Windows also pounds the HD pretty hard. They have more memory problems than the Mac does. Opening too many programs or windows can freeze the machine.
I have as much of a problem or more so with OS X doing this than I do with Windows. I do agree that Finder needs serious work. I think it sucks and blows, even Window's File Explorer is more useful and responsive to me.
To add another issue, I get a hard system crash maybe every other month with OS X, I have not experienced a BSOD in Windows that wasn't because of faulty hardware, I think I get one every other year.
Quote:
As far as memory goes; this is something that isn't always an OS problem. Widgets, Safari, etc., are program related. Sometimes they are the result of memory leaks. So, I guess you could say that it is memory related, but not OS related.
Dashboard is part of the OS, as is Safari, or at least Apple promotes it that way. It is on the OS install CD. The memory use of widgets I state is for widgets included with the OS. The way it looks, there aren't any small Dashboard widgets, I think likely because the Dashboard system is inherently inefficient.
Interesting that of the 5 HW systems InfoWorld lists, only the ProLiant uses AMD (Opteron) CPU"S, yet the corresponding text (7 paragraphs) NEVER mentions Apple (PowerPC) or IBM (Power5), mentions Sun (UltraSPARC) once, Intel 12 (P4/Xeon) times, and mentions AMD (Opteron) 18 times (you can count yourself and correct me if I'm wrong). Did I miss something at InfoWorld?
It does appear that Yager will be writing a full review of the Quad G5 in the not to distant future (based on an InfoWorld blurb dated 12/20/05).
So if *NIX sux, and if *doZ sux, and the rest of the *OS sux, I guess were left with Strobe's OS (nee SOS)? Please strobe, give us the Cliff's Notes on that piece of crap (circa 1994 for dog's sake). Written by the fine folks at MIT (read that as, I don't care one bit what some ivory tower academics (partircularly from MIT) think (IDCOBWSITAT), thank you)? If so, then WTF is MIT doing promoting the hand cranked GreenPC lappy, which runs *NIX? Now don't that sux?
To add another issue, I get a hard system crash maybe every other month with OS X, I have not experienced a BSOD in Windows that wasn't because of faulty hardware, I think I get one every other year.
EVERY OTHER MONTH!!! You sure that's not an exaggeration?
That sounds like a serious problem. My last hard system crash in OS X was two years ago.
If I had the problem you're having I would be on Apple until they either fixed it or replaced it.
Quote:
Dashboard is part of the OS, as is Safari, or at least Apple promotes it that way. It is on the OS install CD. The memory use of widgets I state is for widgets included with the OS.
Dashboard and Safari come loaded in the OS. But I would say they are not appart of the OS in the sense that they can be trashed or turned off without affecting functionality in the rest of the OS.
Dashboard is not as efficient as it could be, but Dashboard is a great deal better than Konfabulator in hoarding memory.
Whatever, it doesn't matter. UNIX doesn't dominate due to how good it is any more than Windows.
I take it you haven't read the book.
I didn't say I read the book. Thats why I ASKED YOU to tell me what hte book said the faults were. I know a lot of about the history of unix. Short of going into the whole story, the main reason its not THE mainstream OS is because no one had rights to it and everyone rewrote it... therefor there wasn't ever a solid release that all software would work with. That doesn't mean there can't be one now.
Far as BeOS... it was a solid system for its time. If it had the backing it could have been a contender of today.
So I repeat... why don't you enlighten me and tell me what hte book said the faults were.
Instead of writing a 360 page handbook, they could have started work on a new OS.
Oh great, just what we need -- another OS. Besides, step 1 of creating a new OS should be to understand what is wrong with the existing one(s), which is what they did.
I recommend reading that PDF to anyone who thinks that Unix (or any of its derivatives) are perfect. Or to anyone who likes to evangelize a particular Unix-based OS. If there is an equivalent document for Windows, I'd recommend that to anyone who likes to evangelize it.
It is useful to remember that these complex systems contain many tradeoffs, good decisions, bad decisions, out-dated decisions, etc etc etc. Nothing is perfect, and if you went out and created a theoretically perfect OS it wouldn't be perfect in practice because it would be yet another OS in a world that already has too many of them. Not to mention that each individual has a different interpretation of perfection.
Oh great, just what we need -- another OS. Besides, step 1 of creating a new OS should be to understand what is wrong with the existing one(s), which is what they did.
