Classic had to be installed on the actual computer and used an API.
Only because you're losing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X 10.6.2 Build 10C540 Seeded to Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Classic had to be installed on the actual computer and used an API.
Only because you're losing.
Or because if you don't realize that Classic was a virtualized/emulated environment - then it's not worth the effort to discuss the tangent of XP mode....
Classic OS wasn't fully emulated as your posts suggest, it still needed real hardware support from the computer. The simple proof is from the fact it cant be run on Intel Macs.
Mac OS9 actually runs in tangent with Mac OSX, just like you could with OS8? and Windows 95.
Just read the post Eidorain gave . 8D
Yes, let's go with Eidorian:
"If we could please stop the needless Classic tangent."
And of course we all get a big chuckle out of the fact that MS had to implement Unix-style process forking to achieve a decent level of stability. What is that old saying? Oh yes:
"Given enough time and given enough money Microsoft will eventually invent Unix."
So MS service packs are actually dynamically created bundles of updates based on the patches installed on your individual PC? Interesting, I'm not aware of that being true.
If you understood what Cocoa is as opposed to .NET, you would understand why your parenthetical statement makes no sense.
That is patently untrue. Please document these allegedly "more frequent package updates". MS artificially slows down it's flood of patches to once a month, except when there's something really, really horribly wrong, in which case they send it out when they feel like it.
As an end user of both systems, the difference is night and day. There are vastly fewer updates for OS X that for any version of Windows. I realize that reality doesn't fit in with your sycophantic delusions about Microsoft, but that's out of my hands.
So you've been a Windows enthusiast for a really long time. I guess that's useful to know.
By the way, I haven't had an issue anywhere that bad on a Mac in five years.
Delta Packages are so much better than patches, it takes the new code, the old code and recompiles a new package.
500KB update for firefox you say!?
You seem to have hit the nail right on the head.
He's lost, yet continues to lose.
They aren't forks, they're standard processes using standard Windows IPC like COM....
(click to enlarge)
The "efficient mechanism" isn't a fine delta, I think that it would have been more accurate to say "files changed" instead of "bytes changed".
There's a similarity in that they both provide a primary API set for building applications. New versions of .NET provide new APIs for application developers.
I think you misunderstood - I meant that Microsoft provides bug and feature fixes "more frequently" than Service Packs, not more frequently than once a month.
The "flood" this month was 5 updates, 2 of them drivers for 3rd party hardware.
OK why do you think there have been two new seeds released to devs for testing since the first one (10C531) that had "no known issues". Because the devs will have found issues. Obviously Apple considered these issues sufficient to deem them showstoppers.
Patience, let Apple get this one right
Technically, .Net is a framework which is implemented differently. It can be updated but it can't be as tightly integrated into the OS as an Operating System level API can. Apple could update Cocoa on a version of Mac OSX but it would more likely do harm than good.
Still not as good as DeltaRPM which can do it for any package. Previously installed via Package Manager or not.
Agree completely. MS has included new OS-level APIs (Win32) at service packs, but I don't think that they have through the update.
Win32 (renamed "Windows API") is the procedural API for Windows - it is the base API. The OO and managed APIs are on top of Win32 - but you've already called those "frameworks" and not OS APIs
.It's not worth an LOL, that implies something's wrong.
Win32 (renamed "Windows API") is the procedural API for Windows - it is the base API. The OO and managed APIs are on top of Win32 - but you've already called those "frameworks" and not OS APIs
It's not worth an LOL, that implies something's wrong.
Can you please find a Windows forum instead of littering ours?
True, OS9 was first sold in 1999, which makes it two years older than XP.
What the hell is all of this dancing around about? OS9 is an older OS, period.
Besides, Apple discontinued development of OS9 in 2002, not 2001.
The transition from OS9 to OSX was virtually seamless, thanks to Rosetta's integration into OSX, which ran applications dating as far back as 1991, universally, for all users who migrated to OS X.
While Microsoft kept Windows users hanging out to dry for the past eight years between OS releases, 2001-2009, (excluding Longhorn/Vista, as it was a complete disaster) Apple managed to release six
significant, full featured, and well received versions of OS X. Here lies the difference. Windows 7 currently offers a half baked solution for XP users; a crucial sector which comprises over 70% of Windows
total market share, for a transition, which does not involve a major change in architecture, yet which has been proven inconvenient for many who've had problems running their XP programs, having
to resort to third party software - which is, quite frankly, ridiculous. By not providing an OS environment by which to emulate XP seamlessly within the new OS, for all users of W7, universally, MS has
not made upgrading any more convenient, efficient or attractive for its majority market of XP users, many of whom have been sitting on the fence as it is.
The difference?
Windows has absolutely no choice but to support their legacy OS, because its all they've got, if they wish to maintain at least half of their market share. Apple is not plagued by this problem, as the vast
majority of Mac users have already migrated to the newer OS during the past decade. As for legacy Mac OS operation, PPC users can utilize Leopard for the next several years before deciding to upgrade,
while OS9 can be run successfully through Tiger. Meanwhile, Windows remains bogged down with, and compromised by, obligations to archaic legacy relics such as The Bloated Registry, DLLs, etc.
It is apparent that your frivolous and petty rants have grown tiresome to many around here.
Perhaps, you ought to consider the advice of others:
We've been requesting this for years.
OK why do you think there have been two new seeds released to devs for testing since the first one (10C531) that had "no known issues". Because the devs will have found issues. Obviously Apple considered these issues sufficient to deem them showstoppers.
Patience, let Apple get this one right
Chill.
Any day now, Apple.
Win32 (renamed "Windows API") is the procedural API for Windows - it is the base API. The OO and managed APIs are on top of Win32 - but you've already called those "frameworks" and not OS APIs
It's not worth an LOL, that implies something's wrong.
Microsoft itself calls .Net a framework. Even Microsoft disagrees with you. And .Net is on Unix too in the form of Mono. (That goes both ways too)
Win32 (renamed "Windows API") is the procedural API for Windows - it is the base API. The OO and managed APIs are on top of Win32 - but you've already called those "frameworks" and not OS APIs
It's not worth an LOL, that implies something's wrong.
I still wonder why an OS kernel HAS to be procedural. Theres been lots of theory and research of a true OO OS but no ones ever done it.