On 17/11/02 at 10:21 am, Richard Kenward wrote: > Now I admit to not having had my eye on the ball as regards to OSX > but the version numbers do seem to be adding up at an alarming rate > which to me says one of two things. > > a) A heck of a lot of new features they thought it needed after > launch.
True. > b) A heck of a lot needed putting right after launch. True. > c) Apple are a factitious lot and this is simply very fine > tuning and really the product was OK from the start. Well, it depends how you look at it. A lot DID need putting right after launch, but none of it was concerned with safety; there were lots of missing drivers, it ran like a dog, but even when it came out it was rock solid and didn't crash. They're certainly 'fine tuning' all the time, which I'm glad of, but from the very beginning there was no risk of 'OS X ate my hard disk', except from a lot of folks who didn't pay attention and deleted lots of files because they 'couldn't see what they were for' etc. > The idea of running ones business on an operating system that's still > in beta seems rather risky The beta days are long gone; almost a couple of years now. I've run it since it came out, March before this one, and it's crashed twice; both times were my own fault. And oddly, from the first, I've worked much faster, in spite of the fact that OS X at the beginning was (and still is) much 'slower' than OS 9. Design is more important than Mhz... > and at best rather time consuming from the posts about it here. Hint taken :-) -- best wishes Paul http://www.paulbradforth.com =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