I recommend reading that PDF to anyone who thinks that Unix (or any of its derivatives) are perfect. Or to anyone who likes to evangelize a particular Unix-based OS. If there is an equivalent document for Windows, I'd recommend that to anyone who likes to evangelize it.
It is useful to remember that these complex systems contain many tradeoffs, good decisions, bad decisions, out-dated decisions, etc etc etc. Nothing is perfect, and if you went out and created a theoretically perfect OS it wouldn't be perfect in practice because it would be yet another OS in a world that already has too many of them. Not to mention that each individual has a different interpretation of perfection.
Wouldn't step 0 be to understand what is RIGHT with the existing code(s)?
Writing a new OS with any market potential would be very difficult due to the lack of any native software. It would need a 'Grey Box' to run a UNIX environment.
Writing a new OS from scratch would be an enormous undertaking, and would only be worth it, IMO, if some fundamentals were changed.
For example I think the UNIX toolchain ought to be done away with and instead a new one written which incorporates the source, debugger, and runtime/binary in one unified environment.
I would also build the new interface from this IDE-ish platform. This would scrap the application/program metaphor in favour of writing middleware which works with other code at an API and IPC level as opposed to a file format or char stream. This leads to my third suggestion:
Scrap the file metaphor and the filesystem along with it.
Yes, this is a very non-UNIX way of doing everything, and I'll defend each one of these design decisions in as non-troll a manner as possible.
I reserve the right to use the term 'UNIX weenie' however
All I have to tell you, party peeps is that it would be awesome if Intel themselves designs and builds the boards for powermacs.
I've been building PCs for at least 10 years and all of these 10 years, Intel has built the most reliable, stable, and compatible boards bar none, IMHO. When I want to fool around and overclock then I'll go with Abit, DFI, ASUS... but when I want high performance, and rock solid stability, I always go with Intel and I've never been disappointed.
I don't think strobe is a troll. He does have a critical eye out as regards computer OS design and human interaction.
I'm sorry, but criticism for the sake of criticism does no one any good! It needs to be constructive, if it's to have ANY purpose. Sorry, but this isn't the same as your opinion on the movie Catwoman, these tools are much more than just for entertainment value. Last time I checked, NONE of these modern OS's are (or were) written by ONE person. They are all just TOO BIG.
Design by committee, try it, it takes a lot longer, but the results are always much better than any one person can ever approach. And think about a single individual taking on the task of actually writing a modern OS from scratch. With the existing pace of HW evolution, it will never happen, it'll just take too long, and in the mean time the HW playing field has changed dramitcally.
Which leads into the thorny subject of code modification, do you patch existing code or rewrite large sections (or the entire thing) from scratch? The usual path is the one of (apparent) least resistance (i. e. patch versus complete rewrite). Thus the state of *NIX (and *OS's) to date.
Maybe that's what has taken Vista so long to get out of the gate, who knows? Maybe by Mac OS X 10.? things WILL be much improved over what we see today?
I prefer to see the OS glass as half full, and not as half empty as a certain individual! Its one thing to talk-the-talk, its a WHOLE 'nother thing to walk-the-walk!
All I have to tell you, party peeps is that it would be awesome if Intel themselves designs and builds the boards for powermacs.
I've been building PCs for at least 10 years and all of these 10 years, Intel has built the most reliable, stable, and compatible boards bar none, IMHO. When I want to fool around and overclock then I'll go with Abit, DFI, ASUS... but when I want high performance, and rock solid stability, I always go with Intel and I've never been disappointed.
WTF, are you trying to steer this thread back on topic? Please read the AI FAQ, once a thread goes off topic, it STAYS off topic .
Writing a new OS with any market potential would be very difficult due to the lack of any native software. It would need a 'Grey Box' to run a UNIX environment.
Writing a new OS from scratch would be an enormous undertaking, and would only be worth it, IMO, if some fundamentals were changed.
For example I think the UNIX toolchain ought to be done away with and instead a new one written which incorporates the source, debugger, and runtime/binary in one unified environment.
I would also build the new interface from this IDE-ish platform. This would scrap the application/program metaphor in favour of writing middleware which works with other code at an API and IPC level as opposed to a file format or char stream. This leads to my third suggestion:
Scrap the file metaphor and the filesystem along with it.
Yes, this is a very non-UNIX way of doing everything, and I'll defend each one of these design decisions in as non-troll a manner as possible.
I reserve the right to use the term 'UNIX weenie' however
If you want to defend ANY of YOUR opinions, please provide suitable links (by established authorities (AKA peer reviewed literature))? Otherwise, please don't waste our time on YOUR opinions!
I'm sorry, but criticism for the sake of criticism does no one any good! It needs to be constructive, if it's to have ANY purpose. Sorry, but this isn't the same as your opinion on the movie Catwoman, these tools are much more than just for entertainment value. Last time I checked, NONE of these modern OS's are (or were) written by ONE person. They are all just TOO BIG.
Design by committee, try it, it takes a lot longer, but the results are always much better than any one person can ever approach. And think about a single individual taking on the task of actually writing a modern OS from scratch. With the existing pace of HW evolution, it will never happen, it'll just take too long, and in the mean time the HW playing field has changed dramitcally.
Which leads into the thorny subject of code modification, do you patch existing code or rewrite large sections (or the entire thing) from scratch? The usual path is the one of (apparent) least resistance (i. e. patch versus complete rewrite). Thus the state of *NIX (and *OS's) to date.
Maybe that's what has taken Vista so long to get out of the gate, who knows? Maybe by Mac OS X 10.? things WILL be much improved over what we see today?
I prefer to see the OS glass as half full, and not as half empty as a certain individual! Its one thing to talk-the-talk, its a WHOLE 'nother thing to walk-the-walk!
Yes, well all those things you said, I believe also about the undertaking of an operating system.
For the strobe, I could but wonder what all was on his mind, given his various comments on such things. But now he has said several things that were on his mind about an operating system, and so I would not say that he is just trolling along at all, rather has things about an OS on his mind, however keen his critical sense.
Last time I checked, this was a news/discussion/rumour site, and so if one has thoughts about the Mac, and its OS, then that someone is free to express them.
Sure, just as we can give our feedback on his views, that he posted here himself. I don't think anyone here is saying the UNIX layer under OS X is the be-all end-all of perfect software. But the PDF he loves was written for one reason and one reason only - to get folks to not use UNIX because the authors HATE it. And not only that but it was published in 1994 indicating it was written (along with the LispM/Sun references) over a period starting in the mid 80's.
UNIX does still have those ugly tools available if you wish to flog yourself with them, Linux does too, but I haven't needed them in 5 years of OS X and I am a Computer Scientist/AI researcher. Sounds like a whole lot of long-OBE noise to me.
Yes, well all those things you said, I believe also about the undertaking of an operating system.
For the strobe, I could but wonder what all was on his mind, given his various comments on such things. But now he has said several things that were on his mind about an operating system, and so I would not say that he is just trolling along at all, rather has things about an OS on his mind, however keen his critical sense.
Last time I checked, this was a news/discussion/rumour site, and so if one has thoughts about the Mac, and its OS, then that someone is free to express them.
Actually, I'm quite curious about what all strobe is talking about in his most recent post (the 3 OS rewrite items), seeing as most of his rants are COMPLETELY over my head! However, as my sig suggests, "Nature abhors a vacuum," meaning his ideas HAD to come from somewhere. Is he the only one in existance to come to some earth shattering conclusions on OS design, I don't think so! And since he "seems" to be so knowledgeable on the subject of OS design, one would think that he could give a few links on said subject. And IF strobe were truely knowledgeable on the subject, then strobe should already be in one or several refereed journals! So like I said, its put up or shut up time, walk-the-walk NOT talk-the-talk!
Sure, just as we can give our feedback on his views, that he posted here himself. I don't think anyone here is saying the UNIX layer under OS X is the be-all end-all of perfect software. But the PDF he loves was written for one reason and one reason only - to get folks to not use UNIX because the authors HATE it. And not only that but it was published in 1994 indicating it was written (along with the LispM/Sun references) over a period starting in the mid 80's.
Considering the problems largely still exist, the document has aged better than UNIX!
The authors were by no means under any illusion that they could get people to stop using UNIX. Heck, even they couldn't stop using UNIX. The whole point of the list was for people who had to use it whether they liked it or not.
I don't recall if it's in the book, but one of the authors did praise the fact that UNIX was becoming more unified ('standardized' if you can call it that) since at least it could be pinned down and the step beyond it could hopefully be taken.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
Windows also pounds the HD pretty hard. They have more memory problems than the Mac does. Opening too many programs or windows can freeze the machine.
