demon@desire.wright.edu (04/12/90)
Reading the articles that say how alike Amiga, Atari, and Mac users are: It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg hard disks.) What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to Commodore and Atari? Not much. Some sales to be sure, but not enough to erode their profit levels. After all, people have proven they don't mind paying Apple's prices by buying Macs in the first place. What they have to gain is enormous. They could double their installed base of Mac machines (making software production more viable) while having low cost Macs (from Atari) available without watering down the current Mac line. In addition, the Mac OS would become the second leading OS, behind DOS and in front of UNIX (which Commodore and Atari will have to go to otherwise). OS/2 will not be viable for PC's. (Arguments against that statement should be directed to comp.sys.msx :) Making a mistake like IBM did? Clone wars to follow? Of course not. They wouldn't be liscensing Mac computers, just the Mac OS. The other machines would still be Amigas and STs. Well? Please, discussion only. Flames should be directed to alt.flame, where they belong. Brett Kottmann demon@wsu.bitnet
martens@ketch.cis.ohio-state.edu (Jeff Martens) (04/13/90)
In article <93.26244db9@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu writes: > Reading the articles that say how alike Amiga, Atari, and Mac users >are: > It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating >system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg >hard disks.) What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to >Commodore and Atari? [ ... ] What would Apple have to gain? What would Commodore or Atari have to gain? Essentially nothing. If Amiga and ST users had wanted Macs, they would've bought Macs. I wanted something that multitasks, which the Mac doesn't (except in a very limited sense), and believe that very few Amiga users would trade AmigaDOS in for a Mac-like interface. Of course, most Mac users are also happy with their machines and wouldn't trade theirs for an Amiga. To each his own. -=- -- Jeff (martens@cis.ohio-state.edu) Boston art museum director when asked what it means that Cincinnati art director may face a jail term: "Don't take a job in Cincinnati."
douglas_walter_gouty@sirius.cis.ohio-state.edu (04/13/90)
Why would you want it???(Mac-OS). You would be loosing multitasking and be crippling your machine by removing it's flexability.
santerel@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Walter Santarelli) (04/13/90)
Does Mac-OS have a CLI or some other way to avoid using the GUI if one so desires? I know many people who avoid buying the Mac for just this reason. Not very surprisingly, some people can type specific functions faster than they can implement them using a mouse etc. (Special function keys using the 'squiggly' marked key don't count. They take to long to fingure out or remember for the people to whom I'm referring. If you have to use the mouse to read the menu bar, it has already taken too long. Most of these friends of mine would prefer an IBM or compatible for that reason.) I prefer to use the CLI myself as many commands in AMIGADOS are quite flexible when used from the CLI. (Maybe I'm just an old FART :-) ) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WALTER A. SANTARELLI "You can't play Russian roulette with an automatic, stupid." University of Penn. Graduate Student(slave) My opinions are my own etc. (santerel@grad1.cis.upenn.edu) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
piner@newton.physics.purdue.edu (Richard Piner) (04/13/90)
In article <93.26244db9@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu writes: > It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating >system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg >hard disks.) You ask for it, you got it. OS9/68K can be had for all three machines. Now if we could just convince all three companies to use OS9/68K as their basic OS we would be in computer heaven. Now that the new RAVE software is out, some real fancy graphics could be done, and even that would be portable between machines. It will never happen. R. Piner
rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) (04/13/90)
In article <93.26244db9@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu writes: > Reading the articles that say how alike Amiga, Atari, and Mac users >are: > > It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating >system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg >hard disks.) What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to >Commodore and Atari? Perhaps now, with their high-end Mac II's and the new QuickDraw boards, not as much as before. Apple's strengths have traditionally been in their software; their hardware hasn't warranted the extremely high margins they charge for their systems. I think they'd have to be convinced that 3rd party Mac-clones would play for the low-end of their market, which I doubt it exclusively would. -- >>"Aaiiyeeee! Death from above!"<< | (Steve) rehrauer@apollo.hp.com "Spontaneous human combustion - what luck!"| Apollo Computer (Hewlett-Packard)
schultzd@frith.uucp (David Schultz) (04/13/90)
In article <93.26244db9@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu writes: [deleted] > It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating >system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg >hard disks.) What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to >Commodore and Atari? [deleted] >Brett Kottmann >demon@wsu.bitnet Let's see how much support we can muster for this so that REAL machines can take the place of PC's. (REAL = Atari, Amiga, MAC, not PC) Lock & Load -- ______________________________________________________# # #__________________ _______________________________________ # # # / ________________ # # # /________ / # # #
BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz (04/13/90)
In article <93.26244db9@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu writes: > Reading the articles that say how alike Amiga, Atari, and Mac users ... > What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to > Commodore and Atari? > I don't give a stuff what Apple stands to loose! The rest of us would loose a real OS and be lumbered with an OS that can't even multitask! Now I've got a MUCH better idea... Why doesn't Apple license (c for us readers) the Amiga OS, then all these poor folk using a gerry built, discount Joberised os could find out what REAL computing is about. :-) <--- This talisman wards off all flames. Regards Alan
dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) (04/13/90)
In article <93.26244db9@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu writes: > What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to >Commodore and Atari? They would lose the ability to be incredibly pompus about their OS and to sue the hell out of anyone that even thought about imitating it. There would be massive layoffs at Apple because they'd have to fire most of their laywers, which seem to comprise about 1/2 the company. :-) (Just a joke, guys; just a joke!) Dave Baggett dmb@cscwam.umd.edu
eb15+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward D. Berger) (04/14/90)
Supposedly OS9 is available for all three machines, and Minix will be this fall... -A gentle reminder, please do not submit messages to all three comp.sys groups, as the followups are almost certain to cause flames.
