|
|
|
|
| Welcome, Guest | Home | Search | Login | Register | |
| Author | Newbie in da house... (Read 39127 times) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
blackangel
16 MB  Posts: 22 
|
on: October 31, 2008, 16:25
Hi there, just poped in to say hi to everyone on the forum. (Just a slight note of caution. I use unstrained words in this post, of which have be sensored. I don't mean to offend, just that it makes more emphasise of the hatred that I have against crappy OS's such as MacOS X) I just want to add, that this site is the best replicated MacOS 7 style that I have seen since apple went whacky aqua style... hopefully Apple doesn't sue for gui design... it closely resembles Apple.com when 7.6.1 was KING! Its great to see guys/gals knowing what a great OS version 7 was. I use 7.6.1 on my 7200/90 which I'm hoping to ramp up with 512MB ram and upgrading the extras... SCSI160 controllers with int/ext Seagate 15k Cheetahs and faster CD rom, the current 4x is somewhat slow:( ... etc, etc Also, I'm not sure if the webmaster actually put down in the 'Why System 7' page, that MacOS version 7.x had the largest number of true innovations to *date*, that actually came out from within Apple, and not plugged in from third party sources as they do in X.... Not even X comes close... I think Apple gave the R&D department the flick, especially from a SW point of view... all the glam that you see in X is just that, all looks but no substance. I litteraly have more crashes on this crappy iMac that I use at work running 10.4.11 than I do running 7.6.1. Can anyone see a flaw in that statement? If you said SJ stated that X is the next best thing to sliced bread and it won't have as many problems as Pre X MacOS's, then go to the head of the class. Sick I am of that freaking beach ball always spining, Sick of the freaking lag of response between applications, Sick of the unexpected errors, with no mentioning to freaking why it crashed. At least Classic applications gave meaningfull meassages... Even if it gave an error code, which culd have easilly been searched on. Whats the freaking use of having pre-emptive MT if the OS is crap... mind you the iMac has 1GB memory and runs @ 1GH... which should make it run circles against the aged 7200/90... but does it... F no! Lets face it people X killed great technologies - Quickdraw - OpenDoc - Quickdraw GX - Appearance Manager - PowerTalk - AppleShare... I mean Apache may be the norm for most geeks, but couldn't Apple stick to their guns and improve AppleShare? S?!t, even MS made an effort to improve IIS, and its pretty dame good if your managing a PC Box. The same could be said for AppleShare... - etc... etc... - but most of all X killed the Macintosh... it is no more different that a $5 CD of linux running on an intel crappy machine. What Macintosh is now, is but just a name. People got used to the 'Macintosh' brand and Apple decided to keep it. That wasn't the case when Apple changed processor/families of prevoius machines... Apple II, AppleIIgs Apple Lisa, Mac68K, MacPPC, noting that (Mac68K, MacPPC) where mainly built with Motorola whereas MacPPCG3/G5 had IBM chips. Whats so Macintosh now on X... the freaking finder which is a complete joke? The crappy applications bundled with the OS... I mean who the hell designed the GUI for the Applications that are dished out as standard Apps in X... a 5 year old... its a shame that the lady (sorry don't know her name... I'm sure someone here can look it up) that actually deigned the icons and look and feel of Apple for quite some time went to Microsoft, couldn't Apple keep great talent? If I was Apple I would have paid here twice as much as MS just to keep talent like that. What X is now is over bloated GUI... can anyone say why have I got a 2x23" Apple design HD running on a G4(my other machine running 9.2.2)... is it so I can run X at even the highest resolution and make it seem I run it at 320x200 vga style? what a joke. Classic, espeacially 7.6.1 or even 7.1-7.5.5 were very slick... not overly bloat mamoths. From recollection, Apple used to boast that MS was bloated both from a look and feel to Application size... its funny that Apple has followed the same path... Data/Resource fork/ROM I hear you say, they don't exist in X... price issue you say, I say that was complete BS which Aplle made up, even PC brands have there own ROMS, it goes by the name CMOS... yes, X is