jquinn at nntp.best.com
Mon Jul 1 08:54:27 EST 1996
Scott Delinger (Scott.Delinger at ualberta.ca) wrote:
: In article <31C977BB.1AA7 at ibex.ca>, Achim Recktenwald <achim at ibex.ca> wrote:
: >The Mac might be easier to use, but you pay ~2x as much as for the same
: power on an IBM-clone.
: Absolute rot. I have a Mac on my desk, for $3000 that the equivalent PC
: would cost at least $5000. I think you forgot to put a 3 in the
: denominator of your ~2x (~2x/3).
Maybe Canada has real price breaks on Macs, but I doubt it. The big
drawback with the mac is currently the operating system, which simply
doesn't hold a candle to Win95, letalone NT. Not only is the Mac OS
incapable of true pre-emptive multitasking, but it's handling of virtual
memory is terrible (ie. non-existant). If this wasn't bad enough, unless
extremely well set with tons of memory (eg. 32+), they can frequently
crash. There are extremely good reasons for buying a Mac, principally for
its interface, which a lot of people have grown up with (leastways here in
the US). Also, computer illiterates find them easier to deal with. No one
with any experience in this area would suggest that they are cost
effective in terms of computing power or hardware costs. That is simply
not the case.
More information about the Bio-soft