🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <nevin-2003961409580001@mac-nevin.cs.arizona.edu>,
Nevin ":-]" Liber <nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>In article <4in381$ri9@steel.interlog.com>, daveacg@interlog.com (Dave
>Glue) wrote:
>
>> You mean in 1991, the Mac OS could dynamically allocate memory to apps
>> without the user "specifying" how much memory each apps needs by
>> him/herself?
>
>On the flip side, Unix users have to set process limits so that things
>like Netscape don't bring the whole machine to a snail's pace.  As a user

Wow, I've never set any process limit and used Netscape extensively last
summer.  Of course it was version 1.x.  2.0 has no new features that
impress me and tons of features like frames that just plain annoy me.
If I want Java then I'll run HotJava.

>level feature, there is no difference between having to set the amount of
>memory a Mac app uses (plus most Mac apps gracefully handle low memory
>situations) and having to set the amount of memory that a Unix app can use
>(and most Unix apps just crash in low memory situations).  They are for
>different purposes, but good luck convincing 90% of the users that they
>are different concepts.
>
>> Get a clue, there's more to an OS than a GUI.
>
>But, without a good interface, it just doesn't matter.  For some reason,
>the so-called technically superior OSes have the worst sales.

Of course they do.  They're written by people who care more about the
underlying OS than its interface and ease of use.

>        Nevin ":-)" Liber       nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU    (520) 293-2799

I've never understood the smiley in your name.  For someone with a smiley
you should be more happy.

Ravi
--
Ravi K. Swamy                http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rkswamy/www/
rkswamy@eos.ncsu.edu         root@genom.com