I have as much of a problem or more so with OS X doing this than I do with Windows. I do agree that Finder needs serious work. I think it sucks and blows, even Window's File Explorer is more useful and responsive to me.
To add another issue, I get a hard system crash maybe every other month with OS X, I have not experienced a BSOD in Windows that wasn't because of faulty hardware, I think I get one every other year.
Quote:
As far as memory goes; this is something that isn't always an OS problem. Widgets, Safari, etc., are program related. Sometimes they are the result of memory leaks. So, I guess you could say that it is memory related, but not OS related.
Dashboard is part of the OS, as is Safari, or at least Apple promotes it that way. It is on the OS install CD. The memory use of widgets I state is for widgets included with the OS. The way it looks, there aren't any small Dashboard widgets, I think likely because the Dashboard system is inherently inefficient.
Originally posted by melgross
I know we shouldn't crosspost, but I thought this article from Infoworld was interesting enough to make it worthwhile.
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/8030/
Interesting that of the 5 HW systems InfoWorld lists, only the ProLiant uses AMD (Opteron) CPU"S, yet the corresponding text (7 paragraphs) NEVER mentions Apple (PowerPC) or IBM (Power5), mentions Sun (UltraSPARC) once, Intel 12 (P4/Xeon) times, and mentions AMD (Opteron) 18 times (you can count yourself and correct me if I'm wrong). Did I miss something at InfoWorld?
It does appear that Yager will be writing a full review of the Quad G5 in the not to distant future (based on an InfoWorld blurb dated 12/20/05).
strobe = trollie?
So if *NIX sux, and if *doZ sux, and the rest of the *OS sux, I guess were left with Strobe's OS (nee SOS)? Please strobe, give us the Cliff's Notes on that piece of crap (circa 1994 for dog's sake). Written by the fine folks at MIT (read that as, I don't care one bit what some ivory tower academics (partircularly from MIT) think (IDCOBWSITAT), thank you)? If so, then WTF is MIT doing promoting the hand cranked GreenPC lappy, which runs *NIX? Now don't that sux?
To add another issue, I get a hard system crash maybe every other month with OS X, I have not experienced a BSOD in Windows that wasn't because of faulty hardware, I think I get one every other year.
EVERY OTHER MONTH!!! You sure that's not an exaggeration?
That sounds like a serious problem. My last hard system crash in OS X was two years ago.
If I had the problem you're having I would be on Apple until they either fixed it or replaced it.
Dashboard is part of the OS, as is Safari, or at least Apple promotes it that way. It is on the OS install CD. The memory use of widgets I state is for widgets included with the OS.
Dashboard and Safari come loaded in the OS. But I would say they are not appart of the OS in the sense that they can be trashed or turned off without affecting functionality in the rest of the OS.
Dashboard is not as efficient as it could be, but Dashboard is a great deal better than Konfabulator in hoarding memory.
Originally posted by strobe
[B]Potential to do what?
Whatever, it doesn't matter. UNIX doesn't dominate due to how good it is any more than Windows.
I take it you haven't read the book.
I didn't say I read the book. Thats why I ASKED YOU to tell me what hte book said the faults were. I know a lot of about the history of unix. Short of going into the whole story, the main reason its not THE mainstream OS is because no one had rights to it and everyone rewrote it... therefor there wasn't ever a solid release that all software would work with. That doesn't mean there can't be one now.
Far as BeOS... it was a solid system for its time. If it had the backing it could have been a contender of today.
So I repeat... why don't you enlighten me and tell me what hte book said the faults were.
Originally posted by strobe
You make it sound like UNIX has fundamentally changed since 1969. The only thing which has changed has been the number of bug fixes.
You could make Windows bug-free and it would still suck.
So what is your point here? If everything sucks then why use a computer?
Originally posted by franksargent
strobe = trollie?
Starting to think that mahself...
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Instead of writing a 360 page handbook, they could have started work on a new OS.
Oh great, just what we need -- another OS. Besides, step 1 of creating a new OS should be to understand what is wrong with the existing one(s), which is what they did.
I recommend reading that PDF to anyone who thinks that Unix (or any of its derivatives) are perfect. Or to anyone who likes to evangelize a particular Unix-based OS. If there is an equivalent document for Windows, I'd recommend that to anyone who likes to evangelize it.
