🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <410nme$qct@bug.rahul.net> Bill Moyer, ttk@rahul.net writes:
>>Pixel USA clone.  And the Power Computing machine is a bit faster and has 
>>onsite service, to boot.
>
>  It *would* be faster, you mean, if it had an adequate OS.  A 486DX2/80
>running Linux or OS/2 in 16MB yields higher performance than a 32MB 100MHz 
>604 running MacOS or WNT.  If you don't believe me, then we can each time
>our systems and see how long each takes to compile the Linux kernel 100
>times.  :-)  Under MacOS it will take 100 times as long as it would to 
>compile it once.  Under WNT it will take less time, but swap like mad.
>Under Linux or OS/2, in half the memory, I can kick off all 100 compiles
>

That is a completely ignorant statement.  Have you ever actually tried
this?
Try to settle down your over-zealousness or something.  There is no way
that
a 486 would beat a 604 system configured as you say.  I don't care
whether it's
running Win NT, MacOS, or Windows if it existed.

Why don't you go benchmark it and then we can talk.

Have you ever really used a Macintosh for more than a minute?  Have you
used
NT for any period of time?

Thanks for adding more to the stupidity of usenet.

Steve Bakke
Computer Engineering
University of Cincinnati