Coffeehouse Thread

21 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Apple are confident

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Angus

    I have read on a page of the Apple website that Mac OS X is:

    Apple wrote:
    The world's most advanced operating system


    I personally wouldn't know as I have never really used an Apple Mac. Can someone please explain what it is that Mac OS X supposedly has that is better than XP Professional, or any other operating system for that matter that makes it so much more advanced?

    Thanks

    Angus Higgins

  • User profile image
    Michael Griffiths

    They're referring to the fact that several versions of OS X have been released since WinXP.

    They also included so-called "next-gen" features such as Desktop Search, virtual folders, and the Dashboard.

    Regardless, there's a difference between advanced and better.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Angus wrote:
    I personally wouldn't know as I have never really used an Apple Mac. Can someone please explain what it is that Mac OS X supposedly has that is better than XP Professional, or any other operating system for that matter that makes it so much more advanced?


    Its a relative term. But the NT kernel is hardly the "most advanced" in the world. That title, IMO, goes towards either the GNU/Linux kernel or the NetBSD one.

    But when its done, GNU/Hurd will probably be the most advanced...ever.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    W3bbo wrote:
    But when its done, GNU/Hurd will probably be the most advanced...ever.


    Big Smile And Duke Nukem Forever will be running on it.

  • User profile image
    Larry​Osterman

    W3bbo wrote:


    Its a relative term. But the NT kernel is hardly the "most advanced" in the world. That title, IMO, goes towards either the GNU/Linux kernel or the NetBSD one.

    But when its done, GNU/Hurd will probably be the most advanced...ever.


    GNU/Linux?  You do know that the GNU/Linux kernel's is just as old as the NT kernel, right?  And the *BSD kernel is even older.  In addition, I'd argue that the NT kernel is architecturally more advanced than Linuxes (and NetBSD).  At least the NT kernel is architected along a microkernel model with clean separation between device drivers, hardware abstraction and core kernel functionality.

  • User profile image
    Cybermagell​an

    It's the $2000.00 price tag that makes it superior.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    LarryOsterman wrote:

    GNU/Linux?


    Ah no, GNU/Hurd, the fabled Mach micro kernel and surrounding bits which has been in planning longer than Vista and Windows 2000 and NT. You think the time taken between MS releases is bad, try talking about something in 1990 and it's still not appeared outside a very stunted .2 alpha, taking 5 years to just get FTP running.


  • User profile image
    Manip

    LarryOsterman wrote:
    GNU/Linux?  You do know that the GNU/Linux kernel's is just as old as the NT kernel, right?  And the *BSD kernel is even older.  In addition, I'd argue that the NT kernel is architecturally more advanced than Linuxes (and NetBSD).  At least the NT kernel is architected along a microkernel model with clean separation between device drivers, hardware abstraction and core kernel functionality.


    But when you consider how much it cost to develop the NT kernel and how much it cost to develop the Linux kernel you have to be impressed by the fact Linux is playing on the same 'level' as the NT kernel even if NT is winning.

    Also, yes I agree that the NT kernel is more advanced than the Linux kernel currently is... I for one haven't had to re-compile the NT kernel once. Wink

  • User profile image
    Cybermagell​an

    Manip wrote:

    But when you consider how much it cost to develop the NT kernel and how much it cost to develop the Linux kernel you have to be impressed by the fact Linux is playing on the same 'level' as the NT kernel even if NT is winning.

    Also, yes I agree that the NT kernel is more advanced than the Linux kernel currently is... I for one haven't had to re-compile the NT kernel once.


    Yeah of course I bet there are twice as many devs working on the Linux kernel than at Microsoft as well. You get that with GPL'd projects as popular as the actual OS.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    LarryOsterman wrote:
    GNU/Linux?  You do know that the GNU/Linux kernel's is just as old as the NT kernel, right?


    The first public release of the Linux kernel was in 1991, the first public release of NT was in "Windows NT 3.1" in 1993. Apparently work on Linux began back in the late 80's, NT in the early 90's.

    LarryOsterman wrote:
    And the *BSD kernel is even older.  In addition, I'd argue that the NT kernel is architecturally more advanced than Linuxes (and NetBSD).


    ....in what way, exactly?

