🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <314523CE.5A79@mts.se>, Martin Nisshagen <martin@mts.se> wrote:

    Joe Ragosta wrote:
    
    > NT? Well, I guess if you want a system which is neither as stable as UNIX
    > nor as easy to use as MacOS, it's probably OK.
    
    As you don't have any problems with viritual memory, strange init conflicts,
    or have to fiddle with idiotic pre allocation of memory it's in real life
    a much less hassle and easier to use than MacOS.
    
    Stability of NT? I have under one and a half year *never* had even a single
    crash or lockup of it. In that time I did have one total crash of a Solaris 
    machine. I would say that NT is as stable as VMS is.
    
    Anyway VMS, NT, Unix, OS/2, Win95 has much better stability than any version
    of your MacOS. NO doubt about that.
    
    Best regards,
    
    m a r t i n  n
    
    -- 
    Martin Nisshagen          martin@mts.se (MIME 1.0)    "verdi + callas = 
    MTS Technology, Sweden    http://www.mts.se/martin     100% pleasure..."


Except for Win95 and the 'much' word, I accept your statement. In my
experience, VMS was very stable, no experience with OS/2 or NT, but unix
(SunOS) is no better than three times as reliable as MacOS. Unix may not
crash in the traditional sense of the word, but forced reboots, restarts
of windowing and lost X-windows connections are just as much of a hassle,
IMHO. 

On top of that, SunOS provides terrible bundled GUI software like textedit
and xterm. All in all, MacOS provides a much better (desktop) user
experience. 

Tom