Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: gunsequalfreedom
> An Apple computer crash? Never. It just give you the spinning beachball of death.

That's an application crash, not a system crash. As long as you can do a Force-Quit, the system is still fine. Applications crash much more often than the entire system.

None of my Macs have had a true system crash in many years of daily operation. They've done it, but it's been years.

The same is true of my Win7 systems. Applications hang and screw up, but as long as you can use Task Manager and shut down the errant app, so what? Blame the app, not the computer.

> I have never worked on a computer that crashes more than an Apple.

Then you've got some really 3-sigma-out experiences. I've worked with all these systems for decades, and OS-X is the most stable of the bunch, except for plain text-mode BSD Unix.

Now, pre-OS-X Apples, that's entirely different. Mac OS prior to OS-X was a piece of crap, stability-wise. Of course, Win95/98/Me was even worse, but those were the 90's...

10 posted on 05/10/2010 9:47:54 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: dayglored
That's an application crash, not a system crash.

Alright, so I'm not an expert on the types of crashes that Apple computers are plauged with. Thanks for clarifying that.

14 posted on 05/10/2010 10:55:04 PM PDT by gunsequalfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: dayglored
"That's an application crash, not a system crash. As long as you can do a Force-Quit, the system is still fine. Applications crash much more often than the entire system."

True, but I've had app crashes so bad that while I technically didn't have to reboot, it was just easier to do so.

"Of course, Win95/98/Me was even worse, but those were the 90's..."

Eh, that slowly changed. When 95 came out, it was fun but as unstable as an Irishman on an all night binge. But by the late 90's, Classic made 98 look good in comparison on the stability front. Classic was a beautiful, marvelous experience when it worked, but more and more, it stopped working a lot. 98 was pretty darned stable once you had all your updates and such. I think this is why Apple rushed OS X to market, even though 10.0 and 10.1 were basically unusuable. Just the promise of "stable, user friendly Unix" was needed to convince folks that Apple really was improving things. I don't know of anyone that actually used X on a daily basis until 10.2 came along.
50 posted on 05/11/2010 4:07:04 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson