Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 4
Terms as:
"Beauty is, beauty does."
"a gorgeous, easy-to-navigate and virtually crashproof operating system"
"superior mechanism"
"extraordinary job"

To: "When you open its lid, a Mac laptop wakes from sleep mode so fast that you may doubt that it was ever actually asleep. I wasted several minutes opening and closing mine, like a cave man with a refrigerator door who's trying to see when the light goes off."

3/29 NYTimes/Circuits/State of the Art/A new Face (&Heart) for the Mac by David Pogue is a good read for aapl fools.

Pogue has written favorably for Mac before and admittedly doing a book on OSX but this is a GLOWING review in a major publication.

GreyFox
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<Apple has been trying to throw the thing out and start over for years, but the challenge is staggering. How do you write a new operating system that offers all the modern amenities, runs the 18,000 existing Mac programs and doesn't make millions of Mac fans stare in mute, slack-jawed horror>

Kinda misleading as OSX does NOT run 18,000 existing Mac programs, OS9 within X does, and it's a rather strange concept to have an OS in an OS. I would shudder if Windows 95 came up every time I needed to run a program on Windows 98, and would think "what's wrong with 98 that it can't read programs from the past?

Mislead Different
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Tsk. Tsk. Kenny.

Kinda misleading as OSX does NOT run 18,000 existing Mac programs, OS9 within X does, and it's a rather strange concept to have an OS in an OS.

OS X by definition includes Classic compatibility layer, so it is not misleading, just as it is not misleading to say that OS X runs Unix programs. It's part of the package.

I would shudder if Windows 95 came up every time I needed to run a program on Windows 98, and would think "what's wrong with 98 that it can't read programs from the past?

Feeble analogy. (Win95 and Win98 would be equivalent to Sys 8 and Sys 8.5) Why don't say it this way? What is wrong with an OS that runs on top of an OS called DOS?

Mislead Different

Who's mislead whom? Have you lied so much that you have finally come to believe in your own lies? You misleading yourself?

bingo
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Y@K dangles:
Kinda misleading as OSX does NOT run 18,000 existing Mac programs, OS9 within X does, and it's a rather strange concept to have an OS in an OS. I would shudder if Windows 95 came up every time I needed to run a program on Windows 98, and would think "what's wrong with 98 that it can't read programs from the past?

Nothing misleading about it. OSX provides a protected sandbox for the older CFM-based apps to play in. A crash in the sand might take down the other 'classic' apps running there, but has no effect on the rest of the system.

This is only slightly different than how windows handles older 16bit applications (remember the concerns when M$ unleashed Win95 on the world? That hardly seems like a concern now, right? And why is that? 'Cause over the years most Windows users have upgraded to 32 bit applications. Same will happen with OSX.

The difference with OSX is that while windows includes these older services as a permament part of the OS, OSX provides a mechanism for casting them away. If a user loads only native software, the classic's libaries are never loaded, freeing up system resources, speeding load and wake up times, etc. Its a win-win situation.

Two other points: while you can look at it as 'an operating system within an operating system' its really just a matter of setting up the sandbox and making older services available as the classic apps require. It is NOT emulation, classic apps only seem to take a minor performance hit (if that, some apps seem to run quicker, probably as a result of users beefing up memory).

Also, the classic environment doesn't "came up every time I needed to run" a classic app. It is loaded once, on demand (or set up to load automatically on startup,if you prefer). After that initial load, classic apps run just like the new ones, with the barest visual hints that your still got a classic app.

-ColdCuts
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<Y@K dangles>

Good one. Ok, so it would be more like going from DOS to Windows 95 right? I can open DOS even in 98 to run old DOS apps.

I still say the article was misleading, maybe not so much to you and I, but to consumers who might not understand technical issues.

Ok, maybe I'm being TOO picky!

Think Different
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Y2Ken says

<Apple has been trying to throw the thing out and start over for years, but the challenge is staggering. How do you write a new operating system that offers all the modern amenities, runs the 18,000 existing Mac programs and doesn't make millions of Mac fans stare in mute, slack-jawed horror>

Kinda misleading as OSX does NOT run 18,000 existing Mac programs, OS9 within X does, and it's a rather strange concept to have an OS in an OS. I would shudder if Windows 95 came up every time I needed to run a program on Windows 98, and would think "what's wrong with 98 that it can't read programs from the past?

Mislead Different

Ken is just Misleading The Same as Usual.

