*codename: Chameleon Revealed* Os X On Intel

Originally posted by Shotokan
...what happened to OS/2 and other early x86 OSes? They all ran good, and people who have ever used OS/2 know, it outperformed Windows in every way.
Click to expand...

My second statement cover that quite completely, the best OS in the world doesn’t stand a chance if there are a limited number of applications for it. That seems simple enough to me (maybe you should read my post again).

I guess what I am trying to say is that the rise of Windows to a 95% market share, the simple fact that its a merket dominant OS, has very little do do with hardware prices, or application base. There are vastly more applications for the x86 platform (Windows,OS/2,Bex86,FreBSD,Linux,Unix,etc.) that there are for the PPC (OS9,OS X, BePPC, etc).
Click to expand...

So what you’re saying is that Mac OS X for Intel could run OS/2 applications? I think you need to reword that statement because applications are dependent on two factors; operating systems (for the APIs) and hardware (code compiled to run on specific hardware configurations). I don’t think that the vast amount of apps for Windows has helped out Be or OS/2, do you? Also the application base has everything to do with the choices that companies make when choosing a platform. If I’m in a meeting with some clients and we are talking about installing a computer system and I say “you could try Macs”, the first response is “do they run all the software that is out there?” Besides, in one sentence you are saying that it has nothing to do with application base and the next you talk about there being “vastly more”, which is it?

I think I can count on two hands all the applications that, besides Apple apps, only run on PPC hardware. I am in now way trying to degrade OS X, or Macs for that matter. I think we are starting to enter the realm of opinions, where is is quite possible to disagree forever. At any rate, I hope this clarifies my position.
Click to expand...

Okay, are you sure that you know what you are arguing here? I’m talking operating systems and application support, you are off making an argument about what apps run on what processor? Let us be very clear how computers currently work, first you have the hardware, then the operating systems, and lastly the applications (which are dependent on the OS). In your argument you sound like you are saying that because MS Word 2000 can run on an Intel system running Windows, it should also run on an Intel system running FreeBSD.

And I liked OS/2 Warp as much as the next guy, but compared to Windows 95 (which it was facing in 1995) I can understand why people left it.
 

Attachments

  • os2warp.jpg
    os2warp.jpg
    67.9 KB · Views: 38
Maybe I misunderstood racerX (or maybe I am a lookist ... :p) but here is a small something something...
 

Attachments

  • os2v4.jpg
    os2v4.jpg
    61.5 KB · Views: 64
I need to play around with 4 I see. But your right, about running down to CompUSA or some place and finding software on the shelf for OS/2 or Be. I don't think that moving to the Intel platform helped NeXT or Be, and Be is now willing to became an Internet Appliance, what would be next? Be become a Kitchen Appliance, run the microwave or toaster oven? I would call that the slow slide to computer oblivion (at least OS/2 has continued on as an enterprise solution).

The thing that was confusing was that it sounded like Shotokan was implying that if Mac OS X was on the Intel platform it would have MORE apps than it would on PPC and "devour a huge market share". Not to mention the fact that he lumped every OS for Intel together when talking about apps.

I'm still hoping for clarification on his clarification.:D

(PS Did anything from Hobbes work on 4?)
 
1) I think I get where the confusion lay .. and where it still lies ... I think we need some more screenshots of non windows OSs with a text editor running says " Poor me I am {insert OS name here} and I cant run win apps ... even though I am on intel... that sux! " lol ;)
shall we ?? ghe he he :p

2) I played around with the hobbes CD (I wonder where the calvin CD is :confused: lol :p) and apps do work. I installed a game I think just to test it out.



Admiral
 
My argument about market share had nothing to do with applications. I was saying that if OS X ran on NON-APPLE hardware, that a lot more people would at least try it out. Is this clear enough?
 
People can try out Be for free now, I don't see all that many people moving over to that OS from Windows? I am assuming that you must have a PC, have you installed Be on it? or QNX? or OS/2 Warp 4.0 (looks cool Admiral)? or Red Hat? or Solaris? The number of alternatives to Windows has not stopped it. Sun is a great example! They ported Solaris over to Intel, has that helped them gain market share? Which version has more apps, Intel or SPARC? (answer: SPARC). The only reason Macs hold their own at this point is application support from companies like Microsoft and Adobe, and both have said that they are not going to write for Cocoa any time in the near future. Mac OS X on Intel without apps is no better than Be (which has some apps).

Besides, you were arguing that Apple would "devour a huge market share" if they ported OS X, which Apple has already shown that they would not. Plus you said "don't act like you know something that we all don't, because, well, you don't." which means you must have as much info on the subject as the rest of us, so you should be able to make a reasonable argument why Apple would jump back into a dead project like OS X on Intel before they would... jump back into making Newtons again.

Admiral,
I'll take some time to play with OS/2 4, special now that I've seen how much better it looks than 3.:D
 
Actually a new newton would be "slammin" (I have to be up to date with the American English Jargon lol :p)

OS/2 v4 looks cooler than 3 .. although voice recognition probably needs lots of adaptation before ti works properly lol :p
 
In part III we see OS X's daddy....rhapsody


In our next episody ... OS X's granddaddy ... OpenSTEP ...
(racer... I think u can do that better since u know more about it ;) )
 

Attachments

  • rhapsody.jpg
    rhapsody.jpg
    83.7 KB · Views: 58
I don't know if this should count because it is Windows NT, but it is related to Rhapsody, so here it is.:confused:
 

Attachments

  • yellowbox.jpg
    yellowbox.jpg
    64.7 KB · Views: 94
LOL here is a blast from the past :p

(now if only I could install Plan 9, OS/9, Inferno, AtheOS, and BeOS :p)
 

Attachments

  • gem.jpg
    gem.jpg
    56.3 KB · Views: 87
Originally posted by Shotokan
...OS X is a far cry from OS 9 or any other classic Mac OS. Its based on Linux (BSD). How many Apple programmers (although very smart) know jack abot Linux or Unix or BSD. ...but don't act like you know something that we all don't, because, well, you don't.
Click to expand...

You know it just occurred to me that that the statement "Its based on Linux (BSD)" is a strange one. BSD is not Linux. Mac OS X is based on Rhapsody which is based on OPENSTEP which is based on NEXTSTEP which pre-dates Linux by a number of years. What is up with that one? (that is just a side question, I'm still hoping for clarification on the application issue ;) )
 
A few more viewings and we will have 1000 viewwing of this thread... I think that OpenSTEP (or possibily NeXTSTEP) are waiting to make a retort at that guy who said that OS X is based on linux (BSD) ... first of all linux aint BSD ...as a matter of fact there is a semi-quasi-sorta holy war going between them as to which is better lol


Admiral

PS--> That graphic was hilarious. I got almost all excepr SGI, Palm OS, and GEOS/PDA. Although... no KDE/GNOME ... no GEOS(x86), no solaris, no AtheOS, no inferno hmmmm it's time for a version 1.5 of this photo :)
 
Originally posted by AdmiralAK
... first of all linux aint BSD ...as a matter of fact there is a semi-quasi-sorta holy war going between them as to which is better lol
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that is only half as interesting as in infighting between the BSD and Linux distributions. I have a friend who swears by NetBSD, and how much better it is than FreeBSD or OpenBSD. And I've seen Linux discussions almost come to blows over which distribution is better.

We have it now. Look at some of the off colored remarks by strobe towards anyone that supports Cocoa (who can forget such favorites as "Cocoa proponents need to shut the hell up..." or "Geez, you NeXT people are so out of touch!"), and other bigoted remarks form people (Scott Anguish almost went through the ruff at someone's "ex-NeXTers" remark at WWDC). And people say Mac users are all liberal Democrats, I would point out some of those remark and say we seem to have a few right wing fascist using Macs as well.

Most of it is understandable (fight for your 'fill in blank' before you lose it), but then when you see Windows users trolling, why? Even the VERY best case scenario would not have their OS disappear, so why attack others? I guess fear and hatred go hand in hand don't they.
 
LOL...
I have friends that havea holy war between SuSE and Red Hat lol ... ( SuSE supporters ). ... as for strobe ... I think he is a tortured sould inhabited by two spirits... one pro cocoa and one pro carbon seing that he has dissed and supported both in the past lol :p


I am a mac user but I aint liberal and I aint a democrat lol ... I dont know what I am ... guess I am a libertarian ... I dont like government control of everything, but I dont like people running around killing other people causing anarchy .... such a f*cked up world we live in ...

for me it's "fight for your dignity & honor before you lose it" When it comes down to it thats all that matters in life ;)


Admiral
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top