Professional Web Applications Themes

MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!! - Mac Networking

OK, I have been using Mac OS X since version 10.0. Now, as a Mac user for more than 13 years, a UNIX/Linux user for more than 8 years, and as IT professional I must painfully say that Mac OS X really s! It is TOO SLOW, too big, and too bloated compared to Mac OS 7/8/9. Not to mention that Mac OS X complicate things Mac OS Classic use to make so simple and nice. Yes, Mac OS Classic was more prone to crashes compared to Mac OS X and its Memory Management was simplistic, but Mac OS Classic ...

  1. #1

    Default MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!!

    OK, I have been using Mac OS X since version 10.0. Now, as a
    Mac user for more than 13 years, a UNIX/Linux user for more than
    8 years, and as IT professional I must painfully say that Mac OS X
    really s! It is TOO SLOW, too big, and too bloated compared
    to Mac OS 7/8/9. Not to mention that Mac OS X complicate things
    Mac OS Classic use to make so simple and nice. Yes, Mac OS Classic
    was more prone to crashes compared to Mac OS X and its Memory
    Management was simplistic, but Mac OS Classic was more consistent
    and less overwhelming to the average user. Another thing, now that
    the Mac OS is based on UNIX/Linux it is a pray to those Unix
    hackers that know Unix from top to bottom. That is why Apple needs
    to release security fixes almost every other month.

    Adrian Penalo Guest

  2. Moderated Post

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!!

    Removed by Administrator
    George Williams Guest
    Moderated Post

  3. #3

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!!

    Joe Shimkus wrote:
    > You, sir, are living At the Mountains of Madness.
    Oh, great - you just HAD to tell them!
    Now the Jehovah's Witnesses will be all over the place.
    George Williams Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!!

    In article <1g0jujz.wje5wixa8zggN%mikePOSTTOGROUP.invalid> , Mike
    Rosenberg <mikePOSTTOGROUP.invalid> wrote:

    What I want to know is whether there'll be more installments in this
    series, or is this the complete set.

    What I want to know is where all those people who were convinced that
    publish & subscribe, not being able to turn multifinder off, and the
    rest of the "modern" System 7 were going to kill the Mac went.

    Didn't they predict that the need to make all that software
    "System-7-Compatible" was going to be Apple's death knell? Why, it was
    all going to need re-writing!

    Gee, where are they now, and what's on their desktops?

    Enquiring Minds Want To Know!

    --
    "C'mon, you sons of es, you want to live forever?"
    -Sergeant Major Dan Daly
    Jammer Six Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!!

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 4:33:23 +0100, Jerry Kindall wrote
    (in message <300820032033235226%jerrykindallnospam.invalid> ):
    > Mac OS X encompassses Classic (i.e., Classic is part of Mac OS X).
    > Therefore, if there is any value in the non-Classic parts of OS X at
    > all, then it is better than Classic because the whole is generally more
    > than any single one of its parts. Q.E.D.
    Come off it Jerry. 'More' does not mean 'Better'.
    (Are you a Texan by any chance?)

    Kind regards,
    Devi

    Devi Jankowicz Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!!

    In article
    <0001HW.BB78A94E006EAE2DF0101600news.cache.cable. ntlworld.com>, Devi
    Jankowicz <animusntlworld.com> wrote:
    > On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 4:33:23 +0100, Jerry Kindall wrote
    > (in message <300820032033235226%jerrykindallnospam.invalid> ):
    >
    > > Mac OS X encompassses Classic (i.e., Classic is part of Mac OS X).
    > > Therefore, if there is any value in the non-Classic parts of OS X at
    > > all, then it is better than Classic because the whole is generally more
    > > than any single one of its parts. Q.E.D.
    >
    > Come off it Jerry. 'More' does not mean 'Better'.
    My point is that it makes no sense to say Classic is better than Mac OS
    X because Classic is a part of, and requires, Mac OS X. If you prefer
    Classic, then you also prefer Mac OS X, because you can't run Classic
    without Mac OS X.

    --
    Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

    When replying by e-mail, use plain text ONLY to make sure I read it.
    Due to spam and viruses, I filter all mail with HTML or attachments.
    Jerry Kindall Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!!

    Jerry Kindall <jerrykindallnospam.invalid> wrote:
    > My point is that it makes no sense to say Classic is better than Mac OS
    > X because Classic is a part of, and requires, Mac OS X. If you prefer
    > Classic, then you also prefer Mac OS X, because you can't run Classic
    > without Mac OS X.
    In other words, he was getting on Adrian's case for using the term
    Classic incorrectly. A machine booted up in OS 9.x is _not_ running
    Classic.

    --
    Mike Rosenberg

    <http://www.macconsult.com>
    <http://bogart-tribute.net>
    Mike Rosenberg Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!!

