Apple OS licensing

[jwoods]

I actually used BeOS as my main OS for quite a while. I actually thought it was going to be the "one", as far as OS's go. I think everyone knew the writing was on the wall by the time version 5 hit the streets.

The BeOS was fast, and was amazing at multi-tasking. It didn't hurt that the OS booted up and was running in about 20 seconds. I still don't think much around now can touch it as far as multi-tasking goes. It was impressive then, and in that regard is still light years ahead of windows.

I think I still have all the intel releases laying around here somewhere.

[nixgeek]

Originally Posted by jwoods

I actually used BeOS as my main OS for quite a while. I actually thought it was going to be the "one", as far as OS's go. I think everyone knew the writing was on the wall by the time version 5 hit the streets.

The BeOS was fast, and was amazing at multi-tasking. It didn't hurt that the OS booted up and was running in about 20 seconds. I still don't think much around now can touch it as far as multi-tasking goes. It was impressive then, and in that regard is still light years ahead of windows.

I think I still have all the intel releases laying around here somewhere.

Every time someone mentions BeOS I get nostalgic and sad about how it all turned out for Be. They had a great operating system with some great potential. Of course, thanks to Microsoft, they didn't have a chance. Of course, Be wasn't a total saint. They thought they had Apple in the Palm () of their hands. And then the NeXT Big Thing happened for Apple, which meant Be was left out in the cold.

After that happened along with Microsoft thwarting their efforts on the PC side, the decisions just got worse and worse. Seeing BeOS turned into BeIA and running on a Sony eVilla was the most humiliating thing to see for such a powerful operating system with TONS of potential for multimedia and whatnot. Such is life, I guess...

Anyways, lots of the technologies that BeOS employed eventually made their way into Mac OS X and Windows as well. Linux also took advantage of a lot of the features BeOS had. I would still love to see the GUI from the BeOS implemented properly in either GNOME or KDE. YellowTab's Zeta is nice, but I don't see it going anywhere to be honest. On the PC side, Linux has the most potential in an open source operating system and with a nice BeOS look within either KDE or GNOME, it would be a great complement for me anyways.

Sorry for deviating from the topic a bit, but I had to respond......I guess just don't mention BeOS again and I'll shut up.

As for the licensing, I think it would be a shame if Apple didn't eventually supply a retail install of OS X for Intel. They would have to eventually, but who knows what is actually under Job's sleeves on that one.

[jwoods]

Yeah. I was a big supporter of Be, but as you mentioned, they thought Apple was going to buy them out and of course, NeXT got the nod. That would have been an interesting thing for sure though, although I think the NeXT move was the right one for apple.

ZETA is selling for what? $99? Too much for too little, nowadays.

Ok, I'll shut up now. (New rule? No BeOS talk.....LOL)

[fryke]

Well, if we look at this at a larger scale...

When Steve had to go from Apple back in the days, he came back to the computer world with both a new OS and new hardware (proprietary): NeXT was born. The OS was _so_ great. The hardware, although tricky in some aspects, was nice too. Much too pricey, but well... It then went down. OS was ported to other hardware, NeXT's own hardware department died completely. As an OS/application/development environment only, it didn't really survive –*until Apple bought NeXT.

Be was similar. They had hardware and software (proprietary) at the beginning, although they also had the software running on PPC Macs quite soon (after all, the Be hardware was also PPC-based). After a while, they dropped the hardware and ported the OS to also run on PCs. Then they dropped the PPC version and after a while, the whole project died. (Well, it went Palm's way, much like NeXT went Apple's way...)

I think we should just clearly state that _both_ OSs _failed_ in the market. You can say that they both had their niches and that they lived on in some or other way, but NeXT's OS never really had a wide audience before Mac OS X came along. And let's get something clear here, also: Even Mac OS X is not really the leader in desktop operating systems today.

Would BeOS have been the better thing to buy back at the time? I don't think so. I actually don't think so at all. NeXT had it all prepared. It needed some brushing up (although Apple probably overdid this task 'slightly'...), but it was all there. It's not only about how quickly an OS can do 5 things well. It's also about scale, and I'm not sure that BeOS would've brought it all together as nicely as OpenStep/Rhapsody/OS X did.

Mac OS X, today, has a *LOT* of potential. Let's hope Apple makes sure that developers both inside and outside of Apple are aware of this and actually make use of it...

Now back to topic, please. (We're in the opinions forum here. I guess RacerX really has already said everything there is to say about the _subject_ of this thread. Hasn't he?)

