Live data from Hacker News

BeOS: The Alternate Universe's Mac OS X

hackaday.com

91–100 of 430 posts

Re: BeOS: The Alternate Universe's Mac OS X

#91
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny you should mention Windows 95. The company that sold that ended up doing pretty well.

Really? Most people I talk with these days seem to agree that the proprietary OS is a liability.

Outside HN and Reddit talks, most people I know don't even care about FOSS OSes existence, they just want something that they buy at the shopping mall and can use right away.

Re: BeOS: The Alternate Universe's Mac OS X

#92
post #52

Haiku is really good. Would recommend anyone to try it out in a VM (I had it running on my actual laptop for a short time, but unfortunately my job pretty much requires me to run Linux so it couldn't stay). Haiku has a really responsive UI with a 90s look so you can actually tell what is a button.

Also recommend.

https://haiku-os.org

Re: BeOS: The Alternate Universe's Mac OS X

#93

Before I first saw BeOS running on a colleague's machine back in the ~mid-late 90s (same guy who introduced me to Python) I used an SGI Onyx Reality Engine machine [1] (roughly $250K computer back in the day) for molecular mechanics simulations and BeOS ran circles around it on perceived responsiveness. I really wish we have OS's that prioritize input/output latency over all else. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SG…

Don’t mobile OS’ prioritize perceived latency above all other resources (besides battery)?

I should have said that I really want a general-purpose OS to prioritize perceived latency. Mobile OS (and gaming consoles) of course are tuned quite differently and in my brain I view them as completely different experiences when I use them. My desktop while significantly more powerful just _feels_ slower because of the latency.

Re: BeOS: The Alternate Universe's Mac OS X

#94
I ran BeOS back in the day (even have the developer book!) and I've been trying Haiku on and off over the years.

It's been interesting. The browser isn't quite all there yet but might be considered serviceable, and you can sort of get a working dev environment going on it (not many modern runtimes, though, nor a way to run Linux binaries that would let me do Clojure).

It's certainly worth keeping an eye on, although there were some weird decisions - for instance, I remember a thread on ARM support where whomever was tackling that was completely dissing the Raspberry Pi, and yet today, if I were to install it permanently on any machine to tinker with, it would almost certainly be a Pi...

Re: BeOS: The Alternate Universe's Mac OS X

#95
post #41

Ah, memories. Used to use BeOS as my primary OS for a year or two. I think it's the only OS I ever found to be truly intuitive and pleasant to work with. That said, I don't think the world would be in a better place had Apple chosen Be over NeXT. The elephant in the room is security: NeXTSTEP, being Unix-based, has some amount of security baked in from the ground up. BeOS didn't; it was more akin to Windows 95 or cla…

Also, the the familial relations of MacOS and Linux made it possible to share code fairly seamlessly between both (providing not talking about hardware integration). In a world where we there was 3 separate universes: Windows, BeOS, and Linux it's possible Linux would've become more isolated.

[deleted]

Re: BeOS: The Alternate Universe's Mac OS X

#96
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There also used to be other CPU architectures--though even at the time, enough people complained about "Wintel" that maybe it was obvious that the alternatives weren't ever going to catch on.

People complained about "Wintel" because the 32-bit x86 chips were so fast and cheap they destroyed the market for RISC designs and killed existing RISC workstation and server architectures, like SPARC and HPPA and MIPS. By the time the Pentium came around, the future looked like a completely monotonous stretch of Windows NT on x86 for ever and ever, amen. No serious hardware competition, other than Intel being smart…

It also did in the PC hardware, unless you failed to notice the trends of laptops, 2-1 hybrids hardware.

Desktops are now a niche product, where buying cards has to be done mostly online, with most malls having only laptops and 2-1 on display.

Servers are away in some cloud, running virtualized OSes on top of a level-1 hypervisor.

Re: BeOS: The Alternate Universe's Mac OS X

#97
post #49
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the the familial relations of MacOS and Linux made it possible to share code fairly seamlessly between both (providing not talking about hardware integration). In a world where we there was 3 separate universes: Windows, BeOS, and Linux it's possible Linux would've become more isolated.

Hmm possibly. But it could also have been to Linux benefit. It would be alone among these in having then advantage of Unix heritage.

Yes, I remember so many software developers switching from Linux to OSX in the 2000's because "it's a Unix too, but it's shiny".

Re: BeOS: The Alternate Universe's Mac OS X

#98
post #55
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think BeOS was the only OS that allowed smooth playback of videos and work at the same time, something Windows was capable 5 and Linux 10 years later :D

Linux could do that in 2001 just fine, and without crashing like Windows. XV was amazing. So was MPlayer.

In 2001 I could still hang X Windows as much as I liked.

And it still happens occasionally, while my Windows 10 userspace drivers just reinitialize instead of locking the OS.

Re: BeOS: The Alternate Universe's Mac OS X

#99
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There also used to be other CPU architectures--though even at the time, enough people complained about "Wintel" that maybe it was obvious that the alternatives weren't ever going to catch on.

People complained about "Wintel" because the 32-bit x86 chips were so fast and cheap they destroyed the market for RISC designs and killed existing RISC workstation and server architectures, like SPARC and HPPA and MIPS. By the time the Pentium came around, the future looked like a completely monotonous stretch of Windows NT on x86 for ever and ever, amen. No serious hardware competition, other than Intel being smart…

The other thing people forget, which is still a bit incomprehensible to me, is that the multiple Unix vendors were saying they'll migrate to Windows NT on IA-64.

Re: BeOS: The Alternate Universe's Mac OS X

#100
post #36

BeOS was really something of what the future 'could' have almost been. Too bad that it was killed by better competitors. But again I think its fair to compare with the lessons learned from its successor 'Haiku' that can be learned by many other OSes: From what I can see from using Haiku for a bit, it has the bazar community element from the open-source culture with its package management and ports system from Linux a…

Well it wasn't as simple as "killed off by better competitors". It was actually both much better than Windows 98 and Mac OS at the time. But ultimately the deathblow came from Apple which, after struggling with low sales and poor quality software, almost chose to buy BeInc's tech but dropped it so they could bring in Steve Jobs. So it was more like vendor lock-in (Windows) and corporate deals (Apple) as well as faili…

Apple also dropped it because they couldn't come together on price, partly because BeOS was in a fairly unfinished state:

> Apple's due diligence placed the value of Be at about $50 million and in early November it responded with a cash bid "well south of $100 million," according to Gassée. Be felt that Apple desperately needed its technology and Gassée's expertise. Apple noted that only $20 million had been invested in Be so far, and its offer represented a windfall, especially in light of the fact that the BeOS still needed three years of additional expensive development before it could ship (it didn't have any printer drivers, didn't support file sharing, wasn't available in languages other than English, and didn't run existing Mac applications). Direct talks between Amelio and Gassée broke down over price just after the Fall Comdex trade show, when Apple offered $125 million. Be's investors were said to be holding out for no less than $200 million, a figure Amelio considered "outrageous."

> ...With Be playing hard to get, Apple decided to play hardball and began investigating other options.

http://macspeedzone.com/archive/art/con/be.shtml

Post reply on HN