Professional Web Applications Themes

MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC! - Mac Applications & Software

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.

    Adrian Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    Adrian Penalo wrote: 
    Stop trolling

    Jacky Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    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 the
    security fixes almost every other month.

     

    Adrian Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!



    Jacky wrote: [/ref]
     

    Better yet, stop with the knee- pigeonholing of posters.
    He's less obnoxious than those who go around calling names, without
    really knowing what they're talking about...
    He's not a troll...he's an observer of the scene. A perfectly legitimate
    activity, whether you approve of it or not.
    He's allowed an opinion different from yours...

    keith whaley
    Keith Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    In article <com>,
    Keith Whaley <com> wrote:
     

    He posted it to at least two newsgroups, without anything to
    substantiate his "opinion."

    Now, if he had provided examples of his claims, that would be another
    thing.

    He's a classic troll.

    --
    Never play strip tarot.
    Michelle Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    In article <BB76956F.7F74%net>, Adrian Penalo
    <net> wrote:
     

    ....now we KNOW he's a troll! Doesn't know squat about hacking, virii,
    etc.

    (if he's not a troll, then I suggest he needs to upgrade his machine.
    I've got a year-old dual 867 and it's arunnin' 10.2 quite well!
    Infinitely more stable than OS 9 ever was, and it's as fast on this
    machine as OS 9 was on my previous machine.)

    payshunz
    payshunz Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    In article <BB7694B8.7F72%net>,
    Adrian Penalo <net> wrote:
     

    A couple of observations:

    1. On the same hardware MacOSX is never going to be as 'fast' or
    'responsive' as MacOS 9. Reason is that MacOS 9 devotes all its CPU time
    to foreground tasks, and will therefore be 'snappier' and more
    responsive.

    2. There are trade-offs for everything. If you whack sophisticated
    memory management, process controls, multi-tasking and the like into an
    OS ... foreground tasks arent as responsive as before.

    3. Personally I like the trade-off ... and find I now use MacOS X 95% of
    the time. That said, I do boot into MacOS 9.2 every now and then (for
    some maintenance and other tasks, to use the odd utility and application
    for which there's no MacOS X substitute, and to access some old legacy
    apps I still like)

    As an experienced UNIX user you should have realised that this was gonna
    happen ... hell, I expected it. Whack any shell on top of pretty well
    any version of UNIX and it performs slower than the shell/GUI of a
    dedicated single user OS on any given version of hardware.

    Apple compounded this responsivity problem a bit making the shell
    'nicer' than any other UNIX shell I've ever seen ... with Quartz, with
    flashy effects and the like ... but again, that's an illustration of the
    trade-off. It's a more usuable UNIX than any other on the market.

    That said, MacOS X is more scalable than MacOS 9 every was, it provides
    access to vast software libararies that MacOS 9 never could have, it has
    the capability to support more advanced hardware specs than MacOS 9 did,
    as hardware gets faster (say on the new G5's and the like) it should get
    more responsive, it's more stable, it's just as secure, it's an OS I can
    use as a defacto server OS ... and in a year or so - or whenever you
    upgrade your hardware - these transition performance issues will be come
    a moot point.

    The same thing happened when the Mac transitioned from the 68040 to the
    PPC ... there were any number of issues running the PPC in emulation for
    the first year or so, and large part sof the System software were never
    converted to native.

    Change happens ... and I think Apple has managed the change to MacOS X
    pretty well - making it as painless as possible for most of us.

    Just my 2 cents worth ...

    Regards,

    Regards,

    So ... move on. ing about it isn't gonna change anything.
    Frank Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    payshunz wrote: 

    Also doesn't know how to spell "prey"

    --
    Wes Groleau

    A pessimist says the glass is half empty.

    An optimist says the glass is half full.

    An engineer says somebody made the glass
    twice as big as it needed to be.

    Wes Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    Despite your last sentence, your follow-up is the one I was
    looking for. Not the stupid comments the other imbeciles sent
    to my posting.

    Anyway, I know transition is inevitable. I also remember the
    68k to PPC change, but it wasn't as painful as Classic to X.
    I mean, the change is not under-the-hood like 68->PPC was. In
    classic->X the change is obvious, visible and palpable. At least
    the 68k emulation in PPC was transparent, and not like having to
    actually wait for the emulator to launch like with the Classic
    environment in X. I might as well, just use Linux with a Mac
    emulator (if any). Not to mention that the HW requirements are
    ridiculously high.

    Bottom line, we all have to switch, but for me it is just
    because I have to and not because I want to.



