Linked by Nicholas Blachford on Wed 9th Jul 2003 16:43 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



I must say, I am impressed at the way that you so quickly shifted the focus from heat and energy to the vast expense involved in Mac ownership!!
That would be because 90% of the post was about power consumption while half of the last sentence pointing out why it's not really an issue happened to mention Apple, right ?
A beautiful shift from one straw-man to the other.
None of my points (that there are low power x86 chips, that x86 chips using more power are also faster (as are ones using less power), that the figures reported on the motorola website are difficult to interpret and that there are no power consumption figures for the fast G4s Apple are using) could be described as strawmen.
Neither is the Macintosh cost issue, given pretty much the only PPC systems out there are Macs. And this discussion is about an article comparing PPCs to x86s.
(although I think California might disagree with you on the "Electricity is cheap" argument)
Compared to the price difference between a Mac and a PC, it is.
Again, a quite skillful sleight of hand, congrats!!!!
Hardly. I wasn't trying to deceive anyone, so how could I have done it sucessfully ?