OSNews

You're missing a very fundamental point here - what other company do you know of that has been ABLE to bring to the mass market a *nix based OS that was this easy to use?? Can you name even one? And don't try to foist off the nonsense that Windows NT/2K/XP has all the goodness of Unix with an easy to use UI - even David Cutler's not that good. I also can't believe that you are trying to say that Windows XP's networking architecture is superior to X's. Haven't you read Steve Gibson's report (https://grc.com/dos/xplaughter.htm) on the flaws in the Windows XP IP stack that will make it trivial to spoof an IP address. Now *there's* an "advanced (and easy to use)" networking 'feature'. As far as the platform you tested on, there is no doubt that a G3 based platform is not ideal. OS X makes extensive use of the AltiVec engine in the G4, and is significantly (subjectively) faster with that CPU vice a G3. Granted, you probably shouldn't have to buy a G4 to get the benefit of that speed advantage, but that's business. Remember, Apple has to sell boxes as well as the OS. As far as buying RAM from Apple, c'mon - who the hell does THAT? Certainly not anybody that considers themselves even partly a geek. I also can't argue with the point about the BeOS. It is (was?) a much more modern OS. But there you have the chicken/egg problem. If you're Apple and you're trying to survive and thrive are *you* going to use an unproven OS without any significant commercial applications presence as THE successor to your existing OS? Again, business decision. Who the hell *wouldn't* have liked to see the BeOS running on a G3/G4 after seeing it smoke on a 603e?! Now as far as OS 8.1 running faster on your Celeron than on a G3, is that based on benchmarks, or just your subjective observations? Unless you have solid evidence backing this statement up, you make yourself sound as if you're making a biased, uninformed statement. I also can't believe you're slamming on BSD considering it is the most used hosting OS on the Internet, and one of the most secure *nix implementations out there. Okay, so it's not the latest and greatest code base out there. Who cares?! Is it fully buzzword compliant? Yes. Is it easy to use? Yes (with concessions to Tog). Is it pretty? Damn straight!! So where's your beef? I didn't see anything substantive related to this point. As far as the mhz myth issue, what do you mean it's not valid in Apple's case? A principle is either valid or not. Simply put, the mhz myth is valid. What's your basis for stating it isn't valid in Apple's case? Do you have any benchmarks that show the OS carries so much overhead that it has a real, negative impact on applications? Or is this, once again, your subjective opinion? I ordinarily refrain from being hostile towards women Eugenia, but you should know by now how Mac users are about their OS. And if you're going to print a negatively toned column which appears to be entirely based on subjective opinion, and has the added burden of appearing biased, you're going to take heat. If you have a solid basis for refuting any points I've made, or have replies to questions I've asked, I'd like to hear them. I would like to close by saying that at least you did make some positive (or at least neutral) comments in the column. If you could do some more research and print an objective report, I'd love to see it. But until then, be prepared to take heat if you're going to be negative towards the Mac, and appear as if you don't know what you're talking about. Regards, mortarman