on 3/26/01 8:55 PM, Michael W. Wellman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How much memory and/or free drive space do you typically have when seeing
> this behavior?
Between 512mb and 768mb or RAM, and between 40 and 60gb of drive space - I
would hope that's plenty for OS X to feel comfortable with...
> I note some interesting anomalies when filesharing across system versions;
> however, filesharing between MacOS X machines is apparently quite fast
Well, if that's Apple's plan to force everyone to upgrade -- it will
backfire :-)
On th eother hand, this was simple stuff - between an OS 9.1 machine, and
the Mac OS X machine -- essentially very standard procedure that would be
encountered in the field (especially as long as ASIP servers exist).
> I'd be interested in whether your results are on a G3 or a G4, what vintage,
> etc.
G3/iMac/500MHz. G4/733. G4/450. G3/PB/400.
> When playing, I've mostly only seen the intermittent long delays when I was
> resource constrained...and more often with a G3 than with a G4.
I made sure that none of these machines would be constrained by anything but
the OS.
> I theorize that the older your machine, the less stable MacOS X will be on
> it. Similarly, the more, um, interesting your machine, the less stable. So
> I'm interested in collecting more data points.
This makes sense, and it's the main reason why I stayed away from my hacked
9500 and my cherished Motorola StarMax 6000 CHiRP box. :-)
> But the same was relatively true when moving from MacOS 6 to MacOS 7 and
> when moving from the 68k to PPC.
I would disagree with that - I have been supporting graphic professionals
since System 6, through all of the System and hardware upgrades and
evolutions - while it hasn't always been smooth sailing, almost every single
of these upgrades has brought advantages and benefits with it, along with
great consistency in the user interface (allowing users to continue working
seamlessly, more or less). None of this holds true for OS X for now, or the
forseeable future. The user interface is often different for no other reason
than to be different, and the benefits (besides the 'modern OS benefits')
are overshadowed by the problems. What good is an OS with multitasking, when
it freezes up my machine and crawls like molasses?
Seriously, many standard operations, including pulling down menus, and
navigating a drive take noticeably longer under OS X than under OS 9 (even
on a 733 G4). Furthermore, I am losing screen real-estate because of the
fatter menu bars and the larger widgets.
I see the potential where it MIGHT become a useful OS in the future, but it
will have to do a lot of growing up (and reintegrating useful OS 9 features)
before it can claim that title.
> Really, it'll take compelling apps (and
> more debugging) to bring MacOS X to the mainstream.
Bear in mind, there are some apps, like Lightwave, that will perform better
under OS X than OS 9, and in the case of such vertical applications, I'd
recommend OS X - anything else, OS 9 allows the user to work faster, and
more productively, and most of all, more consistently.
Harry
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