a bloated pig... just take a look at Apple's offerings esp, Cocoa rubbish (Mail.app size 44.3MB ram req : 30Mb with VM pool at around 183MB looking at >top within terminal) compared to (Outlook Express 4.5.3 - 6.2MB : PPC version with what ever stated in Memory settings. I run it at 32min, 64MB max, though it never reaches neither when I look at About this Computer memory chart) Lets us not forget the day that SJ killed it (Macintosh) just like he does with any great technology that came out of Apple... the guy is out of his mind... and I never liked it since he came back... I say put Steve Wozniak at the helm at Apple, at least he knows WTF he is on about... great Software and Hardware, and not some iphone/iPod gymicks. As Steve Wozniak stated in an interview after X was introduced... sorry I don't have a ref, but it's true, his statement goes something along the lines of ... " I feel that new OS (stating that both MacOS and Windose) that have been developed have actually gone backwards instead of forwards" or to something of that extent. Anyways, enough bitching, I'll catch you guys in the forum. later blackangel |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #1 on: November 01, 2008, 02:38
|
Well, I have to say I disagree with pretty much everything you said. Mac OS X, especially Leopard, is just a stunning operating system. iLife and iWork dominate their categories in beauty and user friendliness. I have never felt as much joy using a computer as I do my Mac Pro. It is to date, the best combination of hardware and software ever. At System 7 Today we're working to make this great system useful in a modern work environment. That being said, we all share a common admiration for the cleanliness, efficiency and no-nonsense System 7 and welcome you to System 7 Today.
|
blackangel
|
16 MB Posts: 22
Reply #2 on: November 02, 2008, 08:02
|
I disagree, but than others have different opinions on many different things. X is bloated. And you may have used Leopard, but lets face it, X has taken a mere 8 years or so to do. Most of the tech was taken from Pre X, and the likes of InkWell (if that still exists seeing SJ likes to kill things off) from the Newton... so I don't think it was hard to transition. esp when it took only 1-2 years for CFM 68k-PPC interchangeability. Remember Open Step ran on both 68k and Intel chips even before SJ came back to Apple. Making X (aka Open Step) run on PPC/Intel would/should have taken the same amount of time. The applications you mention ...iLife, well what can I say. Anyone heard of MS Office, what about Adobe Professional suite 6.5, ? The MS Office 2000/ Adobe Pro suite 6.5 for Mac that I have was already there.... what's with waiting another 8 years for Apple to come out of the closet? Was it iTunes or iPhoto, iWorks or Garageband.... those apps existed long before Apple made a big thing about it. I recall Quicktime being king during the 7-9 periods. Anyone use Quicktime player in X... don't think so. They use iTunes. What use the reason for Apple still existing today wasn’t the fact that SJ came back it was because during the MacOS 7-8 periods especially, a lot of work was put into making MacOS what it was. A true icon. Quicktime was at the forefront during that period. Now with the advent of X, Quicktime at least in my mind mind has taken a back seat to itunes. Lets hope Apple doesn’t drop that great tech, and pick up something else. Though probably that statement is somewhat too late... esp with OpenAL on the scene. Yes another NONE Apple initiative, and into the grand scheme of things for developers... any check the number of variations that have been presented as the foundation of Macintosh development. If it doesn’t change every month, then I’m a liar. What made Macintosh a Macintosh, remember people was that Apple cultured in-house technologies and made them work seamlessly across many variations of 68k/PPC machines. Apple should have been smart and like SGI, who ended up giving the public OpenGL and VRML and other techs but still retaining rights. Apple should have made it open in the same way. Which would have meant that technologies which got born in Apple staying with Apple but with help from the broader community. In that respect it could have retained my favourite Quickdraw3D API which could have it a real rival to DirectX. Apple could have at one stage bought out Radius, ATI, bought back Avid and made