On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 01:20 , Kaufman, Charles wrote: > I'm sure you are going to receive lots of recommendation that you use > OSX. > But I would recommend you stay with OS 9.2.2. OSX software is still > very > much a learning experience with most developers, lots of updates to fix > bugs. So unless you are planning on using software the REQUIRES OSX, I > would stick with OS9 for now.
I just don't get it. OS X is a well established operating system now. Performance has been enhanced tremendously, and there are a plethora of applications available for it. I just don't understand why so many Mac users still continue to resist it. Personally, I found it to be a VAST improvement on Classic Mac OS from the get go and, in its current incarnation, I find it to be the best OS I've ever used on ANY platform. > As far as using classic window in OSX - ugh! It is the worse of both > worlds > (OS9 and OSX). You end up dealing with twice as many (OSX AND OS9) > bugs and > crashes. So don't RUN OS 9 apps. The person we're discussing here is a NEW Mac user with the freedom to choose Mac OS X native apps from the get go. Just like when I sold my old Revision B iMac to my friend who's never used a modern computer before now. I didn't even INSTALL OS 9 for him. He runs of OS X exclusively, and he's never complained to me about a lack of software, especially for basic needs. Running OS 9 apps is only an issue for previous Mac users who still want to use some legacy applications they've come to rely on. A new user, however, has no such restrictions and can start from scratch with OS X apps exclusively. > Yes, it is true application problems do NOT bring > done the whole system in OSX classic window but in my opinion, that > does NOT > compensate for apps crashing more often. They don't, though. OS X native apps, particularly those written in Cocoa, are incredibly stable in and of themselves. Thinking of the three Cocoa apps I use most often, I can't remember the last time Apple Mail, OmniWeb or Icy Juice crashed. > And there is a performance hit as well. With 256 megs of RAM and a processor upgrade? The performance hit would be negligible for the tasks described by this user. And the gain in stability would be more than worth the small performance hit that there IS. John A. Ardelli Owner/Moderator BIFIDA-L: The Original Spina Bifida Discussion List The Crystal Corner - The Original Dark Crystal Discussion List -- The iMac List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | - Epson Stylus Color 580 Printers - new at $69 | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> iMac List info: <http://lowendmac.com/imac/list.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/imac-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> --------------------------------------------------------------- >The Think Different Store http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
