Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 17th Jul 2005 18:09 UTC
Zeta I've always been a huge fan of BeOS. However, there was no denying the fact that the BeOS was getting old. As many other BeOS fans, I closely followed two projects: Haiku, and yellowTAB's Zeta. The latter released 1.0 a few weeks ago. Here are the findings of an old BeOS user.
Order by: Score:
Kernel
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 18:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The Kernel is also updated. Now supports +1gig ram, It's 20% something faster, etc...
JG

Reply Score: 0

RE: Kernel
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 16:39 UTC in reply to "Kernel"
Anonymous Member since:
---

And there is a new VM in the Kernel, as well as the CPU depending FPU optimizations which the kernel now understands.
Even newest APIC-Support and HT and EMT64 is on the way, folks.

Reply Score: 0

thks
by jeanmarc on Sun 17th Jul 2005 18:50 UTC
jeanmarc
Member since:
2005-07-06

Best review i saw so far thks ;)

Reply Score: 1

Very nice
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 18:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is a very nice review. The OS sounds very promising.

Reply Score: 0

V. Nice
by sLydE on Sun 17th Jul 2005 18:57 UTC
sLydE
Member since:
2005-07-17

I'm very impressed with how this operating system is coming along. I'm one of those Windows users looking for something new. I've used various forms of linux, and will keep linux as a server OS, but am looking for something a bit new to use with my personal laptop. Anyone know how well this does with laptop support?

Reply Score: 1

RE: V. Nice
by ModeenF on Sun 17th Jul 2005 20:11 UTC in reply to "V. Nice"
ModeenF Member since:
2005-07-06

My Dell Latitude D600 works with no problem.
even my Wlan card (intel 2100)works (only with 128 wep)

My intel 2200 are noy working but thats a bug (I don't get a ip.. and reported)

I hade to install the experimantal audio driver to get my sound to work.

and install the latest VLC 8.3 (night build from BeBits)for playing DVD

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: V. Nice
by sLydE on Mon 18th Jul 2005 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE: V. Nice"
sLydE Member since:
2005-07-17

hmmm...if there were a livecd, I would try it out...

Reply Score: 1

RE: V. Nice
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 15:39 UTC in reply to "V. Nice"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Notebook support _might_ be a problem. Zeta needs a 100 x86 System. A lot of notebook suppliers use to ignore standards of all kind. ^^ Well, for Windows it's OK. They just add their own drivers for their hardware. The best way to find a suiteble notebook is going to the shop with the Zeta-CD and asking if you may install it! The other way round, going to the shop with a Notebook and asking if you may install one of their copies of Zeta on it, could be difficult.

Reply Score: 0

v Activation what's all that about?
by Jackson Brown on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:02 UTC
v Zeta can not be taken seriously
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:09 UTC
v Yellowtab should make things clear
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:12 UTC
Anonymous Member since:
---

As a quote here stated out, there are significant kernel - related changes in the Zeta R1 (Ram limitation, bigger Tracker-Addon space, new VM model f.ex.)
Working on these portions without having the Kernel Sourcecode is simply impossible.
Working on that without Palm's Notice about that is impossible (if it occurs without their permission or whatsoever).

Meanwhile we still make some bla-bla about the sourcecode ownership of the Kernel of Dano etc., yT inofficially speaks out, that the next Update Version (R1.5) possibly will content a brand-new Kernel. But for sure in Version 2.0 including a 64-Bit Version of Zeta.

So go on living with rumours. Some even believe that OS X is a MediaOS with it's nearly 40year old legacy OS underlying in it. So it's ok.

Reply Score: 0

Apps
by TechStorm on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:16 UTC
TechStorm
Member since:
2005-07-06

It would be nice if someone from the community wrote an in-depth article about the various different apps that can be used in Zeta.

Reply Score: 2

Nice review
by tbscope on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:16 UTC
tbscope
Member since:
2005-07-06

Thank you for this nice review, but a have one comment.

You say:
"Booting is a matter of, say, 15 seconds, completely blowing away any Linux, Windows or OS X install."

While it might be faster than the mentioned operating systems, I can boot my linux system into kde in 20 seconds.
And my windows xp takes about 20 to 25 seconds to boot.

So I would not have used the words "blowing away" ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Nice review
by TechStorm on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:21 UTC in reply to "Nice review"
TechStorm Member since:
2005-07-06

>You say:
"Booting is a matter of, say, 15 seconds, completely blowing away any Linux, Windows or OS X install."

While it might be faster than the mentioned operating systems, I can boot my linux system into kde in 20 seconds.
And my windows xp takes about 20 to 25 seconds to boot.

So I would not have used the words "blowing away" ;)


You got a point, however, who's to say that booting Zeta would take 15 seconds on your machine? Maybe it takes less? We can only know for sure when someone posts the boot times for the different OSes on the same hardware.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Nice review
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice review"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So I would not have used the words "blowing away" ;)

Booting XP on my machine takes roughly 30 seconds. And yes, I find cutting boottime in half "blowing away" ;) .

Reply Score: 5

RE: Nice review
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 20:16 UTC in reply to "Nice review"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Can boot WinXP and Linux to KDE in 20s on P2 400mhz with 192mb of ram? I highly doubt it ;p

Reply Score: 4

RE: Nice review
by anand78 on Sun 17th Jul 2005 21:46 UTC in reply to "Nice review"
anand78 Member since:
2005-07-07

Put things in perspective,
1. What is your system specs
2. What tweaking have you done.

I ask this because I have the fastest and greatest laptop and still dont get 15 sec.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nice review
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 08:52 UTC in reply to "Nice review"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Your computer is not typical. Every version of BeOS and Zeta that I have installed on my various computers throughout the years has always booted far faster than any other OS I have ever installed (various Linuxes (slow!), Windows 98 and XP, some others). BeOS/Zeta boots consistently under about 15 seconds while all others boot in around a minute (sometimes longer (Linux)). BeOS/Zeta is by far the fastest, most responsive, and best multimedia capible OS I have ever used.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Nice review
by renox on Mon 18th Jul 2005 16:22 UTC in reply to "Nice review"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

> While it might be faster than the mentioned operating
systems, I can boot my linux system into kde in 20 seconds.
> And my windows xp takes about 20 to 25 seconds to boot.

I'm curious which version of Linux and which HW you use to have such fast startup, do you use a normally configured distro or did you have to change the configuration to speed up the boot?
The good thing about BeOS is that the fast boot time is the default.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nice review
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 16:31 UTC in reply to "Nice review"
Anonymous Member since:
---

An average AthlonXP P4 System with a 3.0 GHz CPU or alike one won't need more than 5 Seconds for booting in Zeta R1.

Basically, it depends on the drivers which have to be loaded as an extra, especially if it's a IDE Card or a SCSI CARD with connected devices on it.
But honestly, this makes XP Pro also slower as well as Linux.

15 Seconds for a 400 MHz CPU with an average set of devices is not a practical Value on W2K, XP, OS X or Linux - it's utopic.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Nice review
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 06:53 UTC in reply to "Nice review"
Anonymous Member since:
---

you all seems to forget that AmigaOs has the fastest boot time than any other OS mentioned here and this on an outdated 14Mhz 68k motorolla processor with 2MB of RAM.
Regards
Lio

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Nice review
by Anonymous on Sat 23rd Jul 2005 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice review"
Anonymous Member since:
---

What's your point? DOS can boot in seconds too.