    + [email]mikePOSTTOGROUP.inva[/email]lid (Mike Rosenberg):

    | What I want to know is whether there'll be more installments in this
    | series, or is this the complete set.

    I don't know, but the series /could/ certainly go on. Take Solaris,
    for example: A steady downward slide at least since SunOS 4 and
    NeWS. Or maybe the whole Unix world has been going downhill ever
    since the PDP-11s at Bell labs. Ah, the simplicity of the shell
    prompt, not to mention ed! Punch cards, anyone? How do you beat the
    conceptual simplicity of editing a program by removing and inserting
    cards? They make excellent bookmarks and grocery lists too.

    --
    * Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/>
    - Debating gives most of us much more psychological satisfaction
    than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever chance there is
    of getting closer to the truth. -- C.P. Snow
    Harald Hanche-Olsen Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!!

    In article <pcoad9oh50h.fsffiinbeck.math.ntnu.no>,
    Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanchemath.ntnu.no> wrote:
    > + [email]mikePOSTTOGROUP.inva[/email]lid (Mike Rosenberg):
    >
    > | What I want to know is whether there'll be more installments in this
    > | series, or is this the complete set.
    >
    > I don't know, but the series /could/ certainly go on. Take Solaris,
    > for example: A steady downward slide at least since SunOS 4 and
    > NeWS. Or maybe the whole Unix world has been going downhill ever
    > since the PDP-11s at Bell labs. Ah, the simplicity of the shell
    > prompt, not to mention ed! Punch cards, anyone? How do you beat the
    > conceptual simplicity of editing a program by removing and inserting
    > cards? They make excellent bookmarks and grocery lists too.
    Harald you are making me nostalgic :-) I miss the bookmark and grocery
    list uses of punched cards. However, the dropped deck of cards I can
    happily forget.

    Bob Harris
    Bob Harris Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!!

    On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 8:44:01 +0100, Jerry Kindall wrote
    (in message <010920030044013113%jerrykindallnospam.invalid> ):
    > In article
    > <0001HW.BB78A94E006EAE2DF0101600news.cache.cable. ntlworld.com>, Devi
    > Jankowicz <animusntlworld.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 4:33:23 +0100, Jerry Kindall wrote
    >> (in message <300820032033235226%jerrykindallnospam.invalid> ):
    >>
    >>> Mac OS X encompassses Classic (i.e., Classic is part of Mac OS X).
    >>> Therefore, if there is any value in the non-Classic parts of OS X at
    >>> all, then it is better than Classic because the whole is generally more
    >>> than any single one of its parts. Q.E.D.
    >>
    >> Come off it Jerry. 'More' does not mean 'Better'.
    >
    > My point is that it makes no sense to say Classic is better than Mac OS
    > X because Classic is a part of, and requires, Mac OS X. If you prefer
    > Classic, then you also prefer Mac OS X, because you can't run Classic
    > without Mac OS X.
    >
    >
    No, but you can run system 9 (assuming you haven't bought in to Mac's latest
    scam for yet another 100) and have a compatible system.
    It then makes perfect sense to ask whether system X is that much of an
    improvement.
    (I personally think it is, but on logically less spurious grounds than your
    good self!)

    Kind regards,
    Devi

    Devi Jankowicz Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!!

    On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 17:01:34 +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote
    (in message <pcoad9oh50h.fsffiinbeck.math.ntnu.no>):
    > + [email]mikePOSTTOGROUP.inva[/email]lid (Mike Rosenberg):
    >
    >> What I want to know is whether there'll be more installments in this
    >> series, or is this the complete set.
    >
    > I don't know, but the series /could/ certainly go on. Take Solaris,
    > for example: A steady downward slide at least since SunOS 4 and
    > NeWS. Or maybe the whole Unix world has been going downhill ever
    > since the PDP-11s at Bell labs. Ah, the simplicity of the shell
    > prompt, not to mention ed! Punch cards, anyone? How do you beat the
    > conceptual simplicity of editing a program by removing and inserting
    > cards? They make excellent bookmarks and grocery lists too.
    >
    >
    Or the eternal elegance of an Elliott 805 that filled the whole room. You
    punched soem buttons in hexadecimal code to get it to accept a compiler tape;
    then fed in a programme tape (Algol for preference), and finally fed in the
    data tape. A perceptible instant later you were output another tape which, on
    decoding, told you there was a missing comma in line 3450, and you started
    all over again after making the correction and punching up another version of
    the entire programme tape.

    Punch Cards? Effete luxury I tell you.

    Kind regards,
    Devi


    BTW, Did you know that the original use for a CRT was not as a display device
    but as a memory store?

    Devi Jankowicz Guest

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139