stem
  I


I've had the same experience actually. I love the Mac interface and any number
of the features, but am sorely dissapointed with the speed. I use macs daily
and am a Moc consultant for OSU Statistics department; I'm familiar with almost
every model out there, and my experience is that both the Amiga and the Atari
ST simply "blow the Mac out of the water" in terms of performance. At this time
I would in general say that the other advantages of the Mac outweigh the
advantages of the Amiga or the ST (and Falcon), but I really wish Apple would
get their heads together on speed... :-((((( They could take a real lesson in
muli-tasking from the Amiga OS or the MultiTOS in the Atari Falcons too :-(((

 > I'm still happy with my ci, but I don't understand why the performance is

I just hope that someone comes out with a machine that does *everything* well
someday. If I had my choice, I would go with Mac in most aspects, but add the
speed and superior Multi-Tasking of the other platforms.

As for the original topic; Trying to compare *just the chip* in a machine seems
almost worthless. A fast 386 with a wiz-bang graphics accelerator will be
faster in productivity for many applications than a even a stock Quadra. Add a
graphics accelerator to a 486 and you *really fly*. Of course, add one the the
Quadra and then you're blowing the 486 away... etc...


I think mine was only worth $0.01.......
---------------------------------------------------------------------->