🚀 go-pugleaf

David Salvador Flores wrote:

> >And an interpretation of that fact could be that the OS on the Mac still
> >isn't much better than it was in '87. They have a long way to even come
> >close to some decent OSes like OS/2, NT, Unix, BeOS etc. And if they ever
> >will, I'm quite sure that You won't be able to run it on your old Mac II. 
> Only if your definition of better is "requires faster hardware." And

That doesn't have to be true. NT has been proved to be faster than MacOS
on comparable PPC hardware. Still it isn't that MacOS is slower that's
the big problem. It's the handling of resources like memory, CPU etc who
is a mess compared with real OSes (like OS/2, BeOS, NT, Unix, VMS etc).

> when one compares the hardware requirements of 7.5 to those of Win 95,

Why compare one lousy OS with another? I don't consider Win95 to be a
well designed OS.

> one realizes very quickly how inadequate a definition that proves to be,

It's *your* definition. Not mine.

> since 7.5 is clearly the superior OS even though 95 barely runs on a
> 486 with 8 megs.

Uh... MacOS.... Win95... why debate wich who is the worst OS? Use something
better instead!
 
-- 
Martin Nisshagen
MTS Technology, Sweden
martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)