Bill Schwab wrote:

Pete,

On that, you are fundamentally wrong. They are indeed both computers,
and regardless of the UI on top, any even remotely useable OS operates
on the same fundamentals. If you understand one OS, you understand
essentially any other, it is only the UI that really differs.

I disagree. Remember the Java installation flap of some years ago?

Not really, I haven't given Java a lot of attention.

Sun/Unix guys failed to recognize the different way the Windows handles
time stamps, and they corrupted a bunch of machines. Is it VMS that
versions files as they are modified???

VMS does indeed do file versions. Works very well as long as you make
sure you set a version limit on the file or directory.

Windows goes nuts on just about
any change, but one can frequently simply restart a few services on
Linux and keep going. The point being there are fundamental differences
among operating systems, to which by comparison, the UI is simply a
source of small annoyances and missed opportunities.

Those are really not fundamental differences, they are differences in
implementation. The fundamentals of what an OS is trying to do remain
essentially unchanged.


I predict that MacOS will be available to run on generic PC hardware
within another 2 or 3 years. One of Apples big problems is that the have
to make large profits on the Mac hardware since they sell so little of
it compared to the PC world. This causes them to either have to price
the product too high relative to the competition and try to hype reasons
it's worth the extra money, or to try to compromise to cut manufacturing
cost and risk reliability problems. We've seen examples of both paths
from Apple.

I agree. In fact, I think that is why they moved to unix. If they ever
figure out how to put their UI on top of a generic Linux kernel (make
the window manger etc., sufficiently pluggable - shouldn't be hard) and
add a slick installer, then MS has a worthy competitor.

MS already has a worthy competitor, adding the Apple UI on top of it
does nothing to improve it's worthiness. Pick a Unix version with the
CDE UI and there is your worthy competitor.


One caveat: if they make the move, they will have to run on the mutt
hardware that MS has been (barely??) running on for a long time. Apple
has done more than keep their hardware profit margin high: they have
controlled it to the benefit of their software. They would not be able
to do that on a generic PC.

The move away from proprietary hardware is pretty unstoppable. We're
largely past the point where people worry about not being able to run
their old apps on the new OS / hardware version. That worry largely
abated after we got past the NT compatibility worries years ago. Now,
both due to the new market where people are more willing to drop the old
apps, and due to much faster CPUs where the old stuff can be emulated as
fast as it ever ran before, it is possible to introduce significant
architectural changes to improve performance.

Pete C.