dfrancis@tronsbox.UUCP (Dennis Francis Heffernan) (04/14/90)
RE Mac OS on Amiga, ST Ur, the Mac OS plugs into the back of my Amy's external disk drive; that's good enough for me, thanks. :-) More seriously, I used a friend's Mac for about a year or so back in the Dark Ages. He bought one of the 128K Macs; last time I saw it he'd added a meg of RAM (I think) and a 40-meg internal HD... It's a nice machine, and I can see why people like it, but it's not for me. I think the idea of replacing AmigaOS with Finder or Multifinder would go over like a lead baloon. Dennis Francis Heffernan | "Great spirits have always dfrancis@tronsbox | encountered violent opposition ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis | from mediocre minds" Killer GM- Reasonable fees | --Albert Einstein
morris@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (04/14/90)
The power of the Macintosh enviornment is that Apple has complete control over it. They do not have to have others develop system software (ie Microsoft), they do not have to have others develope hardware which they would have to support with changes in OS, and this gives them the freedom to inovate. That is why Mac users can access more than 640K of memory without headache, why they can enjoy speed advantages created by using new microprocessor functions (instruction cacheing, pmmu (soon), other stuff) instead of running the microprocessor with the same instruction set as the ten year old one, etc. If Apple would licence out there system, or let others control the hardware or software, it would start suffering from the same disease as IBM. Terminal mediocrity. Puns intended.
wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) (04/14/90)
In article <18000053@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> morris@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >(instruction cacheing, pmmu (soon), other stuff) instead of running the ^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't mean to sound nit-picky, but "pmmu NOW." Check out Virtual INIT. Of course, while we're on the subject of why Apple can innovate the system software it would probably also do some justice to talk about the ease of making extensions (like Virtual INIT) to the system. I currently have about 20 INITs/CDEVs running on my SE without any problems whatsoever. If you make sure that the software is written reasonably well (the more IM is followed the better, in most cases) then there's no problem. -- ******************************************************************************* * Bill Taroli (WWTAROLI@RODAN.acs.syr.edu) | "You can and must understand * * Syracuse University, Syracuse NY | computers NOW!" -- Ted Nelson * *******************************************************************************
swklassen@tiger.waterloo.edu (Steven W. Klassen) (04/14/90)
In article <93.26244db9@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu writes: > > Reading the articles that say how alike Amiga, Atari, and Mac users >are: > > It would be nice if these users could all have one unified operating >system. (Yes, there is UNIX but not everyone has 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg >hard disks.) What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to >Commodore and Atari? What makes you think the rest of the world wants the Mac OS? If you want a unified operating system it would be much better to stick with UNIX. Contrary to popular belief UNIX does NOT require 4-8 meg of ram and 80+meg hard disks. (Especially if you leave out the on-line help.) I have seen very useable UNIX look-alikes (namely Minix) operate quite well on 1 meg machines (Atari 1040ST) with only 20 meg of the hard drive dedicated for it. Even if you must reject UNIX, why should the unified OS be the Mac one? There are a number of reasons why people buy Amigas and Ataris instead of Macs. Here of some of them: 1. The Amiga or the Atari suits their given purpose better. Changing operating systems likely wouldn't affect this, so long as the hardware didn't change. 2. The Mac is expensive. If Mac liscenced their OS to Commodore and Atari, the Amigas and the STs would also become more expensive. 3. They don't like the Mac, hence they certainly don't want their Amiga or ST becoming more like it. 4. They don't like Apple Corp., hence they certainly won't want their purchase of an Amiga or ST to put money in the pockets of Apple. (I won't tell you which one(s) of these were my reason(s)). Of course some people would like the change - namely those who use their Atari or Amiga to emulate a Mac, but my opinion is that most people who want Macs purchase Macs, while those who want a computer to fill a given purpose(s) look more carefully and choose the computer which best fulfills their purpose(s). Steven W. Klassen +-----------------------------+ Computer Science Major | Support the poor...buy fur! | University of Waterloo +-----------------------------+
eb1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward Joseph Bennett) (04/15/90)
