5 Aug
2006
5 Aug
'06
10:48 a.m.
At 1:41 AM -0400 8/5/06, Segin wrote:
Zane H. Healy wrote:
Run correctly, with carefully selected versions, Mac OS 9 is just as
stable as any version of Windows through the start of Windows XP.
Depending on what you're doing the cooperative multitasking is
actually better than the preemptive multitasking. Moving to Mac OS X
actually resulted in my system not being fast enough to run several
apps.
For me the only advantage to Mac OS X is that I can run the few Unix
applications I need and most of my favorite commercial apps all on
the same box (still need an Alpha for OpenVMS).
Oh, and you might want to read up on what filesystem sits under Mac OS X.
The largest problems with Mac OS X are how inefficient it is, and
it's off/on/off support of classic Appletalk (which some of us still
need, and is why I'm still on 10.3.9 even though I bought 10.4 the
day it was released).
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
I'm still not convinced Mac OS X is that big
of an improvement over
my Mac OS 9 system.
Zane
Mac OS 9 is very similar to Windows 3.1 -- no memory protection,
co-operative multitasking, limited file structures, poor networking,
one-app's-bug-brings-it-all-down, etc.
Mac OS X is a fork of FreeBSD, a modern UNIX with hardware memory
management and protection, preemptive multitasking, complex file
systems and structures, a roburst netowkring API (BSD sockets), etc.
So you are saying that FreeBSD isn't much of an improvement over Windows 3.1?
In terms of function and design, that is.