On Sun, 05 May 2002 10:27:04 -0700, newvideo@amug.org (Bill Davis) wrote:

> In the interests of not flogging this into oblivion, I'll just make one
>more comment - let David respond, and we'll call it quits (if he is so
>inclined.)

>> I agree - but I do wonder why you feel this very elaborate
>> defense is necessary... This was, after all, a simple,
>> apparently well-conducted comparison between Mac and PC
>> rendering speeds while doing real-world operations of
>> interest to videographers, reported in a videographers'
>> NG... This appears OK to me, if probably of marginal
>> importance to many.
[....]

>I fully understand the desire in many the people who want to take their
>time chasing down the "fastest" computers. It's like people who want to
>acquire the fastest cars. Sitting down at a hefty chunk of hardware
>provides us with a feeling of empowerment. Of control. Of being "cool"
>EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY PRACTICAL USE FOR THE EXTRA POWER. It's like
>buying a Maserati when all you do is drive to the store for groceries.
>Nothing patently WRONG with that, but most people would think it's kinda
>silly.
[rest of a post I agree with completely, deleted...]

Yes - I don't see the point of this post, though, since I
agreed with this point of view in our last exchange...;-)
Otherwise, I see no problem with equipment and software
comparisons in these NGs, especially since that is
partly what these NGs are for - and I present my own
camcorder-comparison findings (though many may find them
irrelevant or uninteresting - or even annoying...;-).
I took exception to objections to these comparisons
presented or referenced here as being patently absurd,
given the nature of these groups, the possible value
of the information, and the noticeable interest in these
comparisons...