But, just like AmigaOS, its old, antiquated, and defunct. Sure, I loved my Amiga back in the day and would take one over a DOS machine anyday, but both of these systems are very simple compared to all the capabilities of a modern OS. BeOS just happens to offer almost every modern feature known plus it can boot up really fast.

Reply Score: 0

SANE
by rm6990 on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:19 UTC
rm6990
Member since:
2005-07-04

Next up was my Canon CanoScan LIDE 30. This scanner was a pain to set-up in OS X, so I hoped this would be easier on Zeta, but obviously, I had my doubts. The Scanner utility is located in the '/boot/home/Pictures' directory, or in the Graphics section of the Be menu. This application (Sanity) is a front-end to SANE, and this is what worried me; as you can read in the blog entry I just linked to, my scanner did not work with SANE on OS X. Unfortunately, the same applies to SANE for BeOS. My scanner isn't found, end of story. Too bad.

MY Canon Canoscan LIDE 30 is working fine with SANE on Ubuntu (or pretty much any other Linux Distro). Is this specifically a problem with SANE on non-linux systems or something?

Reply Score: 1

v I love BeOS, I really do
by Jackson Brown on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:22 UTC
RE: I love BeOS, I really do
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 01:00 UTC in reply to "I love BeOS, I really do"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Users can still run Pixel image editor from http://www.kanzelsberger.com

Reply Score: 0

RE: Nice Review
by Andrew Youll on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:23 UTC
Andrew Youll
Member since:
2005-06-29

You say:
"Booting is a matter of, say, 15 seconds, completely blowing away any Linux, Windows or OS X install."

While it might be faster than the mentioned operating systems, I can boot my linux system into kde in 20 seconds.
And my windows xp takes about 20 to 25 seconds to boot.


you can boot XP and linux on a Pentium2 400Mhz in 20seconds approx... thats some P2, takes 25seconds to boot XP on my Athlon64 (including all startup apps)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Nice Review
by Ronald Vos on Sun 17th Jul 2005 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice Review"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

you can boot XP and linux on a Pentium2 400Mhz in 20seconds approx...

Not in my experience..

Reply Score: 1

Window decorations
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:26 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

While many people like the ability to skin their windows, it detracts from one of the best aspects of BeOS's little yellow tabs (and yellowTab's namesake): that you can drag the title tab of a window, and layer them on top of one another, just like tabbed folders. I remember from using the earlier Dano builds that the new window decoration system removed this ability ... is it present in Zeta?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Window decorations/Feel of BeOS
by Ronald Vos on Sun 17th Jul 2005 22:42 UTC in reply to "Window decorations"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

While many people like the ability to skin their windows, it detracts from one of the best aspects of BeOS's little yellow tabs (and yellowTab's namesake): that you can drag the title tab of a window, and layer them on top of one another, just like tabbed folders.

But you couldn't move the tab in relation to it's window, could you? Because don't you end up with a full window on the left, and a very thin window on the right when doing this?
----
When OpenTracker added single window file browsing, that pretty much wrecked the whole of the tracker.

How is opening new windows for everything you click a good thing compared to using back and forward? I hated the clutter it gave on Windows and same on BeOS.

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

But you couldn't move the tab in relation to it's window, could you? Because don't you end up with a full window on the left, and a very thin window on the right when doing this?

Yes, you could. Moving the tab doesn't change the shapeo f the window, it moves the tab. Instead of having it on the far left, you could put it in the middle, or on the right, or whatever.

How is opening new windows for everything you click a good thing compared to using back and forward? I hated the clutter it gave on Windows and same on BeOS.

Having one window per folder strengthens the "folder == window" metaphor, as well is making it possible to actually use drag & drop to manage files. Most Windows users I know don't use drag & drop, they use copy & paste (because going to another folder means you can't see your original folder anymore). The problem is, there is no way to copy and paste files without either knowing how to use the right-click menu or knowing how to use the keyboard shortcuts (which is a UI design no-no).

Having used spatial Nautilus for a good six months in GNOME, I have to say its kind of hard to go back to anything else. BeOS's Tracker wasn't really spatial, but it was better than the "browser" paradigm.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

"Having used spatial Nautilus for a good six months in GNOME, I have to say its kind of hard to go back to anything else"

amen! that is one thing I thought was horrible.... UNTIL i used it and got used to it now it is like tabbed browsing - nothing you miss until you use it then you wonder how you ever lived without it....

Reply Score: 0

orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Any MacOS user from the "good old days" will know this feeling. (=

Spacial is neat, relationalt database is better ;)

Cheers,
. Knut

Reply Score: 0

Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, you could.<snip>

Ah, that elucidates a lot. Now I've only got to figure out how to shift the tabs.. ;)

Reply Score: 1

togs Member since:
2005-07-06

If I recall correctly, you press Shift and drag the tab with your mouse.

Long time between drinks though.

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Having used spatial Nautilus for a good six months in GNOME, I have to say its kind of hard to go back to anything else. BeOS's Tracker wasn't really spatial

What's not spatial about it? Unless you have "single window browse" turned on, the only non-spatial feature I've come across is that Tracker (irritatingly) lets you open additional windows for the same folder *if* they're in different workspaces. Originally it didn't do that, but some misguided soul "fixed" it when Tracker was made open source.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes, you could slide the tab in relation to the window. If I remember correctly you just hold the ctrl key down, click and drag to move them.

I never moved them much, just used lots of workspaces.

Reply Score: 0

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

How is opening new windows for everything you click a good thing compared to using back and forward?

Because then you don't have to constantly resize windows to fit their contents.

I hated the clutter it gave on Windows and same on BeOS.

Clutter is not intrinsic to a spatial file manager, especially when you know how to use it.

Reply Score: 1

v Looks pretty nice
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:30 UTC
The feel of BeOS
by Phil on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:33 UTC
Phil
Member since:
2005-07-06

It seems like Be's distinctive feel has been lost a little. In particular, that big config app doesn't fit in. In the old BeOS, every window basically had one function; this was easy to use and very consistent. I'm not sure YellowTab understood...

Actually, I guess no one really did. When OpenTracker added single window file browsing, that pretty much wrecked the whole of the tracker.

Reply Score: 4

RE: The feel of BeOS
by rayiner on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:38 UTC in reply to "The feel of BeOS"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree. The nice thing about BeOS, was that it was a very Mac-ish UI, except fast and on a PC. Zeta seems very different, from the bloated preference app to the gaudy bling-bling tabs to the WinXP rip-off scrollbars.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The feel of BeOS
by Cramit on Mon 18th Jul 2005 03:17 UTC in reply to "The feel of BeOS"
Cramit Member since:
2005-07-07

On my r5 machine OpenTraker has the option of single or multiple window browsing...so the choice is up to the user. I use single window on my laptop because it only supports 800x600 resolution so opening a lot of windows can make me feel crowded.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The feel of BeOS
by quickie on Tue 19th Jul 2005 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE: The feel of BeOS"
quickie Member since:
2005-07-13

the trick was to use CTRL + doubleclick. This would open a new windows and close the old one. I really like the multiwindow approach combined with all the shortcuts.