First, what a user experiences is that she runs OS X, and can still use all her old programs. She doesn't care if some horse's patootie on a discussion board thinks it's "a rather strange concept." Yes, she does have to sit through the startup of Classic, once per session. BFD. Many people will opt to have Classic start up automatically when OS X starts up.

Second, Classic is not "an OS in an OS." It's an OS X application that is able to use parts of OS 9.1 and most of OS X to execute an OS 9.1 program. That is not a "strange concept," it's a spectacularly difficult technical achievement.

Third, the analogy with Win95 and Win98 is misleading. Win95/Win98 is a case of an "OS in an OS," in the sense that Win98 was created by extensively modifying Win95 -- but leaving all the Win95 API intact, inside the Win98 bloatware.

OS X, however, doesn't contain any OS 9.1 code or API's, except the Carbon API's which are a subset of the OS 9.1 API's. It needs access to a copy of 9.1 for the sole purpose of running 9.1 applications that aren't Carbon-compliant, and if you don't need to do that you can install OS X all by itself.

If Microsoft had built a "Windows 98" OS that was completely different from Windows 95 in that sense, not one single Windows 95 application would run on it.

Bottom line: OS X DOES run 18,000 existing Mac programs. Ken, you need to go back to posting weird little witticisms. This substantive criticism is way beyond your range.

crassfool
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Kinda misleading as OSX does NOT run 18,000 existing Mac programs, OS9 within X does, and it's a rather strange concept to have an OS in an OS.
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't
-yes it does
>no it doesn't

"I would shudder if Windows 95 came up every time I needed to run a program"
...well at least we agree on something



ohh hey anyone want a little program that changes the dock orientation without typing sudu?
this is from the infinite loop email list
i haven't tried it yet.
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 23:19:28 -0600
From: Brett O'Donnell <brettod@brettod.com>
Subject: Re: Dock Hack

Here's the EASIEST way to hack the dock! It's a simple GUI program.
Click on the menus you want to activate, then type in the admin password
when the window comes up. I learned about it from www.macosxhints.com.

BrettOD

http://homepage.mac.com/isleep
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Of course, this article wasn't exactly an unmixed praise of OS X. In fact, the conclusion that the author makes is that most people should wait for the next version of MacOS X, due to be released in July. To take a couple of passages

"You'll really miss only a handful of discarded Mac OS 9 features, like the Labels menu (for quickly categorizing your files) and the ability to schedule automatic Mac shutoffs. This initial version of Mac OS X can't burn CD's or play DVD's, either — which, considering how heavily Apple promotes these features, is a little like showing up in pajamas at your own dinner party. (Apple says it will add these features soon.)

and....

"Unless you're a true Mac-oholic, there's no good reason to switch to Mac OS X right now. Wait until the programs you use often have been adapted for Mac OS X, or at least until July, when Apple is expected to release a new Mac OS X version that is likely to be even faster, smoother and more polished. "

The consensus among reviewers appear to be that OS X looks good, but it lacks some important features. The current release, despite its commercial wrappings and a retail price tag, is really still meant only for early adopters. Public beta version 2, with an enhanced price tag.

Financially, if these comments really sink in and deter widespread purchases of OS X by existing Mac owners, then Apple won't see as much of an upside. We can be fairly that most people who bought the beta will also purchase OS X retail, but the financial upside for AAPL from sales of OS X will likely not manifest itself until Q4.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
3/29 NYTimes/Circuits/State of the Art/A new Face (&Heart) for the Mac by David Pogue is a good read for aapl fools.

Pogue has written favorably for Mac before and admittedly doing a book on OSX but this is a GLOWING review in a major publication.



Fools here might recognize David Pogue as the author of "Macs for Dummies" -- I'm not certain, but I think that this is the book that launched the whole series of "Dummies" books.

The guy knows his Macs.