SoftImage apart of the now Pro suite. Not all apps which you or others have come to know as being Apple were Apples in the first place. - FCP (Originally Macromind/Macromedia) - Logic Pro (Emagic) - Shake (Nothing Real) -etc As a Mac guy since PPC came out, and as a developer, X is really nothing more than $5 Linux... FACT! The Macintosh is just a brand name. SJ could have used Open Step. But then its all just business. Anyways, I'm glad that I use 7.6.1 on my 7200 and 9.2.2 on my G4 MDD. At least the OS's are responsive. X is basically a three legged dog trying to run... it gets there in the end but not as quickly as one would like. That statement is not being biased as I have test drived the usability of Leopard on a Apple Pro at an Apple store to see what the fuss is al about... it legs in responsiveness! For a user that has not used a computer that wouldn't matter as they can't compare Apples with Apples. But once you have used previous Apple offerings and then use X, it seems like its carrying the kitchen sink plus some. Now, with version 7, esp 7.6.1 it zoomed, and responded very well more so than 8 or even 9, and if you had the thread manager or threaded apps, (CO-OPERATIVE ENVIRONMENT) they seemed the same or better in response or execution than X (PRE-EMPTIVE ENVIRONMENT) apps... so what's the story with pre-emptive environment being better? The only thing that X really has over Pre X OS's is Memory Protective environment and the allowing of Apps to use VM when they want, and not restrict them to the Memory Stack of the application which is set in the Memory control panel of the Application. To actually fix that problem Apple could have come up with a similar scheme as to what Win 2000-Vista use. That is to segregate any application that uses none memory protective calls in it own user space. This is achieved in X but not really. If I run iTunes 8 and I run Anarchie Pro 3.5 in classic, iTunes causes Anarchie to freeze at times, this has been proven on a number of occasions, even with other Apps like IE classic 5.1.7 etc. The only catch in X is. You won't get a Type 11 or Type 3 error message displayed to you. In X it actually exhausts the memory pool if it can and then, you may need to force quit the finder... this is no different to restarting your Mac running 7,8 or 9 only that it is quicker. X is a sales pitch and many programmers know it, though they can’t really do much about it seeing that they get income from selling SW/HW for the platform. Its the end users that are the misfortunate ones to hand out hard earned $ for patch jobs.
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #3 on: November 02, 2008, 18:12
|
After reading your last two posts, I'm essentially speechless. Clearly you haven't used much (if any) of the software you're bashing. I suggest you give a new Mac and it's included software a real authentic try, before making statements like iLife and iWork are "the same" as Office 2000 and Adobe anything simply because they share categorical similarities like the ability to make charts and organize photos. iLife and iWork aren't about creating new types of software, but rather setting totally new standards for what this software can be. QuickTime hasn't taken a backseat to anything, but in fact is the underlying power of iTunes, Mac OS X and pretty much every thing you see on a Mac. Whether or not people use QuickTime Player is meaningless - it's simply a utility to play QuickTime content. So is iTunes. Would you feel better if iTunes was renamed QuickTime Player? I'm having a hard time imagining exactly what it is that you want QuickTime Player to be? You mention development on a Mac being not to your standards. I don't see how anyone could say that when Apple bends over backwards for developers, giving them a rich assortment of über-easy to use and implement technologies like CoreImage to make sure that every app looks and runs great with a minimum amount of effort and hassle. Xcode, as a development environment, is incredibly rich, flexible, and user friendly, and best of all is free. After reading your post, I really don't think you have much experience in this area either. I really think you should just relax and think about what you're saying. Give a new Mac a real authentic try, as I said earlier. You'll come to enjoy it and you'll see that the Mac is still quit different from Windows and anything else out there.
