It's not. If the machines we use to test performance increase it will
be on all platforms. I just know the numbers for Windows off the top of
my head and not the exact machine for a Mac.
Scott
leif wrote:
> Since it was only FMI, this is perhaps nothign to discuss.. But, I
> would of course disagree with that... why should a stronger Mac be
> required than a ditto Intel machine?
>
> Leif
>
> Scott Putterman wrote:
>
>> FYI, there's talk of changing the target to be a 300MHz machine
>> instead of a 133. I think we might change the memory to 128MB as well.
>
>
>> leif wrote:
>>
>>> Be careful. Irony is difficult to understand ;-)
>>>
>>> I had a look at the Mac page and I was deligted to see that my own
>>> machine is stronger than the test machine mentioned there. Which I
>>> found promising.Or at least it made me hopeful.
>>>
>>> Leif
>>>
>>> Scott Putterman wrote:
>>>
>>>> thanks for the feedback. it's helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> Eugene Savitsky wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ....>>
>>>
>>>>> Mda... Not very impressive... :(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