I think the Mac has a great operating system. In my opinion it is the best, But it is far from flawless and I can see where many users that have special uses for their computers don't need it and may not want it. Lets not forget that it wouldn't necessarily be good for Mac users. Every time Apple developes a new machine it has a bug fix release of system software to make it work. Example IIfx and system 6.05. Apple will have a difficult enough time in trying to develope system 7.0 that works on the plus, the IIfx and everything in between. Imagine trying to maintain and ensure compatibility for machines from many companies with each company having many models. I think we would have a stagnate unchanging operating system like DOS where the lowest common denominator was the driving force. Any way One World , One OS brings back horror memories of pre 1984 when IBM and DOS where king. I think all computer users can agree that we are all better off because of the competition. Competition breeds inovation. One world, One OS would breed stagnation. Ed
wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) (04/15/90)
I'm sure I'm not the first think (say?) this, but this business of the crossposting with comp.sys.amiga and comp.sys.atari.st is really getting annoying. Perhaps we should edit the Newsgroups line of any responses so that this can be ended before too many egos get inflated past their bursting point. -- ******************************************************************************* * Bill Taroli (WWTAROLI@RODAN.acs.syr.edu) | "You can and must understand * * Syracuse University, Syracuse NY | computers NOW!" -- Ted Nelson * *******************************************************************************
jbr0@cbnews.ATT.COM (joseph.a.brownlee) (04/30/90)
In article <1102@appleoz.oz.au> ksand@appleoz.oz.AU (Kent Sandvik) writes: >Patrick.Hayes@cediag.bull.fr (Pat Hayes) writes in article <PATRICK.HAYES.90Apr25071456@elendil.cediag.bull.fr>: >> In article <15757@cbnews.ATT.COM> I write: >> >As for A/UX 2.0, it sounds like Apple has added some really nice features, >> >but before I would even consider using it, it would have to be based on >> >System V 3.x (preferably 3.2), or even better, on System V 4.0. There are > >> What SVR[34] features are missing here? In Unix Sys V 3.x, off the top of my head: . Shared libraries (I hear A/UX has this) . Enhanced curses (including color and extended keyboard support) . Security enhancements (shadow files, t-bit on directories, etc.) . Sys V 3.x STREAMS . Remote File Sharing . 2K file system (a real speed improvement) . Enhanced printer spooler architecture . XENIX compatibility features . Misc. improvements to individual commands Unix Sys V 4.0 is so different from previous releases that I won't even begin to list features here, but it will pull in many useful BSD features. I have to believe that moving to 4.0 would be the best marketing strategy for Apple and A/UX in the future. Then there's the price... :-) -- - _ Joe Brownlee, Analysts International Corp. @ AT&T Network Systems /_\ @ / ` 471 E Broad St, Suite 1610, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 860-7461 / \ | \_, E-mail: jbr@cblph.att.com Who pays attention to what _I_ say? "Scotty, we need warp drive in 3 minutes or we're all dead!" --- James T. Kirk
gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) (05/09/90)
In article <16101@cbnews.ATT.COM> jbr0@cbnews.ATT.COM (joseph.a.brownlee) writes: >Unix Sys V 4.0 is so different from previous releases that I won't even begin >to list features here, but it will pull in many useful BSD features. I have >to believe that moving to 4.0 would be the best marketing strategy for Apple >and A/UX in the future. Hmmm... Well Commodore has already done this. Actually, it is System V R4.1. It is a full implementation. Nothing has been left out. It's like Prego spaghetti sauce. If you want a feature, "It's in there!". They should be releasing it within a couple of months. >Then there's the price... :-) Well, hey, if you want unix, you gotta pay 8-( Think of the cost of unix software too. You're no longer talking small change here. Commodore has done the right thing, in that they are going to bundle a bunch of stuff with their unix release. It also won't be very expensive from what I've heard... > > >-- > - _ Joe Brownlee, Analysts International Corp. @ AT&T Network Systems > /_\ @ / ` 471 E Broad St, Suite 1610, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 860-7461 > / \ | \_, E-mail: jbr@cblph.att.com Who pays attention to what _I_ say? > "Scotty, we need warp drive in 3 minutes or we're all dead!" --- James T. Kirk See ya, Ralph gilgalad@caen.engin.umich.edu gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu gilgalad@goliath.eecs.umich.edu Ralph_Seguin@ub.cc.umich.edu gilgalad@sparky.eecs.umich.edu USER6TUN@UMICHUB.BITNET Ralph Seguin | In order to get infinitely many monkeys to type 11010 Lighthouse Dr. #234 | something that actually makes sense, you need to Belleville, MI 48111 | have infinitely many monkey editors as well. (313) 697-1048
cramer@sun.com (Sam Cramer) (05/10/90)
In article <2233@zipeecs.umich.edu>, gilgalad@dip (Ralph Seguin) writes: >Hmmm... Well Commodore has already done this. Actually, it is System V R4.1. >It is a full implementation. Nothing has been left out. It's like Prego spaghetti >sauce. If you want a feature, "It's in there!". They should be releasing it >within a couple of months. Hmmm... How are they going to release a SVr4.1-based product in "a couple of months" when AT&T hasn't released SVr4.1 yet? Sam