    And more importantly, why isn't NT POSIX-compliant?

    LarryOsterman wrote:
    At least the NT kernel is architected along a microkernel model with clean separation between device drivers, hardware abstraction and core kernel functionality.


    I thought CE was the microkernel, that NT was a monolithic kernel.

  • User profile image
    Cider

    W3bbo wrote:
    Angus wrote: I personally wouldn't know as I have never really used an Apple Mac. Can someone please explain what it is that Mac OS X supposedly has that is better than XP Professional, or any other operating system for that matter that makes it so much more advanced?


    Its a relative term. But the NT kernel is hardly the "most advanced" in the world. That title, IMO, goes towards either the GNU/Linux kernel or the NetBSD one.

    But when its done, GNU/Hurd will probably be the most advanced...ever.


    I'd say, seriously, if you get the chance, listen to Mark Russinovich on the internals of the NT and Linux kernels.  Fascinating stuff.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    W3bbo wrote:

    I thought CE was the microkernel, that NT was a monolithic kernel.


    NT is a monolithic kernel in that everything runs in kernel mode, but the internal design is very similar to a microkernel. This leads to a much cleaner design than a typical monolithic design

  • User profile image
    NetRyder

    Cider wrote:

    I'd say, seriously, if you get the chance, listen to Mark Russinovich on the internals of the NT and Linux kernels.  Fascinating stuff.

    Do you have any links, Cider? Very interested in checking it out. Smiley

  • User profile image
    eddwo

    Work began on NT in 1989 after Culter and his team joined Microsoft in 1998. It was initially supposed to be released in March 1991. Needless to say it was rather delayed.

    Linux was started during the Summer of 1991.

    I'd certainly give OSX points for being the most advanced GUI, most advanced integration of common frameworks into applications, but the kernel itself seems to be a bit of a mixup, drivers use the iokit/mach side, and applications are built on top of the BSD side.

    Linux has evolved over time to be structured more like NT. It started out being only what was required to get up and running, then was gradually redesigned piece by piece to contain the sorts of abstractions that were built into NT from the beginning.

    NT was an ambitious design, that took a long time to perfect, it seems to have stood the test of time better, adapting to all sorts of new types of hardware an usage scenarios while retaining compatibility with existing driver intefaces.

    Books I've read about the history of these OSs
    Show-Stopper!
    Just for Fun

    Books I've bought but not read more than a couple of chapers from. ;-(
    Windows Internals 4th Edition.
    Linux Kernel Development

  • User profile image
    Cairo

    LarryOsterman wrote:
    W3bbo wrote:

    Its a relative term. But the NT kernel is hardly the "most advanced" in the world. That title, IMO, goes towards either the GNU/Linux kernel or the NetBSD one.

    But when its done, GNU/Hurd will probably be the most advanced...ever.


    GNU/Linux?  You do know that the GNU/Linux kernel's is just as old as the NT kernel, right?  And the *BSD kernel is even older.  In addition, I'd argue that the NT kernel is architecturally more advanced than Linuxes (and NetBSD).  At least the NT kernel is architected along a microkernel model with clean separation between device drivers, hardware abstraction and core kernel functionality.


    NT and Linux are both based on old designs: VMS and Unix.


  • User profile image
    Comic Strip Blogger

    Ayele Mac OS has translucent windows With superb folding effects. Apart from that "Charter Tool" program for making enhanced god casts is not available for Windows -only for Mac 054.

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    Angus wrote:
    I have read on a page of the Apple website that Mac OS X is:

    Apple wrote:The world's most advanced operating system


    I personally wouldn't know as I have never really used an Apple Mac. Can someone please explain what it is that Mac OS X supposedly has that is better than XP Professional, or any other operating system for that matter that makes it so much more advanced?

    Thanks

    Angus Higgins


    Marketing, not better than anything else/

  • User profile image
    trolane

    Comic Strip Blogger wrote:
    <img src="/Ink/Posts/632596497616649868.gif" border="0" alt="Ayele Mac OS has translucent windows With superb folding effects. Apart from that "Charter Tool" program for making enhanced god casts is not available for Windows -only for Mac 054. " />


    wish we lived in a communist state where you got shot for saying podcast.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.