why not OS X?

[Chaz]

On Thursday, June 6, 2002, at 09:14 AM, Eric D. wrote:

> 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=20=

>> 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=20
>> 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=20=

>> 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=20
> eMac/700
> with 128 MB of RAM I opened a million apps under OS X. It did prove=20
> beyond a
> reasonable doubt that anyone trying to run OS X with 128 MB is=20
> 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=20
> despite the
> 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*=20
> RAM) to
> run nicely. (my G3/450 with 576 MB RAM would've been *much* more=20
> 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=20
> know-how
> to deal with YDL, who aren't religious about OSS, or who want an=20
> all-in-one

Almost all Mac users ARE religious about OSs, otherwise they wouldn't=20
use Mac OS.  Give a Mac graphic designer a Windows machine and he'll=20
laugh in your face.  It's just that most of those types of users only=20
think there are two different platforms: Mac OS and Windows.  With Apple=20=

advertising Mac OS X's unix base, users are starting to become aware of=20=

a third group, but they still pay little attention to it.

> 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=20
> (too
> lazy & cheap to bother fixing that problem) that starts acting up when=20=

> room
> temp gets above 25=B0C ;)).
>
> Is thread dying yet?
>