|
blackangel
|
16 MB Posts: 22
Reply #4 on: November 10, 2008, 13:36
|
Mate, I beg to differ, I have used MS office & Adobe Profesional Bundle 6.5 both from a PC & Mac environment. Have used iLife, and iLife is clearly just gymic and so are the standard Apps that come on X. Thet reason why you are uspset is that I'm ditching X. Yes, I am, because it is bloated. ******Cocoa****** apps are bloated pigs... *STOP DENNYING IT!* . I didn't mention anything that wasn't Cocoa based, as those are probably more responsive than their Cocoa equivalents, and probably more stylish and concise. Have a look a Shake... written entrily in C++. That is an application. Have a look a FCP, written in C++. Then have a look at iMovie, written in Cocoa... stylish, yes, and also slow, compared to its dady. Yes I have used/tested iLife on a Apple Pro 8 Core System like I said. It was at an Apple store. It had 4GB ram on the bloody thing and it still was slow... FACT!!! When I meant slow, the response time is nothing compared even to a Quadra 840 AV decked out with 256MB ram... the quadra running a pleasant 40MHz using a MOT 68040 chip, the 8 Core MacPro on the other hand was the top of the range. When I was testing it (MacPro running Leopard) the response or the perception of speed was more in favour with the older system. My point being... there is not point having such a beastly HW system if the OS is crippled. Its the OS which causes the stalling, the BS beachball and general lag, X is flawed in that sense, not the UNIX layer. I don't see why programmers don't ditch Cocoa entirley and write straight for X-Window based environment. Then the speed of the HW would be seen! But then, if they did that would be no more different than writing code for Linux, and as you would have remembered I stated that X is no more than a $5 CD running Linux... What's the issue... that I'm stating what the bloody obvious is? This is a System 7 forum, and I stated that 7 in true respect was the only true MacOS which had the most number of internal Apple Technologies come out of it during the periods 7.0 to 7.6.1. System 7 was the icon for all other OS's. Unlike X. If you do any research to even Linux App dev, you would realise that they are actually following most of the stuff layed out in 7.x, which means Apple stuffed up and dropped technologies that they shouldn't have. Also you do any Palm pilot programming. Look at the interface esp, on the older 68k Based models, not the ARM based models... the programming framework is near 100% that of the Old classic 6-9.x programming. I can only conclude that respectable Apple Programmers ditched Apple to work for Palm, during the period of massive layoffs from within Apple... The year SJ became CEO again... I can tell you this much, If you have a dedicated Machine, that is one that is ramped up with dedicated HW on either your 68k based machine or PPC up to I think the 9500 running 7.5.5 or 7.6.1, and you actually did any testing against the new Macs running X of any flavour, you would realise that X is a joke. I should also know, I have 10.4.11 running on the G4... If you read my response you would have realised this. The mear fact that I don't have a MacPro is due to not needing another door stop in the next couple of years. The machines I use are quite adequet for what I am doing. To purchase a MacPro just for the sake of doing BS mail and wordpressing or small tasks is a bit of a waste even Movie Editing... the G4 is ample enough. Unless you get $ donations from the US govenrment, then I can tell you, putting the money down for something like that is plan silly. A 68k system running probably 7.5.5 is more than adequet. Development tools were always there for macintosh programmers. Some used MacApp others MPW, others CW, or ThinkC and etc. There are currently less dev tools with balls than there were during 68k/PPC years. Everyone is forced by Apple to use a crappy IDE with a crappy Framework (cocoa). Hell, you might as well write (X - windows) Apps, as they are always faster in response than that of Apples own. I'm not saying UNIX is a pile of dog poo, I'm saying that the foundamentals of X running under cocoa is flawed and that is why it is so slow. Objective C is just another layer on top of C itself. IF you did any form of study in CompSci, the rule is - the more abstract the layer is the more you can do, as in, it is easier to understand and expand, but in turn it may be hit with speed issues as it has to go up the chain, much like C++ does but not to the same extent. Objective C follows Lisp and C and I think Forth, the nature of the framework is what causes its slowness. I could care less what John Carmack says about Open Step and its tools now better know as Macos X. Apple had great tools before, take MacApp for example, they could have made them even better if they didn't BS around... they should have become the better business to that of MS. Instead Apple just played games and resulted in them killing of a lot of cool technologies instead of fostering them to an extent that even X today couldn't rival. But I guess its the BS managment and the BS politics that go with business that cause such things to happen. Continuing