Reply Score: 1

Zeta
by Andre on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:42 UTC
Andre
Member since:
2005-07-06

Zeta is a nice OS, but is doesn't feel like the old BeOS anymore.. that is what i think. But still it is a good OS. And i like it ... but it made a little problem with my pc .. USB 2 support did not work well .. did not see any usb devices and unplugging something from the usb caused a KDL ( Kernel Debugger Land, BeOS variant of the BSOD ) . After removing the ehci driver, the usb2 card work fine in USB1 mode.
And my new laptop just arrived : wireless and sound not working, but the rest works fine.

Reply Score: 1

The UI
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Yellow Tab have done very little to the UI Widgets past ironing out bugs. If you don't like the way they look, blame Be.. all the look and feel comes directly from the post R5 appserver codebase.

Reply Score: 0

RE: The UI
by jeanmarc on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:55 UTC in reply to "The UI"
jeanmarc Member since:
2005-07-06

>all the look and feel comes directly from the post R5 appserver codebase.
This look and feel 'post R5' was purely for testing/beta purposes, never released to public by Be,inc

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The UI
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE: The UI"
Anonymous Member since:
---

AFAIK the app_server also runs some major changes since Dano - just look at for in the version on R1 ;-)
In fact there are realy just a few portions of 'Dano' which weren't touched by yT, or rewritten!

Reply Score: 0

Hard to agree
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I can't fully agree. ZETA is much slower than BeOS R5 in startup time (but still much faster than any OS I know). I've tested this OS on Pentium 4 2,2 GHz and my old PII 333 MHz.
While it is quite stable the included Firefox is really a RAM Buster and it doesn't make that fun to surf with that on my PII (also 192 MB RAM). I agree that this is better than surfing with R5 anyway.
I can't say that Hardwaresupport is better than in R5 cause my PCs work fine with R5 too, so I simply don't know. Dealing with USB Sticks is an improvemend in ZETA.
In some aspects ZETA is slower and less stable than R5. Nevertheless, it's useable but it simply lacks of that genius great OSes from the real Gurus simply have.
Disapointingly the improvements between R5 and ZETA aren't as big as years of development would promise (but they exist).

Referring to german user forums, ZETA isn't able to print, scan, boot on SCSI systems and it didn't supports Multiprocessing as well - that's a shame, cause BeOS was famous for its' SMP support.

If you're interested in alternative OS Technology than ZETA is worth a look although you could have a look at BeOS R5 PE (which is freeware) just as well.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Hard to agree
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:55 UTC in reply to "Hard to agree"
Anonymous Member since:
---

On my dual P4 Xeon, it supports both CPUs, works with my SCSI disks, and prints perfectly. I don't have a scanner, so I can't say anything about that.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Nice review
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The test was done on a 400MHz machine, so in comparison, its not bad at all!

Cheers,
. Knutsi

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Nice review
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice review"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The test was done on a 400MHz machine, so in comparison, its not bad at all!

It wasn't. The PII 400 is just a side-machine I have. The test itself was done on a AMD Athlon XP 1600+, Ati Radeon 9000 128MB, 512 MB RAM. If you looked at the screenshots, you would've known ;) .

Reply Score: 5

Nice article, but
by Emil on Sun 17th Jul 2005 19:54 UTC
Emil
Member since:
2005-06-29

What's with some people and boot times. Sure, 15 seconds beats any on my Linux boxes. So? I boot my home server once per 40-60 days. Why should I care for boot times? Desktop, you say? Well, I boot my desktop PC (with Windows or Linux) once (maybe twice, if I have to leave to the office). I do it while making myself a brekfast and coffee. I still don't care if it's up within 15 seconds.

Yes, it's nice to have fast boottime, but it's overrated.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Nice article, but
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 21:57 UTC in reply to "Nice article, but"
Anonymous Member since:
---

At work I need to have my computer started at a certain time or else my boss will think I'm late. It takes about 10 minutes to start up Windows with all the applications that's needed for my work (Windows itself takes about 5-6 minutes). If I could cut that boot time in half I could miss a subway train and still have time over. So don't diss boot times. Even though my situation depends a lot on how the autostart apps behave I would've saved time if Windows could behave better.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Nice article, but
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 01:33 UTC in reply to "Nice article, but"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I care about boot times and maintenance-free computers because computers are made for the purpose of serving us humans, not vice versa, belive it or not. I view my *personal* computer similary to how I view my scientific calculator; which means that old fashioned mainframe-like behaviors (like maintenance, loud fans, heat, or silly boot times) disturbs me.

Best regards
Henrik K.

Reply Score: 0

Trial version
by Rodrigo on Sun 17th Jul 2005 20:00 UTC
Rodrigo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Zeta should release a trial version, I for one have interest on trying yellowTab, but I won't cash out 99 bucks and _then_ see if it works or not on my laptop the way it should.

So a 30-day trial version, or even better, a LiveCD, would be great to attract curious users.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Trial version
by Emil on Sun 17th Jul 2005 20:10 UTC in reply to "Trial version"
Emil Member since:
2005-06-29

I fully agree. I prefer not to buy a ,,cat in a sack'' as Polish proverb says. To see it's to belive. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Trial version
by Anonymous Penguin on Sun 17th Jul 2005 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Trial version"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"I prefer not to buy a ,,cat in a sack'' as Polish proverb says."

Nice. We say almost the same in Italian: "the cat in the sack"

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Trial version
by hobgoblin on Sun 17th Jul 2005 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Trial version"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

hmm, im starting to suspect that its a kinda universial expression as it exist here in norway to ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Trial version
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 11:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Trial version"
Anonymous Member since:
---

In Sweden we say "pig in the sack" ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Trial version
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Trial version"
Anonymous Member since:
---

>In Sweden we say "pig in the sack" ;)
Which is obviously ( ;) ) the most correct. I mean, come on, who the fuck _buys_ a cat?

Granted, not many people buys pigs these days either supposedly the sayings are fairly old.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Trial version
by imothepixie on Tue 19th Jul 2005 15:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Trial version"
imothepixie Member since:
2005-07-09

Round here you "buy a pig in a poke" .....it might be a moggy but you won't know untill you "let the cat out of the bag!"

Reply Score: 1

Feel
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 17th Jul 2005 20:00 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

To me, Zeta *does* feel like BeOS, it has just moved on. Windows XP doesn't feel like Windows 95 either, but still, it still has the same feel.

As much as I liked BeOS r5, there is no point in going all sentimental and holding on to 1999ish technology forever. Zeta is moving on, and that's a good thing.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Feel
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 17th Jul 2005 20:01 UTC in reply to "Feel"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Windows XP doesn't feel like Windows 95 either, but still, it still has the same feel."

Correction: "Windows XP isn't the same as Windows 95 either, but still, it still has the same feel."

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Feel
by Phil on Sun 17th Jul 2005 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Feel"
Phil Member since:
2005-07-06

I wouldn't say that was comparable, as windows doesn't have a single feel. It randomly uses both mdi and sdi (or both, in office's case), toolbars move around, dialogs are used for different sorts of things, and so on.

