what kind of memory

As I noted, OSX has a UI I hate, and regardless of it's core, it's still burdened with Scrapple's worthless junk. Also as I noted, I haven't found any tasks I need to do that W2K hasn't handled with no issues. Be it CAD, CNC, photo and video editing, etc. all do just fine on W2K.

Probably does. Perhaps some day I'll find something I need to do that Windoze can't handle just fine, until then I have no need for the extra overhead of running a different OS just to be anti-windoze.

Yep. I deal with a fair amount of VMS (OpenVMS) which pretty much invented memory management and scheduling.

TSRs pretty much went out with Windoze 3.11.

Reply to
Pete C.
Loading thread data ...

I know, "back in the day" I was one of the guys scrounging for every byte in my code - use . instead of 0 because . was single-precision, 0 took up an extra byte, that sort of thing.

The're going to ZFS (from Sun Microsystems) for 10.5 which is going to be quite an improvement on several fronts.

Sounds like they weren't set up properly; any OS9 app will just run (it fires off a OS9 virtual machine running aside the OSX OS, very much like VMWare).

Reply to
Dave Hinz

You even quoted it. Right there, about 14 lines up. He said "any" (meaning, well, any), "especially a MS one" (meaning that this is more pronounced in the MS world). It's all right there. So...did you miss his point, or did you choose to intentionally ignore it? The reality is, not all OS's are like that, and some manufacturers even value performance over bloat. The OS internals as to how idle processes are handled have a lot to do with this; Unix was a multiuser platfrom from the beginning, Windows (well, I assume you know). So. Did _you_ have a point?

Reply to
Dave Hinz

I'm sure you can provide a cite for that?

Really? Show me where on the graph they were in your imagined dire straits:

formatting link

Wow, settle down there sparky. The vitriol and bitterness you are spouting is from you alone. It's fine that you're happy with Windows. Really, it is. I ignored Mac until they went to Unix; understanding Unix, I see the benefits of having it at home. I have extensive history and knowledge of Microsoft OS's since the early 1980s. But you know what? I really don't want to bother comparing resumes with someone who can't even back up their (false and intentionally inflammatory) statements with their name.

What specifically have I said which is misleading? That the dot-revs of OSX have improved performance? That the OSX systems on PPC hardware have "legacy" mode to run OS9 apps? That Unix handles inactive services differently than Windows? That there have been significant changes between 10.0 and 10.5?

Reply to
Dave Hinz

Thanks, I ran this and took it to Best Buy. The tech. fixed me right up.

To everybody else, sorry, I didn't mean to be a troll.

Karl

Reply to
Karl Townsend

You aren't, no worries. Glad you got things fixed up.

Reply to
Dave Hinz

I'm not sure I would use "invented."

Multics - 1965 Unix - 1969 MUMPS - 1970 RSX-11M - 1976 Vax/VMS - 1977

The Vax did have demand-based paged virtual memory. And that was a big breakthrough, and simplified software dvelopment significantly. But Multics had virtual memory, virtual deadline scheduler, exponential schedulers. I think RDOS was a 2-user system, and RSX-11M was a multi-user system.

Reply to
Maxwell Lol

WHAT A DIFFERENCE!!!!!!

This old 'puter really screams on the internet now. its got 640 meg memory instead of 128

Karl

Reply to
Karl Townsend

You want a difference? I remember when 128KB was the normal factory install and 640KB was fully loaded, and now 640MB is barely acceptable, 2GB better, 4GB preferred.

And for that 512MB bump-up you probably paid half what we did for a

512KB memory bump twenty years ago.

(Insert the standard "Five miles, in the snow, with no shoes, uphill both ways..." rant here.)

-->--

Reply to
Bruce L. Bergman

If I recall, the innovation in VMS memory management was that the kernel itself was paged, including much of the kernel's memory-management functionality. It took something like four or five major VMS versions to get that to really work, mostly.

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joseph Gwinn

From your description, I bet you were swapping to disk which is awfully slow compared to solid state RAM. System quieter now too, I bet?

Reply to
Dave Hinz

forget the memory, your prolly due for a new computer. no point in investing too much into an old motherboard/processor/drive

Reply to
Tony

Well, if you're just surfing the web and not doing anything CPU-intensive, it's not that critical. Adding RAM so your running apps don't bottom out the available memory is a huge benefit. If you run out or RAM, then it all has to page & swap out to the hard drive, which is dramatically slower than RAM of any generation. Sure, a CPU bump could add an incremental improvement, but compared to not swapping to disk, it's trivial. All depends on what you're using it for of course.

Dave Hinz

Reply to
Dave Hinz

According to Dave Hinz :

Been there. :-)

Nice! I'm currently experimenting with zfs, and will probably move my file server's directories over to it soon.

I didn't know that *anyone* else was going to support it.

[ ... ]

Of course, running in a virtual machine does slow things down a bit, even on the same processor type. Emulating to run things for another processor can be a real performance killer, but that wasn't being suggested here.

Enjoy, DoN.

Reply to
DoN. Nichols

Remember tokenized BASIC, and pretokenizing the commands in the program? Saved bytes _and_ runtime that way.

Sounds like that's been delayed, won't ship with 10.5. I'd rather they wait until they've got it implemented right than to ship it early; would hate to have them emulate that other OS vendor...

It's got some very attractive features, although we're not using it in prod at my employer just yet either.

Right. The VM for OS9 in the PPC OSX boxes is probably going to run faster than your app would haev run on the older hardware you're replacing anyway, though, so...

Oh, always...

Dave

Reply to
Dave Hinz

...unless it needs to interface with the outside world. I still boot into OS9 in order to run decent audio software. It runs in "classic", but it can't actually talk to the audio hardware (even the plain vanilla built-in audio hardware) in classic, making classic a bit useless for that purpose. X-native audio stuff works, but X-native audio freeware is (much) crappier software than what's available free for 9.

I've gradually adapted to using X for other stuff, but there are still non-sensical aspects of user-interface parts that were changed for no good reason which continue to irritate (having used 4-9, where things were added, but not randomly reassigned as they were when X came out).

Reply to
Ecnerwal

I used to do that on the old Commodore computers. I could write some programs in a single line, numbered zero, with a GOTO at the end to loop it. My favorite was a program to change the background, border and text colors by adding "1", then looping. It made a Commodore 64 look like the PLA chip was bad. ;-)

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

Ahhh... the C-64. I wonder; do you remember the Lt. Kernal hard drive?

LLoyd

Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

I THINK that I still have one with a bad EPROM.

Reply to
Michael A. Terrell

I designed it, and wrote about half the DOS.

LLoyd (There's a great Lt. Kernal support site that publishes all the data except the PLA maps)

Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.