My first impression of El Capitan

[SlCKB0Y]

If you are speaking of the very early years of OS X you may be right. But if we are speaking of the 90s the only thing that was “junk”, was Windows. OK, it was not complete junk, but anything you did on a Windows computer was working less well than the comparable thing on Mac OS. Windows had the edge only with NT4, IIRC this was around the year 2000. Then —and maybe still in the subsequent early days of OS X— it really was better than Mac OS.

Windows 95 was had preemptive multitasking in 1995, Mac OS did not.
Windows NT4 had protected memory AND preemptive multitasking in 1996 and in terms of stability and advanced features, it absolutely wiped the floor with Mac OS.

By the mid-90's Mac OS was outdated junk.

 

[dogslobber]

Pure ignorance. My iMac G4 was awesome, I bought it mid-2003. In 2005, I had the best OS of the era (minus gaming) OS X Tiger, with arguably among the best looking computer's Apple has created. While I was happily using my iMac with no problems, my friends were mostly using trash Windows machines with bulky monitors and XP or Vista. "Defragging again. Spamming others with Windows viruses again. Computer won't work because it has virus again." I still have my iMac, though I use MacBook Pro.

You're extremely ignorant.

Tiger was fine but excelled on Intel compared to PowerPC. Let's be honest, PowerPC was long in the tooth way before the Intel Core Duo showed up and Steve knew that. OS X didn't reach a usable state until Panther was released. !0.2 and before were rank rotten trash which required you to booth to Mac OS 9 to get any work done on normal hardware. So yes, my 10 years comment is true and correct. Mac OS 9 was a joke of an OS to be used in the 2000s. Windows 9X was well superior to Mac OS, which was an 80s OS at best. If you read up on all the attempts the Mac had to reinvent a new OS in the 90s then you'll see internally they knew Mac OS was dead on its feet. Yes, Windows had issues in the 90s but it was usable.

I owned a G3 iMac from 1998. It was a heap of junk in the early 2000s no matter how you swing it. I dumped it for a Dell some way through 2003.

 

[dogslobber]

Windows 95 was had preemptive multitasking in 1995, Mac OS did not.
Windows NT4 had protected memory AND preemptive multitasking in 1996 and in terms of stability and advanced features, it absolutely wiped the floor with Mac OS.

By the mid-90's Mac OS was outdated junk.

Windows 95 was the first modern OS that could be used on a laptop like a Toshiba. I remember it being quick and efficient way back then. But NT wouldn't work on a laptop which was a big problem for your flagship business OS. This was around the time of the Pentium running at 200mhz; 96 or 97 ish.

In late 1996, Apple bought NeXT so you can pretty much see what they thought of their own OS.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Tiger was fine but excelled on Intel compared to PowerPC. Let's be honest, PowerPC was long in the tooth way before the Intel Core Duo showed up and Steve knew that. OS X didn't reach a usable state until Panther was released. !0.2 and before were rank rotten trash which required you to booth to Mac OS 9 to get any work done on normal hardware. So yes, my 10 years comment is true and correct. Mac OS 9 was a joke of an OS to be used in the 2000s. Windows 9X was well superior to Mac OS, which was an 80s OS at best. If you read up on all the attempts the Mac had to reinvent a new OS in the 90s then you'll see internally they knew Mac OS was dead on its feet. Yes, Windows had issues in the 90s but it was usable.

I owned a G3 iMac from 1998. It was a heap of junk in the early 2000s no matter how you swing it. I dumped it for a Dell some way through 2003.

Ignoring Windows 9x, Microsoft had NT which was pretty much fantastic for creatives and single handedly brought the price of workstations down to affordable levels. It's incredible to think now that NT4 installation was only 50MB, yet I ran every Adobe app and Lightwave on it with dual processors.

 

[F1Mac]

deleted.