FYI,
Cheeze
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"I would shudder if Windows 95 came up every time I needed to run a program"
...well at least we agree on something

No, instead until Windows XP ships for the Wintel group, you have DOS hidden away under Win95, 98, ME, NT and Win2k... There have been many write ups that MS is downplaying actually the fact that DOS will finally be dead with the release of Windows XP...so you see you HAVE had another OS popping up and you did not even know it ;)

Sorry but OS 9 coming up to allow me to run OS 9 applications is no different than Virtual PC, or MacOS emulators/Windows Emulators on <gasp> Unix boxes... seeing as how OS X is UNIX, the idea of OS 9 launching to run NON OS X applications seems quite fitting, and correct. People said these same things when there as an Apple IIe emulator released for early MacOS boxes so people could buy a MacOS box and continue to run their investments in Apple II software until they completely made the switch... In the past 20 years in the computer industry I can come up with countless examples of new systems emulating old systems, new OSs from a different maker emulating another companies OS for more compat., etc. This is the nature of progress, allow the new to run the old until the old is no longer needed.... This works in all industries, not just the computer industry...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
gippynet says

Sorry but OS 9 coming up to allow me to run OS 9 applications is no different than Virtual PC, or MacOS emulators/Windows Emulators on <gasp> Unix boxes... seeing as how OS X is UNIX, the idea of OS 9 launching to run NON OS X applications seems quite fitting, and correct. People said these same things when there as an Apple IIe emulator released for early MacOS boxes so people could buy a MacOS box and continue to run their investments in Apple II software until they completely made the switch... In the past 20 years in the computer industry I can come up with countless examples of new systems emulating old systems, new OSs from a different maker emulating another companies OS for more compat., etc. This is the nature of progress, allow the new to run the old until the old is no longer needed.... This works in all industries, not just the computer industry...

Indeed. To put it another way, OS X runs 18,000 old Mac applications (using Classic) AND 48 bazillion Windows applications (using Virtual PC). Windows, on the other hand, can run NO Mac applications because there is no counterpart to Virtual PC.

crassfool
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<To put it another way, OS X runs 18,000 old Mac applications (using Classic) AND 48 bazillion Windows applications (using Virtual PC). Windows, on the other hand, can run NO Mac applications because there is no counterpart to Virtual PC.>

It can? How well will it run all my Windows applications? Am I virtually getting both X and PC if I buy an iMac and get X?

Think Different
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I wrote

To put it another way, OS X runs 18,000 old Mac applications (using Classic) AND 48 bazillion Windows applications (using Virtual PC). Windows, on the other hand, can run NO Mac applications because there is no counterpart to Virtual PC.

Y2Ken replies

It can? How well will it run all my Windows applications? Am I virtually getting both X and PC if I buy an iMac and get X?

The OS X version of Virtual PC is announced but not yet available. I have heard that Virtual PC doesn't run in Classic. That means that right now if you buy an iMac and install 9.1 and OS X, you'll have to boot into OS 9.1 in order to run Virtual PC.

In other words, what I said is not quite true yet, and I apologize for that. But it will be true pretty soon.

As to how well Virtual PC runs your Windows programs, someone else will have to give you a report. I hear it does a good job but I haven't tried it myself.

crassfool
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
re. Virtual PC and OS X, just received this today from the nice folks at Connectix in a reply to an inquiry I had sent (much) earlier:

Dear email (I love those personalized replies)

Thank you for contacting Connectix Corporation. Concerning VPC and Mac OS X: "Based on our tests, using the current version of Virtual PC (version 3.x and 4.x) and the current Mac OS X Developer Preview 4, Virtual PC will NOT run as required. We are working very closely with Apple Computer to resolve this issue as the development process of Mac OS X continues. Connectix is committed to releasing a future version of Virtual PC that will take full advantage of the advanced features and architecture of Mac OS X to further enhance the Virtual PC experience. This future version of VPC will come out after the full customer release of Mac OS X, planned by Apple for March."


There you have it; the reply seems a little dated since OS X has been launched for almost a week now, but I think that we can expect an OS X version of VPC shortly (at which time this otherwise early adopter will plunk down his $$$)

iPaul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Kinda misleading as OSX does NOT run 18,000 existing Mac programs, OS9 within X does, and it's a rather strange concept to have an OS in an OS. I would shudder if Windows 95 came up every time I needed to run a program on Windows 98, and would think "what's wrong with 98 that it can't read programs from the past?

Uhhhh Ken .... MS-DOS

Every time I start Windows 98, it goes through an ugly and slow DOS startup procedure

There are still many applications that I can only run in "DOS mode".

So shudder away, Windows starts up DOS processes all the time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Indeed. To put it another way, OS X runs 18,000 old Mac applications (using Classic) AND 48 bazillion Windows applications (using Virtual PC). Windows, on the other hand, can run NO Mac applications because there is no counterpart to Virtual PC.crassfoolThat's not really true, either.http://www.ardi.comhttp://www.uni-mainz.de/~bauec002/B2Main.htmlThey don't get nearly as much press, but they exist, and are moderately cool pieces of engineering.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
>OS X by definition includes Classic compatibility layer, so it is not
>misleading, just as it is not misleading to say that OS X runs Unix programs.
>It's part of the package.

My experience is otherwise: the more complex software that I use (such as FileMaker, Photoshop, AppleScript, and even Eudora) are unreliable at best in Classic mode. I've taken to keeping a list of the things I need to do in Classic, and rebooting once or twice a day to get those things done. (Fortunately, Eudora has a Carbon beta available, but it is very beta, and crashes at least once a day.)

Further, it is often claimed that Classic apps cannot take down the entire system. This might be technically true. But I think that Classic itself *can* take down the entire system. I get quite a few kernel panics if I use Classic.

I wrote down my experiences at put them at http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Mimsy/osx.shtml

If you are an Apple fan, please read http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Editorials/Mimsy/BuyMac.shtml first as it may put my problems in perspective, especially my continual cry of "shades of Windows!"

Jerry
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
it's a rather strange concept to have an OS in an OS - Been in the business long, Ken? Hm, what was the main attraction of IBM's VM (Virtual Machine) operating system in the 1960's. Oh ya, you could run multiple copies of CMS, MVS and that-other-thing on the same box. .....Lee
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
what about dual booting 95 and NT? huhuhu!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Gippy says No, instead until Windows XP ships for the Wintel group, you have DOS hidden away under Win95, 98, ME, NT and Win2k...

Mark this date when Lee predicted that MS will be forced to put a DOS emulation program into XP. Otherwise the screams from the people who still run DOS programs will be heard all the way to Snoqualmie (local reference).

IMO backword-compatibility has prevented a lot of cool things from coming about in a lot of the computer world. Apple is doing it right - you can use Classic, but it isn't pleasant so you are motivated to get on with it. Once Adobe, Corel, MS and a few others are native X the universe of people needing to run classic will implode....Lee
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"No, instead until Windows XP ships for the Wintel group, you have DOS hidden away under Win95, 98, ME, NT and Win2k..."

Not totally correct.

True - Microsoft's consumer operating systems (Windows 3.x, 9.x & ME) incorporate 16bit legacy (MS-DOS) code. However, since its release in '93, Windows NT has been a totally 32bit OS - with no DOS underpinnings. Windows XP will be Microsoft's first "consumer" operating system built on top of the NT kernel and free from any legacy code.

Furthermore, since its release in '93, NT has offered memory protection and full preemptive multitasking - basic features of a modern OS that only now is being made available to the Mac via OS X.

Note - since I have absolutely no interest in AAPL as an investment, I don't usually post on this board. But your misinformation needed clearing up.

Cheers,
darrelpr
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Note - since I have absolutely no interest in AAPL as an investment, I don't usually post on this board. But your misinformation needed clearing up.
Cheers,
darrelpr



This has always been a mystery for me.

How do guys who have no interest in this board, the company, its stock or products even hear about these little things to quibble about?

Not that I want to argue about your info which is correct IIRC, I just want to know what mechanism directs you here. Do you lurk here hoping one of our posters will make a technical mistatement or is there a FUDline to the central office of pedants? Seriously.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
"...How do guys who have no interest in this board, the company, its stock or products..."

I did not say I had no interest in Apple's products.

However, I monitor a number of boards (RHAT, AAPL, LNUX, ORCL, SUNW, etc.) that I have no investment interest in. But as a MSFT employee and investor, I find it interesting to read what is posted with regards to our competitors and their products. (And no, I'm not paid to do this. I'm a Fool strictly on my own time.)

For what it's worth, there has been no shortage of AAPL Fools posting their anti-MSFT rhetoric on the MSFT board. As far as I'm concerned, its a total waste of time - might as well be arguing religion.

darrelpr
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Not that I want to argue about your info which is correct IIRC, I just want to know what mechanism directs you here.

Probably using the "Best of" selection, which you can get to in the submenu at the top of this page.

Sometimes links to certain messages also go out in daily e-mails, with just enough info to get people interested (or furious, depending on their view). Then non-regulars come, and post.

Not really a problem, though it does make for some odd threads sometimes. But it's good to get outside views sometimes.

