Senna was not as good at schumacher.
You would do well by placing a much needed 'imho - in my honest opinion' after statement's such as that because that is all it is, your OPINION! 
Please dont take any offense from this question but may I ask, exactly how long have you been following F1? The reason I ask this is because it will give all the other member's alittle insight about your opinion's because if you never witnessed Senna race first hand, tv or inperson, and only Schumacher how can your opinion of Senna be taken seriously?
since 1999 , bu i have dvds of every race since 1983.
That's cool bro and I was not giving you a hard time I hope you understand ?
A few thing's that I would like to point out though, and I am by NO MEAN'S supporting their view's over your's ok?
1: Chris aka McLaren Fan has a great deal more knowledge and year's under his belt when it come's to F1. Nothing against you though ok 
.
2: It is really awesome that you have those race's dating back to '83 as it give's you a true sense of what some of us witnessed first hand. Yet your 16yr difference/delay in following F1 has it's drawback's, if you had another 10+yr's under your belt, it would be a different story but it does not.
3: One thing you must accept and realize is that your opinion is just that, only an opinion. I personaly have been following F1 since the late '70's and McLaren Fan has atleast 10yr's on you.
My meaning is learn to accept other's opinion's and find a common ground on which you can agree on without turning a thread into a 'biatch fest'.
lol on a personal note, how old is everyone?
I think that you need to consider the differences in Senna and Schumacher's time.
In reality Schumacher (certainly from 2001-2004) was unchallenged in dominant machinery and driver calibre. The Alonso's and Raikkonen's were mearly learning their trades.
Hakkinen was gone, and Mclaren and Williams failed to deliver. Nobody bar over rated Jacques was in the field and was a WDC.
In Senna's time, he generally faced 3 other world Champions. Mansell, Prost and Piquet. Not to mention a lot of other quality drivers such as Patrese, Boutsen, Berger... etc etc etc.
I take nothing away from Damon Hill, but I do not rate him as one of the best. He was in the right place at the right time if you ask me. Though he fought hard in 1996, the slip ups of 1995 proved he couldn't be consistant enough.
Senna also raced in cars far less reliable than that of Schumachers era. That's why records were easily broken by Schumacher.
At End of the day, they were both stars of their eras. I really don't believethat there should be a question of "i've watched Formula One... *insert number of years*". People just need to understand the facts, and watch and read on what happened. I'm not calling myself an expert on formula 1, but I have watched if for the majority of my life, and have researched many areas of the sport. In hindsight history is a wonderful thing, means you can relieve the story with different schools of thought contributing to it.
I'll stop randomly going on, just to end with: Senna was one of the greats, but so was Schumacher.
And I hope nobody takes this with offence. I just feel that it doesn't matter how long you've been envolved in the love affair which is F1, as long as you understand the heritage and history of it.
