Biggest waste of E129 ever

DrNuyenVanFaulk

the reason I have to state that the Mac OS is superior is because I'm tired of listening to PC AND (rogue) Mac users complain about Apple's products. But, with my experience, the only thing I can say is that if you're happy with what you use, then that's great. All my friends have Windows machines and they're very happy with them. Fine by me. I become very annoyed when PC users criticse Macs when they have rarely if ever used them. It's a completely illogical concept, that someone can state that something is bad, while another says it is good. It's a disagreement that means absolutely nothing, because in both cases the statements are true (relative to one's personal experience). So there is no point in arguing. Okay, I won't point soggy fingers at anyone's OS. But likewise people should not criticise an OS, and, in reference to the topic, one cannot justify the upgrade to Tiger being a waste, as many will find it very beneficial. The topic should actually read, "Personnaly, I found the upgrade to be a waste of money because it did nothing for me that made my computing experience any better, or at least better to the extent that did not justify the expenditure of E129, in which case it was not a waste of E129, but [E129 - E(what true benefits I got out of it, in monetary terms)].

The reason my W2K machine crawls is NOT because I do not have it optimised. I DO have it optimised (plain desktop, few colours, no fancy graphics, indexing turned off, a perfectly regulated, healthy machine). The reason it crawls is because the OS automatically takes up almost 100Mb of RAM. Share that between Office, Firefox, Photoshop, and you're at a limit. Yes, they are RAM hungry programmes. But my point was you need more RAM because of this! Again, for the third time (no, you didn't "correct" me about this because I agreed with you already), you could run XP fine on 192 Mb if you were file browsing, word processing, internet browsing. But for other users, like me, of which there are very many, 256Mb of RAM would give you a very slow and painful experience of XP. Even for OS 9, I found 512 neccessary. I imagine OS X to be the same.

Also, Windows will generally run slower because anti-virus software is a definite for safe computing. This is my biggest criticism of windows. I know Linux and, now, OS X, are not impenetrable. But right now I find them more enjoyable to use because of the lack of hacker threat. Whether Windows is so vulnerable more because of its popularity or structure is a different debate. Either way, I[/] hate it.

os for OS 9 vs. W2K: As stable as W2K was, it was still windows. Same arse-ache, different ways of doing it. OS 9 wasn't as stable (by a slight amount), but the experience was infinitely better..... I found.

Your analogy with the workman is flawed. If the OS is deemed to be like a workman, why would a workman be desgined to carry 12 bricks if he can really only 6? Perhaps he was not given something to carry them with properly? That's where the RAM comes in. The OS isn't flawed, it may just require more memory for extra features. (yeah, "extra features" are all the graphical flaunts, indexing services, and all that... you should know very well what I meant by that, since we were talking about scaling down the OS).

.... now look at what you made me type!! I'm supposed to be studying!!

RicardoSmith

You'd wouldn't like my OS 7.5 machine running word, photoshop with 12mb of ram then. The workman in the analogy is not the OS.

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

Actually, I have a PC laptop that runs XP Pro on 256 RAM and it's painful. ....

Whereas you should have posted something along the lines of ..."I'm inappropriately running too many ram intensive apps on a machine with an insufficent amount of physical ram and even though I know its because I don't have enough ram I'm going to complain about Windows, rather then discuss the issue at hand which is the latest version of OS X...."

Again I had to use letters. Sorry.

DrNuyenVanFaulk

RicardoSmith wrote:

Again I had to use letters. Sorry.

Oh Ha Ha!!

RicardoSmith wrote:

The workman in the analogy is not the OS.
QUOTE]

Well, sorry, but judging from your ambiguous posts, that's what it seemed like you were saying (rather badly). And I'm not being sarcastic here, just honest. You blatantly said that I was trying to say that a bad workman blames his tools, which could mean (a) the user doesn't know how to use his/her computer properly, or (b) the OS doesn't know how to use the RAM properly.

So what DID you mean?

RicardoSmith wrote:

rather then discuss the issue at hand which is the latest version of OS X...
QUOTE]

Twice already I've tried to referred back to OSX.... even if it was by saying it was better than XP.

And what does "inappropriately" running too many RAM intensive apps mean? Sorry for not being rich and not being able to buy RAM whenever I feel like it. Since you're running OS 7.5.... (7.5.1?? Wonderful OS. Many happy memories... Cut my teeth with photoshop on a 33Mhz Performa with the same RAM! ...... maybe you know about not being able to upgrade willy-nilly!

Too many smiley faces. I run what I can with what I have.

Look, this is ridiculous. My original point has been totally obscured. Greedy people like me who don't like to skimp in a systems abilities like plenty of RAM. In my opinion, I would like at least a gig of DDR2 RAM. And some people like yourself like to make do with what you have, and manage very well.

Can we agree on that!?

dazmoriarty

Lads,

Saw some discussion of BeOS and where it's at. Well I was a devotee since the late 90s with version 4 onwards and cannot speak more highly of it.

If you are interested on it's current state, then here's the skinny in bullets:

* BeOS tragically died around 2000 sometime, when Be shifted away from the OS as product in itself. Pure Greek tragedy that was.
* All is not lost however. Around about 2002, a German developer, Yellowtab, somehow gained the rights to continue development of it from the 'Dano' code onwards.
* Yellowtab renamed their 'fork' Zeta and have currently reached version 1.1. While it is still for most people not much more than BeOS 5.03, it has been improved in many ways, and if you read Osnews.com regularly, it has a bright future.
* The speed and beauty of the former BeOS is still there and hardware compatibility increases every day.
* One drawback - Zeta costs about €99.
* The opensource Haiku is/will be free, but is some ways from a formal release.

Keep your eyes on www.yellowtab.com for details.

BeOS is dead! Long live (cough) Zeta!

TempestSabre

Always thought it was a cool OS but unfortunately I never had a good reason to use it.