MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!!

[Adrian Penalo]

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 sucks! 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.

[George Williams]

Adrian Penalo wrote:

>
> Mac OS X really sucks!

You have to resign yourself to it. UNIX is marginally better than X,
X is marginally better than XP, XP is marginally better than OS,
OS 9 was marginally better than OS 8, etc. ad nauseum. but they
all suck to some degree.

It's just something you have to get used to, like death, taxes,
street crime, inflation, the homeless, drug abuse, human dogs in
SUVs speeding down to the crack house or the 7-11, et al. It's a
fact of life now. We'd all like to return to the good old days,
we'd like a perfect world, but instead we have OS X, XP Pro and $7,000
G5 systems. That's your world, so you have to live in it, for better
or worse. There's no escape.

[George Williams]

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.

[Jammer Six]

In article <1g0jujz.wje5wixa8zggN%mike@POSTTOGROUP.invalid> , Mike
Rosenberg <mike@POSTTOGROUP.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 bitches, you want to live forever?"
-Sergeant Major Dan Daly

[Devi Jankowicz]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 4:33:23 +0100, Jerry Kindall wrote
(in message <300820032033235226%jerrykindall@nospam.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

[Jerry Kindall]

In article
<0001HW.BB78A94E006EAE2DF0101600@news.cache.cable. ntlworld.com>, Devi
Jankowicz <animus@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 4:33:23 +0100, Jerry Kindall wrote
> (in message <300820032033235226%jerrykindall@nospam.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.

[Mike Rosenberg]

Jerry Kindall <jerrykindall@nospam.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>

[Harald Hanche-Olsen]

+ [email]mike@POSTTOGROUP.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

[Bob Harris]

In article <pcoad9oh50h.fsf@fiinbeck.math.ntnu.no>,
Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche@math.ntnu.no> wrote:

> + [email]mike@POSTTOGROUP.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

[Devi Jankowicz]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 8:44:01 +0100, Jerry Kindall wrote
(in message <010920030044013113%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid> ):

> In article
> <0001HW.BB78A94E006EAE2DF0101600@news.cache.cable. ntlworld.com>, Devi
> Jankowicz <animus@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>

>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 4:33:23 +0100, Jerry Kindall wrote
>> (in message <300820032033235226%jerrykindall@nospam.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]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 17:01:34 +0100, Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote
(in message <pcoad9oh50h.fsf@fiinbeck.math.ntnu.no>):

> + [email]mike@POSTTOGROUP.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?