🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <danpop.808872265@rscernix>, Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch (Dan Pop) wrote:

> I definitely get more work done on Linux than on MacOS, no matter how
> much faster the Mac processor is.  Your studies are worth zilch to me.

OK. I'll just take your word for it. I'm sure you've run a controlled
side-by-side study comparing MacOS to Linux. Have you ever even used a
Mac?

BTW, have you considered the fact that the applications that are used in
the real world aren't available on Linux? How does that affect
productivity?
> 
> And ask Microsoft advocates for studies proving the opposite.  I'm willing
> to bet there are plenty of them.  Who cares?  Each individual is different
> from the mythical "average user", whether the definition of the average
> user is coming from Microsoft or Apple.

1. I have asked for MS studies, and so have many other people. There is no
study which shows that MS Windows even matches the Mac in ease of use,
much less surpasses it. Don't you think someone would post it here if it
existed?

2. The AD Little study actually made an effort to define experienced
users. You can quibble with their methods, but I would believe a billion
dollar management consultant's work before I'd believe yours.

> 
> >Besides, if the MacOS is so slow, can you explain why the PowerMac 9500
> >was approximately twice as fast as a fast Pentium in side-by-side
> >application tests?
> 
> That's easy.  What OS was the Pentium running?  What applications were
> involved in the tests?  You can prove anything you want to prove by using
> "real world" applications.  All you have to do is to choose the applications
> according to what you want to prove.  This is why the industry recognizes
> the SPEC suites and not "side-by-side application tests" as a measure of
> performance.  Get a clue.

Bullshit. No one buys a computer to run SPEC suites. They buy computers to
run applications. How fast the computer runs the applications you use is
the impotrant issue. You could argue about which applications to test and
that's OK. The best test for someone contemplating buying a computer is to
test the applications they're going to be running (which probably doesn't
included SPEC).

This has been done by a number of computer magazines and independent labs.
In all cases, the PowerMac 9500 was approximately twice the speed of a
fast Pentium. If you're running Excel, the difference will be about 15%.
If you're running Photoshop, it will be >>100%.

If you're so concerned about the effect of OS on the Pentium, where are
your studies showing that OS/2, NT, or Linux are so much faster? Do you
really believe that your favorite OS will make up for a 2X difference
between a Pentium running WIndows and a PowerMac?

-- 
 ------------------------------------------------
 Regards,
 Joe Ragosta
 docjoe@interramp.com

 100% Chemical -- and proud of it.

 Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995

 License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.

 Any network provider not owned or operated in whole or in part by Microsoft may use this message at no charge.