Your points are all well taken, but Apple still suffers massive delays in delivering their new OS's, regardless of the name. So does MS for that matter. And while Linux likewise suffers its delays, at least Linux and *BSD get the software out more quickly. Windows 2000 was to have been Windows NT 5.0 back in '98, and Copland, Taligent, Rhapsody, and Mac OS X either never happened or were severely delayed.
And I apologize if I gave the impression that I was comparing Copland to Mac OS X directly, OS to OS, feature to feature. Such was not my intention. Rather, I was citing Copland as the promised modern OS from Apple that was never delivered.
Yes, Mac OS X will be that modern OS, but will it be enough to save Apple? Not if it only runs on expensive Apple hardware of modest quality.
If you knew the history of OS development at Apple, you wouldn't be so quick to dump Windows or Linux for Mac OS X. I have been running Macintosh computers since 1984 (yes, the original 128k Mac) and have seen many problems with Apple in this area.
Did you know that Apple tried to design and write a new, modern OS with all the whiz bang features like true multitasking in the early 90's? Have you ever heard of the incredible failure that was Copland? Copland was supposed to do it all, and it was due for release in 1995, before oft delayed Windows 95. I remember teasing my Wintel bigot brothers that Apple would get its new OS out before Microsoft did.
Well, we all know what happened. Win95 blew Apple into the weeds, and we are STILL WAITING for that truly modern, full featured OS from Apple, some SIX YEARS later. Why do you think that Apple bought NeXT and implemented its OS instead? Simply put, Apple software development management lacks the ability to design and build an OS. Be can do it. Linus Torvalds & friends can do it. *BSD can do it. But Apple can't.
And this won't change in the future. Even with the NeXT acquisition, Apple is still pathetically slow in releasing new OS software. Mac OS X was due for release over two years ago. Where is it today? Still in beta.
And while you may think that Mac OS X will do it all and be the cat's meow today, what about four or give years from now? It will be outdated and stale, lacking new, useful features. Linux and *BSD can and do keep up with the latest OS developments, but Apple will always lag behind. Trust me on this. This once loyal Mac user has been suffering a long time through Mac OS 7 and 8, occasionally OS 9, and I see nothing to convince me that Mac OS X users won't be suffering likewise in a few years.
And don't forget, Steve Jobs insists that Mac OS X run exclusively on overpriced, proprietary, and not-nearly-the-high-quality-it-used-to-be Apple hardware. With Linux and *BSD, you have some real choices of hardware platform.
Slashdot Mirror
Your points are all well taken, but Apple still suffers massive delays in delivering their new OS's, regardless of the name. So does MS for that matter. And while Linux likewise suffers its delays, at least Linux and *BSD get the software out more quickly. Windows 2000 was to have been Windows NT 5.0 back in '98, and Copland, Taligent, Rhapsody, and Mac OS X either never happened or were severely delayed.
And I apologize if I gave the impression that I was comparing Copland to Mac OS X directly, OS to OS, feature to feature. Such was not my intention. Rather, I was citing Copland as the promised modern OS from Apple that was never delivered.
Yes, Mac OS X will be that modern OS, but will it be enough to save Apple? Not if it only runs on expensive Apple hardware of modest quality.
If you knew the history of OS development at Apple, you wouldn't be so quick to dump Windows or Linux for Mac OS X. I have been running Macintosh computers since 1984 (yes, the original 128k Mac) and have seen many problems with Apple in this area.
Did you know that Apple tried to design and write a new, modern OS with all the whiz bang features like true multitasking in the early 90's? Have you ever heard of the incredible failure that was Copland? Copland was supposed to do it all, and it was due for release in 1995, before oft delayed Windows 95. I remember teasing my Wintel bigot brothers that Apple would get its new OS out before Microsoft did.
Well, we all know what happened. Win95 blew Apple into the weeds, and we are STILL WAITING for that truly modern, full featured OS from Apple, some SIX YEARS later. Why do you think that Apple bought NeXT and implemented its OS instead? Simply put, Apple software development management lacks the ability to design and build an OS. Be can do it. Linus Torvalds & friends can do it. *BSD can do it. But Apple can't.
And this won't change in the future. Even with the NeXT acquisition, Apple is still pathetically slow in releasing new OS software. Mac OS X was due for release over two years ago. Where is it today? Still in beta.
And while you may think that Mac OS X will do it all and be the cat's meow today, what about four or give years from now? It will be outdated and stale, lacking new, useful features. Linux and *BSD can and do keep up with the latest OS developments, but Apple will always lag behind. Trust me on this. This once loyal Mac user has been suffering a long time through Mac OS 7 and 8, occasionally OS 9, and I see nothing to convince me that Mac OS X users won't be suffering likewise in a few years.
And don't forget, Steve Jobs insists that Mac OS X run exclusively on overpriced, proprietary, and not-nearly-the-high-quality-it-used-to-be Apple hardware. With Linux and *BSD, you have some real choices of hardware platform.