🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <30JUL199521455614@vms1.tamu.edu>, dfa3147@vms1.tamu.edu
(ALEXANDER, DYLAN FLYNN) wrote:

> In article <3vhe3g$fi2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, donrawlins@aol.com
(DonRawlins) writes...
> }Dan Pop writes...
> } 
> }>> There are lots of Mac's in the shops in Geneva, but (almost) everybody
> }>> is ignoring them and buying PC's.  
> } 
> }Precisely what I see in my area.
> } 
> }Early on the PPC consortium and its long winded advocates touted "order of
> }magnitude" class advantages that the PPC machines would enjoy over the
> }dated CISC architecture.  Intel didn't listen to that crap.  Rather, they
> }introduced a line of Pentium machines that beat the 601 outright in most
> }integer and application tests.  Now over a year later the "next
> }generation" 604 chip only delivers an average 20% better performance than
> }the aging Pentium for native applications.  The PPC601 was a flop.  And a
> }big reason is poor performance.  
> 
> Considering the bullshit you posted about Office performance on NT
> ppc machines, it doesn't surprise me you're deluded about 601 vs.
> P5 performance, too. With the notable (and important, I grant you)
> exception of Microsoft products, the vast majority of apps run
> faster on 601s compared to same clock pentiums. 
> 
> Dylan


Your ignorance of PPC is absolutely amazing. The 601 is as fast as a
100MHZ pentium. Are you not reading up on your articles and spec
measurements?