🚀 go-pugleaf

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

> In <docjoe-1808952118480001@ip198.wilmington.de.interramp.com>
docjoe@interramp.com (Joe Ragosta) writes:

> >Which is why published studies demonstrate that the user has a 50% higher
> >productivity and 50% higher accuracy using a Mac than a Windows machine.
> >And Mac support costs are thousands less. And so on. Who cares about
> >computer speed when the real issue is how much work you can get done?
> 
> 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.

And I definately get more work done on MacOS than UNIX, which just goes to
show that your individual cases are worthless. Let's look at the majority
of users - I'll give them MacOS, you give them Linux - we'll see who gets
more work done. That's the basis of the argument - that for *most people*,
MacOS is better. Certainly UNIX is better for some, and DOS, and Windows,
and AmigaDOS but for most people, MacOS is probably the best choice.

> 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.

We have. I have asked, oh, I forget how many times now. I'll ask again. 

Can anybody in any of the above groups which have to suffer through this
crap give us any study that shows that Windows or DOS is more productive
than MacOS?

> 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.

But nobody runs SPEC. SPEC is great if you want to design something for
the hardware, not compare complete systems (apps, OS, and all). So fine,
PPC is 30% faster than x86 right now. Why is SPEC a good measure for the
95% of the population that work with a system that SPEC is invalid for?

> BTW, there is no ideal way to test the performance of a machine as a 
> general purpose system.  It just happens that the SPEC benchmarks are
> the best we have right now.  But they show the PPC to be too slow and
> the Pentium to be too fast for the Mac bigot's tastes, so let's screw them
> and go back to side-by-side application tests performed with a carefully
> chosen application set.

Sure there are good tests. Application tests are good. Take the top
selling 10 software packages that are available commonly for each platform
and compare them. That's what people are buying and thats what people are
running. How about it? The users pick the app set, deliver on what they
buy.

-- 
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine