Subject: Re: LinuxPPC+MOL versus MacOS X Public Beta
From: Timothy A. Seufert (tas@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Sep 28 2000 - 01:47:18 MDT
At 2:39 PM -0400 9/27/00, johnathan spectre wrote:
>I'm sorry I somehow missed the beginning of this thread. But having used
>both extensively the past 2 weeks or so I can say LinuxPPC+MOL blow away
>MacOS X + Classic by a mile and then some, IMHO.
Say what?
I don't think that's true at all. Both are about putting MacOS in a
box, but Classic has taken on the additional burden of trying to hide
the box from the user.
I've used both, and at this point, Classic is certainly easier to set
up, seems to be plenty fast, and has a few glitches related to the
not-yet seamless integration with the MacOS X desktop. I'm not sure
how you get 'blow away by a mile' out of that. Perhaps you're
running on a system which has enough RAM to run Linux and MOL well,
but not enough for MacOS X and Classic (if there is one thing you can
fault OS X for, it's that it is a RAM pig).
If all you wanted out of Classic was MOL, the version of Classic
released with MacOS X Server a long time ago (isn't it a year now?)
did pretty much what MOL can do now, only better (faster, more
stable, easier setup, etc.). Not surprising since Apple obviously
has a lot more resources to do such a project than Samuel; I'm quite
impressed with how much Samuel has done on his own. But Apple did
not want Classic to be just what MOL is, so you're now seeing a
Classic that is trying to go far beyond it.
Tim Seufert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu Sep 28 2000 - 01:58:03 MDT