on... or even worse yet JAVA... a joke in my books. Anyone calling themselves a programmer and coding in JAVA should be laughed at... Quicktime is getting a back seat for anyone that has been noticing the the change of Apple, there is no doubt about it. Apple doesn't promote Quicktime as it once did, as NOW they are promoting their iTunes/iPod/iPhone hysteria. From a developer viewpoint that should be the concern. If I was to ask the general populas who use a mac to tell me if iTunes sites on top of Quicktime, the response that I would probably get is... What is Quicktime... from a marketing/sales point of view, they don't care, they are racking in the money from iTunes and the iPhone/iPods... that may be the downfall to Quicktime in general. I didn't say Quicktime is dead, not yet anyway. But like I said, and if you actually read my second response it may be a whole different story with OpenAL coming into the scene... Have you even looked at the new Programmers API foundation layer yet... If you haven't I recommend that you do... OpenAl as a new layer, right next to Quicktime. That is why I stipulated earlier that these so called Apple Foundation layers are a pile of crap, I don't think any programmer out there that actully did any code believes in them. Apple seems to always change it, When I stated nearly every month, I wasn't joking. We all know what happened to OpenDoc and PowerTalk, etc... trashed, yet they were all on the future Foundamental chart for programmers to follow. Then the technologies got droped. OpenAL being the equivalent to OpenGL, but to music and sound... the very think which QuickTime looks after. And again I stress, Quickdraw3D was a OpenGL equivalent, but Apple dropped it in favour of OpenGL... who can tell me that QuickTime won't get the same treatment... SJ?  With the following extract from your post " You mention development on a Mac being not to your standards. I don't see how anyone could say that when Apple bends over backwards for developers, giving them a rich assortment of über-easy to use and implement technologies like CoreImage to make sure that every app looks and runs great with a minimum amount of effort and hassle. Xcode, as a development environment, is incredibly rich, flexible, and user friendly, and best of all is free. After reading your post, I really don't think you have much experience in this area either. " Apple doesn't care about programmers which don't turn volume copies of their software. There have been many discussions (carbon-dev... yes I probably have more experience than you give me credit for...) as to why Apple dropped Carbon, or in the process of phasing it out completly and have Cocoa take over... Cocoa is like I said it is, a bloated pig... which is really slow, and they are implementing JAVA stuff in it, and we all know how fast JAVA is... *NOT*! Even Sun, the dady company which invented the stupid framework/language ditched there Pure JAVA desktop machines, a dedicated SparcIII chip running JAVA in native form. At the time they cost a bloody lot, like US $5K, and they were so bloody slow in execution that NO ONE wanted one, I don't think you can even find one out there for second hand sale... thats is how pathetic it was. System 7 today is a great response to the ignorant people running X or VISTA, both are trash. At least this site actually knows what a proper OS is Anyways... till later
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #5 on: November 10, 2008, 20:40
|
I'd type out a response to that, but then i'd just be repeating my previous posts. Your main argument against modern software seems to be that it occupies more hard drive space and doesn't run as fast as System 7 would on a quad-core Xeon, not whether or not the software is actually better (which it is). You can't say "FACT" the computers are slow because of iLife and Mac OS X when I and many of us here own said computers and find them to be quite satisfactory. I can't say much more, other than I have a wide selection of some of the fastest System 7 computers ever made and I still prefer to use my Mac Pro 99% of the time. I'm not sure where or what the argument is, so I won't continue here.
|
blackangel
|
16 MB Posts: 22
Reply #6 on: November 18, 2008, 06:42
|
Good, your arguments were irrelevent anyways, seeing you only have an Intel Pro Mac... how can you be a judge on anything else?
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #7 on: November 18, 2008, 17:26
|
Quote from: "blackangel" Good, your arguments were irrelevent anyways, seeing you only have an Intel Pro Mac... how can you be a judge on anything else? How did you miss this? Quote from: "dpaanlka" I can't say much more, other than I have a wide selection of some of the fastest System 7 computers ever made and I still prefer to use my Mac Pro 99% of the time.
|
blackangel
|
16 MB Posts: 22
Reply #8 on: January 23, 2009, 09:56
|
If you actually had old Mac models which ran 7, and not under emulation, than your occupation in your profile would to me seem different... Having an occupation as a University student, and acquiring more than two dozon Macintosh models by 2008 which do run 7 seems to me a little strange. I think your lying.
