"William Clark" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tankfixer wrote:
In article , - Howard Brazee
spouted !
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:38:11 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote:
In article , - Howard
Brazee
spouted !
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote:
Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically
superior
that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core
for
OS10
Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to
change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to
BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the
design of PC compatible computers.
Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't
it.
Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said.
Apple had to redesign it's architecture to use it's BSD/UNIX clone OS.
Microsoft didn't need to since it crafted it's OS to work with what PC
makers build.
"Crafted"? As in "Vista", I suppose ;-)
When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to
computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking
its
core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while
making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an
existing building to make it earthquake resistant.
And no other OS company is continually improving their product ?
Huh? Again, what has that to do with what I said?
You imply that only Microsoft has to continually improve it's product.
You ever tried to use Vista? I thought not. Microsoft had a choice
between an extensive rebuild to Windows to Windows 7, or disaster.
That's pretty typical. The first release after a major rewrite is always a
disaster
Window 95 - sucked
Windows 98 - ok
Windows 2000 - sucked
Windows XP - ok
Vista - sucked
7 - ok
I predict the next major rewrite (not just an upgrade such as 98 to 98SE)
will suck.
There is an advantage in starting over using tools that other
companies have created - such as Unix. Unix has been improved over
the years and because it was designed for different purposes, it made
a safer core than simply improving the Mac operating system. Or
Windows. Since Apple controlled the hardware that its OS used, it
had the power to start over.
Maybe Windows had that power, maybe not - but Microsoft didn't go in
that direction. It would have lost a lot of customers who wanted
backward compatibility. Its primary customers are PC manufacturers.
Instead we have Apple who abandonded previous OS users.
Really? Not only do Apple's OS's stay useful much longer than
Microsoft's, upward mobility is easy and cheap. We have plenty of folk
still content with Tiger.
Seems to me that Windows XP is still going strong and plenty of folks are
still content with it, and it's been out there since October of 2001. With
official support of XP is scheduled to end April 2014, that will be a run of
about 13.5 years. With existing users probably continuing to use it for
several years more.
Indeed of the 5 computers I have, only 2 have Win7 on them, and that was
because of hardware/software requirements that mandated Win7.
Meanwhile 'Tiger" only started in April of 2005 and the last security update
that included tiger was 2009-005 on Sept 2009, So at this point Apple has
ceased support of Tiger.
That's a run of about 4.5 years
Tiger users are now at the point that XP users will be in 4.5 years. (ie 2
years without security support).
Hell at work we are STILL setting up new XP boxes. Much cheaper than Win7,
and better performance with cheaper hardware. Win/Win.