4aapl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Author: DarrelPr     Date: 3/31/01 2:29 PM    Number: 45447
"No, instead until Windows XP ships for the Wintel group, you have DOS hidden away under Win95, 98, ME, NT and Win2k..."
Not totally correct.
True - Microsoft's consumer operating systems (Windows 3.x, 9.x & ME) incorporate 16bit legacy (MS-DOS) code. However, since its release in '93, Windows NT has been a totally 32bit OS - with no DOS underpinnings. Windows XP will be Microsoft's first "consumer" operating system built on top of the NT kernel and free from any legacy code.
Furthermore, since its release in '93, NT has offered memory protection and full preemptive multitasking - basic features of a modern OS that only now is being made available to the Mac via OS X.
Note - since I have absolutely no interest in AAPL as an investment, I don't usually post on this board. But your misinformation needed clearing up.
Cheers,
darrelpr
-------------------------

wwwwOOOOOOOoooowwwww
holy binary batman
THIRTYTWO BIT!!!
that's aaammmMMMMaaaZZiinnngg
computers are like golf right
apple's 128bit processors are not as good as NT's THIRTY-TWO BIT PROCESSORS!!!
woo-hoo 32 bits... wwwoowwswerzzz
so hold on let me fire up the abacus
32bits times 1.5MhRZ equalz = 48,000
128bit times my iMacs 400MHurtsHUH equalz = 51,200
<snarfle>
gosh i hope you have a 1.5 giger those are sure expansiVe.
hehehe
gosh what would a dual processor 500Mouch G4 do
1,280,000
ohhh the humanity
hehehe

(this ijoel is the sign of the bottom)
blü
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"But it's good to get outside views sometimes."

Exactly. Maintaining a myopic view of your favorite company and/or investments is poor business.

On a side note, my hat's off to Apple for their new PowerBook G4. Looks like a winner.

just my humble $.02 worth.

darrelpr
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Honorable DarrelPr,

Welcome to 'MacIraq'. Also, thanks for clearing up the MacRumor that NT & Win2000 'sat on top of DOS' (i knew that they didn't).

The Motley Fool boards are for *EVERYONE*, and that goes for this AAPL *STOCK* Message board that has become a MacLaunchPad for 'MacMissle Attacks' (AKA Bashing of non-Mac products)...so to speak The Truth.

KarmiCommunist
Karmic SLAUGHTERER
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
True - Microsoft's consumer operating systems (Windows 3.x, 9.x & ME) incorporate 16bit legacy (MS-DOS) code. However, since its release in '93, Windows NT has been a totally 32bit OS - with no DOS underpinnings. Windows XP will be Microsoft's first "consumer" operating system built on top of the NT kernel and free from any legacy code.

NT is supposedly a Pro operating system, not what most people experience. Anyway, does it make NT any more stable? Maybe it doesn't have DOS underneath, but it still crashes as much as MacOS 9. Nowhere near the stability of X.

If Nt has all that protected memory and stuff, it sure doesn't seem to work.

Just another anecdote:

On my PC, it crashed yesterday. On restart, up comes the crummy blue DOS screen with "Microsoft Scandisk" checking for errors.

Scandisk comes across an error, an invalid long filename (must be a Mac file I copied across without an extension or something). "Scandisk can't fix this problem, please run Scandisk for Windows"

WTF!!!???

Now, being an experienced un-Fer, I knew that this was referring to a different scandisk, and that I was in "scandisk for DOS". The problem is - how would any computer newbie know any of this?

They would freak out. DOS Scandisk doesn't even make the distinction. At the top of the screen, it says "Microsoft Scandisk", not "Scandisk for DOS".

To add to the confusion, scandisk for Windows is not actually called "Scandisk for Windows", it is just called scandisk.

Most computer users would be thrown in a loop by this one. They would think "I am booting Windows, surely this IS scandisk for windows?". Many people think that the DOS startup IS a part of Windows. They have never used DOS on it's own, they are post-98 users.

Don't even get me started on the fact that I had to run two different applications for different types of problems.

I just can't believe the number of flaws I find in Windows on a nearly daily basis.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
For what it's worth, there has been no shortage of AAPL Fools posting their anti-MSFT rhetoric on the MSFT board. As far as I'm concerned, its a total waste of time - might as well be arguing religion.

Yeah, you'd love it if people stopped expecting their computer work, and just put up with all the rubbish that spews from Redomond.

That way, you don't have to compete, or learn how to program properly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
dsheehy,

Funny how you find so many "flaws" on Windows whilst missing the disasters that are going on with Mac OS X and Mac products...so to speak The Truth:
http://macfixit.com/
http://www.macintouch.com/
http://www.macintouch.com/pbg4reader5.html
http://www.macintouch.com/733g4bench.html

KarmiCommunist
Karmic SLAUGHTERER
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If Nt has all that protected memory and stuff, it sure doesn't seem to work.

