Macintosh The MAC OS X was designed with two goals for the new user
interface: an operating system thatˇ¦s appealing to look at, and a pleasure to
use. Mac OS X combines Quartz, which is based on the Internet-standard portable
document format, QuickTime and OpenGL to give you the sharpest graphics ever
seen on a personal computer. Apple will support three critical applications
environments in Mac OS X. These three environments are named: Classic, Carbon,
and Cocoa. Classic allows the user to run all your existing Macintosh
applications ˇ§as-is.ˇ¨ Carbon applications, on the other hand, are optimized to
run on Mac OS X. Theyˇ¦ll get the use of the modern carbon applications
programming interface, all the great features of the Darwin core OS (like
protected memory for crash-resistant computing and pre-emptive multitasking for
a more responsive system). The future will include Cocoa, an advanced
object-oriented programming environment. It will give developers a whole new
toolbox for building the best next-generation applications. Although I really
like what MAC has done, it is still more a graphics-based system. Most software
is not supported by the MAC. The reviews I read were very one-sided. Either the
people were in love with their Macintosh computer and hated all others, or vice
versa. From what I know of the Macintosh machines, it would not be a choice for
my system. The Requirements Hardware I did research on several brands and
narrowed it down to three different systems, with three different operating
systems, based on some basic requirements. The most important issue was that the
machine was expandable.
I wanted something that was going to last and could be easily upgraded.
Most systems today are expandable, but some are more expandable than others.
Also, some machines are more easy to upgrade yourself than others. These were
issues I wanted to consider. Based on the requirements I have seen for various
software, I wanted a processor that was at least 450 mHz. The three processors
that seem to be the most popular are Celeron, Pentium III (Intel), and Athlon
(AMD) A recent article found an Athlon-650 reference system blew away the
average Pentium III-600 by 14 percent or more, and squeaked by the average
Athlon-600 by 3 to 5 percent. AMD is currently selling the Athlon (formerly the
K7) in four versions: 650 MHz, 600 MHz, 550 MHz, and 500 MHz as of November of
1999.The best news about this processor is you don't have to pay a premium for
all that speed. Fully loaded Athlon-650 systems should cost $2100 to $2400,
which is about what it costs for a comparably equipped, though slower, Pentium
III-600 PC. I did not read very good reviews on the Pentium III. The majority
seemed to think it cost a lot more money and you didnˇ¦t receive that much
better of a performance. One article claimed that Intel was greatly exaggerating
in their claim that the Pentium III would propel the user into the world of
browsing. Intel and AMD both recently released their versions of a 750 MHz
processors. However, the reviews stated that they were neck and neck in speed.
This is not a concern for me because I will not need a system that fast. Since
AMD is getting great reviews and winning some serious market share, Intel
decided to speed up its Celeron chips almost as often as the Pentium and Athlon.
As a result you are able to pick up a high performance system for under
$1500.The Celeron systems today are running business applications exceedingly
fast. Intel is so intent on producing budget chips that will enable PCs to
outperform AMD-based systems that it is blurring the line between PIII and
Celeron performance. This is an advantage for the consumer because we can pick
up a low-priced computer system that is closely comparable to the Pentium III
and AMD. As far as memory, I was looking for something with at least 64 MB of
installed memory, but I wanted it expandable to 256 KB. I felt that the smallest
hard drive capacity should be 4.2 GB, but I was hoping to find something in my
price range with 10 or more.
