Oh I don't know, I guess we must win already, Skyler. PKRWUD can't support his position with a single fact at all while we've thrown benchmarks, and technical analysis at the Mac guru's.
XP isn't OS-X. It is FAR FAR superior to OS-X in almost every way, shape, and form. It's so much faster it's not even funny, it multitasks like new computers are used for, it has enhancements for burning DVD's and upgraded plug and play (apparently you've never used a proper plug 'n play O/S or else you'd know there is no joke about it). The Mac software you love so much is much more like server software in the way it runs it's programs, but it's so narrow minded, and old fashioned it's unable to keep up in the PC dominated market. It's like COBAL 85. Works great compared to COBOL 77, but it's totally inadaquate to do what people are doing with programs now-a-days.
Sorry, but just because you think your Mac processors are faster (might be faster because you can't actually test the processor with the O/S being so poor you can't have flattering or accurate results), doesn't mean the system is any better. Mac users are kinda like ricers. Their engine is really really fast, but they never want to race the domestics, and when they lose, they just talk about how much more hp per liter they have. In the end, it's run what ya brung, and the winner wins, the loser loses. No excuses, the Mac is just plain slow.
|