    Frank O'Connor wrote: 
    >
    >
    > A couple of observations:
    >
    > 1. On the same hardware MacOSX is never going to be as 'fast' or
    > 'responsive' as MacOS 9. Reason is that MacOS 9 devotes all its CPU time
    > to foreground tasks, and will therefore be 'snappier' and more
    > responsive.
    >
    > 2. There are trade-offs for everything. If you whack sophisticated
    > memory management, process controls, multi-tasking and the like into an
    > OS ... foreground tasks arent as responsive as before.
    >
    > 3. Personally I like the trade-off ... and find I now use MacOS X 95% of
    > the time. That said, I do boot into MacOS 9.2 every now and then (for
    > some maintenance and other tasks, to use the odd utility and application
    > for which there's no MacOS X substitute, and to access some old legacy
    > apps I still like)
    >
    > As an experienced UNIX user you should have realised that this was gonna
    > happen ... hell, I expected it. Whack any shell on top of pretty well
    > any version of UNIX and it performs slower than the shell/GUI of a
    > dedicated single user OS on any given version of hardware.
    >
    > Apple compounded this responsivity problem a bit making the shell
    > 'nicer' than any other UNIX shell I've ever seen ... with Quartz, with
    > flashy effects and the like ... but again, that's an illustration of the
    > trade-off. It's a more usuable UNIX than any other on the market.
    >
    > That said, MacOS X is more scalable than MacOS 9 every was, it provides
    > access to vast software libararies that MacOS 9 never could have, it has
    > the capability to support more advanced hardware specs than MacOS 9 did,
    > as hardware gets faster (say on the new G5's and the like) it should get
    > more responsive, it's more stable, it's just as secure, it's an OS I can
    > use as a defacto server OS ... and in a year or so - or whenever you
    > upgrade your hardware - these transition performance issues will be come
    > a moot point.
    >
    > The same thing happened when the Mac transitioned from the 68040 to the
    > PPC ... there were any number of issues running the PPC in emulation for
    > the first year or so, and large part sof the System software were never
    > converted to native.
    >
    > Change happens ... and I think Apple has managed the change to MacOS X
    > pretty well - making it as painless as possible for most of us.
    >
    > Just my 2 cents worth ...
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > So ... move on. ing about it isn't gonna change anything.[/ref]

    Adrian Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    Adrian Penalo wrote: 

    So, you just made the wrong "switch".
    "Switch" to Mac-On-Linux... it runs actual Mac Classic software,
    not just the New Mac Classic software (Carbonized)... but hey,
    do you want to buy sugared water all your life, or would you
    rather be a Pirate?

    "I'd rather be a pirate than join the navy" -- Steve Jobs
    "So, do you want to sell sugared water all your life,
    or, do you want to change the world?" -- Steve Jobs
    --
    Copyright 2003 Angela Kahealani, all rights reserved without prejudice
    UCC1-207. All information and transactions are non negotiable and
    private between the parties.
    Angela Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    In article <net>, Adrian Penalo
    <net> wrote:
     
    ....Bottom line is you're still a troll, troll.
    payshunz Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:49:40 -0400,
    Adrian Penalo (net) wrote: 

    Yes, you might as well as. If you have all the OS 9/8/7/6 programs that
    need, I think you'll find that Linux/PPC will run wonderfully on your
    older hardware, and Mac-on-Linux (www.maconlinux.org) will run OS 7.5
    to 9.2.2 just fine. It will also boot OS X on appropriate hardware.

    Whining isn't going to help you. Apple's moving ahead. The rest of us
    are. But there are solution that can help you make the most of your
    hardware, and yet have a modern Unix environment on your Macintosh.

    Beverly
    --
    Bev A. Kupf
    "The lyfe so short, the craft so long to lerne" -- Chaucer
    Bev Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    <Top posting corrected>

    In article <net>, Adrian Penalo
    <net> wrote:
     
    > >
    > >
    > > A couple of observations:[/ref][/ref]

    <clip>
     
    >[/ref]
     

    Personally I fail to see where you posted anything except stupid
    comments. You posted Mac OS Classic is simple and nice, consistant and
    less overwhelming. (I should point out here that Classic is running OS
    9 while in OS X, booting into 9 is not Classic). OS X is too big and
    slow. Not the stuff a great debate is made of.
     

    How many of those 68k apps are you running today? It's a transition
    period that will one day be all but forgotten. I no longer use Classic
    ever, and one day you probably won't either. What do you consider to be
    ridiculously high HW requirements? I'm running it on a 400MHz B/W G3
    right now. At work I have it on two beige 233MHz G3's (one with 128MB's
    RAM and one with 256) and it suits the machines well for what they do.
     

    --
    Christopher S. Moore
    us
    Email replies must begin with "Re: " in Subject line or be killed.
    Chris Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    Come on, stop feeding the TROLLS !

    Jacky Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    Chris Moore wrote: 
    >
    >
    > Personally I fail to see where you posted anything except stupid
    > comments. You posted Mac OS Classic is simple and nice, consistant and
    > less overwhelming. (I should point out here that Classic is running OS
    > 9 while in OS X, booting into 9 is not Classic). OS X is too big and
    > slow. Not the stuff a great debate is made of.[/ref]


    Hey, moron, I wasn't trying t start a debate, but just expresing
    my opinions on the OS. Sometimes you use vague expressions
    when expressing an opinion. I leave the actual argument and
    specifics to a real debate.

     
    >
    >
    > How many of those 68k apps are you running today? It's a transition
    > period that will one day be all but forgotten.[/ref]


    Not to us programmers...

     


    Well, I bet OS X is not running too fast in that G3/233, and unless you
    have 1 MB of L2 cache in that G3/400 it must be really crawling.

    Adrian Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:58:32 -0400,
    Adrian Penalo (net) wrote: 

    In other words, you were trolling. You can't make a substantive
    argument, but you can make vague "I feel that ....." statements to
    rile sentiments. You're a nitwit. Why don't you stay on the
    trekkie newsgroups -- since a Google search indicates that most
    of your Usenet history is there?

    Beverly
    --
    Bev A. Kupf
    "The lyfe so short, the craft so long to lerne" -- Chaucer
    Bev Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    Look, you stupid bimbo, I can give you all the technical
    rhetoric about OS 9 vs OS X that you want. Many have already
    expressed their discontent with the switch. But it wouldn't
    matter because Apple will stay with OS X. I myself already
    moved my company's machines to OS X. And they are working
    very nicely, of course, they are very fast G4's. So, I don't
    see the harm on expressing my discontent with the slowness and
    size of OS X. If you don't like it don't read my postings.
    Nobody is forcing you to!



    Bev A. Kupf wrote: [/ref]


    Adrian Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:02:10 -0500, Mike Rosenberg wrote
    (in message <1g0kqam.14qf6k48zl9nwN%invalid>):
     
    >
    > First you call Chris a moron, then you call Bev a stupid bimbo. What an
    > amazing display of your intellectual skills! And I'm looking forward to
    > seeing what name you come up with for me. But while you're at it, would
    > you care to comment about having posted a nearly identical treatise on
    > Windows XP to a PC newsgroup?
    >
    >[/ref]

    He seems to have... changed his mind about OS X. In message-ID
    <net>, he says, and I quote:

    "The problem is not that is bad, acutally is very good.
    The only thing is that a full installation of OS X
    compared to a full installation of OS 9 is very slow.
    For OS X to "feel" fast you need: #1 a lot of RAM (> 256 MB);
    #2 a lot of Cache (> 1 MB); #3 (optional) a good graphics
    card. Not to mention that partitioning the HD helps."

    Looks like he liked OS X well enough on Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:26:26 -0500...

    He's a troll. And not even a fun one, like the dear departed Diaper Boy.

    --
    We are Microsoft of Borg. You will be assimilated. Stability is irrelevant.
    Where _you_ want to go to today is irrelevant. We will add your currency to
    our own. Bend over right now. Resistance is futile.

    Charles Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 20:54:22 -0400,
    Adrian Penalo (net) wrote: 

    Then pray, my studly one, why don't you do so? I fear you
    aren't the paean to knowledge you claim to be, or we would see
    on this group more than we do ..... :-)

    Put more simply, put up or shut up. Want to take me up on it?

    Its isn't at all difficult to call me a bimbo or label Chris a
    moron. I think you'll find it a trifle more taxing to meet us as
    intellectual equals -- or have that not taught that concept in
    kindergarten yet?

    Love you,
    Beverly
    --
    Bev A. Kupf
    "The lyfe so short, the craft so long to lerne" -- Chaucer
    Bev Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: MAC OS X NOT BETTER THAN CLASSIC!

    In article <newsguy.com>,
    Charles Dyer <com> wrote:
     
    > >
    > > First you call Chris a moron, then you call Bev a stupid bimbo. What an
    > > amazing display of your intellectual skills! And I'm looking forward to
    > > seeing what name you come up with for me. But while you're at it, would
    > > you care to comment about having posted a nearly identical treatise on
    > > Windows XP to a PC newsgroup?
    > >
    > >[/ref]
    >
    > He seems to have... changed his mind about OS X. In message-ID
    > <net>, he says, and I quote:
    >
    > "The problem is not that is bad, acutally is very good.
    > The only thing is that a full installation of OS X
    > compared to a full installation of OS 9 is very slow.
    > For OS X to "feel" fast you need: #1 a lot of RAM (> 256 MB);
    > #2 a lot of Cache (> 1 MB); #3 (optional) a good graphics
    > card. Not to mention that partitioning the HD helps."
    >
    > Looks like he liked OS X well enough on Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:26:26 -0500...
    >
    > He's a troll. And not even a fun one, like the dear departed Diaper Boy.[/ref]

    And he was wrong about he partitioning issue, too.
    Steve Guest

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

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