On 10/29/05, Tee Cashmore <teecashmore@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 29-Oct-05, at 1:19 PM, Eric Dunbar wrote: > > > > OS 8 could barely handle the most rudimentary of USB devices (crashing > > even with some mice), whilst OS 9 couldn't show a movie without > > crashing, let alone have a USB or FireWire device plugged into it and > > not bring the OS to its knees! As for drivers, they barely EXISTED for > > OS 8/9; at least Windows 95 and 98 had drivers to install. In > > retrospect, Windows 98 (especially SE and Windows NT 4.0) was > > (unfortunately) far and away the more stable and advanced operating > > system when set side-by-side with OS 8/9 (the interface sucked, but > > stability-wise and program choice-wise Windows 98 (and especially NT > > 4.0) was generally better). > > I never had any problems with O/S 8.6. 9.1 & 9.2. My DVD movies played > stupendously, USB devices were simply recognized with nary a delay. > Drivers, what drivers? I didn't need any. I guess you either never _used_ OS 8.x/9.x or your memory is failing you or both ;-). Seriously though, I have used all of the above Mac OSes and the contemporary Windows OSes. Mac OS offered the better user interface at the time (and, still does, marginally) and that was the only reason it offered superior productivity to your run-of-the-mill install of Windows 95 or 98 (SE). Stability was a different story. When you look at stability and lost work, Mac OS got a failing grade. Windows WAS more stable at the time. Yes, you could also mess it up in fantastic, unfixable ways that you couldn't Mac OS, but, in day-to-day operations, there were fewer crashes and fewer reboots needed. Also, with Windows NT 4, a system manager was able to lock down a system and ensure REAL uptime (not the fake uptime some Mac users claimed... only achieved by rebooting the computer every so often to "clear the gremlins"... memory management in OS 8/9 was poor to say the least). There's a legitimate reason that Windows NT 4.0 was approved for "mission critical" operations and Mac OS (Classic) never was!!! Windows NT 4.0 was stable and it could be RELIED upon to perform, even under computationally demanding situations. Mac OS COULD NOT! (I'd place NT 4.0 SP 6 at about the same stability level as high 10.2.x... Nearly every OS update past 10.0.4 was more stable than the best OS 9 could offer) The real kicker was Windows 2000. It was the contemporary of Mac OS 9 and it absolutely shamed OS 9. Microsoft definitley had one-upped Apple with 2000 (Windows ME is an entirely different story... they took Win 98 SE and made it worse... of course, I can't say I really saw ME in action... its poor performance was more an urban legend to me, neither confirmed nor denied). > > As for "hidden adware" on Windows XP -- DON'T INSTALL P2P or other > > "free" applications!!! It's as simple as that. Also, use Pro, not XP > > if you want to compare Apples and Apples. > My client had no choice, the machine came with XP Pro installed. "jetzt kommt raus" (now the truth comes out) A sample size of one :-). > After 22 years of Apple //s & Macs of all ilks & having been a Dealer & > Computer consultant, I believe I have more experiences than you. I > stick with Mac because it rarely fails me or my clients, but sometimes > I am asked to fix their Window machines, which I normally refuse to do. No need to beat the chest; perhaps it's time to take a breather. (you may have more "experiences" than I, but, then again, you are also more than twice as experienced, from what I understand ;-) FYI however much the thought may shock you, I do have more experience with MACINTOSHES than you, but, I then again, I guess you like to count your garden variety Apple and I prefer to stick to the finer Macintosh apples ;-). I digress... (now, is that unusual for me :-) > You should hear the cursing from the Steeper Guru when he deals with > Windows!!! And, I concur with Terry. Depending on the install, Windows is a pain, and, when it becomes a pain it can be a greater pain that OS 9. But, then again, Mac OS X too can be a pain. With complexity comes power, but with power comes complexity ;-). Lovely circular statement, eh? What it means is that when OS X goes down it is no longer an easy thing to fix. You can no longer just take a System Folder and replace the existing System Folder to "fix" a hard drive. Both OSes have improved significantly in recent years. The rules of thumb of old no longer hold true, plus, we have to be honest when we look back and not view history through rose coloured glasses. > I have had no problems with O/S X (Jag to Panther), the only drivers > were for my printers. The average user; about 92% according to a number > of studies; haven't a clue as to how to use their computer & that > includes many Mac users. Then I submit again that you either did not use your computer or you forget= . OS X 10.0 (I don't speak in cat names... too ambiguous, especially since I've never seen some refer to Pather.5) was horribly problematic, and, I wouldn't at all be suprised to see that if we look through the archives (if you were here at the time) that you were quite critical of it (or, perhaps you simply didn't use it, in which case you are ill-equiped to comment on its stability), as were a number of people (many of whom could not see the proverbial "light at the end of the tunnel" in OS X 10.0-10.0.3 (OS X 10.0.4 was the first functional version of OS X)). > You on the other hand seem to have some very special software needs, > which would account for our differences in Problems encountered. > TTFN, Believe it or not but I keep my systems VERY simple. I am not at all under the illusion that OS X is infallible and prefer uptime to frustration time (I proved that much to my amazement today... my first OS X 10.4 kernel panic in two months of use (I switched a network interface on-the-fly and firewire networking was not up to the challenge (I should've just done the "improper" way of switching networks by unplugging cables, rather than changing the preference setting in the Preferences Pnae))). The best defence against a crash is to KISS!!! My complexity comes from what I do with the simple stuff, not in the software I run on my own machine (I run far fewer extensions and crap like that compared to what I see other listers do... the _only_ non-stock kernel extension I will install in my system is Kensington's MouseWorks software (which over the years has, with some versions of OS X, been a source of kernel panics). Eric. _________________________________________________ For information concerning the MUGLO List just click on http://muglo.on.ca/Pages/joinus.html Our Archives can be viewed at //www.freelists.org/archives/muglo Don't forget to periodically check our web site at: http://muglo.on.ca/