|
blackangel
|
16 MB Posts: 22
Reply #9 on: January 23, 2009, 11:47
|
Mac OS X is not the hardware... if you get speed on those systems ITS BECAUSE THEIR NOT COCOA RUBBISH apps! and the hardware is vastly improved and *YES* the hardware is somewhat better, though I don't see the point of having USB... ADB/SCSI worked quit well for what they did... This USB/FIREWIRE is just anothe complexity... I couldn't say a SCSI320 PCI/X card is equivalent or slower than Say ULTRA WIDE SCSI, or even SCSI 160 which run under 7.6.1 or that a 8Core MacPro is slower than say a Quadra 840AV in 68040 chip or Apple SE 30. That would be BS'ing. I made the point that X and offerings from MS after WIN2000Pro or any OS after Year 2000 are now dishing out over useless HUGE sluggish crap, which make the INTERACTION with the system slow. AND THAT IS FACT! Your point is different in light of WHAT you want to believe. But if your are in industry like actually using these OS's to earn cash or otherwise you will come across many, many people which have the same view that I have... From the PC side, most still see Win98/2000 as the perfect OS for their PC needs. From the Mac side most of them see 6/7.5.5/7.6.1/9.2.2 as the holy grail. Some still prefer to use II/gs or Amiga or Atari variants. Anyone using X now is only due to UNIX and iTunes euphoria... UNIX by the way is from 1975 or there abouts which means its far older. Which should mean its old hat. How come you didn't dish that age... UNIX was made by University (mostly) personnel staff which later ended up going in the private work sector and they took their code with them. The prompt either c:\ or % was seen as KING. No one before 1990 even, could even afford a UNIX platform, on a personal level, anyways. The thing now is just for the dumb asses that don't know any better. And most don't use the prompt either from a PC aka DOS/Win or Mac X perspective. If you had Pre 7 OS's you would note that they came with a terminal app.. You heard it correct. So the distinction between UNIX and Mac was transparent apart from their memory and thread scheduling techniques... Nothing else. Again, an old Sun Sparc II, or even the pre MIPS SGI's use... yes Motoral 68K chips... even NextStep/Amiga/Atari HW origianlly used it. How is to say that now UNIX is the thing... UNIX/MacOS X could have easily been employed within MacOS version 7... you basically had the grunt of the Sparc and the SGI boxes... nothing stopped Apple apart from wanky business decisions. The 68K environment (the chip itself could support yes multi processing (68040 line 4xSM processing) and preemptive/co-operative) nicely. MacOS 7 could have run the same way as UNIX (preemptive) or Standard co-operative and schedule the task against the respective method in order to accommodate processor time... maybe you should do a little bit of study before mocking me... try A/UX. The reason why most new apps are faster than its predecessor is mostly due to HW improvements not the OS or the new versioned App itself! The fact that they take up space for no benefit is a bloody waste of space, and they really don't take advantage of 64bit memory addressing especially X Cocoa... ITS COCOA rubbish I'm dishing, its the culprit. I don't think if anyone has exhausted the amount of memory... just take a look at a COCAO crap app like Mail.app. Its size is 44MB or so. Now look at MS Outlook Express (classic) 5.0.2. Its size is 6.2 MB... can anyone please tell me WTF is up with that? Take a look at the memory requirements... Mail.app is a behemoth... do you or any one else get satisfaction? No, not really cause when you use the application you don't think of these things. But a competent programmer will look at it and tell you its straight out shit. Can not someone use outlook express and do the same things if not more than Mail.app? Then test the speed... and don't compare Mail.app against Outlook Express in (Classic Mode - X emulation crap).. Run OE under straight 7/8/9, though you may need to get the version applicable to 7. 