Hi everyone,
do not feel offended that I made that provocative statement, but I think that we ought to discuss that.
Well, I admit, Jaguar is a lot better than 10.1, especialliy concerning performance and usability. It also added a set of cool features ... e.g. the preview app or the new network services.
First of all, I wanna make clear that I really like working with OS X, but it is really justifiable to pay 160 (that is about 150 dollars I think) for an update that might fix some bugs (but also brings others instead) and is a bit faster than the previous version? Do I pay something for an Service Pack for Windows 2000 or XP?
You might say, that there are a lot apps with cool features and so on ... a Messenger, the new address book, iCal ... sorry, I'm not impressed, that are things you normally get for free.
And, of course, the .Mac services ... it is like Apple chose the "Microsoft way". Why should anyone pay 50 $ for a mail address, some disc space and a simple backup program?
Others might say that, in the case of Jaguar, you pay for quality and quality is costy. But let's face it!
When reading threads in this forums, you always emphasize the "superiority" of OS X over Windows. I am using Windows XP, and believe me, it is really stable, comfortable to use and fast and that with a minimum of 256 M of RAM. (In OS X you can forget everything under 512 M)
Be realistic, XP is not that bad as you claim.
In some aspects OS X still is technologically behind, e.g. the Scheduler of OS X is really an inferior one I heard from some people. That is the reason why Virtual PC under MAC OS X is slower than under OS 9.
Some critisize that Apple chose an UNIX kernel for its new OS. They could have developed a new one based on newer technologies like Microsoft did with NT or IBM did with OS/2.
OK ... as I said, OS X is an awesome operation system, I realy like it, but we have to be realistic.
Bye,
FrankH
do not feel offended that I made that provocative statement, but I think that we ought to discuss that.
Well, I admit, Jaguar is a lot better than 10.1, especialliy concerning performance and usability. It also added a set of cool features ... e.g. the preview app or the new network services.
First of all, I wanna make clear that I really like working with OS X, but it is really justifiable to pay 160 (that is about 150 dollars I think) for an update that might fix some bugs (but also brings others instead) and is a bit faster than the previous version? Do I pay something for an Service Pack for Windows 2000 or XP?
You might say, that there are a lot apps with cool features and so on ... a Messenger, the new address book, iCal ... sorry, I'm not impressed, that are things you normally get for free.
And, of course, the .Mac services ... it is like Apple chose the "Microsoft way". Why should anyone pay 50 $ for a mail address, some disc space and a simple backup program?
Others might say that, in the case of Jaguar, you pay for quality and quality is costy. But let's face it!
When reading threads in this forums, you always emphasize the "superiority" of OS X over Windows. I am using Windows XP, and believe me, it is really stable, comfortable to use and fast and that with a minimum of 256 M of RAM. (In OS X you can forget everything under 512 M)
Be realistic, XP is not that bad as you claim.
In some aspects OS X still is technologically behind, e.g. the Scheduler of OS X is really an inferior one I heard from some people. That is the reason why Virtual PC under MAC OS X is slower than under OS 9.
Some critisize that Apple chose an UNIX kernel for its new OS. They could have developed a new one based on newer technologies like Microsoft did with NT or IBM did with OS/2.
OK ... as I said, OS X is an awesome operation system, I realy like it, but we have to be realistic.
Bye,
FrankH