BeOS on the other hand was very consistent, with only some odd apps really needing to be learned, most you would just start using and feel comfortable with.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Feel
by rayiner on Sun 17th Jul 2005 21:27 UTC in reply to "Feel"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Moving to a garish look without a spatial Tracker isn't "moving on", its "moving backwards". Having enormous, space-wasting icons in Tracker is moving backwards. Having a media player that looks like a children's toy instead of a proper BeOS application (like SoundPlay does) is moving backwards. Having an "all-in-one" configuration app that violates several UI principles (eg: egregious amounts of blank space) is moving backwards.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Feel
by Mindblower2k4 on Sun 17th Jul 2005 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Feel"
Mindblower2k4 Member since:
2005-07-01

for you it isnt but dont you remember that Yt is aiming for the NEW users in stead of the old user base? they want to sell...and many people already do...

as for the icons, you can make them smaller
as for the "garnish look" you can choose for R5 theme.
as for the Media Player..People want eyecandy..

i dont think its bad..look at Win XP everybody was saing the Teletubby Interface...and what hapened?? everybody uses it now...

just my 2 cents

Reply Score: 2

Ops
by Rodrigo on Sun 17th Jul 2005 20:02 UTC
Rodrigo
Member since:
2005-07-06

I switched the company name and the product name

Reply Score: 1

UI
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 20:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Is it possible to theme the UI so it looks exactly (or almost) like R5? I want the plain yellow tabs and original scrollbars present in R5.

Reply Score: 0

Various
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 17th Jul 2005 20:43 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Can boot WinXP and Linux to KDE in 20s on P2 400mhz with 192mb of ram? I highly doubt it ;p

As I said in the comments and as seen on the shots, this review wasn't done on my PII!

Is it possible to theme the UI so it looks exactly (or almost) like R5? I want the plain yellow tabs and original scrollbars present in R5.

Did you even read the review?

Reply Score: 5

UI
by Andre on Sun 17th Jul 2005 20:46 UTC
Andre
Member since:
2005-07-06

It is possible, in the control panel,
not sure for the translation 'appearance'
( dutch : uiterlijk )

But it doesn;t exactly look the same as in R5 ...

That is another think i don't know if i like it, the control panel, everything in one app.

Reply Score: 1

RE: UI
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 11:20 UTC in reply to "UI"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Every menu-link to the separate preference apps still remain, they only link directly to a page in the new preferences app.
So you can still invoke a sub-part of the preferences the old way.

Reply Score: 0

boot times & laptop
by evert on Sun 17th Jul 2005 20:54 UTC
evert
Member since:
2005-07-06

A short boot time is very important for laptop users. Windows and Linux have longer boot times because they have more hardware support and more features, which requires more services to load on startup, and so on. They have, maybe, more self-healing capabilities, increasing the boot time.

For example, Slackware had a very short boottime, until Pat decided to add hotplug support. You can still disable it easily (thanks, Pat) but leaving it enabled is advised, especially for laptops when you often plug in all kinds of hardware. Hotplug slows doen the bootup by several seconds.

Because I sometimes need to make a quick note, and I mean quick, I have installed DOS on a seperate partition. It has virtually no boot time at all, and all I have to do is "vi mynote.txt" to start editing. (I have installed vi for dos and command-line completion).

I recommend OS developers to offer some kind of console which must by ready to use before the whole OS has started up, so one can access files and editing textfiles within a few seconds after powering on the system.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: boot times & laptop
by Emil on Sun 17th Jul 2005 21:01 UTC in reply to "boot times & laptop"
RE[2]: boot times & laptop
by evert on Sun 17th Jul 2005 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE: boot times & laptop"
evert Member since:
2005-07-06

@ emil:

> Hibertnation. Suspend mode.

No. I need full startup to detect network settings and so on. You know, I have a laptop to take it to different networks.

> a instant-Linux based on initrd or a microLiveCD/USB

way slow compared to DOS on a harddisk.

> init 1

hmm, yes but forgot about that one. thanks for reminding :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: boot times & laptop
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: boot times & laptop"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well, on Linux all you need is hibernation and a icon pointing to "service network restart". That's going tp take all of 2 seconds+ whatever your DHCP takes.

Reply Score: 0

RE: boot times & laptop
by sLydE on Mon 18th Jul 2005 21:24 UTC in reply to "boot times & laptop"
sLydE Member since:
2005-07-17

the boot time is only true if you are using a non-Gentoo linux OS. With gentoo, my laptop boots in a manor of seconds, without a bloated kernel, and runs fine. But installation time must be factored in I guess...

Reply Score: 1

GIVEN IBM stopped OS/2 support
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 20:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

and linux on the desktop remains elusive, perhaps we should rally around zeta as an alternative to windoze?

--or os x -- though jobs may not open it.

personally i think they should re-write the entire OS to be x86-64 native.

Reply Score: 0

Boot times, etc.
by orestes on Sun 17th Jul 2005 21:07 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

LinuxBIOS. Boot times as low as three seconds if you have hardware that supports it. 'nuff said.

Now, back on topic. Will zeta play nice with Vmware workstation 5? My previous attempts to run BeOS on it have been less than pleasant.

Reply Score: 1

superfast booting linux
by evert on Sun 17th Jul 2005 21:36 UTC
evert
Member since:
2005-07-06

just found an article about this (thanks to google)

http://www.hackinglinuxexposed.com/articles/20020702.html

if you use this, it gives you a simple shell really fast:

lilo: linux rw init=/bin/bash

Reply Score: 1

RE: superfast booting linux
by gilboa on Mon 18th Jul 2005 10:01 UTC in reply to "superfast booting linux"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

if you use this, it gives you a simple shell really fast:

lilo: linux rw init=/bin/bash


*Don't*.
If your distro uses an initrd image or your kernel doesn't have all the required driver compiled into the binary image, at best you'll have an empty OS under your hands.
sysinit is there for a reason.
Even init 1 may cause grief on some distros.

Gilboa

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: superfast booting linux
by evert on Mon 18th Jul 2005 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE: superfast booting linux"
evert Member since:
2005-07-06

OK, thanks, I just stick to {
lilo: linux rw 1 /or/ lilo: linux rw single } then

Reply Score: 1

This I need to work.
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 21:42 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

*Java 1.4.2 or higher
*Firefox
*Thunderbird
*MSN ;)

postgresql port would be nice..

Hell, I've been waiting for Java since the beginning

Reply Score: 0

v @ ronald vos
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 21:46 UTC
RE: @ ronald vos
by Ronald Vos on Mon 18th Jul 2005 00:15 UTC in reply to "@ ronald vos"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

you're an idiot, you've taken his comment out of context, its clearly sarcasm.

Oops, it was sarcastic.
Oh and you're a mean poopy-face.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: @ ronald vos
by sLydE on Mon 18th Jul 2005 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE: @ ronald vos"
sLydE Member since:
2005-07-17

that's the funniest thing I've heard in the past day...

Reply Score: 1

v @ anand78
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 21:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Just a thougth you forgot about the sourceforge.net beos project , their is another beos still free to download , its open source and free to download , but My real question is is their a port of ndiswrapper for beos and wireless network support for it , otherwise I will never be getting it online at all ? I have a Wireless-G linksys type network with router

Reply Score: 0

Wemgadge Member since:
2005-07-02

OpenBeos = Haiku

They just changed the project's name.

Reply Score: 1

Bedoper's Zeta Review Coming Soon
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 22:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

As soon as we secure lawyers to defend us. In the meantime...

Microsoft Hires Ex-Be Employee -
http://www.bedoper.com/bedoper/2005/32.htm

Jonathan Thompson joins LucasFilms -
http://www.bedoper.com/bedoper/2005/33.htm

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

I tried to change it to cocaine, but "sipping" didn't work.

