[P1] Partitioning disk and installing two versions of an OS

[Richard McKay]

Am 11/12/02 22:24 schrieb "Charles Martin" unter <chasm at mac.com>:

First off I wasn't "trolling" in my previous post, rather stating how the
very good system of *my choice* can be better, do you not try to learn new
things and improve yourself? Why should we ever stop wanting to perfect the
system...steps off the soapbox here...BTW, thanks Charles, you put a smile
on my face but you did keep me waiting for a few hours!

> What do you mean by a "normal mac?" A 68K machine?

yes

> Well of course you can't

Why not? Seeing how we're bashing anyway, They said you can't put a man on
the moon and that we weren't made to fly either...doesn't stop me from
wanting to achieve a better state...

>... nor can you stuff a jet engine into a
> camero ...

wait a few years

> nor can you run Pentium programs on a DOS machine ... hello??

My point exactly, I don't expect this from a x86 but demand (and receive)
more from Apple. (with thanks) I don't want to see this change.

> Where in the world of tech DO you find "backward compatibility" better
> than Apple's? I'm interested ... several of the programs I use *every
> day* come from the 1980s. Try *that* in the PC world!!

see above, is apple not in danger of going this route slowly to meet
economic pressures? To strengthen your point I needed to run an app on my
work doze XP laptop and the fantastic response was ...could not run 16bit
app...I expect this from MS and do not want to ever be happy with it from
Apple. 

> Who's fault is that? Apple's ... or yours for not getting off your lazy
> butt and getting an upgrade or network card when they've been available
> for over a decade?

Mine, I must remember to do that sometime
(picture Dobby the house elf smashing head against furniture)

> Quartz Extreme is optional. It has nothing to do with the
> "obsolescence" of your Mac. If you can name even ONE program that
> *requires* Quartz Extreme to work, I'll eat my hat.

Never said programs don't work without it. However you don't benefit from it
on old hardware and lets face it Aqua is fantastic...would you be happy
continuing to drive a Trabant when you know in the future (when its tuned)
you could enjoy a ferrari?

> Why don't you just accept the fact that you don't really know what
> you're talking about here?

More, give me more...don't stop, yes, yessss

> Systems (ie OSes) have always been hostile
> to the notion of backward compatibility ... I can't make my Betamax
> play VHS tapes *or* vice versa ... who do I sue??

If you still have Beta you'd best read my dobby bit
 
> Programs, on the other hand, are generally VERY backward compatible ...
> MS Word v.X reads all previous versions of Word documents and most
> other WP documents ... Appleworks reads a huge variety of formats ...
> Photoshop can open just about any bitmap graphic file ever created, and
> so on.

agreed, however does it not bother you that certain apps are not exportable
to other apps without compromise and the use of third party apps. would this
not be a kinder gentler world with such features?

> You *don't want* backward OS compatibility for your iBook! The OSes
> prior to the one your machine runs were *buggier* and *less stable*
> than 9.2.1 and OS X 10.2!

want and need/use are two different *apples*...I don't use classic at all
anymore but I can be confident that if I did want/need to I *could* (for the
time being)

> What disadvantages?? Name one PC that has more backward compatibility
> than a Mac. One.

missed my point a bit here I think, disadvantages compared to the x86
choices/prices...game controllers or joysticks for X 'till now, program
variety and price wars (admittedly the majority are crap), availability of
products? The colour of the sky in my world is technicolour and I don't want
to compromise.

> Here's an idea ... why don't you stop living in the past?

I don't live in the past, my memory is too short for such joy...

Richard
--