🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <30F150BC.6D8D@mts.se>, Martin Nisshagen  <martin@mts.se> wrote:
>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).

Alas, these OS's may be nice choices for hardcore programmers and
such, but there are those of us for whom computers are a tool,
not a job, or a way of life. For us three things matter (1) It
must have plenty of decent, affordable software. (2) It should
be simple to use. (3) It should be common enough a machine that
one's documents can be shared with others or edited on their
machines.

None of the OS's above meet the criteria as well as Mac OS and
Windows (3.1-95). And of the above criteria, windows exceeds
Mac OS only in the third.

>
>> 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.

Not really, you were interpreting the fact that the mac OS still
runs on an SE/30 (or was it a plus?) to mean that it hasn't really 
gotten much better. That certainly implies that the true measure of an OS's
progress (and thus, capabilities) can be ascertained by measuring the 
bloody trail of obsolete hardware it leaves in its wake.

>
>> 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!

Because I actually want to get things done. Quite frankly, as your
"average user" I want a machine that I can use to write papers, play
games, telecommunicate with, Occasional OCR, some CD-Roms....

With my Mac I can pop into my unix account, check e-mail, open up
Macwrite Pro, pop in the Groliers encyclopaedia to check a reference,
then switch it for a music CD, all at once, without thinking twice. I 
have very few crashes. I can't even guess at how many crashes I have
a week, because they're just too infrequent. And it literally blows
my mind that I can use Macwrite Pro on the SE in our office, and
that my Girlfriend uses Word 5.1 on her Mac plus! And switching between
the different environments is a no brainer. Apple got the interface
pretty much right the first time, everything else has been refinements.

For me its gotta be a Mac. I can't imagine using a gui like Windows 
where documents and applications can't be moved about and
accesed in the same way. When windows changes this, then *maybe*
the PC game selection will cause me to wet my chops a bit, but
certainly not before then. (The whole idea of windows that are stuck
inside other windows also gives me the willies)

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


-Dave