Article View: comp.sys.powerpc
Article #1936Re: Debate: PowerMac "trounces" Pentium....???
From: Chilton Webb
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 02:13
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 02:13
42 lines
2695 bytes
2695 bytes
In article <DE6IBt.C87@news.hawaii.edu>, phinely@uhunix4.its.Hawaii.Edu (Peter Hinely) wrote: > In article <41vjqr$cr2@meaddata.meaddata.com> christw@meaddata.com (Christopher C. Wood) writes: > >In article <41qbde$36p@feenix.metronet.com>, dcorn@metronet.com (David Corn) writes: > > > >|> This is true, but when you consider that of those 600 apps you'll > >|> probably only really need about 50 of them, it isn't quite that bad. > >|> Granted, though, that Win boxes have far better and more software > >|> available. One area I find Macs lacking is in TCP/IP tools. :( > >|> They're really nice, but the Win utils are better. > > > >Such as? MacPPP/MacTCP was a lot easier to set up than WinSock PPP. > >Many Mac internet apps use Internet Config to centralize shared > >information. Netscape is Netscape; which WWW browser do you like > >better? > > As a developer for both platforms, I would have to say we (the company I work for) like the Mac better in the area of TCP/IP tools. Hands down. Why? The instruction manual for our Internet Kit that works under windows3.1/win95 is about 5x longer and incrementally more complicated than the Mac version. Plus, the NECESSARY parts of the program take up twice as many disks as the full Macintosh version, and we still haven't worked out all the kinks yet. Matter of fact, we have been held up for over 6 months trying to work out those kinks. Tuesday, we will be meeting to decide whether or not to go with a PC version at all. I don't think we will. The Win95 architecture is too unstable for the throughput that we want, we have had difficulty with Microsoft in using their name, and personally, I am tired of F'n with "Loser95." And I know we aren't the only company dropping the arc. On a more positive note, the Macintosh is a breeze to work with, we can count on help from Apple, and we know that ALL of the Macs will be able to run our software when we are done. I know, please stop bashing '95, but I'm sorry. The cards are on the table. Win95 lost. Sinc, Chilton
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<jcw0372-0309952013010001@ppp02-09.rns.tamu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!ppp02-09.rns.tamu.edu!userReferences:
<DDyt8p.5G6@dorsai.org> <41qbde$36p@feenix.metronet.com> <41vjqr$cr2@meaddata.meaddata.com> <DE6IBt.C87@news.hawaii.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!ppp02-09.rns.tamu.edu!user From: jcw0372@tamsun.tamu.edu (Chilton Webb) Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,alt.2600 Subject: Re: Debate: PowerMac "trounces" Pentium....??? Date: Sun, 03 Sep 1995 20:13:01 -0600 Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX Message-ID: <jcw0372-0309952013010001@ppp02-09.rns.tamu.edu> References: <DDyt8p.5G6@dorsai.org> <41qbde$36p@feenix.metronet.com> <41vjqr$cr2@meaddata.meaddata.com> <DE6IBt.C87@news.hawaii.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp03-12.rns.tamu.edu