why not OS X?

[Eric D.]

on 4/6/02 21:45, Konstantin Riabitsev at icon@linux.duke.edu wrote:

> I fully agree. Now, I run YDL-2.2 on a Ti, but that's because I got a Ti
> to evaluate OS X in the first place. :) I will stand by my judgement --
> OS X is an excellent choice for someone who is unfamiliar with computers
> and wants a "black box" for his/her home that does simple things and
> looks pretty doing it. This is where OS X shines. I don't run OS X on my
> Ti because I am a professional and get much more done on Linux, than OS
> X. Plus, I also have ideological objections to using closed-source
> software.

I actually saw quite an interesting thing today. Playing with an eMac/700
with 128 MB of RAM I opened a million apps under OS X. It did prove beyond =
a
reasonable doubt that anyone trying to run OS X with 128 MB is absolutely
nuts, but there wasn't a blip in iTunes MP3 playing and it didn't crash
(which I would've expected with OS 9) or experience an app crash despite th=
e
heavy disk load (I assume the (quiet... wow) hard drive was chirping
frantically).

OS X is a cool OS but it requires a lot of horsepower (*especially* RAM) to
run nicely. (my G3/450 with 576 MB RAM would've been *much* more responsive
opening up all those apps, but would've fallen short once the apps were
loaded (even in 128 MB RAM)).

Anyway, OS X is good for users who don't have the time or technical know-ho=
w
to deal with YDL, who aren't religious about OSS, or who want an all-in-one
solution for stability (OS X is arguably damn stable for everyday use (I
haven't had a kernel panic in months (& that's despite a flaky RAM chip (to=
o
lazy & cheap to bother fixing that problem) that starts acting up when room
temp gets above 25=B0C ;)).

Is thread dying yet?