5.0.2 I think only works on 8.5 and above The fact that UNLESS your application really needs to use 64Bit addressing is pointless... The fact that COCOA applications are as slow is the problem. I didn't state that HW is slow, its the OS which makes it seem slow... try VISTA on a 2.6GHz duo Thinkpad... thats what I think of X... again I should know I have a ThinkPad R60 running this and it sucks balls, much like X.x anyhting on the G4 that I have and the MacPro which I tested. Who is going need that power running every day Apps... NO ONE!... Most apps could run satisfactory even in 16bit mode or 8 bit mode... Hell they were 3D applications that were for II/gs environment... say what... yes you heard me correct... Why is it that now the bloody things have a minimum memory requirment of 2-4GB or memory, its because all BS companies want your money so they put out shit software for you or others to buy, when in actual fact you could have done the same thing with your existing SW just as example. If you want to test speed. Go test a 8Core MacPRo RUNNING terminal with simple tasks like file listing etc, except search, would even seem laughable against my PC 386SX 25Mhz with 4MB ram and 40MB HD... running a command like DIR in 6.2.2 DOS Shell is QUICKER than doing ls in terminal on the MacPro... I'm mean that is not only a joke that is pathetic.... FACT cause I have that form of HW and wanted to prove to myself that certain tasks are by no means any faster under new hw than older HW or OS versioning... The reason why most jerk offs buy this new HD most of the time is to brag or just to get the satisfaction of having something like every other JO. I see that a lot with wankers that carry around their iPods/iPod nanos... its like they need to have that, so they are apart of something... but in reality they are no better off. Its an illusion which has manifested itself in their thinking and basically as made them in brainless none individualist sheep. The reason why HW has evolved is not so much for everyday usage its for big firms needing grunt. Again, these new HW may be great, but if your company can still make $5Mill in a year running OLD school Pre X pre PIV hardware... why waste the money? The argument is, the offering from Apple/M$ and others even Adobe once looked to make software for spead and efficency. Now all these dicks are intersted in Freaking FAT icons... cause like everyone here knows its these FACT 32bit icons which make up the app... They are made for the build/kids... I mean why have a resolution at 2400 x 1900 when these icons take half your screen real estate... utter BS gimmick. What a load of shit! That's something you tell an uneducated idiot! I prefer the speed of Adobe Reader 4.5 against version 8 any day! People that make money especially in large engineering firms don't use that crap. They mostly use pre x86 Sun or pre x86 SGI boxes... each with their respective UNIX flavor... Solaris and IRIX. These OS's don't look grand but they get the job done and their bloody efficient in terms of speed, memory usage and everything... just like OLD school Mac, Amiga, Atari etc apps... WHICH MATTERS when your making money not jerking off admiring the desktop and its drop shadow effects But then again, anyone reading this has their own view upon things. I'm made a call in saying 7.6.1 or even when I run 7.5.5 on the 7200 runs like a gun. Getting the job done is what matters, and if I can get a engineering contract running 7.6.1 running Form-Z 2.4 against a newly polished Mac which would cost me money - something a smart person doesn't want to waste, then why not, its not the extra GUI BS which overloads your GC/CPU and Memory make me money. The G4 thing is there due to the fact that I wanted the lasted original Macintosh that would run a decent OS not X (aka skin deep looks).
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #10 on: January 23, 2009, 18:02
|
Quote from: "blackangel" If you actually had old Mac models which ran 7, and not under emulation, than your occupation in your profile would to me seem different... Having an occupation as a University student, and acquiring more than two dozon Macintosh models by 2008 which do run 7 seems to me a little strange. The number is actually probably in the 60 - 70 range. I do not run System 7 in emulation on anything. In fact, I detest emulation and frequently argue against it here and elsewhere on the web. Obviously they are not physically here with me on the University campus, but rather in my parents' basement. Quote from: "blackangel" Huge block of nonsense that I'm not going to read. Now you're just being a troll. Please stop posting at length about this subject, or do so with brief and well constructed posts that are clear and logical.
