• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Was it smart of Apple

J

jema

Senior member
to base OS X on Unix? Or would they have been better of with something new like BeOS?

Currious to what (if any) option makes most OS sense.
 
Apple would have had to pay licensing fees (probably not cheap) to use BeOS and they would have had little or no control, and I'm sure there's a little tension between them since BeOS' creator used to work for Apple. BeOS was really cool and worked well, but sadly the best technology doesn't automatiaclly win in this arena.

Forking a copy of NetBSD (I think that's the one) gave them a totally free, stable base to start with and let them focus on GUI usability. And unix since is more standard (although they moved sh!t around like changing /home to /Users) many programs work find with no modifications. I was able to download and compile Samba on OS X with no problems, nearly instantly all the NT boxes could share files with the Mac.

They would never have used Linux because of the GPL.
 

Rumor has it they offered to buy BeOS, but Be turned them down. Too bad. Then Apple hired Steve Jobs and Apple bought NeXT.



<< Forking a copy of NetBSD (I think that's the one) gave them a totally free >>



They actually bought NeXT and their modified Mach kernel, so they didn't get much for free...
 
They actually bought NeXT and their modified Mach kernel, so they didn't get much for free...

Well that was dumb of them when they could have forked a BSD for free.
 
I heard that it was Apple that turned Be down. Any which way what I meant was that if Apple would have been better of with making a completely new OS (like BeOS was AFAIK).
 
Do you have any idea how long it would have taken for OS X to come out if they started from scratch instead of reusing existing code?
 
BeOS had a lot of unix-like features and a good POSIX layer, but it was a totally new creation and wasn't based on any unix kernel. I think one of the motivations of the high unix-compatibility was to get a decent amount of apps working quickly, but these weren't the apps their target audience was looking for.
 


<< Do you have any idea how long it would have taken for OS X to come out if they started from scratch instead of reusing existing code? >>


Seems to me like they took long enough anyway. Especially if they used (or atleast had access to) the NeXT stuff that have been described as top notch.
 
Apple bought NeXT instead of Be. Who knows whether Be turned them down (less likely in my mind), or they turned Be down. Who cares?

Apple got Jobs back with the aquisition of NExT, and Jobs had another vision or something (too much lsd in the 70s). nEXT had a m68k based UNIX-like OS that ran like crap (from what Ive heard, Ive never used it). Atleast the people I have talked to hated the NEXt beach ball thingy (similar to MS' hourglass). That actually carried over into OS X... OS X is, from my understanding, a MACH kernel and modified FreeBSD userland with a pretty gui.

I think it was a great move. But Im biased I guess. I like cool technology. Although BeOS would have been cool, I dont think I would have bought a Mac to play with it.
 
A primary reason to buy Next was to get the software engineering team as well.

I don't know if they got their money's worth, but arguably Mac OS X has been a successful launch. I agree with those who feel it was a good move.
 
I heard the NeXT machines and software was awesome, oh well I guess there are plenty of truths in this matter 🙂

I htink one cool aspect of BeOS was that it ran on both PCs and Macs, something that might have chaged is Apple had bought Be but I think it would have been attractive for a corp to be able to run the same sw on all its machines.

Wish I had a Mac so I could fiddle with X. Oh well when some of the apps I want (sound & midi) goes X I might just fork out the cash.
 
I htink one cool aspect of BeOS was that it ran on both PCs and Macs,

Everything but the GUI of OS X runs on PCs too, unless Apple is extremely stupid it shouldn't be too much trouble to port it too, it's just they don't want to.

Guess I'm spoiled by running Linux on 3 different architectures at my house =)
 


<< I htink one cool aspect of BeOS was that it ran on both PCs and Macs, Everything but the GUI of OS X runs on PCs too, unless Apple is extremely stupid it shouldn't be too much trouble to port it too, it's just they don't want to. Guess I'm spoiled by running Linux on 3 different architectures at my house =) >>



They are stupid if it cant be done, and they would be stupid if they did it.
 
Arguably, if Apple had ported their OS to x86 in the early 1990s, Windows would be dead in the water today. I've heard this hypothesis a few times.

However, since they didn't, they have to cling onto their proprietary platform. For this reason, I don't think porting OS X to x86 is now worthwhile.

They would definitely sell a few more copies of the OS, but it would just as well hurt their high-margin hardware business. For Apple, software is just a means to sell their machines.

Intel has about 75% of the CPU market share, and the PC systems business is cut-throat, but at least those competitors are not illegal monopolies. As a business, going head up against the Winblows monopoly is not something many people even seriously consider.

Even most of the Linux vendors are much more interested in making money on the server, and on services. The economies of scale for profit in Linux desktops just isn't there. As an example, I recall reading last year that SuSE loses money on each retail boxed OS they sell.
 
However, since they didn't, they have to cling onto their proprietary platform. For this reason, I don't think porting OS X to x86 is now worthwhile.

Exactly, Apple is a hardware company not software.

And surprisingly they're in an upswing as far as I can tell, all the local CompUSAs around here can't keep new Macs in stock.
 
Nothinman,

The analogy isn't perfect, but Macs are like the BMWs of computers. As long as people are gainfully employed, many of them will see Mac as the wise choice for usability. It's like how some folks will forever think AOL is the Internet.
rolleye.gif
 
The analogy isn't perfect, but Macs are like the BMWs of computers.

Not perfect, but I think it's appropriate. I know someone who has a BMW and a G4 tower (along with several intel PCs running XP).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top