It is useful to remember that these complex systems contain many tradeoffs, good decisions, bad decisions, out-dated decisions, etc etc etc. Nothing is perfect, and if you went out and created a theoretically perfect OS it wouldn't be perfect in practice because it would be yet another OS in a world that already has too many of them. Not to mention that each individual has a different interpretation of perfection.
Originally posted by Programmer
Oh great, just what we need -- another OS. Besides, step 1 of creating a new OS should be to understand what is wrong with the existing one(s), which is what they did.
I recommend reading that PDF to anyone who thinks that Unix (or any of its derivatives) are perfect. Or to anyone who likes to evangelize a particular Unix-based OS. If there is an equivalent document for Windows, I'd recommend that to anyone who likes to evangelize it.
It is useful to remember that these complex systems contain many tradeoffs, good decisions, bad decisions, out-dated decisions, etc etc etc. Nothing is perfect, and if you went out and created a theoretically perfect OS it wouldn't be perfect in practice because it would be yet another OS in a world that already has too many of them. Not to mention that each individual has a different interpretation of perfection.
Wouldn't step 0 be to understand what is RIGHT with the existing code(s)?
Writing a new OS from scratch would be an enormous undertaking, and would only be worth it, IMO, if some fundamentals were changed.
For example I think the UNIX toolchain ought to be done away with and instead a new one written which incorporates the source, debugger, and runtime/binary in one unified environment.
I would also build the new interface from this IDE-ish platform. This would scrap the application/program metaphor in favour of writing middleware which works with other code at an API and IPC level as opposed to a file format or char stream. This leads to my third suggestion:
Scrap the file metaphor and the filesystem along with it.
Yes, this is a very non-UNIX way of doing everything, and I'll defend each one of these design decisions in as non-troll a manner as possible.
I reserve the right to use the term 'UNIX weenie' however
I've been building PCs for at least 10 years and all of these 10 years, Intel has built the most reliable, stable, and compatible boards bar none, IMHO. When I want to fool around and overclock then I'll go with Abit, DFI, ASUS... but when I want high performance, and rock solid stability, I always go with Intel and I've never been disappointed.
Originally posted by NordicMan
I don't think strobe is a troll. He does have a critical eye out as regards computer OS design and human interaction.
I'm sorry, but criticism for the sake of criticism does no one any good! It needs to be constructive, if it's to have ANY purpose. Sorry, but this isn't the same as your opinion on the movie Catwoman, these tools are much more than just for entertainment value. Last time I checked, NONE of these modern OS's are (or were) written by ONE person. They are all just TOO BIG.
Design by committee, try it, it takes a lot longer, but the results are always much better than any one person can ever approach. And think about a single individual taking on the task of actually writing a modern OS from scratch. With the existing pace of HW evolution, it will never happen, it'll just take too long, and in the mean time the HW playing field has changed dramitcally.
Which leads into the thorny subject of code modification, do you patch existing code or rewrite large sections (or the entire thing) from scratch? The usual path is the one of (apparent) least resistance (i. e. patch versus complete rewrite). Thus the state of *NIX (and *OS's) to date.
Maybe that's what has taken Vista so long to get out of the gate, who knows? Maybe by Mac OS X 10.? things WILL be much improved over what we see today?
I prefer to see the OS glass as half full, and not as half empty as a certain individual! Its one thing to talk-the-talk, its a WHOLE 'nother thing to walk-the-walk!
Originally posted by skatman
All I have to tell you, party peeps is that it would be awesome if Intel themselves designs and builds the boards for powermacs.
I've been building PCs for at least 10 years and all of these 10 years, Intel has built the most reliable, stable, and compatible boards bar none, IMHO. When I want to fool around and overclock then I'll go with Abit, DFI, ASUS... but when I want high performance, and rock solid stability, I always go with Intel and I've never been disappointed.
WTF, are you trying to steer this thread back on topic? Please read the AI FAQ, once a thread goes off topic, it STAYS off topic
Originally posted by strobe
Writing a new OS with any market potential would be very difficult due to the lack of any native software. It would need a 'Grey Box' to run a UNIX environment.
Writing a new OS from scratch would be an enormous undertaking, and would only be worth it, IMO, if some fundamentals were changed.
For example I think the UNIX toolchain ought to be done away with and instead a new one written which incorporates the source, debugger, and runtime/binary in one unified environment.
