To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
And the reason for that was Apple implemented it in such a way as to provide an incentive for development and/or porting to OS X APIs.
MS is doing something similar. All the bitching about the desktop not being integrated well is to push users to demand a better windows 8 experience from their applications and to push developers to use the new WinRT system APIs.
Must agree with you, how is win7 fantastic? I think it suck in almost every way..
filesystem used
ram usage
configurability
looks and functionality (although much better than xp and vista)
scalability (well not made to be a versatile server.. but still sucks bigtime here)
security
registry (.conf files, yes please)
cost
Built in DRM etc
how installing programs is managed.. (becomes better with new appstore I guess and hope)
++
While there are a few filesystems I'd like to be able to use I have to ask you one question here: how does Microsoft's choice of filesystem affect you? Are there some things you cannot do with it but you can do with e.g. ext4? Have you found a performance-regression that no one else is aware of?
Or are you just lambasting it for the sake of lambasting it, without any actual real-world scenario behind it to justify such?
Do clarify, what is wrong with Win7's RAM usage?
Tell that to application developers. There is nothing stopping them from using .conf - files.
Also, are you similarly against e.g. gconf2 which is in practice the same thing as Windows registry?




Member since:
2006-01-23
If I don't recall it wrong, Mac OS X's Classic mode, was more like an virtual machine of Mac OS 9 inside Mac OS X.
When you loaded a MacOS 8 o 9 app on OS X you will had to wait for a while for the classic mode to run.