[dmetzcher]

Originally Posted by eric2006

You can get an iBook for 700 bucks, and minis for sub-400 bucks at the refurb store. If you really want a cheap way to test out OS X, get one of those. PC's are not made for the mac experience.. it's just not the same with a PC. Plus, the refurbs come with OS X and iLife, everything you need to start working (or playing). iWork is only 79 bucks. MS Office is 279. Need I say more?

The OS X experience is tempting.. don't go to jail for it!

Well, iWork isn't MS Office, and comparing the two isn't really fair. Office has Excel, which is the standard spreadsheet app that every Windows user has installed on their computer and is familiar with. This is the one app that has not been outdone by any other company in recent years, and it's what keeps Microsoft Office flying off the shelves for PC users. iWork is missing too much to be considered an office-capable package. It doesn't really compete with Office, so this is OK.

I wouldn't pay for any additional software if all I wanted to do was test a cheaper Mac. TextEdit will give you your simple word processor, and iLife is the perfect small taste of what a Mac can do. Office looks nicer on a Mac than a PC, so a PC user will appreciate that, like I did. They can install the Office test drive that comes with their new/used Mac and get a feel for it.

I agree completely with fryke that Apple would do best by offering a bootable test drive DVD of the Mac OS. They have little on their Web site that really highlights the Mac OS because you have to be able to use it for a few minutes to see what it can do. Many will say, "tell them to go to an Apple store and test it out." Yeah, that's fine, but they won't, and that attitude isn't going to sell more Macs. It only reenforces the PC users view of the arrogant Mac user (i.e. - "We have the best OS. You are all stupid for using Windows. We don't really care if you switch, but, if you want to, you have to come to us, because we don't need you.").

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

I agree completely with fryke that Apple would do best by offering a bootable test drive DVD of the Mac OS. They have little on their Web site that really highlights the Mac OS because you have to be able to use it for a few minutes to see what it can do. Many will say, "tell them to go to an Apple store and test it out." Yeah, that's fine, but they won't, and that attitude isn't going to sell more Macs. It only reenforces the PC users view of the arrogant Mac user (i.e. - "We have the best OS. You are all stupid for using Windows. We don't really care if you switch, but, if you want to, you have to come to us, because we don't need you.").

Well, what if I was interested in switching to Windows? Is there a Windows test drive DVD that will run on my Mac? How is it any less arrogant for me to have to go to a PC store to try out Windows? I sure haven't seen this attitude hurting the sales of Windows.

Apple knows that as the other guys they don't have the ability to bully people into buying their systems. Further, they are very aware that first impressions are hard to overcome.

Which is why Apple spends so much of their time and effort on presentation.

Why did Apple drop Best Buy as a distributer back in 1998? Because the demo systems were in awful condition and it gave people a bad impression of Macs.

Apple isn't about to make the same mistake as Be. If you are going to try the Mac OS... it'll be in the best possible environment for the Mac OS. Period.


See, the amazing thing is, people form first impressions very early and very quickly. Once a first impression has been formed, people generally will look for ways to reenforce that first impression (they hate to be wrong).

Moving to Macs from another platform isn't easy. There are always problems. Now, if you formed a bad first impression of Macs, those problems are going to reenforce the user's negative views. But if the first impression was good, then users will be less likely to let problems deter them from their initial good impression.

This is why things are done this way at Apple. And even if you don't agree or thing this is totally wrong... it really doesn't matter, because things aren't going to change. Apple wants you in the perfect selling environment if you are a first time Mac buyer, not in some back alley attempting to get Mac OS X to work on a system it was not designed to work on.


And I can tell you from experience... the whole Mac on PCs thing is a pain in the rear!

I'm pretty well known as the Rhapsody guy on the net, and as such I get questions on how to install Rhapsody all the time. And usually it is from people trying to run Rhapsody on a system it was never designed to run on.

When I decided to run Rhapsody on a PC, I only bought PCs and PC parts that were listed as supported hardware. Did I have any problems? No.

These days I usually try to point people at the PowerPC version of Rhapsody because it runs great on actual Apple hardware. And I don't have to deal with people saying Rhapsody sucks because they never got a chance to see it actually running the way it should and they had gotten such a bad first impression trying to shoe horn it onto a system it should never have been on in the first place.


My reasons for agreeing with Apple on this matter come from my real world experiences with something like this... frankly, Apple really is doing the best thing!

[jwoods]

Like RacerX, I think it would be a terrible idea to release a "test drive" for OS X that ran on windows. First time something didn't work, you'd lose a sale that you might have had from a potential switcher. OS X runs great on hardware it supports.....The cheap arse PC's that people buy on the cheap for internet access probably would not run it all that great. Nevermind driver support, etc.

Best if people see it in action where it can be presented in the best light.

[Shookster]

The danger is that someone will encounter a bug on an old DVD, the bug having been fixed in a newer version.