Charles Martin writes: >> At heart [*nix is] designed for servers that support multiple >> concurrent users. >> >> Nobody I know uses their Mac like that, except for servers. Kludge that >> the classic Mac OS was, it was specifically designed as a single-user >> operating system for personal computers. Unix was not, although it can >> be used that way. >> >> A true personal computer operating system with multiple users -- say >> something like Mac OS 9 -- is much friendlier. But Apple chose to step >> away from the computer as appliance into the world of *nix, and we can >> either stick with the classic OS or follow into the Aqua world of OS X. >> >> I realize Apple saved a fortune by acquiring NeXT and leveraging their >> expertise, and that OS X is the best consumer *nix ever, but it's >> overkill and overly complex for the average user. > >Loathe as I am to break with the listmom who I regard very highly, I >must respectfully disagree. Apart from one small concession to UNIX's >history -- the admin account and it's attendant password and login >ritual -- what we gain far outweighs what we lose when it comes to >"personal-ness" of the OS.
Like the ability to simply move a program and have it no longer work, which never happened with the classic Mac OS. The classic OS was much more intelligent is several ways. Shoot, Apple is even trying to get rid of resource forks! Someone at Apple must have all the cleverness of the old OS in their desire to do things the Unix way. >But the gain I refer to above is substantial, and it is valuable to >almost all but the most Ted Kyzinski-like of Mac isolationists -- the >tangible and substantial gains in instant, relatively painless, >cross-platform networking. <snip> Yawn. How many iMac users on this list network their Macs with Windows or *nix PCs? Show of hands, please. In the business world, where Macs are too rarely seen outside of the design department, this might be an issue, but we're talking personal computers, not business machines. A lot of iMac owners don't have a second computer at all, Windows or otherwise. And this completely skirts the issue of whether Apple could have done a far better job designing a multithreaded, multitasking single user operating system. The point I was making is that you don't need an OS that allows multiple *concurrent* users on a personal computer. Except for people running minis, mainframes, or servers, there is no need for an OS that allows more than one user at a time. We only have one keyboard, mouse, and monitor. Apple made a choice in going *nix. It was a good choice. It was a realistic choice. But I do not think it was the best choice. The best choice would have been to create a true personal computer OS with all the stability and robustness and ability to juggle tasks -- but to design it for a single user at a time. Design it for the user, not simply adapt a server OS to make it more palatable for single users. But Apple abandoned innovation on the OS front, choosing to make a server OS more user friendly and giving it a lot of eye candy, burning as many bridges between Aqua and the classic Mac SO look and feel as possible to make it look fresh and further confuse and alienate longtime Mac users. They could have done a whole lot better, but Steve Jobs needed to prove that the NeXT OS really was the wave of the future, despite NeXT's ongoing inability to find a market for it. (Compared with the declining Mac OS market, the NeXT market was almost unnoticeable.) >Mac OS X imposes an extremely minor penalty (the mandatory "accounts" >and "permissions" thing) in exchange for a huge bounty of advantages, >including multi-homing, SMB networking, VPN compatibility, Rendezvous, >iChat, PPPoE compatibility, iSync and much more (much of which is yet >to come). Almost all of these improvements and services are of use even >to people who live alone, and are the only user of their computer. >Every time those people plug their cell phone in, their PDA in, connect >to a neighbour's LAN party, trade files with Windows users, run DSL or >chat with iChat, they are taking advantage of some of the benefits that >UNIX adds to OS X. And there are plenty of other examples. And are any of these technologies dependent on the Mac OS being BSD at heart? Remember, the old Mac OS very comfortably supported things like TCP/IP, finding printers on a network (AppleTalk is the mother of Rendezvous), handling multiple locations (Apple still doesn't include a Location Manager with OS X), and so on. Mac users were using DSL, cable modems, syncing to Palms, and instant messaging long before OS X reached the relatively useful 10.1 level -- all with the classic Mac OS that His Jobsness seems so heart set on destroying. >Had we stayed with OS 9, the Mac would have inevitably become even >further isolated and marginalised by the computer world than it already >has. I never suggested that Apple stick with the classic Mac OS. I do suggest that Mac users who have no reason to switch to OS X stick with what works for them. Once there's a killer app, they'll have a reason to switch. Until then, remain productive using what's tried and true. >No, I think we're seeing a replay of the "car vs. horse-and-buggy >crowd" argument that raged a century ago here. Horse-and-buggy setups >are still around, still appreciated for their unique qualities and >offer some distinct advantages/comforts over cars, even today ... but >to say that we should have stayed with the horse and buggy because of >those advantages/comforts? Nah. No, I think we're seeing a replay of the gasoline engine vs. the Stanley Steamer vs. diesel technology vs. flywheels and electric and fuel cells and whatever else is around the corner. The 8-bit era was the steamers, the DOS and Mac were gasoline, and Unix is the diesel loved by long distance truckers. Apple could have gone for a next generation OS, but instead chose something with even deeper roots than the Mac OS. They sacrificed innovation for practicality, which is a short term solution. And someday Windows and Unix may both be eclipsed by something like BeOS, which was designed from the ground up to be an OS for today with no need for backward compatibility or supporting an installed base. But Apple's existence is guaranteed for the next few years at least, and it has become a leading destination for Linux users willing to switch.... -- Dan Knight, president, Cobweb Publishing, Inc. <http://cobwebpublishing.com> <http://lowendmac.com> <http://digital-views.com> <http://digigraphica.com> <http://lowendpc.com> <http://reformed.net> "As for Unix being 'inflexible,' 'expensive,' and 'complex,' we feel those are terms much better suited to the closed and proprietary world of Windows." Sun -- The iMac List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | - Epson Stylus Color 580 Printers - new at $69 | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> iMac List info: <http://lowendmac.com/imac/list.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/imac-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> --------------------------------------------------------------- >The Think Different Store http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
