On 9/29/2010 3:51 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> I always thought that it was the hardware that was faster -- because
> of fewer bottlenecks in a Mac setup, Chuck.
I dare you to explain that in technical terms and give me a concrete
example. :-)
>
> I reckon a good reason for me to continue using my Mac is its
> continued resistance to malware . . .
I accept that but its resistance to malware is mostly a function of not
being attacked very much due to low market share. But that will change
as Apple's market share increases (as it is doing)
>
> . . . oh, and the fact that the average Apple machine will last a
> couple of years longer than a Winders equivalent (but does that mean
> that I have to keep it longer to prove that? ;-))
Got any proof of that? I thought not. :-)
>
> Chris
>
> On 29 Sep 2010, at 20:23, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> The Mac folk I think are loathe to admit it but the Mac superiority
>> on performance over Windows is a "used to was" if it was ever much
>> at all. For some time now they've been running on basically the
>> same hardware. It's fun to rag on Microsoft (I like to do it as
>> well) but they've had some excellent OS designers in their stable
>> and they also own rights to all the patents from OS/2 development
>> days which includes all of the IBM patents plus many which they
>> created themselves. Furthermore, much of what constitutes good OS
>> design has been public domain for a long time. IBM's basic patents
>> on virtual memory hardware and operating systems expired about
>> 25-30 years ago.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|