Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!jp48+
From: jp48+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan Pace)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: What System 7 Does For You: A summary.
Message-ID: <0c_gWvy00WB902YUgM@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 10 May 91 16:22:19 GMT
Organization: Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 20


   I've been avoiding commenting on System 7, but I have to jump in here.  I
have to agree that System 7 is probably more stable than System 6 has been.
I tried running both on my machine, timidly trying out f3c2 and running back
to Sys 6 for important stuff.  Well, Sys 6 crashes my Mac IIcx more than 7
does.  I think the adage 'if it isn't broken - don't fix it' has no value
here what-so-ever.  Sys 6 IS broke, and it does need fixing.  One of the main
reasons 7 is so stable is the tons of INITs it replaces.  No more hacks to
do all the nice things I've come to expect.  I've cut my inits down from 23
to 7 and have all the same benefits.

   As for programs that don't run, I dont have _any_ that don't run under
Sys 7.  I have one INIT, DiskExpress II, that won't work, but it's being
upgraded and the fix is already on the market.

   If you're waiting for 7.0.1, you better not hunger strike while you do it.

Jon Pace

Graduation! - Unemployment in one more week!