Biggest waste of E129 ever

I cant wait to try haiku either.

I installed Tiger on a G4 Powermac and it refused to install with my PowerLogix 1.2GHz CPU installed. Replacing this with the original 733 cured the problem but I haven't yet re-installed the 1.2GHz unit to see if Tiger will run with it now it's installed.

Aside from my dissappointment that it would not - in fact - be 23 degrees in Dublin the next day (because the widget decided I lived in Dublin Newhampshire, USA !!!) I'm happy with the performance overall and the extra features are nice, I particularly like Grapher which it superb and will be very useful to me on my course.

The dictionary also is handy to have available without needing to start Office for an explanation and there is a noticeable difference in SMB/CIFS performance and network speed in general.

As someone said though it's probably better to describe it as a "Service Pack" than a new OS. But I'm still happy to have paid for it considering the apps that come included . . oh and the new desktop images are prettier

There are numerous little improvements that on their own don't amount to much but together they make for a more harmonious experience.

ZEN

A friend of mine runs XP on his laptop with 256mb ram with all the extras on it, and it works grand. and he does photoshop stuff a lot on it. no problems with it. i did dev work on a 256mb laptop (simular spec to my friends) for about 2 weeks and it worked grand too. when i upgraded to 768mb, it went a LOT faster, but 256 does work. i know quite a few people with only 256mb in their boxes.

As for doing Photoshop on a laptop with 256 RAM: yeah, I've done the same. And it works, but it's very slow and boring.

RicardoSmith wrote:

No offense but TBH I think the point you are making (badly) is a bad workman blames his tools.

"Biggest waste of E129 ever" ... how is that "Tiger rocks, XP sucks!"...

WTF!?!? I'm not saying anythign about a workman!!! I'm saying that W2K upwards needs more than 256Mb so one can run it comfortably and avail of all of its utilities. That's all!

And, BTW (since you're so fond of reducing words to letters), saying "Tiger rocks, XP sucks" is keeping in line with the topic. The topic is about Tiger, being bad. This is a discussion forum. We discuss and argue topics, not agree foolishly to any statement made. My statement disagrees with the topic statment. I am far from confused. So STFUYA.

the reason I have to state that the Mac OS is superior is because I'm tired of listening to PC AND (rogue) Mac users complain about Apple's products. But, with my experience, the only thing I can say is that if you're happy with what you use, then that's great. All my friends have Windows machines and they're very happy with them. Fine by me. I become very annoyed when PC users criticse Macs when they have rarely if ever used them. It's a completely illogical concept, that someone can state that something is bad, while another says it is good. It's a disagreement that means absolutely nothing, because in both cases the statements are true (relative to one's personal experience). So there is no point in arguing. Okay, I won't point soggy fingers at anyone's OS. But likewise people should not criticise an OS, and, in reference to the topic, one cannot justify the upgrade to Tiger being a waste, as many will find it very beneficial. The topic should actually read, "Personnaly, I found the upgrade to be a waste of money because it did nothing for me that made my computing experience any better, or at least better to the extent that did not justify the expenditure of E129, in which case it was not a waste of E129, but [E129 - E(what true benefits I got out of it, in monetary terms)].

The reason my W2K machine crawls is NOT because I do not have it optimised. I DO have it optimised (plain desktop, few colours, no fancy graphics, indexing turned off, a perfectly regulated, healthy machine). The reason it crawls is because the OS automatically takes up almost 100Mb of RAM. Share that between Office, Firefox, Photoshop, and you're at a limit. Yes, they are RAM hungry programmes. But my point was you need more RAM because of this! Again, for the third time (no, you didn't "correct" me about this because I agreed with you already), you could run XP fine on 192 Mb if you were file browsing, word processing, internet browsing. But for other users, like me, of which there are very many, 256Mb of RAM would give you a very slow and painful experience of XP. Even for OS 9, I found 512 neccessary. I imagine OS X to be the same.

Also, Windows will generally run slower because anti-virus software is a definite for safe computing. This is my biggest criticism of windows. I know Linux and, now, OS X, are not impenetrable. But right now I find them more enjoyable to use because of the lack of hacker threat. Whether Windows is so vulnerable more because of its popularity or structure is a different debate. Either way, I[/] hate it.

os for OS 9 vs. W2K: As stable as W2K was, it was still windows. Same arse-ache, different ways of doing it. OS 9 wasn't as stable (by a slight amount), but the experience was infinitely better..... I found.

Your analogy with the workman is flawed. If the OS is deemed to be like a workman, why would a workman be desgined to carry 12 bricks if he can really only 6? Perhaps he was not given something to carry them with properly? That's where the RAM comes in. The OS isn't flawed, it may just require more memory for extra features. (yeah, "extra features" are all the graphical flaunts, indexing services, and all that... you should know very well what I meant by that, since we were talking about scaling down the OS).

.... now look at what you made me type!! I'm supposed to be studying!!

RicardoSmith wrote:

Again I had to use letters. Sorry.

Oh Ha Ha!!

RicardoSmith wrote:

The workman in the analogy is not the OS.
QUOTE]

Well, sorry, but judging from your ambiguous posts, that's what it seemed like you were saying (rather badly). And I'm not being sarcastic here, just honest. You blatantly said that I was trying to say that a bad workman blames his tools, which could mean (a) the user doesn't know how to use his/her computer properly, or (b) the OS doesn't know how to use the RAM properly.

So what DID you mean?

RicardoSmith wrote:

rather then discuss the issue at hand which is the latest version of OS X...
QUOTE]

Twice already I've tried to referred back to OSX.... even if it was by saying it was better than XP.

And what does "inappropriately" running too many RAM intensive apps mean? Sorry for not being rich and not being able to buy RAM whenever I feel like it. Since you're running OS 7.5.... (7.5.1?? Wonderful OS. Many happy memories... Cut my teeth with photoshop on a 33Mhz Performa with the same RAM! ...... maybe you know about not being able to upgrade willy-nilly!

Too many smiley faces. I run what I can with what I have.

Look, this is ridiculous. My original point has been totally obscured. Greedy people like me who don't like to skimp in a systems abilities like plenty of RAM. In my opinion, I would like at least a gig of DDR2 RAM. And some people like yourself like to make do with what you have, and manage very well.

Can we agree on that!?

Always thought it was a cool OS but unfortunately I never had a good reason to use it.