|
bd1308
|
128 MB Posts: 198 
Reply #11 on: January 23, 2009, 18:32
|
First off, LMAO. Great read for sure... Second, System 7 was great for its time...memory management is great, reliability is fantastic, and its very streamlined. I love being able to plug in any IDE drive with X amount of capacity and the OS just formats it ( obviously there's a file system limit for the max size of an 'allocation unit' or 'cluster' so my 80GB drive will have TONS of wasted space) . However, things evolve...you certainly dont see any brand spankin' new apps on floppies, or on cassette tapes. System 7 just doesn't offer the same flexibility as X when it comes to present-day apps. Development is great with a FREE integrated IDE which provide thousands of native OS GUI modules, objects and methods for easily creating any app for X. Secondly, yeah your office might have fit onto a Zip Disk back in the day, but as apps become more user-friendly, less obtrusive and supporting 64-bit processors that are out now, that all takes space. Same way with games -- Doom for DOS was alot less of a 'space hog' than Doom III for PC, but you get a better experience. Same way with X. Saying that something is 'crappy' doesnt really offer any thoughts on anything. Java was created by C++ programmers to offer a web presence, offer a built-in GUI support, and be platform-independent. How is that crappy? C++ / C doesnt offer any of these... System 7 is great, and still is , but I only break out my collection of 16 or so macs every-so-often for nostalgia. In fact, I restored a mac portable, and I rarely even use it--there's only so much that 7 will do on a 68000.
|
blackangel
|
16 MB Posts: 22
Reply #12 on: May 16, 2009, 11:03
|
Its been a long time since my last debut, but I have risen again to respond to this thread " Saying that something is 'crappy' doesnt really offer any thoughts on anything. Java was created by C++ programmers to offer a web presence, offer a built-in GUI support, and be platform-independent. How is that crappy? C++ / C doesn't offer any of these... " C/C++ does offer these, you are just ignorant. There are things called libraries which you compile with your code these libraries offer extended functionality, something that OPEN DOC... yes OPEN DOC, the technology which came with 7.5.5 and 7.6.1 where futher ahead of JAVA at the time any day. The reason why JAVA became popular is due to the fact that business managers wanted the latest BS... they didn't realise that JAVA was no different then C++... but that was before the 2000 .COM fuck up... I hardly find JAVA books in technical book store now days there mostly newer stuff which is basically a rehash of older technology with minor additions and packaged for the guys that like wrappers... kinda remanicent to jerks playing on their mobile phones... you see them all the time at the telco outlets especially at large shopping malls... Web presence??? JAVA applets? What happend to those by the way... Dead technology? Here is another question... Whats is the demographics on Programming languages on the web, JAVA isn't really up there. I mean there a darivatives, but you can basically do the same thing with smart javascrit and cgi (c/c++/tkl/pyphon/perl) codeJAVA/JSP servers currently run on hardware specific platforms. JAVA is partially platform independent. But where is the SPEED when your running byte code? That only comes into play when you actually complie it for the platform... Then it no longer is platform-independent... Its hardware binaray! The moto write once - scratch anywhere is for morons... Do some research before making a stupid comment like that! " System 7 is great, and still is , but I only break out my collection of 16 or so macs every-so-often for nostalgia. In fact, I restored a mac portable, and I rarely even use it--there's only so much that 7 will do on a 68000. " Yep, you are too busy like most people buying the latest crap... You know the more one wastes there time not doing much the less likely in them finding full potential in what they have. 7 is not X, I realise that, but if your means to do something is satisfied with running 7 does the trick, why waste your time outdoing the next jerk... just so you can waste your money, time, effort? Not very smartlater
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #13 on: May 17, 2009, 00:24
|
Quote from: "blackangel" if your means to do something is satisfied with running 7 Most of what I do can't be done on System 7. Especially anything that is a source of income.
|
System777
|
32 MB Posts: 45 
Reply #14 on: May 20, 2009, 22:04
|
I realize the value of being able to express an opinion about subjects on forums like this. Unfortunately, this sometimes ends up simply being an exercise in the venting of one's anger. The issue of a newer technology having some level of inferiority to an older technology is something that happens universally. Like Solomon said, you never know if the guy who comes after you will be a wise man or a fool. Well, the word 'fool' may be too harsh here, but the core thought is very true. A previous generation of thinkers may have had some very good ideas. The next generation thinks they have learned from the past and in their arrogance may totally disregard a concept that is very valuable. There are a number of products and technologies I wish were still around, or at least their virtues had found their way into what we currently have to choose from. Truly good ideas transcend time, and we can learn from history. Fortunately, we have forums that give us a voice to express what we want, need, or like to see. The right people may take notice if enough consumers make their voice known. But let's not lose our cool trying to be heard.
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
| |||||||||||||||
|
© 2021 System7Today.com. |