Reply Score: 0

comparison?
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 22:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Hmm, sounds interesting. How would you say it compares to Mac OS X 10.0?

Cause it seems to me that OS X managed to get from 10.0 to 10.3 (The first truly useable system in my opinion, maybe Jaguar would do) pretty damn quick, and so I don't see why YellowTab can't do the same.

Reply Score: 0

re: RE: Nice article, but
by Andrew Youll on Sun 17th Jul 2005 22:05 UTC
Andrew Youll
Member since:
2005-06-29

i agree boot times are important, i have a system i use at home after work for work related stuff, im an electrical engineer, so my system is full to the hilt of software for my job, it can take a good 5 minutes to boot that machine.

Reply Score: 5

Great review!
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 22:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Great review, I'm on the edge of a purchase thanks to this... need a few more days to pry the wallet open ;)
Here's hoping Zeta gets a solid 'bite' of the desktop O.S market and the software base starts to gather more pace.

What's with this boot time obsession? I'd label some of you with 'Obsessive compulsive boot time disorder' if it existed... move on, discuss something more important.

Reply Score: 0

Review: yellowTAB's Zeta R1
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 22:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Thanks for the review. Now i can buy zeta.

Reply Score: 0

Other factors
by Zenja on Sun 17th Jul 2005 23:24 UTC
Zenja
Member since:
2005-07-06

Zeta hardware support is much better than what we'd expect. For instance, I connected an iPod and transfered mp3's across using USB2 (BeBop is not iTunes, but it sure is faster). Zeta supports NDIS so you can (theoretically) use a lot of Windows network drivers. Wireless also works. CUPS for printing. SANE for scanners. Zeta actually detects modern CPU features (SSE, SSE2 etc) and uses them (check the syslog to see which components are patched).

It feels much more up to date than what you'd expect. It's a shame BeInc couldn't release this back in 2001.

Reply Score: 1

v Zeta can't be taken seriously
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 23:51 UTC
joe877
Member since:
2005-07-17

A fair amount of the review was fine, but the Spotlight stuff really bothered me. It's just such a lie:

Remember, these searches are instant; a lot faster than Spotlight.

Sure, because in Zeta no content is being indexed. When you search for an e-mail in Zeta, you can search only by the metadata (author, subject, etc.). Spotlight will search the content (optionally, of course). Little bit more work required, no? It's a completely unfair comparison. Searching by content is so much more useful that I'll gladly take a speed hit for it when I want that functionality.


Again, this requires no extra applications or whatsoever...Want all music from Bruce Springsteen?...You can do that without ever touching a music player or other specialized applications.

Sure, ummm, but the author "conveniently" forgot to add the single most important thing! How does the BFS MP3 attributes database get populated? Unlike Spotlight or similar technologies, it doesn't have the concept of "Importers" or "Syncers" or whatever you want to call them. Even if you've spent hours meticulously setting up your ID3 tags, Zeta won't be able to find your music. You have to either manually enter the same information for each song again, or you must download a program that will read the ID3 tags and then set BFS attributes for them. In other words, unless you rip every CD using a BeOS program that can set BFS attributes and don't have any MP3s you want to use from your other operating systems, *you do need specialized applications.* The rest of the world uses ID3 but BFS is blind to it.

This is the kind of thing that's built into more fleshed out tools like Spotlight. Oh, and heaven forbid you ever decide to change an ID3 tag, because you'll need to run the tool again to re-sync up the BFS attributes. This is also true of other standard metadata information, such as EXIF tags, Word document metadata, movie sizes, you name it. BeOS fans have tried to sell the world on BFS for years without ever acknowledging the massive amount of work it takes (speaking as someone who ran BeOS for four years) the user to keep the attributes correct and up-to-date. Spotlight solves this problem with Importers, which in addition to reading the file content can also recognize common metadata like ID3 tags, EXIF tags, etc., and populate the internal Spotlight database with that information. Whenever a file is updated, the Importer is automatically re-run for that file, so the database remains up-to-date. It's a complete solution. The BeOS implementation is not.

For years, BeOS fans have been trying to sell people on BFS, but it's simply not a complete solution. Since its creation it's been technically very awesome, but all the "look how useful this will be to you!" talk is all smoke and mirrors until the burden isn't on the user to get all that metadata into the BFS database.

Reply Score: 3

Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

The rest of the world uses ID3 but BFS is blind to it.

This is the kind of thing that's built into more fleshed out tools like Spotlight. Oh, and heaven forbid you ever decide to change an ID3 tag, because you'll need to run the tool again to re-sync up the BFS attributes. This is also true of other standard metadata information, such as EXIF tags, Word document metadata, movie sizes, you name it. BeOS fans have tried to sell the world on BFS for years without ever acknowledging the massive amount of work it takes (speaking as someone who ran BeOS for four years) the user to keep the attributes correct and up-to-date.


You make valid points about content-search, but I disagree about it being a BeOS failure that it doesn't sync ID3tags with the attributes.

Theoretically, it should be easy enough to implement into the programs you use to change tags to also change the attributes, or to make some nifty OpenTracker plugins for it (anyone? ;) . But attributes are awesome, and the world should've adapted to attributes, not the other way around (and it's only happening slowly now). Having different formats for song-information on ogg, mp3, midi and eac isn't making things better (does Spotlight support all those tag-formats btw?). Having a singular attribute naming the song's artist is a whole lot better. It would've been really nice if those attributes were downloadable across the internet unzipped by now.

Reply Score: 1

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Attributes are a nice idea in theory, but we live in a world of commodity operating systems, and it seems attributes just didn't make the cut. At this point, I'm far more intrigued by Hans Reiser's ideas about exposing embedded file information (eg: id3 tags, EXIF tags) through the filesystem itself.

Reply Score: 1

joe877 Member since:
2005-07-17

Theoretically, it should be easy enough to implement into the programs you use to change tags to also change the attributes

Up to this point in the BeOS's history, it has never happened. And because stale data is usually worse than no data at all, it's a boil the ocean problem: every program touching any kind of metadata would have to be updated, because any chance whatsoever of updating a file without updating the metadata means the chance for stale (meta)data.


or to make some nifty OpenTracker plugins for it (anyone? ;)

It is probably not the place of OpenTracker to do this sort of thing, although I guess it could be hacked in, unless Tracker wants to handle notifications for every file modification in the system. (I could be wrong on this point, but I believe that currently Tracker only registers for file modification notifications for files/directories that are currently visible.)


But attributes are awesome, and the world should've adapted to attributes, not the other way around (and it's only happening slowly now).

The world didn't. You can make whatever theoretical argument you want, but in 2005, if I download a (presumably legal) MP3 from the internet, it will have ID3 tags set but not extended attributes. If I receive an e-mail containing photos from someone, they will have EXIF tags set, but not extended attributes. The BeOS implementation remains theoretically cool but practically not very useful. Saying "the entire internet and most programs should be re-written, and then it will be useful!" is not really a good answer. Metadata-embedded-in-data-files is here to stay, at least for a while. Implementations like Spotlight have adapted to the realities of the world and managed to make things useful. It's not like the concept of an Importer is rocket science. Be just never had the time / resources to really turn BFS into a end-user solution, and it seems that Yellowtab aren't doing so, at least for now, either. Selling BFS as a convenient end-user tool is just dishonest.


does Spotlight support all those tag-formats btw?

