Leopard - Mac OS

**BIGBOSSMAN** · 17th January 2008, 16:45

Originally Posted by bugjuice

1mb of ram?
that might be a problem.. If you could top it up, like to a gig, then yup, it'll be fine. Don't know how you'd run anything on a meg of ram any more..

Oops Freudian slip - 1 GB of Ram! 1MB? Reminds me of the old days when I had an Amiga 500, got a Ram upgrade to a whopping 3MB!
And a 20MB external hard drive, damn thing cost me about a grand!

Aah, the good old days.....they were shit in computing terms...

**Bren** · 17th January 2008, 17:25

Never tried Macs...I went from Windows to a Linux nerd in one foul swoop...Go Linux and forget that mac bullshit...

**Skunk** · 17th January 2008, 18:04

We had a couple of issues with getting the linked ethernet running but they turned out to be the switch not the Mac.

Adobe says Freehand doesn't work. Second hand words say it does.

Very nice. Time capsule works (had to try it

)
Don't like Stacks.
Don't like the way it displays connected servers in the sidebar. It's better but worse.

Overall - I'm thinking of buying it for home (for the five that can run it here...)

**Big Dave** · 17th January 2008, 18:23

Originally Posted by South3rn Rid3r

.Go Linux and forget that mac bullshit...

ahhhh....no.

**Big Dave** · 17th January 2008, 18:27

Originally Posted by Skunk

It's better but worse.

I still prefer system 9 workspace.

ah won'ts be bustin' a nut for new pussy.

**xwhatsit** · 17th January 2008, 21:42

Originally Posted by Big Dave

ahhhh....no.

Ahhhhhh....yes!

But then again, you take your bike to the shop to be serviced. And you've got an electric boot. Not in your nature, izzit?

**Big Dave** · 17th January 2008, 22:33

Originally Posted by xerxesdaphat

Ahhhhhh....yes!

But then again, you take your bike to the shop to be serviced. And you've got an electric boot. Not in your nature, izzit?

Care not a jot for how the tool works - just what it can make.

The apps, the apps.

http://web.mac.com/david_cohen_desig...ove_08_v2.html

**Tank** · 18th January 2008, 10:27

Originally Posted by South3rn Rid3r

Never tried Macs...I went from Windows to a Linux nerd in one foul swoop...Go Linux and forget that mac bullshit...

yeah right - coz Mac OSX is based off a windows kernal.

**TerminalAddict** · 18th January 2008, 10:52

Originally Posted by Disco Dan

Do you know of any 'fell of the back of a lorry' versions?

I have know idea what you mean

**Badcat** · 18th January 2008, 10:56

Originally Posted by Tank

yeah right - coz Mac OSX is based off a windows kernal.

would be really interested to see your documented proof of that.
i thought it was a kernel based on BSD?
come on tank, show us mac users how clever you are.

**skelstar** · 18th January 2008, 11:04

I think the clue is in the 'yeah right' bit.

**Tank** · 18th January 2008, 11:12

Originally Posted by Badcat

would be really interested to see your documented proof of that.
i thought it was a kernel based on BSD?
come on tank, show us mac users how clever you are.

It was sarcasm.

You see the comment I was responding to was "Go Linux and forget that mac bullshit..."

I was mealy (in a funny way) pointing out that OSX was in-fact based on UNIX. And the Linux he was referring to is in fact very Unix-like.

But hey what would I know?

**RantyDave** · 18th January 2008, 11:13

Originally Posted by Badcat

i thought it was a kernel based on BSD?

AWwwwwww! I know it's a troll, but I can't let another urban legend survive.

Both the OSX and BSD kernels are broken into two bits called (get this) the top and the bottom. The bottom deals with hardware interrupts, scheduling etc and the top is the stuff that gets called by userland. Now, OSX has a Mach microkernel as the bottom half, and the top half was ripped from BSD. As was most of the userland (command line) stuff.

None of which has anything to do with Dan's question which related to 10.5. Which kicks arse. Whether or not it's worth the upgrade from 10.4 depends on how you feel about spending money on an OS. But it is IMHO a big improvement.

Dave

**Tank** · 18th January 2008, 11:18

Originally Posted by Badcat

come on tank, show us mac users how clever you are.

umm - forgot to mention in my other post I am also a mac owner - not that it makes any difference. I'm a technologist, not a fanboi.

**limbimtimwim** · 18th January 2008, 12:01

Originally Posted by RantyDave

Both the OSX and BSD kernels are broken into two bits called (get this) the top and the bottom. The bottom deals with hardware interrupts, scheduling etc and the top is the stuff that gets called by userland. Now, OSX has a Mach microkernel as the bottom half, and the top half was ripped from BSD. As was most of the userland (command line) stuff.

Well, actually Dave I think you'll find the original BSD didn't have a microkernel and ARRFHGGJHgsdkhsdfskjldfsldfhkljH!KLHKLJH!!!!!!!!!