> Note he said 'computing power', which could in effect mean anything.
>
>Not my choice of terms.
>
>More important than the models, is the standard they are tested against.
Would you like to fully define what you meant when you said "Macs do NOT have
less computing power than PCs, they have more."
--
Martin
>In article <[email protected]>, Deeply Filled
>Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>
>> Let is be knownst that on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:38:26 +0100, Martin
>> <[email protected]> writted:
>>
>> >On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:25:21 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <[email protected]>, B Vaughan
>> >><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>> >>>
>> >>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>> >>> generally have less computing power. But my first gut instinct when I
>> >>> saw one was that I hated this thing. The ad slogan then was, "You
>> >>> already know how to use it." My retort was, "...because it doesn't do
>> >>> much of anything." In those days, PCs ran DOS and didn't have any sort
>> >>> of GUI.
>> >>
>> >>That slogan was NOT in existence w/ PCs ran DOS.
>> >>
>> >>Macs do NOT have less computing power than PCs, they have more.
>> >
>> >It depends on which models of Macs and PCs you are comparing..
>> >
>> >Perhaps you would like to tell us?
>>
>> Note he said 'computing power', which could in effect mean anything.
>
>Not my choice of terms.
>
>More important than the models, is the standard they are tested against.
Would you like to fully define what you meant when you said "Macs do NOT have
less computing power than PCs, they have more."
--
Martin
Feb 6th 2007 | 3:18 am
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
On 6 Feb 2007 04:24:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>
>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>> generally have less computing power.
>
>Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
>make a more convincing case than he did?
From the Apple Store:
Mac Pro
2 GHz processor
1 GB RAM
250 GB hard drive
NVIDIA Graphics
20" monitor
16x dual layer DVD
Airport XTheme Wifi
PRICE $2948
From Dell computer web site:
Dell Dimension E521
Windows Vista Home Premium OS
2.13 Ghz Intel Duo E6400 processor
1 GB RAM
250 GB hard drive
20" monitor
similar DVD read/write
NVIDIA graphics, similar capacities
Netgear Wireless Broadband Router
PRICE $1377
You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
>On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>
>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>> generally have less computing power.
>
>Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
>make a more convincing case than he did?
From the Apple Store:
Mac Pro
2 GHz processor
1 GB RAM
250 GB hard drive
NVIDIA Graphics
20" monitor
16x dual layer DVD
Airport XTheme Wifi
PRICE $2948
From Dell computer web site:
Dell Dimension E521
Windows Vista Home Premium OS
2.13 Ghz Intel Duo E6400 processor
1 GB RAM
250 GB hard drive
20" monitor
similar DVD read/write
NVIDIA graphics, similar capacities
Netgear Wireless Broadband Router
PRICE $1377
You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
Feb 6th 2007 | 3:44 am
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
On 2007-02-06 17:18:17 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> said:
> On 6 Feb 2007 04:24:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>>
>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>>> generally have less computing power.
>>
>> Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
>> make a more convincing case than he did?
[...]
> You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
Makes sense. For a start the Mac Pro has TWO processors. (And faster ones)
B;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG
> On 6 Feb 2007 04:24:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>>
>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>>> generally have less computing power.
>>
>> Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
>> make a more convincing case than he did?
[...]
> You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
Makes sense. For a start the Mac Pro has TWO processors. (And faster ones)
B;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG
Feb 6th 2007 | 3:51 am
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
Mr Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2007-02-06 17:18:17 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> said:
>
> > On 6 Feb 2007 04:24:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
> >>>
> >>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
> >>> generally have less computing power.
> >>
> >> Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
> >> make a more convincing case than he did?
>
> [...]
>
> > You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
>
> Makes sense. For a start the Mac Pro has TWO processors. (And faster ones)
There's going to be another core duo two duo core two moment anytime
soon. One reason I'm not getting into any of this rubbish. The only
comments I made in this thread was about a non-mac-specific issue that I
happened to agree with. I don't know why you bother...
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
> On 2007-02-06 17:18:17 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> said:
>
> > On 6 Feb 2007 04:24:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
> >>>
> >>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
> >>> generally have less computing power.
> >>
> >> Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
> >> make a more convincing case than he did?
>
> [...]
>
> > You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
>
> Makes sense. For a start the Mac Pro has TWO processors. (And faster ones)
There's going to be another core duo two duo core two moment anytime
soon. One reason I'm not getting into any of this rubbish. The only
comments I made in this thread was about a non-mac-specific issue that I
happened to agree with. I don't know why you bother...
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Feb 6th 2007 | 3:51 am
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:44:53 +0100, Mr Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2007-02-06 17:18:17 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> said:
>
>> On 6 Feb 2007 04:24:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>>>
>>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>>>> generally have less computing power.
>>>
>>> Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
>>> make a more convincing case than he did?
>
>[...]
>
>> You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
>
>Makes sense. For a start the Mac Pro has TWO processors. (And faster ones)
The overall performance depends on how effectively the two processors are used.
--
Martin
>On 2007-02-06 17:18:17 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> said:
>
>> On 6 Feb 2007 04:24:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>>>
>>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>>>> generally have less computing power.
>>>
>>> Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
>>> make a more convincing case than he did?
>
>[...]
>
>> You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
>
>Makes sense. For a start the Mac Pro has TWO processors. (And faster ones)
The overall performance depends on how effectively the two processors are used.
--
Martin
Feb 6th 2007 | 3:53 am
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
On 2007-02-06 17:51:39 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> said:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:44:53 +0100, Mr Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-02-06 17:18:17 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> said:
>>
>>> On 6 Feb 2007 04:24:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>>>>> generally have less computing power.
>>>>
>>>> Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
>>>> make a more convincing case than he did?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
>>
>> Makes sense. For a start the Mac Pro has TWO processors. (And faster ones)
>
> The overall performance depends on how effectively the two processors are used.
Err ... yes ... obviously.
Your point being?
B;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:44:53 +0100, Mr Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-02-06 17:18:17 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> said:
>>
>>> On 6 Feb 2007 04:24:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
>>>>> generally have less computing power.
>>>>
>>>> Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
>>>> make a more convincing case than he did?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
>>
>> Makes sense. For a start the Mac Pro has TWO processors. (And faster ones)
>
> The overall performance depends on how effectively the two processors are used.
Err ... yes ... obviously.
Your point being?
B;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG
Feb 6th 2007 | 3:53 am
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: PlastiC Mac
Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:44:53 +0100, Mr Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 2007-02-06 17:18:17 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> said:
> >
> >> On 6 Feb 2007 04:24:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
> >>>>
> >>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
> >>>> generally have less computing power.
> >>>
> >>> Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
> >>> make a more convincing case than he did?
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
> >
> >Makes sense. For a start the Mac Pro has TWO processors. (And faster ones)
>
> The overall performance depends on how effectively the two processors are
> used.
You should stay off processors!
I'm not commning either way...
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:44:53 +0100, Mr Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 2007-02-06 17:18:17 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> said:
> >
> >> On 6 Feb 2007 04:24:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5 feb, 21:45, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:41 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006031,00.html
> >>>>
> >>>> I've always hated MACs too. They're more expensive for starters, and
> >>>> generally have less computing power.
> >>>
> >>> Martin made the same claim not so long ago. Why not see if you can
> >>> make a more convincing case than he did?
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> You could get two of them for one Mac and have money left over!
> >
> >Makes sense. For a start the Mac Pro has TWO processors. (And faster ones)
>
> The overall performance depends on how effectively the two processors are
> used.
You should stay off processors!
I'm not commning either way...
--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