Spotlight allows anyone to write Importers for any file type they want, much like Be's concept of media translators. As for whether Apple wrote Importers for all those filetypes and shipped them as part of Tiger, I do not know. Certainly they did for MP3 and AAC, although I would be shocked if they bothered with OGG. Doesn't stop anyone else from writing one, though.


Having a singular attribute naming the song's artist is a whole lot better

...which is exactly what Spotlight does. The Importers Apple ships match the Artist tag from both MP3 files and AAC files to a Spotlight tag called "Artist". Say a new format comes out and uses "Performer" instead of "Artist". A Spotlight Importer could still map that tag to the "Artist" tag in the Spotlight database.


It would've been really nice if those attributes were downloadable across the internet unzipped by now

But they're not and they won't be any time soon, so devising a "solution" that relies upon that being implemented is foolhardy. I think a good analogy is Be's (excellent) file type handling. If the file has a MIME type specified, great, use it! But if not, rely on the .extension to help identify it. In practice, it worked great. It's a very similar approach to what Apple used in Spotlight. "No metadata for the file? Well, look to see if there's any metadata embedded in the file that we can expose!" I imagine that Be's engineers would have eventually implemented this, but the fact is, it's not there, and Thom's discussing it like it's a complete, ready-for-the-user solution like Spotlight is simply dishonest.

If you're willing to do a lot of work (i.e. manually syncing everything yourself, effectively meaning "use third-party sync-it programs like Spotlight Importers, but instead of having the system take care of the re-syncing for you, do it yourself"), BFS is extremely cool. But I can testify that as a multi-year user, it's too much work to be worth the effort. And its coolness has been lessened with the years, as tools like Spotlight not only bring that kind of syncing to the table, but also allow for full-text searching and other features.

Reply Score: 4

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

"If you're willing to do a lot of work (i.e. manually syncing everything yourself, effectively meaning "use third-party sync-it programs like Spotlight Importers, but instead of having the system take care of the re-syncing for you, do it yourself"), BFS is extremely cool. But I can testify that as a multi-year user, it's too much work to be worth the effort."

Hrrrmm. I agree with many of your points, and disagree with some, but I don't think Thom was selling it as a Spotlight-buster. And changing and resynching attributes are not really that hard... and how often do they change if they were well thought-out in the first place?

I still have R5.0.3. I am also bucking for Haiku (and have Zeta RC3 as well). BUT! My primary computers are all Macs running OS X 10.4.x. So I understand what you are saying... but to me, BeOS was great and BFS was fantastic and quite useful. I wrote code to use file attributes to map information to my wife's artwork which could be pulled up and used via python on her website... it was fast and worked well and easy to add new images and map new attributes to it (since the data mapping could be done programmatically OR THROUGH the tracker).

What you are missing about BFS is that all attributes are immediately available via the user interface and modifiable as well. This is something Spotlight lacks. It is also faster and was programmatically very [easily] accessible since it is an integral part of the file system - granted having a large index file for spotlight is no slouch and works quickly as well.

Again, I understand what you are saying, since I am a BeOS user as well as a Mac OS X user (and a linux user and a windows user (on a regular basis)), but I think you are unfairly tearing BFS and file attributes down and punditing on your soapbox.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

I always found it a li dumb not to be able to search other FS eg NTFS partitions in BeOS.

What about Be_indexed? It should do that Apple 'importer' does, tried it? I'm curious.

Also I'd like to search in specific folders only but the search function in BeoS can't even filter that out : (

Nutela

Reply Score: 0

joe877 Member since:
2005-07-17

What about Be_indexed? It should do that Apple 'importer' does, tried it? I'm curious.

Partially, but not exactly. I haven't personally used BeIndexed, but from looking at its description, it looks like it's simply a full-content searching engine. To the extent that Importers also provide the content to Spotlight, they are similar in that way. But really, BeIndexed is more akin to Panther's search engine (i.e. "periodically index the drive") than Spotlight.

Spotlight's Importers also provide the metadata to the Spotlight database. The BeOS equivalent would be an importing engine that set the BFS attributes, so that you could do all the typical fun BFS things, like live queries, etc., which you can do with Spotlight. BeIndexed does not do that; it's completely separate from BFS. And, of course, one of the most important things is that Spotlight is hooked into the kernel, so that the database information is updated when the file is -- it's always up-to-date. BeIndexed provides for no such thing.

So really, BeIndexed is more akin to Sherlock in Mac OS 9 or Panther's full-text searching. It's not really at all to the level of Spotlight, or even really BFS.

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Searching by content is so much more useful that I'll gladly take a speed hit for it when I want that functionality.

Eh, so will I - that's why they have this neat little program called "grep".

Sure, ummm, but the author "conveniently" forgot to add the single most important thing! How does the BFS MP3 attributes database get populated? Unlike Spotlight or similar technologies, it doesn't have the concept of "Importers" or "Syncers" or whatever you want to call them. Even if you've spent hours meticulously setting up your ID3 tags, Zeta won't be able to find your music. You have to either manually enter the same information for each song again, or you must download a program that will read the ID3 tags and then set BFS attributes for them.

Yes, Spotlight is a much more automagic system. The trade off is that it's significantly less flexible than queries.

In other words, unless you rip every CD using a BeOS program that can set BFS attributes and don't have any MP3s you want to use from your other operating systems, *you do need specialized applications.*

Or you can just play them in SoundPlay, which will write the ID3 tags to attributes the first time you play a file.

The rest of the world uses ID3 but BFS is blind to it.

Um, of course it is. Why would the filesystem have awareness of MP3's internal metadata format?

Reply Score: 1

A few questions:
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 23:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

- How close is the R5 theme to R5? Are the tabs shiftable?
- Is Tracker.NewFS compatible with Zeta R1?
- Do Switcher* keyboard shortcuts work?
- How good is the font rendering in Zeta R1 compared to BeOS R5 and Dan0? Does it have sub-pixel anti-aliasing? Is it possible to tweak it?

Thanks!

*Switcher: http://bebits.com/app/233

Reply Score: 0

Zeta in Vmware/VPC
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 00:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I tested Zeta R1 in both, and posted my comments on the yellowtab forum here:

http://yellowtab.com/phorum/phorum.php?read,41,118946

Reply Score: 0

Zeta SANE support
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 01:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Sane has supported the CanoScan LiDE 20/30 for well over a year. My guess is that the USB interface isn't handing off the correct info to SANE and needs a bit more work in Zeta. Of course, they might have just left out the SANE backend for the CanoScans.

I've left my impressions of the Zeta partitioning software on ZetaNews.

FurryOne

Reply Score: 0

Interesting
by ArKay on Mon 18th Jul 2005 04:59 UTC
ArKay
Member since:
2005-07-13

There was a test in the German c't magazine last month and the conclusion was that it is not yet ready for primetime, so they don't advise you to buy it. Even Zeta's sales manager admitted that it should be used next to Windows since Zeta itself is far from being complete.

At least you get your money back if you can't get it to work on your system with help of the telephone support ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Interesting
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 07:37 UTC in reply to "Interesting"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"At least you get your money back if you can't get it to work on your system with help of the telephone support ;) "

Are you serious? That'd be good news for me! Where did you read that, please?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Interesting
by ArKay on Mon 18th Jul 2005 08:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting"
ArKay Member since:
2005-07-13

That German sale manager said so.

