Re: To sleep, perchance to dream? OS 10.2.8 - ay, There's the Rub

Joseph Gwinn <JoeGwinn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> In article <1h3w57u.vph0y81634mskN%rlaughton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  rlaughton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> 
> > Scott Ellsworth <scott@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1h3r4u6.wb7k641yazsowN%rlaughton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > >  rlaughton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Ray Laughton) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into
> > > > OS-updates just  before a major (meaning $$) version change.
> > > > I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised
> > > > compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
> > > 
> > > I suspect that is a bit paranoid.  Given that slipping bugs into the
> > > code base is still engineering work, I would be really surprised if
they
> > > bothered.
> > Not paranoid, just cynical. Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6
> > to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable
than
> > OS X.  
> 
> A simpler explanation is that most of the programmers had been 
> redeployed to OS 10 by then, so OS 9 got only the bare essentials of 
> sup****t, as befitted its soon-to-be legacy status.
> 
That would be the benign interpretation of those events..
Dunno, maybe Jobs will come out with the truth in his biography some
day.

ray