Re: OS For IIGS

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article hattonr@aug.com (Rick Hatton) writes...

>Mitchell Spector <spec@vax2.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>> most of those
>> old 16-bit applications have been ported to 32-bit so the point is
>> almost moot.
>
>Maybe they have been ported, but that doesnt mean people and/or
>companies canafford togo out and upgrade. We are using several 16 bit
>apps at school.

    Even in that case, it still does cooperative multitasking smoother,
more reliably and more transparently than with MacOS (holding down the
mouse button halts ALL tasks? That is another thing entirely that makes
it a joke, it cannot even *single task* an application as long as you
hold down the button!). Even if you only had 16-bit applications you
will still be better off, but in the majority of cases people out there
are using 32-bit applications which does preemptive. There is no such
thing in MacOS no matter what applications you use.

>> Do you _really_ believe Win95 and MacOS are on par
>> with each other for multitasking? (If so, may I return your "Hahaha"
>> from above back to you? :)
>
>All I can say is... my 25 mhz 040 mac did things faster and crashed
>about the same amonut as my 486 W3.1 machine. My Umax C500 runs faster
>and crashes much LESS than the IBM branded pentium machine at work. I
>canget more thigs done on a Mac (or a GS) than on that Wintel machine at
>work.

    Yep, all you can say is something that has nothing to do with
what is quoted above, completely avoiding the issue of multitasking.

    Interesting that you should find those results, a friend of my
brother has a Macintosh LC575. She ended up replacing it with a
386SX-16 because it was _faster_ and handled Netscape and other
Internet software with better results than the Macintosh. That
lowly 386sx has even been more entertaining (and again faster)
for game software. I've personally seen mid-range (and might I
add obsolite) 486's out perform 80-100 MHz PPC _PowerMacintosh_
systems for playing full screen video and audio. Something is
wrong when 386's and 486's outperform PPC Macintoshes (the LC575
is a 68K machine, but _should_ still outperform something as
ancient and low end as a 386sx! My Apple IIgs even does!).

>.... so, I'll end my participation is this by saying.... I am no novice
>in personal computing. I researched the machine and software.  I am more
>productive on my Mac than on any flavor of Windows. My Mac  at home is
>more reliable than the IBM branded pentium at work.

    I find it hard to call a Macintosh "productive" when it has you
sitting there tapping your fingers, waiting for the machine to catch
up to *you*. Even if you ignore the fact it is sluggish, you still
cannot do true multitasking and it crashes often, which kills your
productivity even more. Computers should comform to your speed, not 
you to it!

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca