MacOSX Vs BeOS ShootOut 416
Jolie writes: "After Palm purchased Be's assets, the future of BeOS became uncertain and a lot of users have left the platform. One of these users was Scot Hacker, mostly known for his 'BeOS Bible' book among other things. Scot tried to stick to Windows, then to Linux but he ended up with MacOSX. He has written a long and detailed article comparing, from the user's point of view, his beloved BeOS to his new favorite, MacOSX."
OS Preferences (Score:3, Insightful)
Bio-diversity is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of open source software. It is what will keep Linux thriving no matter how depressed the tech industry gets (unlike Be), but it is also that which practically guarantees that the Linux experience will never feel internally consistent.
That last sentence was the one that intrigued me - is "internal consistency" something that people really look for in an OS? Speaking for myself (somebody who spends 90% of their time at the CLI) I've never really had a complaint in the "internal consistency" department - in fact, I've always liked the fact that Linux has kind of a TMTOWTDI feel - I can set my desktop up completely differently than the guy in the next WorkCube and be productive as hell.
Maybe "internal consistency" is something that a mass-marketed OS might want, but for the legions of DIY'ers out there, is this something to be worried about in an open-source OS?
Well, it doesn't really matter at this point (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, BeOS is for all intents and purposes dead. Nothing me or you can do will change that. That's why I'm going to put my money on MacOSX every time. We all know the advantages of OSX--I mean, it's certainly the first time anyone has combined user-friendliness and good-design with the power of Unix (and a real Unix, at that).
So, sad is I am to say it, this article is sort of irrelevant. Sure, I'll keep BeOS around as a toy. But for serious work, OSX is my new OS of choice.
--
I support a US first strike [slashdot.org]
I hate these arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
(A brief example, I'm sure everyone knows each individual point already)
Windows is for the everyday user, who doesn't mind a few crashes here and there if it means all their favorite software will run on it and the whole thing can be as user friendly as possible.
Unix is usefull for those who know what they are doing, and is usually considered faster and more reliable, and is in general more suited to business and (especially) software development.
MacOS combines the two, with a GUI similar to windows (suprise!) and more support for games and home use software, but with a Unix kernel and better reliability. I don't use them much myself, but I hear that mac's are the best choice for multimedia development (graphics especially, but they also seem to have some of the best music editing apps)
I myself prefer Windows for home use (it's all about the games) and Unix (solaris8 to be specific) for work development.
Why compare any of them in general though when they're all suited to different applications?
Metadata Reviewed (Score:3, Insightful)
After reading this article I can now understand why some people want a different system than that used in OSX. In some ways OSX takes a step backward by getting rid of the resource fork. On the other hand, it acknowledges the fact that to be compatible in a heterogeneous network you have to accomodate Windows and UNIX. The system Scot mentions that was used in Be sounds very intriguing. The fact that MS is moving to a database structure for their file system is also interesting.
While I would love the ability to use attributes in files like Be did, Apple doesn't have the luxury of starting from-the-ground-up. Still this was THE feature (aside from performance) that I wish OSX had. Would make Sherlock much better. Scot seemed to find some of this functionality in iTunes. Wish it was in the Finder.
Re:page 1 (Score:0, Insightful)
What we have here is a troll. Somebody who doesn't view a computer as a useful tool, but rather as a platform to wage war from.
Re:OS Preferences (Score:5, Insightful)
Internal consistency isn't about making your desktop look like the next guy's -- it's about making the way the user interface works consistent. Experts tend to overlook this, but it's important when introducing someone new to computers.
You may or may not have used DOS systems, but every application in DOS that had a GUI looked (and worked) differently. Some had mouse support, some didn't. Some had menubars, some didn't. Some would use accelerator keys (Alt+whatever), some wouldn't. Some would have right-click context menus, some wouldn't. One of the ideas behind a good OS is that all of that would be consistent: all windows should resize the same way, so that once you learn how to resize one window, you know how to resize them all. That sort of thing. The point of the quote was that, since Linux apps are written by lots of people with little in the way of an overseeing body, it won't have the consistency that a "monolithic" OS might.
I obviously cannot speak for everyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comparing Macs to Windows is not SUVs to cars and trucks. It is not about different, or suited to different needs, though one can very clearly make that distinction.
It's *almost* like talking about luxury vehicles though, as noxious as car analogies are. You pay for the Mac experience, where the Windows world spans the whole gamut of econoboxes to SUV.
I'm going to leave out Linux and Unix for simplicity and because with Mac OS X you get BSD 'for free' since it's built atop it.
For the average (not the specific individuals), a Mac is drop in compatible with a PC, about the same way that an AMD Athlon is compatible with the Intel P4.
Macs have less quantity software, but it is not without the entire spectrum (except, perhaps, maybe only in the short term, for VB virii)
What Windows has is the ability to transform nearly any machine into a Window's platform device. Think borg, think virus. A 486? A P2? A P3? A Duron? A MP P4? You can install Windows. It's not perfect, it's not seamless, it's not graceful, but it works. That seems to be the catchphrase that is Windows.
The Mac is arguably more tightly bound to it's hardware. It *is* seamless, graceful, and clean. Perhaps it wasn't like that in the past, but right now, and for the next few iterations, OS X is going to be hand tailored for the hardware and the hardware is going to be hand tailored for the OS.
If you prefer the simplicty of a single setup, like I do, you can get one Mac PowerBook G4 for home use (video, graphics, games, movies, etc) and for work (BSD, bash, gcc, etc).
