🚀 go-pugleaf

Martin Nisshagen <martin@mts.se> wrote:

>Chad Irby wrote:

>> The installed base of Macs has historically grown *faster* than the
>> increase in market share, or absolute sales numbers.  Macs tend to stay
>> in service *much* longer than Wintel boxes.  A 1987-era Mac II (or a Plus
>> or an SE) can run System 7.5 and most modern software.  A 1987-era Wintel
>> box is good for use as a fax server or a small hamster cage.

>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.

>-- 
>Martin Nisshagen
>MTS Technology, Sweden
>martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)

I think the whole thing comes down to backwards compatibility. Sure,
the mac classic will run 7.5, but I am not gonna live long enough to
wait for it to run any *useful* software (or to wait for anyone to
write any), so I run the dreaded Win '95. I run Linux by the side of
it, and can say from experience that Linux is the faster of the two
hands down. NOW, if MS or Apple, ir IBM, or Intel, or Motorola (should
I go on?) could drop all the backwards compatibility support,
EVERYTHING would run faster. But, we all know that's not gonna happen.
I just installed another 16 megs of ram (24 now) today, and am
completly satisfied with win '95's performance. (I definately wasn't
on 8)  It cost $400. Not a bad price. I now have an O/S I can live
with. The same is probably true for a Mac. If you don't have the money
to get the hardware you need, you are in the wrong line of work/hobby.
No amount of software can ever make up for having powerful hardware,
whether it be Motorola or Intel, or DEC.  No matter what O/S you put
on your Mac II, it'll never be a PPC *OR* a Pentium. 'nuff said.

Someone tell me to shut up.
Mark