> It's not that Apple's IT sup****t is perfect, but simply you don't need
> it anywhere near as much.
Neither does modern versions of Windows. I agree with you for WinSuxx
95/98/ME (juk!).
> It depends greatly on what you're doing and how you measure it (most
> benchmark tests are ridiculous things that nobody in the real world
> actually does or does so occasionally that they wouldn't even notice
> their machine is "slower"), but it is often slower and more difficult
> to do actual work on a Windoze computer than it is on a Mac ... once
> you've learnt to use the Mac of course.
If the same application runs nearly 60% faster on P4 than on G5, I
surely use the P4. Especially if nearly all apps are doing so... I agree
that most benchmarks are useless figures, but if two G5's can't even
come close to one single P4, then there is something really wrong.
User interaction is of course also an im****tant issue in overall
performance, but once you configured Windows XP properly (i.e. getting
rid of the Pokemon user interface), it works pretty good. I have no
problems using OS-X either (or OS 9, although I prefer OS-X).
> It's the lowest-end model they make, so it's not very expanable and the
> specs are pretty hopeless for "power users", but it is a great machine
> for the average secretary, home user, etc.
For the same price, I can get a machine twice as fast (and sooooooooo
ugly, but that is general PC issue) with more RAM and a bigger HDD.
> The prices on Apple on almost everything Apple makes recently dropped,
> some of them quite significantly. You also have to remember that
> Apple's computers include things like Ethernet that are often missing
> from cheapo Windoze PCs.
You're not up to date. I can't think of any mainstream mainboard of the
past 3 years that hasn't ethernet. The only thing that is missing on a
lot of PC mainboards is firewire (on that point you're complete right,
USB 2 sucks for external harddrives!!!). Even mainboards of around EURO
50 have S-ATA, RAID, USB 2, gigabit LAN, etc.
Waldo
|