Re:A quick comparison of BeOS to OSX... (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OS Preferences (Score:3, Insightful)
MacOS X, Darwin and cheaper kit (Score:1, Insightful)
Darwin [darwin.org], the NeXT-like BSD/mach core of MacOS X, runs on Intel kit. It's foreseeable that this may eventually provide a compatibility engine that will permit Mac software developers to port to the cheaper kit. On the other hand, I can't think what strategy Apple would be able to adopt to compete in the large, competitive hardware market that this would create, except by making its GUI interface a major selling point. That would be feasible if Microsoft continued to bite the hands that feed it (which, on previous showings I suppose, is always possible).
Actually, this doesn't sound like such a crazy idea. A friend was trying to impress me with the one of these Titanium book thingies the other day, but all I could think about was how much nicer it would be if I could run the same lovely Mac software on kit at a price point that *I* chose.
[nostradamus mode off]
I have nothing but admiration for Apple's recent moves--successfully leveraging the large open source developer base has given the company a lot of credibility, completing the revamp that started with the iMac. I would never spend any money on Apple hardware (it's far too expensive in my country), but they've got the makings of a great cross-platform OS.
Re:MacOS X, Darwin and cheaper kit (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll raise my hand here and say I'm that guy. "Why?" you ask? Simple. Apple can do such a damn good job with the OS because they don't have to deal with metric assloads of third party drivers, IRQ conflicts, blah blah blah rest-of-x86-nightmare.
I'm actually very comfortable with Apple having extremely tight control over the hardware - and the integration and compatibility that comes from that, and if that means coughing up a few bucks on the hardware so they can concentrate on improving the OS instead of dealing with "this week's third party hardware shipment from China", I'm cool with that.
Re:MacOS X, Darwin and cheaper kit (Score:1, Insightful)
Personally I think the argument is like saying "but I can buy three Ford Focuses for the price of that Jaguar"
Well, yeah. But if you can afford it, buy the nice one instead...
But back to Be OS. I used to run Be on my old PowerMac clone. It was a nice OS. Ihave to say that I like OS X a lot better... Be OS used to get cranky sometimes, and there is more software for OS X.
Re:MacOS X, Darwin and cheaper kit (Score:2, Insightful)
What planet does he live on? My old Mac was a PowerComputing clone. When I bought it ran a 132 MHz PPC 604 processor. It had 16 MB of RAM, a 1 GB hard drive, and 1 MB VRAM on the built in controller.
Since then (1997) I have upgraded the CPU three times, without having to replace the motherboard, and it's currently running a 500 MHz G3 processor, 192 MB Ram, has a 10 GB hard drive, USB card, and an ATI Radion PCI graphics card. This computer is now owned by my 10 year old son ;-)
Sounds like I replaced parts to me...
Re:Use the Force, or Linux+Unix vs. BeOS/OSX (Score:4, Insightful)
When Scot Hacker was talking about how having to carry around a toolbelt, he wasn't dissing the commandline, but rather the lack of point & drool simplicity that, while lacking the finesse of the command shell, also doesn't need years of training to become adept with.
And as for your comments about the CLI of BeOS or OSX not being "the true CLI", well, you're just talking out of your ass on that one. I have never seen a system that better balanced command line & graphical interface functionality better than BeOS did -- for the most part you could use whichever one you felt more comfortable with, and one would be just fine driving the other environment. Lovely. And as for the Mac, it has had AppleScript for generations now and thus could have been automated in the same ways without even having to adpot a shell until now. With OS9 and before, the "real essence of the system" *was* the graphical shell, and none of the available CLI interfaces for it (msh, tclsh, etc) ever felt like anything more than a kludge, and a broken one at that.
You seem to be making the assumption that, like Linux and (old school) Windows, the graphical shell is a crude wrapper around the text interface. That's just not the case. BeOS and MacOS have always booted directly into a graphical mode, and whatever text interface has been available has always been a service provided on top of that graphical shell, not laying underneath it as a foundation.
Your argument is thus a bit like saying that anyone that tries to change channels on their television without knowing how to manyally rewire the circuitry is missing out on the true power of the machine. Not only are you flat out wrong, you just sound silly. Knowing how to perform command line surgery is indeed an elegant trick to know, but it is not the end all & be all of modern computer systems, and hasn't been for going on 20 years now, the admirable rise of Linux notwithstanding.
Re:BeOS... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody screwed over Be, as it was never a real contender.
I have BeOS version 3 and 4 at home, and while they were pretty cool I never found anybody who was remotely interested in them except some really perverse geeks like myself. Even the anti-MS Linux zealots universally derided it every time it was mentioned on slashdot.
Now this Scot Hacker might blame Microsoft for preventing dual boot, but it would not have mattered. If OEMs had installed BeOS on their systems along with Windows, they would have simply received a few million phone calls asking how they could free up the used space.
There was even talk at one time of Apple adopting Be, but instead went with this OS-X. But even then I don't believe Apple screwed over Be, because BeOS wasn't ready to replace MacOS and it needed the Apple commitment.
Be lacked applications, hardware drivers and all sorts of things which were necessary for it to succeed. But what it lacked most of all was a problem that needed to be solved that only it could do.
Nobody screwed Be over. Be was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong solution.
Re:Who needs GUI anyway? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who needs GUI anyway? (Score:2, Insightful)
Out of the box, MacOSX isn't much easier to break into than MacOS9 (read: near impossible). Of course i'm not an 1337 hax0r but I'd say it's no less secure than most base linux installations and probably more secure.