Slashdot Mirror
BeOS Ready for a Comeback as Zeta OS
Anil Kandangath writes "BeOS, the operating system that could have been the foundation for Mac OS X, but almost died, instead has returned as Zeta OS -- which is supposed to be fast, stable, media centric and boot within 15 seconds. Zeta is being released by yellowTAB of Germany and has applications such as an office suite and the Firefox browser bundled with it. Most BeOS applications will also run as-is. Screenshots are available." According to the NewsForge story linked there, the release could be as soon as next month.
Seems like the Unix base for OS X worked out pretty damn well for them... I don't think the boom Apple is going through right now could have been any more significant with a BeOS-based OS.
"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Windows actually starts pretty fast, not much more than 15 seconds. This is because it is still loading stuff after it displays the desktop, while you are trying to start up Word, Firefox and whatnot.
IMHO it's quite annoying, I would rather the boot process take longer and it be ready to go the moment the desktop pops-up.
Doubt it. If there's any "supercomputer" running Windows, it's likely a grid of PCs. The bootup there is going to be at least equal to the boot time on a single PC.
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
When Apple's Copland plans failed, they looked for outside help. Jean-Louis Gassée's Be Inc. was one of those possible sources. Steve Jobs was the one they eventually chose.
BeOS would have been more lightweight and probably more efficient, but OS X is maturing into something quite useable. The UNIX roots of OS X have helped lure new developers and new types of users to the platform. Having more developers is never a bad thing.
BeOS would also have been a cleaner start. It's difficult to say how much (or if) UNIX is holding back MacOS X. I find OS X somewhat bloated, especially in terms of the number of files that it is comprised of. I wish it took less time to make a backup.
BeOS is/was also advanced in terms of file meta data. That situation is still quite messy in MacOS X.
What can I do with it that I can't do with a free Linux distro, or the Windows that I already have? Tell me why I should drop $100 on this.
My Linux box boots in 1.5 minutes. Once every year and a half. Also fast enough.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
>> That's pretty good. Does anyone else know of a fast booting OS? I personally hate waiting for my PC to boot up.
Most of the time my "boot up" is waiting 3 seconds for the monitor to warm up. I don't shut of the PC, just the monitor.
If you want a fast boot time, run linux and leave it running...
http://request-header.info
"IMHO it's quite annoying, I would rather the boot process take longer and it be ready to go the moment the desktop pops-up."
That's funny because I can't stand having to wait for every little thing to load before starting.
Maybe I'm just spoiled, but the difference is more startling when one uses a dual proc machine. My XP machine at work gets up to speed quickly. Almost as soon as my desktop is up, I can start loading my apps. On my laptop, I see that lag that you're describing. I'm reasonbly certain that the other processor is doing the work. Great stuff.
In any event, at least seeing that your computer is almost there is a psychological relief. Sort of like 2 minutes of commercials is usually better than seeing 2 minutes of black screen. (Which NBC likes to do here frrm time to time, don't ask me why.)
Hardware is fungible.
... eh. It's got all kinds of nifty ideas, but it seems like it's also got a bad case of second system syndrome. When I was playing around with the first PC-compatible versions... they actually managed to require more and faster hardware than Windows to get comparable performance. Now that might have been pretty marginal hardware by today's standards, but still... given that it was built from a fresh start they should have done better.
It doesn't matter what the processor is, it just matters what the software running on it is.
BeOS
I'm more interested in the reborn Amiga OS.
Have they made any major improvements since Be went under, or have they just slapped some make up on the last version and are trying to sell that?
Sure, pay $100 for an OS that does not run the latest Windows applications, hardly has any applications it runs natively, has limited driver support, and it is an effort to revive an OS that already killed at least one other company. How can you go wrong?
On the plus side, it should have no malware available for it.
I think Mac support for BeOS was killed when Apple refused to release info on the G3 Macs to Be, Inc. Therefore Be targeted the X86 market, hoping to save the company that way, because that is what NeXT did. Only NeXT tanked and got saved by Apple, yet Be, Inc. tanked and nobody saved it, and Palm bought out the corpse and buried it, until this Zeta Zombie rose from the dead.
I think I'll take my chances with Linux, KNOPPIX/KANOITX seems to be stable enough, boots from a live CD, and has an option to be installed on a hard drive.
I mean unless most of the major OSS projects are being converted to ZetaOS/BeOS, I think you can forget convicing enough people to buy a copy to make it worth their while.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
My C=64 boots in 2 seconds. ;-)
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
You must work for Microsoft. "Look how fast it boots! We are number one!" I would say that Microsoft zealots should care more about security and stability. If Windows cannot match Linux in security and stability, then it does not deserve to become a major desktop OS.
Considering the fact that Gassee apparently wanted $400 million in the end, I think it was a wise move.
Not only that, but the NeXT system had a significant userbase, and, more importantly, software. There was a large amount of software that was available on NeXT, some of which is still being added to OSX now (Apple's Pages software, for example, was once a NeXT app called, wait for it, Pages). Also, Next had the advantage of being used in research institutions (The WWW was developed on a NeXT by Tim Berners-Lee) and was one of the very first systems to offer a fully fledged web application server (WebObjects). The fact that NeXT also had the advantage of some 8 or 9 years of experience and development behind it didn't hurt its chances either.
Possibly, one of the additional factors in Apple's decision was the fact that basing the next Apple OS on BeOS would have meant using a completely untested system. Untested in the market, I mean. Given that Apple really was in dire straights at the time (1995-1996), I think Apple made a wise decision.
But who knows, perhaps BeOS would have made apple become the absolute killer in the OS world.
If all of that works...I know a big "if"...there shouldn't any shortage of software.
The parent is probably posted as flamebait but I have some points to make so I'll put them here.
Assuming a fairly recent Linux distro (say from 2004 or even 2003) and the same hardware then you're comparing an OS that's over 6 years old and designed to run on the common hardware of the day with a far more recent OS. To make it a fair comparison you'd have to compare Win98 with a distro from '98.
This is a trap that a lot of posters are falling into. Even comparing WinXP with recent Linux distro releases is wrong. WinXP is designed to run on the hardware that was around in 2001. Linux moves far more quickly than Windows and software like KDE has had quite a few versions since WinXP was released. To make a fair comparison you have to compare WinXP with a distro from late 2001.
If you think comparing a recent Linux distro with WinXP (or even Win98) is fair then maybe you should compare the boot times of Win95 and Win98 with WinXP too because by extension that should also be a fair comparison.
Andy.