I would also build the new interface from this IDE-ish platform. This would scrap the application/program metaphor in favour of writing middleware which works with other code at an API and IPC level as opposed to a file format or char stream. This leads to my third suggestion:
Scrap the file metaphor and the filesystem along with it.
Yes, this is a very non-UNIX way of doing everything, and I'll defend each one of these design decisions in as non-troll a manner as possible.
I reserve the right to use the term 'UNIX weenie' however
If you want to defend ANY of YOUR opinions, please provide suitable links (by established authorities (AKA peer reviewed literature))? Otherwise, please don't waste our time on YOUR opinions!
Originally posted by franksargent
I'm sorry, but criticism for the sake of criticism does no one any good! It needs to be constructive, if it's to have ANY purpose. Sorry, but this isn't the same as your opinion on the movie Catwoman, these tools are much more than just for entertainment value. Last time I checked, NONE of these modern OS's are (or were) written by ONE person. They are all just TOO BIG.
Design by committee, try it, it takes a lot longer, but the results are always much better than any one person can ever approach. And think about a single individual taking on the task of actually writing a modern OS from scratch. With the existing pace of HW evolution, it will never happen, it'll just take too long, and in the mean time the HW playing field has changed dramitcally.
Which leads into the thorny subject of code modification, do you patch existing code or rewrite large sections (or the entire thing) from scratch? The usual path is the one of (apparent) least resistance (i. e. patch versus complete rewrite). Thus the state of *NIX (and *OS's) to date.
Maybe that's what has taken Vista so long to get out of the gate, who knows? Maybe by Mac OS X 10.? things WILL be much improved over what we see today?
I prefer to see the OS glass as half full, and not as half empty as a certain individual! Its one thing to talk-the-talk, its a WHOLE 'nother thing to walk-the-walk!
Yes, well all those things you said, I believe also about the undertaking of an operating system.
For the strobe, I could but wonder what all was on his mind, given his various comments on such things. But now he has said several things that were on his mind about an operating system, and so I would not say that he is just trolling along at all, rather has things about an OS on his mind, however keen his critical sense.
Last time I checked, this was a news/discussion/rumour site, and so if one has thoughts about the Mac, and its OS, then that someone is free to express them.
UNIX does still have those ugly tools available if you wish to flog yourself with them, Linux does too, but I haven't needed them in 5 years of OS X and I am a Computer Scientist/AI researcher. Sounds like a whole lot of long-OBE noise to me.
OBE == overcome by events for those not familiar
Originally posted by NordicMan
Yes, well all those things you said, I believe also about the undertaking of an operating system.
For the strobe, I could but wonder what all was on his mind, given his various comments on such things. But now he has said several things that were on his mind about an operating system, and so I would not say that he is just trolling along at all, rather has things about an OS on his mind, however keen his critical sense.
Last time I checked, this was a news/discussion/rumour site, and so if one has thoughts about the Mac, and its OS, then that someone is free to express them.
Actually, I'm quite curious about what all strobe is talking about in his most recent post (the 3 OS rewrite items), seeing as most of his rants are COMPLETELY over my head! However, as my sig suggests, "Nature abhors a vacuum," meaning his ideas HAD to come from somewhere. Is he the only one in existance to come to some earth shattering conclusions on OS design, I don't think so! And since he "seems" to be so knowledgeable on the subject of OS design, one would think that he could give a few links on said subject. And IF strobe were truely knowledgeable on the subject, then strobe should already be in one or several refereed journals! So like I said, its put up or shut up time, walk-the-walk NOT talk-the-talk!
Originally posted by Hiro
Sure, just as we can give our feedback on his views, that he posted here himself. I don't think anyone here is saying the UNIX layer under OS X is the be-all end-all of perfect software. But the PDF he loves was written for one reason and one reason only - to get folks to not use UNIX because the authors HATE it. And not only that but it was published in 1994 indicating it was written (along with the LispM/Sun references) over a period starting in the mid 80's.
Considering the problems largely still exist, the document has aged better than UNIX!
The authors were by no means under any illusion that they could get people to stop using UNIX. Heck, even they couldn't stop using UNIX. The whole point of the list was for people who had to use it whether they liked it or not.
I don't recall if it's in the book, but one of the authors did praise the fact that UNIX was becoming more unified ('standardized' if you can call it that) since at least it could be pinned down and the step beyond it could hopefully be taken.