Just another anecdote:

On my PC, it crashed yesterday. On restart, up comes the crummy blue DOS screen with "Microsoft Scandisk" checking for errors.


This is clearly Windows 95, 98, or ME, not Windows NT. Why are you complaining about it and trying to pass it off as a Windows NT problem?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
BeDucky,

The Mac Faithful *ONLY* understand that systems "Crash", and have rarely (probably *NEVER*) actually used a Computer that had Protective Memory. Some of them have tried (were probably forced to by their worl place) a *REAL* PC at work, and screwed it up someway.

Since DOS & Win3.1 was replaced with Win95, i have *NEVER* had a problem with memory management, and am now using WinME (Win98 on the laptop). i have tried to explain this fact to the Mac Faithful, and they simply do not understand. i have never used NT (did test Winn2000 Beta on a 75p 40meg laptop though...nice, but naturally slow), but apparently it was *FAR* more stable than IBM's OS/2.

The Mac Faithful were taught on Kindergarten 'cOMPUTERS', and never got over it...so to speak.

Think 'Just Say *NO* to Macs in School',

Karmi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The Mac Faithful were taught on Kindergarten 'cOMPUTERS', and never got over it...so to speak.

Think 'Just Say *NO* to Macs in School',


My first exposure to Mac was around 1985 or 1986, and it was in school. Before that I had used my own TI-99/4A (from about 1981/2), occasional Apple II, Tandy CoCo, and other school and hobbyist owned computers.

I've always appreciated the Mac, and it was probably 1996 before I seriously preferred the PC over the Mac environment.

I think that, on average, Mac users are a reasonably intelligent bunch, and I have nothing against Macs in schools. I think people should be exposed to lots of computer systems in schools because they'll gradually realize how nearly universal the rules are for interacting with computers.

That being said, there is no Scandisk for DOS in Windows NT :P
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
BeDucky,

i agree that people should be exposed to different systems whilst in school; however, Macs should not be allowed in any school unless another system is there first. Schools just don't work that way usually, and i do not like the idea of some Innocent Kid being taught on a Mac, only to realize in later life that the Mac *AIN'T* 'Whar IT is at...so to speak. Next thing you know, that Mac Taught Kid is on some AAPL stock message board claiming that the Mac should rule the world!!!

;)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is clearly Windows 95, 98, or ME, not Windows NT. Why are you complaining about it and trying to pass it off asa Windows NT problem?

Huh?

When did I ever mention NT? I was just reamrking that this is very confusing for the end user, and most beginners are using Windows 98, not NT or 2000.

It was a response to a comment about Classic being an "OS inside an OS". Windows users have to do this sort of thing every day.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is clearly Windows 95, 98, or ME, not Windows NT. Why are you complaining
about it and trying to pass it off asa Windows NT problem?

Huh?

When did I ever mention NT? I was just reamrking that this is very confusing for the end
user, and most beginners are using Windows 98, not NT or 2000.

It was a response to a comment about Classic being an "OS inside an OS". Windows
users have to do this sort of thing every day.


I see the problem now.

I mentioned NT in a separate paragraph. I think NT is about as stable as MacOS 9 - no more or less. So, given that NT is supposedly an 'industrial strength' OS, that's not really promising.

The second part had no relation to that. I was talking about Windows 98, and the idea of two different OSes confuding users.

I don't know how you construed the conclusion you did. It was pretty clear I was talking about two different things.

So, do you have anything to say, or are you just trying to put words in my mouth?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
BeDucky contends, "That being said, there is no Scandisk for DOS in Windows NT "

Oh, reeeeealllly? Then what was that start-up blue thingie I ran--for what seemed like hours--just the other day on my work system, an IBM running NT 4.0, service pack 6, I believe?

Sure looked liked scandisk to me. [and it didn't fix the problem]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Oh, reeeeealllly? Then what was that start-up blue thingie I ran--for what seemed like hours--just the other day on my work system, an IBM running NT 4.0, service pack 6, I believe?

Might have been NT chkdsk. It's not a DOS program. It's also not "blue", as far as I recall, but I'm used to Win2000 (and it's only run in the case of a power outage for me). As with any disk repair utility, your mileage may vary, depending on what kind of disk failure you encounter.

Print the post Back To Top