Of course, getting an award from a rather poorly "high end" gaming magazine is not exactly in the same classification as getting an award from a magazine that matters to the people most likely to either deploy or use OOo. These type of magazines hand out awards like popcorn treats - yipee.
Chip On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:29:38 -0600, Robert Derman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian Lynch wrote: > > >On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 05:48, Robert Derman wrote: > > > > > > > >> This is particularly high praise when you know what really tough > >>critics the editors at /MaximumPC/ are. They don't think that any PC > >>below 3 GHz or the AMD equivalent is even worth sitting down at. > >> > >> > > > >Then they are stupid ;-) > > > >I am working at a 1 GHz Athlon and we build computers so if I thought it > >would make any difference to my productivity I'd upgrade it. For the > >tasks I do it would make no difference and just cost me money and more > >importantly time. > > > > > > > Robert Derman replies: Pay attention Ian, these people are not > concerned with costs, nor with what buisness or academic users need, > only with raw performance particularly with high end games! They will > never give a top score to a product for merely being the best of its > type, it must be significantly better than any competitor, and have at > least 1 major new innovation besides to score a 10! That's what I mean > by tough critics. > > -- "The reason the mainstream is considered a stream is because it's so shallow" --George Carlin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
