On 2008-10-09, at 07:53, Earle Martin wrote:
2008/10/9 Peter da Silva <[email protected]>
By 1999, that wasn't even a zombie any more. It was a midden with
wicker bones, as full of life as a dead dog on an anthill.
While I must commend you for your Clive Barker-esque literary
flair, I feel obliged to point out that I was quite happy with it
as an OS. Then again, I never tried to use iTunes on it, but my
experiences with iTunes have more or less shown it to be the kiss
of death for any operating systems.
If it was just iTunes I would have gone "oh, that's a buggy program".
If iTunes had that kind of behavior on OS X or Windows, I would have
gone "oh, that's a buggy program". But no, it was any program that
did anything computationally intensive (compilers, image editors, any
program working with compressed data (like... web browsers displaying
JPG images), ...). The great multitasking charade just collapsed. I'd
show this to "real mac fans" and they'd go "well, what do you expect,
you're trying to do ..." and rattle off a list of things that Mac OS
shouldn't be asked to do, but rarely with any explanation for why
not, and when there was an explanation it was more like an apology
for some ancient curse left over from some design decision Apple had
made back in the '80s that I'd thought was a bad idea even back then.
The next response was "well, why do you want to?". Because it's
something I was accustomed to doing, because every other OS (even
ones that conventional wisdom derided for being buggy and unstable,
like AmigaOS) could handle just fine. Even Windows 95 was more stable
and reliable than any pre-Rhapsody OS with an Apple logo on it.
