Mr Bartlett

On 2007-02-06 17:51:29 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) said:

> 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...

Neither do I. I'm off out in a minute, so my bothering will shortly
come to an end :-)

B;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

-Martin

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:53:01 +0100, Mr Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote:

>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?

How effectively are the two core processors used.

I'm waiting for Barbara to reply.

I'm waiting to see pointers to independent performance tests.
--

Martin

-Martin

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:54:34 +0100, Mr Bartlett <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2007-02-06 17:51:29 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
>chancellor (*)) said:
>
>> 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...
>
>Neither do I. I'm off out in a minute, so my bothering will shortly
>come to an end :-)

Are things so bad in Bartlett Towers? :-)

Enjoy your meal!
--

Martin

-Martin

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:53:25 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>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...

You are not what?

Hard core processors?
--

Martin

David Horne

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:53:25 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>
> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
> >> The overall performance depends on how effectively the two processors are
> >> used.
> >
> >You should stay off processors!
> >
> >I'm not commning either way...
>
> You are not what?

Good point- commenting. It's called "typing on the lappy while realising
that the train is just pulling into oxford road station." Quite what my
excuse is for the other times, I've yet to figure out!

--
(*) ... 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

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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."


What is the task ?

For PS, benchmarks show Macs faster, After Effects, the PC is getting
much closer.

jay
Tue Feb 06, 2007
mailto:[email protected]

B Vaughan

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)

I somehow don't a second processor would cost $1600.

I have a PC with 2 processors, 3 something Ghz each, but it's not a
brand name. It was assembled to order with the components I wanted.
And it cost less than $1000.

--
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

Jeremyrh Geo

On Feb 6, 8:20 pm, B Vaughan<[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)
>
> I somehow don't a second processor would cost $1600.

Then you simply don't know what you're talking about. Check the prices
of the processors alone.

In fact I don't doubt that with enough effort it's possible to find a
PC that is cheaper than an equivalently spec'ed Mac, but the point,
which you have so eloquently demonstrated, as Martin did before you,
is that it isn't enough to wander into PC World and pick up a random
box and expect it to be cheaper than a Mac.

B;

-JohnT

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
> On Feb 6, 8:20 pm, B Vaughan<[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)
>>
>> I somehow don't a second processor would cost $1600.
>
> Then you simply don't know what you're talking about. Check the prices
> of the processors alone.
>
> In fact I don't doubt that with enough effort it's possible to find a
> PC that is cheaper than an equivalently spec'ed Mac, but the point,
> which you have so eloquently demonstrated, as Martin did before you,
> is that it isn't enough to wander into PC World and pick up a random
> box and expect it to be cheaper than a Mac.

I suspect that Martin has forgotten today more about computers than the
typical computer consultant in PC World has managed to assimilate in his or
her (very rarely a her) total career with DSG Retail. The PC World Tech Guys
(their term) have a similar level of expertise to their consultant
colleagues.

JohnT

-Hh

[email protected] wrote:
>B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I somehow don't a second processor would cost $1600.
>
> Then you simply don't know what you're talking about. Check the prices
> of the processors alone.

The Core 2 duo's are around $200 each in batches (thousands or
higher). Which generally means that you'll have to wait for a
secondary supplier to repackage them and sell them at retail. YMMV on
what the unit markup would be, but its probably not going to be 800%
for long.

In any event, what I see as a bigger concern is that any asshole can
go cherry-pick their comparisons to try to "prove" their point, but
that hardly makes the exercise a fair and objective comparison.

For example, this asshole will ask: why wasn't the $1499 iMac 20"
chosen?

Afterall, it has the same CPU, RAM, HD and a little less video or ease
of internal expandability, but in compensation, it includes a built-in
iSight camera and has a smaller desk footprint. YMMV if this example
is "close enough" or not, but it does bring this Apple-vs-Dell
comparison to within roughly $100.


> In fact I don't doubt that with enough effort it's possible to find a
> PC that is cheaper than an equivalently spec'ed Mac, but the point,
> which you have so eloquently demonstrated, as Martin did before you,
> is that it isn't enough to wander into PC World and pick up a random
> box and expect it to be cheaper than a Mac.

This becomes even more the case when we find the OEM vs DIY assembly
comparisons, regardless of brand.

Yes, self-help can be a good thing, but the fallacy is that it takes
some nonzero portion of your free time to -- research, specify, buy,
receive, unpack, assemble, configure and troubleshoot -- this pile of
parts, and to conveniently neglect to account for the value of the
touch labor that you donated to yourself makes for a purposefully
invalid product comparison.

FWIW, for those that really want to argue that their free time is only
worth the $5 or $10 per hour that they're claiming in their DIY
builds, I have a hell of a lot of chores around my house that I'll
gladly pay for you to do at that low, low rate.


-hh

Deeply Filled Mortician

Let is be knownst that on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:04:12 -0800, Go Fig
<[email protected]> writted:

>In article <[email protected]>, Martin
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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."
>
>
>What is the task ?
>
>For PS, benchmarks show Macs faster, After Effects, the PC is getting
>much closer.

Photoshop? Oh come on, it's virtually married to the Mac!
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

-Martin

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:19:04 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:

>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:53:25 +0000, [email protected] (David Horne, _the_
>> chancellor (*)) wrote:
>>
>> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>[]
>> >> The overall performance depends on how effectively the two processors are
>> >> used.
>> >
>> >You should stay off processors!
>> >
>> >I'm not commning either way...
>>
>> You are not what?
>
>Good point- commenting. It's called "typing on the lappy while realising
>that the train is just pulling into oxford road station." Quite what my
>excuse is for the other times, I've yet to figure out!

An aberration, we all have them from time to time.
--

Martin

-Martin

On 6 Feb 2007 11:56:35 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>On Feb 6, 8:20 pm, B Vaughan<[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)
>>
>> I somehow don't a second processor would cost $1600.
>
>Then you simply don't know what you're talking about. Check the prices
>of the processors alone.
>
>In fact I don't doubt that with enough effort it's possible to find a
>PC that is cheaper than an equivalently spec'ed Mac, but the point,
>which you have so eloquently demonstrated, as Martin did before you,
>is that it isn't enough to wander into PC World and pick up a random
>box and expect it to be cheaper than a Mac.

I was caught out by a trick Dell advert that they should be ashamed of.

A Dell laptop is best in a Dutch PCM test this month. :-)

[ Macs weren't included in the test]
--

Martin

-Martin

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:48:43 -0000, "JohnT" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected] roups.com...
>> On Feb 6, 8:20 pm, B Vaughan<[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)
>>>
>>> I somehow don't a second processor would cost $1600.
>>
>> Then you simply don't know what you're talking about. Check the prices
>> of the processors alone.
>>
>> In fact I don't doubt that with enough effort it's possible to find a
>> PC that is cheaper than an equivalently spec'ed Mac, but the point,
>> which you have so eloquently demonstrated, as Martin did before you,
>> is that it isn't enough to wander into PC World and pick up a random
>> box and expect it to be cheaper than a Mac.
>
>I suspect that Martin has forgotten today more about computers than the
>typical computer consultant in PC World has managed to assimilate in his or
>her (very rarely a her) total career with DSG Retail. The PC World Tech Guys
>(their term) have a similar level of expertise to their consultant
>colleagues.

I confess to never having been in PC World, so that's one experience I haven't
had. I suspect John has a lot more experience than he has told us all about.
--

Martin

-Martin

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:04:12 -0800, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Martin
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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."
>
>
>What is the task ?
>
>For PS, benchmarks show Macs faster, After Effects, the PC is getting
>much closer.

Have you a pointer to the test results?
--

Martin