Re: OT: Stable Mac OS releases, was Re: digital question #2

From: Pam Niedermayer ^lt;>
Date: 08/03/04-08:35:56 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Dennis, I"ve been a Mac software developer for 19 years (and a software
developer for 34 years). MacOS was a patched wreck waiting to happen,
day in and day out. Its only saving grace was the interface and the fact
that even it was superior to Windows. I've also been a user of many
types of applications, such as graphics. Memory management, or lack
thereof, continuously got in the way. Maybe 8.6 was the best of the
MacOS's, I'll leave that for you to debate, I tend to prefer 9.2.n; but
I no longer boot into MacOS.


Dennis Moser wrote:

> No, she's not kidding...8.6 WAS an extremely robust and steady OS on
> pre-Power PC Macs such as the IIci's and Quadras...but that was the
> problem, the Power PCs were a move away from that and required
> something of the problems was Apple maintaining
> backwards-compatibility with all that old hardware (I still have three
> IIci's and a Quadra 950...).
> One thing to remember is that, underneath the "hood", OS X is really a
> UNIX operating system and they are noted for their stability (we ran a
> IIci with NetBSD UNIX on it for a year before needing to reboot it!).
> Dennis
> Pam Niedermayer wrote:
>> You've got to be kidding! No, and I mean NO, version of Mac OS has
>> ever been as reliable as OSX, on which I'm booted for months, not
>> hours, without a crash, or even hint of a crash. That alone is worth
>> the price of admission (a new Mac). Now 9.2.2 is also very good, and
>> I'm with you on the upgrades issue (still run all the major graphics
>> and publishing apps in 9); but....
>> Pam
>> Judy Seigel wrote:
>>> ...
>>> IMO, the last good system was 8.6 -- it did everything wonderfully,
>>> NEVER crashed, was kind and considerate and sensible. ...
Received on Tue Aug 3 08:37:06 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 09/14/04-09:17:57 AM Z CST