I thought one of the real core differences was that it was built with
GCC 3.1 instead of the 2.95 branch. As a developer I'm quite happy to
have paid for the new updated tools to be so deeply integrated. I
kinda wish they'd gotten perl 5.8 under the wire, but that wasn't a big
deal to install. There's alot under the hood that really makes it
worth the $$$. IMNSHO
- M
On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 09:19 PM, Ken Williams wrote:
> Just when I thought I'd sworn off this thread...
>
> On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 11:39 PM, Gregory Cranz wrote:
>> I RESENT the fact that I just paid for 10.1 & now I have to pay the
>> full price all over again for a system that I haven't owned for two
>> years yet. Both 'major improvements' were speed related - which
>> screams to me that OS/X was "beta-released" as non-optimized code.
>> As a software developer I find that distasteful - as a consumer the
>> fact that I have to pay money to have debugging scaffolding removed
>> from a production release - or whatever optimizations were required -
>> just to be told that I have to do it AGAIN at FULL PRICE - completely
>> unacceptable.
>
> So, if they should have done that in the first version of OS X, would
> you have been willing to wait until June 2002 for it?
>
> Anyway, if you're a software developer you should know that there are
> *lots* of ways to increase speed of a project. One is to remove
> debugging code, which simply couldn't explain the purported difference
> between 10.1.5 and 10.2. One is to find little sections of your code
> that are taking a long time and try to optimize them, which maybe can
> explain some of it. But by most accounts the majority of the speedups
> came from genuine new development, for instance creating new
> interfaces between things like graphics accelerators and pieces of the
> OS.
>
> It's quite inaccurate to insinuate that the difference between 10.1.5
> and 10.2 is just the removal of "debugging scaffolding."
>
> -Ken
>