"Whoever buys Zeta and can't get it to run on his machine with the help of our telephone support can send back his CD and will definately get a refund."

Not sure whether this is only valid for German customers though.

Reply Score: 1

File Attributes
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 07:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Well, Atributes in BeOS are a good example of having a great technology (back in the mid 90's and still today) and to not use it.

Apple made a trick with an additional Database to get a much nicer and much more userfriendly soloution of the same problem. They also use importes to fetch file information and to write them into the Spotlight Database.

Be could have done this with an easy grap_server (or Grap-O-Matic ;) 10 years before, but they simply missed the opportunity to create a much more usable OS.

Reply Score: 0

jeanmarc
Member since:
2005-07-06

use id3attr to convert id3 to attributes
http://www.bebits.com/app/1652

Reply Score: 1

joe877 Member since:
2005-07-17

use id3attr to convert id3 to attributes

Dude, did you even read my comments before responding? In both I specifically mentioned that you can convert from ID3 tags (and other common types) to attributes with the help of third-party tools. Here's the Cliffs Notes version:

or you must download a program that will read the ID3 tags and then set BFS attributes for them

...*you do need specialized applications.*

Oh, and heaven forbid you ever decide to change an ID3 tag, because you'll need to run the tool again to re-sync up the BFS attributes

If you're willing to do a lot of work (i.e. manually syncing everything yourself, effectively meaning "use third-party sync-it programs like Spotlight Importers, but instead of having the system take care of the re-syncing for you, do it yourself")


Of course, there are still several problems:

1. The user has to know what the difference is between embedded metadata, such as ID3 tags, and BFS attributes, and that you can only search based on BFS attributes. (Indexed BFS attributes, at that, but that's a different issue.)

2. The user has to understand that the two, being distinct, can get out of sync, and understand when and why he/she must manually sync them (i.e. run the converter tool again).

3. The user must realize that every new file not originating from his/her system (i.e. if a CD is ripped in BeOS the program will probably set the BFS attributes, but files acquired otherwise won't) will have to be manually converted, and must be vigilant in doing so.

Compare that to a system like Spotlight, where all that metadata is automatically populated and automatically kept up-to-date.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

> Compare that to a system like Spotlight, where all that metadata is automatically populated and automatically kept up-to-date.
And if a user don't want that? Or if a user wants automatic updates for a select number of different file formats?
And if the separate metadata used by Spotlight crashes or gets corrupt?

Apparently, Spotlight has the advantage of being userfriendly with eyecandy whereas BeOS/ZETA has the advantage of the journaled filesystem and the architectual solution that has by far the most flexible approach, that paves the way open for anything you can do with a attributed filesystem.

YellowTAB should not make the mistake of providing solutions that only affect the outcome (Ten's of years of non-improving filesystems). They should not look to other OS-es but build on the immense strength of the BeOS architecture, but when providing interfaces to the user they should ask themselves what a user wants and how a user wants to invoke a function intuitively and speedily.
Strength comes from the inside, i.e. core design of an OS.

Reply Score: 1

joe877 Member since:
2005-07-17

And if a user don't want that? Or if a user wants automatic updates for a select number of different file formats?

Why would a user not want this? Are you telling me that users will say "yes, please let my indexed metadata becomes out of date?" Would then, for example, recommend that users can say "hey filesystem, don't ever update the 'modified' date for .doc files!"


And if the separate metadata used by Spotlight crashes or gets corrupt?

...and what if the data in the BFS filesystem gets corrupt? In both systems, you're storing the data somewhere and using it in the same fashion. Both therefore have a similar chance for corruption. The nice thing about a system like Spotlight is that the database could be rebuilt. If you had corruption within BFS itself, all your data would most likely be hosed.


Apparently, Spotlight has the advantage of being userfriendly with eyecandy whereas BeOS/ZETA has the advantage of the journaled filesystem and the architectual solution that has by far the most flexible approach, that paves the way open for anything you can do with a attributed filesystem.

I don't think you really know what you're talking about. For one, Mac OS X's filesystem, HFS+, is (now) both Journaled and supports extended attributes. So BFS has no "architectural" advantages, and can do nothing as an attributed filesystem that Spotlight cannot. (Yes, Spotlight can query the extended attributes, just as BFS can).

Now, as for "most flexible", this is where your point starts to get really absurd. With either Mac OS X or with BeOS, files can have extended attributes. How is BeOS more flexible? With Mac OS X, any (non-network) filesystem can be searched. With BeOS, you can only search BFS partitions. How is BeOS more flexible? With Mac OS X, any attribute -- or content -- can be searched. With BeOS, you can only search based on user-indexed attributes and cannot search based on content. How is BeOS more flexible? With Mac OS X, metadata is automatically populated and automatically synced. With BeOS, it's left up to the user. How is BeOS more flexible?


Strength comes from the inside, i.e. core design of an OS.

Agreed, and you have made it abundantly clear that you are rather ignorant about the architecture of completing products.

Reply Score: 1

About boot time...
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 09:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>While it might be faster than the mentioned operating systems, I can boot my linux system into kde in 20 seconds.
>And my windows xp takes about 20 to 25 seconds to boot.

>So I would not have used the words "blowing away" ;)

And even if it took WinXP 2minutes to boot it won't change anything. Now that most OSs are so stable you're only supposed to boot one time... It doesn't change anything if it takes 2minutes or 15seconds.

5 or more years ago, ok... but today ;)

Leo.

Reply Score: 0

RE: About boot time...
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 18th Jul 2005 10:38 UTC in reply to "About boot time..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And even if it took WinXP 2minutes to boot it won't change anything. Now that most OSs are so stable you're only supposed to boot one time... It doesn't change anything if it takes 2minutes or 15seconds.

Thing is, I have a life, which means that I don't *want* to let my computers running all the time. It eats power, which costs money and is bad for the environment. At night, my computers go off. When I'm away from home for too long, they go off.

100% of the people I know do the same.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: About boot time...
by Anonymous on Wed 20th Jul 2005 02:38 UTC in reply to "RE: About boot time..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Thing is, I have a life, which means that I don't *want* to let my computers running all the time. It eats power, which costs money and is bad for the environment. At night, my computers go off. When I'm away from home for too long, they go off.

100% of the people I know do the same.


Funny, I have a life too, which is precisely why I leave the machine on. All my applications and documents are open so that I can return to what I was doing instantaneously, without waiting for the machine to boot up and to relaunch applications. A properly designed machine with a modern OS in "sleep" mode eats as much power as your DVD player plugged in and not doing anything else. And as for anecdotal evidence, so what? 100% of the people I know leave their machines on and compete for longest uptime.

Reply Score: 0

v snyd
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 12:25 UTC
Boot times... I got y'all all beat....
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 20:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

looncraz here...

You know, the guy who has been playing with BeOS for so long that he can remember the change from hobbit to PPC, then to x86.

Yeah, that guy who made SuperDano, PhOS, and who created the entire idea behind Zeta.

Okay, I have gone through this before, thinking it is possible I have some record for fast-booting, so I'll give the times I achieved last night when I finally worked out the last kinks in making the Haiku boot loader boot PhOS (Dano-hacked away like mad).

I used a stop watch, and would count from the time I hit 'Enter' on the keyboard to launch the boot process from the boot manager, to the time when I first saw the login screen (PhOS is a semi-multi-user BeOS).

