Re: FAO Rowland

fergus <ferguscapewrath@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mandy <mandy2uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:

Mandy <mandy2uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tell me about it! I thought new systems were supposed to be better but
not in this case!

Always bigger and more bloated, sometimes better...

Not so. In the case of the Macintosh operating system, its development
has not followed that rule. It applies to bureuacratic dinosaurs like
MS, mind. But just because it applies to some software firms doesn't
mean it applies to all - Apple is not the only firm that's managed to
avoid the problems to an extent.

What's happened with the MacOS is that it went up to System 6.0.7 (6.0.8
was released post System 7) with each succeeding version adding more
useful stuff but not slowing anything down to speak of. Then Apple came
out with System 7, and that *did* need a bit more RAM and more oomph
(i.e., it was a bit slower and took a bit more RAM and, okay, a lot more
disc space). Succeeding versions of the OS up to System 7.5 used more
RAM in stock form, but could be trimmed down to use no more resources
than System 7.0.1 (the first System 7 without the catastrophic bugs).
I've done it.

Now, you can't do the same with MacOS 7.6, but on the other hand, you do
get a payback from all that RAM being used: 7.6 is a lot faster than
7.5, and 7.6.1 is a lot more reliable than either.

Further developments up to MacOS 9 were a bit pants, really - new
features that did count as bloat, but no major improvements.

But then we got MacOS X 10.0. It didn't work properly, used vast
amounts of RAM compared to MacOS 9, and ran like a slug.

Each major update after that - 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and now 10.4 - was
nothing but an improvement. In every case, the OS and UI got faster
with the new version, and we didn't get useless new features, we got
badly needed vital abilities slowly added, one new release at a time.

And finally, I have here a machine with four 64 bit 2.5GHz CPUs and a
storming graphics card, and it's as `responseful' as the old 8MHz 16 bit
Mac Plus running System 6... Mind you, a Mac Plus has a lot less to do
to run itself and the MacOS X UI was always meant to be fancy and
therefore use a lot of graphics card capacity (you'd be amazed at how
much caching goes on to keep things fast).

I haven't got any of your previous emails 'cos I've
replied to them all and when you reply to something it disappears!

I don't use Vista but are you sure it doesn't stick them in a
"replied" folder? Or is there an option to specify what to do with
them? I'd be surprised it just deleted them!

Me too, but one can never tell with MS.

I use Mulberry because it's free for me from work but before that I
used TheBat which is quite nice. I found that far better than Outlook
Express which I would only use if there was no alternative!

I'd get an alternative.

Maybe it's because it's new and as I get used to using it things will
work out better maybe?

Quite possibly. It always takes time to learn the foibles of any new
system.

Vista is, from all the accounts I've read, pretty much the same to work
with underneath the pretty pictures as WinXP; this means you've got all
the fiddle of XP with an added layer of fiddle over the top. It's badly
thought out - like all MS OSes[1]. Mind you, it started out well - the
basic core architecture of Win NT (the basis of XP and Vista) is pretty
good, but that's because it was created by engineers from DEC. MS then
went ahead and buggered it up horribly.

I've heard almost nothing but complaints about Vista. It's driving
people away from MS, I do know that. Mind you, XP had that effect too.

Rowland.

[1] MS-DOS, the basis of Windoze 3, was a port to a 1970s 16 bit CPU of
a 1970s OS for 8 bit CPUs. And it's what MS had people using right up
until 1995 - 15 years after MS-DOS should have been consigned to the
scrap heap. Yes, I know I'm saying it should have been binned before
the release of the first IBM PC, and I do mean that. MS-DOS was not fit
for purpose, it really wasn't.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: virtualization which one to choose?
    ... why use dualboot if you can run VM's? ... Because you only have 512Mb of RAM or less? ... Keep in mind that many of us run older systems with limited cpu & ... We are the 'Vista' impaired :-) [Blows my mind when I see posts ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: 3GB in 2 DIMM slots!
    ... The best answer is to install a second IDENTICAL 2GB stick. ... RAM, so the extra RAM should not be wasted. ... And if I do go to 4GB, can't Vista allocate the video memory from the ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.performance_maintenance)
  • Re: Notizie dal lato oscuro
    ... i programmi adobe vi eri praticamente costretto, per molti di questi, non ... Quello che un po' mi spaventa e` che ora con l'introduzione di Vista non vedo ... avvenuto, qui ovviamente la colpa non è solo di MS ma anche di Adobe, comunque ... Sicuramente te la cavi con meno RAM. ...
    (it.comp.macintosh)
  • Re: Windows Vista is slooooowww
    ... You must have a very hi end video card with lots of ram. ... I read that they are going to have six different versions of Vista ... beta 2 is out now. ... The default install of beta 2 consumed more than 600MB! ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: new pc needed, advice required
    ... At the moment my three and half year old Athlon 3200+, 1gb RAM, ... I'm sure I don't need a new Quad processor, but the huge range of Core ... Its easier to upgrade the ram later down the road. ... Most retailers will only sell PCs with Vista now, ...
    (uk.games.video.misc)