This are optimized tests, mind you, I have removed *ALL* drivers I do not need. These include, but are not limited to, all USB, Firewire, Serial, Floppy(3 sec gain in boot speed alone), and SCSI drivers.

The only drivers remaining were all File System and Partition drivers (except apple, which is not needed on my machine), ATI Radeon driver + accelerant, Crystal Sounds audio driver (and supporting drivers), RTL8139 network driver, BONE (which has a driver), PS/2 mouse and Keyboard support, and that is getting pretty much to be it.

My first test was with Be's Dano Stage 2 boot loader (zbeos), unmodified:

Three runs:
Best: 5.2 Seconds
Average: 5.3 Seconds

Next, I removed the boot images from the Dano zbeos, which saves time.

Three runs:
Best: 4.4 Seconds
Average 4.4 Seconds (little change in no-image loaders)

Now, to test the performance of my haiku-based loader, which, understandably, is geared directly to ideally support my specific hardware. To aide in making a more fair comparison, I included the Dano boot images into the Haiku-based loader, which required more work than I had thought at first glance.

Three runs:
Best: 4.2 Seconds
Average: 4.6 Seconds

Next, I disabled support for the boot screen, instead preferring to print text to the screen a mere five times, also preventing vesa mode change unless going into the menu is required (you have almost no time to get in though, which is probably the #1 advantage of this loader in boot-speed before not entering vesa mode).

Three runs:
Best 2.9 Seconds (no joke, no lie)
Average: 3.1 Seconds

As you can see, 15 seconds is horrible in my eyes, though I could probably mod up Zeta in a few days and get close to the same performance (or better, who knows).

Now, for my machine:

Athlon XP 3200+ [2.2GHz](400 FSB, 512KB) L2
....Overclocked to 2.8GHz with water cooling
1024 MB DDR 533 RAM (four 256 MB sticks, Patriot)
Seagate, 120 GB, ATA133, 8MB cache
Maxtor, 250 GB, ATA133, 8 MB cache
Western Digital, 80GB, SATA (experimental drivers)
Crystal Sounds PCI Audio Vortex or something...
ATI Radeon 8500 All-in-Wonder
Cheapo CD-Burner (Why pay more money for the same .......thing?)
Pioneer 16X Slot DVD Drive
Realtek 8139C Network

As you can see, I have a pretty quick little machine, so my times on the review machine would probably be a few seconds longer, meaning 6 or 7 seconds. And Zeta could probably boot in about 10~12 on my machine, making a net 50% speed improvement or so. 25% of the overall speed improvement comes from the removal of just one driver, too: The floppy driver!


Anyway, if anyone is interested in this stuff, just give it a try... start removing drivers you don't need and you will quickly see how fast BeOS can really start!

--The loon

Reply Score: 1

BFS not "BeFS"
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 05:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Correct name of the filesystem is BFS, there's no such thing as "BeFS"

Reply Score: 0

silly comments
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 08:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Crappy minds !

Spotlight isn't a FS !

Spotlight can work on any supported local or network FS (VFS, NTFS, HFS, FAT, etc).

Compare BFS and Spotlight is silly and stupid.

Reply Score: 0

I used to love Beos
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 12:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

But what's the point of this? It's closed source, it costs and as a result it'll run the handful of applications that were written for beos and maybe a few more. I realise it's a niche product and good luck to anyone who might choose to run it and same to yT. I hope they have all the success in the world but it'll be used by a handful of people and probably not make that great an impact.

Reply Score: 0

What about security?
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 15:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

As I recall BeOS never had any security, logons, accounts, etc. I don't suppose that changed. And, in the world we live in today,,, do you really want an OS that has no virus protection (it's on Intel right - means buffer overflows are possible).

So what are yT's plans regarding security in general?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: V. Nice
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 15:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Notebook support _might_ be a problem. Zeta needs a 100 x86 System. A lot of notebook suppliers use to ignore standards of all kind. ^^ Well, for Windows it's OK. They just add their own drivers for their hardware. The best way to find a suiteble notebook is going to the shop with the Zeta-CD and asking if you may install it! The other way round, going to the shop with a Notebook and asking if you may install one of their copies of Zeta on it, could be difficult.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: V. Nice
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: V. Nice"
Anonymous Member since:
---

ACH! I'm sorry, my comment (above) should have been a reply, not a new comment.

Reply Score: 0

Uwe
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 19:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

May I suggest the readers to read about MY (negative) experiences I had with this Zeta-OS?:

http://tinyurl.com/dx2ol

Thanks
Uwe

Reply Score: 0

v RE: Uwe
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:11 UTC in reply to "Uwe"
RE[2]: Nice article, but
by hraq on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:10 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

Boot Time is a very important indication of the kernel development excellence; If your OS boots quickly then this means the kernel is of micro type which means that the modules plug into it then if you have a faulty driver it won't take the whole system with it. second it means that the development team optimized the kernel for fast boot ( not a lazy team indication ), third When the kernel is small the chances of its malfauntion is less thus the debugging and patching sizes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Nice article, but
by transputer_guy on Tue 19th Jul 2005 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice article, but"
transputer_guy Member since:
2005-07-08

Absolutely

I also add that a faster boot OS indicates an OS much closer to version 1. That could also mean no features yet or no bloat.

I see W2K boots on a pair of different xp2400s takes what seems several minutes (web pc) vs maybe 1m for disconnected. The slow machine uses a crappy old 4G drive which probaly slows things down a bit.

I still hope one day OS writers will get to a 1 sec boot from the HD spin up time.

Reply Score: 1

More About BeOS...
by Anonymous on Tue 19th Jul 2005 21:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Does anyone have any links for more information on BeOS? I've used Windows and Linux (a lot), and Mac OS X (a little), and I want to try out BeOS. Can someone give me some links on general information on getting BeOS and how it's different from Linux, Windows, and Mac? This review was good, but I want to learn more about it...

Thanks. ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE: More About BeOS...
by stew on Tue 19th Jul 2005 21:57 UTC in reply to "More About BeOS..."
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

These are a bit older, but nicely outline some of BeOS' special features:
http://www.birdhouse.org/beos/byte/

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Trial version
by imothepixie on Wed 20th Jul 2005 00:06 UTC
imothepixie
Member since:
2005-07-09

"Never buy a pig in a poke!"
In medieval times piglets were often taken to market in a sack to be sold. If the purchaser was particularly gullible and carried off the purchase without looking, he would later discover his mistake and have to "let the cat out off the bag!". (you may also "be sold a pup"). Incidentally, the sack or bag was correctly termed a poke, hence a pig in a poke. (the diminutive of poke lives on today in modern English in the form of Pocket)
I'm sure similar things happen all over the world but i think some are mixing up their pigs and cats ... zeta is definitely a cute looking piglet! I think we can see that...just we don't know how fast its gonna run in a pig race or if its a boar or a sow, we're just going to have to buy it from the farmer to find out! (stealing pigs would have got you hung back then!)

Reply Score: 1

windows 3.1 boot times
by Anonymous on Thu 21st Jul 2005 21:32 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I'm a long time fan of the BeOS, but to start inserting amiga's into this discussion, let's get windows 3.1 and DOS 6.22 stick them onto a new machine and see how fast it boots... I bet it will be in the sub 15 second range... (I guess I'll start looking for the windows 3.1 install disks!)

alphaseinor

Reply Score: 0