"As World+Dog gets its head around Windows Vista, lets look back at an operating system that might have been a contender, very nearly becoming Apple's next-generation OS and, but for Linux, almost certainly the key alternative to Windows on x86. Ladies and gentlemen, who remembers BeOS?"
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-10
But greed killed it off. It would be interesting to see where OS X would be if it were BeOS based. Finder would have decent networking for once and multi-processor support would be superb out of the box (it's still sub-par on OS X). However there would be some major omissions. BeOS is not a multi user OS, the lack of UNIX underpinnings and permissions would mean that a BeOS-X would be more akin to OS9, and would probably would have much lesser security than current OS-X. On the flip side, Spotlight would have shipped with the .0 
Member since:2005-07-06
You are thinking about BeOS as it now (5.0). When Apple was shopping for an OS, BeOS was in a far less advanced state; shoddy networking, terrible printer support, etc. It would have taken some work to get BeOS up to Apple standards and Apple felt NeXT offered a better base to build on.
Member since:2005-11-10
No kidding, I almost thought the original poster was kidding when he said "decent networking" when compared with OpenStep. I used BeOS in those days (4.x) release, and I was a beta tester from way back, and the networking stack sucked in a major way, ugh.
It was a nice system, however BeOS bigots seemed to be under the impresion that the major selling point to an OS is how fast it could boot.
Gasse was miopic both regarding technology and market, the product he had was not worth the hundreds of millions of dollars he wanted to ransom Apple for. NextStep was a far more mature system, the API was light years ahead, and at least it had some kind of software base. Also the engineering team that Jobs was bringing from NeXT was worth much more than anythign Gasse could offer.
Member since:2005-07-06
Gasse was also painted as much more of a cheerleader than actually one to be grounded in reality - he spent too much time trying to court Apple instead of throwing in the towel on PowerPC back when they made the leap to ELF back in R4, worse still over promising and grand standing in regards perceived evils of its competition - everything really came unstuck with this whole 'appliance' fad.
To get BeOS up and running in the required time, firstly Be would have had to drop PowerPC at R3 and made R4 completely focused on Intel, secondly, they needed more programmers, far more than they had to make massive improvements in the system to bring it up to speed; thirdly they needed major cash injection so then atleast along with the operating system, they also provided atleast a decent level of middleware for the markets that they were supposidly going to serve.
All this woul have costed $700million plus, and I doubt that there would have been VC's willing to through that sort of money into Be given its terrible management team at the time - its the equivilance of giving money to a corrupt government and hoping a turn of conscience will force the leaders to invest the money wisely.
Member since:2005-07-06
You are thinking about BeOS as it now (5.0). When Apple was shopping for an OS, BeOS was in a far less advanced state; shoddy networking, terrible printer support, etc. It would have taken some work to get BeOS up to Apple standards and Apple felt NeXT offered a better base to build on.
The point made in your first sentence is valid, but you don't mention that - by the same token - OS X today is hardly identical to NeXTSTEP circa 1997.
Comparing OS X today to R5 is equally misleading - since OS X is essentially NeXTSTEP + billions of dollars worth of resources sunk into its improvement by Apple. If Apple had purchased Be Inc. instead and sunk those billions of $ into BeOS development, then does anyone honestly believe it wouldn't have improved at least as dramatically as OS X has since it was NeXT?
Member since:2006-10-10
Member since:
2006-01-01
Member since:2005-07-12
Me too! I even ordered it with a T-shirt. I got a lot of quizzical looks! I just wanted so bad for it to take off and broaden the market and make computing fun. And then Linux came along...
Just tonight, I evaluated PCLinuxOS 0.94/Test 1 and was very excited at how well it ran off the Live CD on my Dell M70 Laptop. Linux is going to do what BeOS tried to do and failed I think.
Member since:2007-01-22
yeah pclinux will save the day. uh huh just like Corel linux, mandrake and linspire and suse (which is now 'evil') and all the other "yet another linux" distros.
I'm sorry to be so cynical but I remember what the linux community said after Be Inc died. oh don't worry, a real time patch here and there and ReiserFS and another foundation or "base" and linux will take on Windows. Fast forward to 2007...nope. Still only a couple % marketshare. Linux is free, tried, had a fair shot and failed.
It's going to take another OS designed by different principles to have a chance on PC's. It will take a lot of hard work but it's the right work.
Member since:2006-04-21
I'm sorry to be so cynical but I remember what the linux community said after Be Inc died. oh don't worry, a real time patch here and there and ReiserFS and another foundation or "base" and linux will take on Windows. Fast forward to 2007...nope. Still only a couple % marketshare. Linux is free, tried, had a fair shot and failed.
Oh, ye of little faith. I'm sorry to be so realistic but the only way Linux was going to take over the world in a flash, before or after BeOS died was if Microsoft lay down and took it. They didn't and they aren't going to, so in order to win, Linux (which is still the only OS which has a chance of replacing Windows, at this time) is going to have to hang them out to dry.
Member since:2005-07-07
well, everybody always has been hoping linux (or Mac OS X or BeOS or whatever) would take the windows world by storm. Think about the 'this is the year of the Linux Desktop'. But it never happened, and probably never will. It'll go slowly. Linux is growing faster than Windows, and has been doing so for years, and if it continues to do so, there will be a day it will have a majority marketshare. But it'll take years and years...
Member since:2007-01-22
linux has a fundamental problem that simply can't be fixed by writing more code. It's not unified. No one to turn to for a sense of direction or accountability over the entire OS. This is what you need to have a chance against Microsoft or even Apple.
but if linux had a roadmap...it just wouldn't be the same anymore. that's not what it is supposed to be: a chaotic hotbed of ideas and choices
Member since:2005-07-18
Still only a couple % marketshare. Linux is free, tried, had a fair shot and failed.
When I buy a toaster, microwave or washing machine, I do not want to have to read the directions. I want to just plug it in and use it. A great many people have that exact attitude about PCs--which is the market Windows caters to.
I believe BeOS was competing for the same market--the market of the dumb. But the dumb reach for the dumbest so BeOS didn't gain any market share.
Many GNU/Linux distros also make attempts to cater to the dumb, but there are too many contributors to the GNU/Linux sphere that favor excellence over simplicity for it succeed in dumbing that far down. So we may just have to settle for the market of excellence. I can live with that.
Member since:2005-07-06
Hmm I feel like you're treating the readers of your post as if they are the "dumb ones" of whom you speak. You come up with a dumbed-down equation of "simple=dumb=lesser-quality", and explain away BeOS's failure as simply "not being dumb enough". I'm sorry, but that's the most overly simplistic, nuance-less, intelligence-insulting BS I have ever heard.
Call me idealistic, but I believe it IS possible to make rock-solid apps from a stability & feature standpoint, AND have them be accessible to a majority of people. That was BeOS's goal, I think. And contrary to your blanket assessment, I believe that there are in fact many OSS contributors out there who share this worthy goal.
Edited 2007-01-31 17:40
Member since:2006-12-29
Member since:
2006-09-04
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Yes, Apple sure is fortunate that Teh Steve returned just in time to personally write all the code for OS X, as well as designing the iMacs and iPods (and personally assembling each unit by hand, no doubt).
I get the joke but there's more than an element of truth in it... Jobs is known to be a complete control freak and does have a big hand in the design of the products.
During the development of the iPod it is said he was involved on a daily basis chopping and changing things (especially UI related).
Member since:
2006-07-15
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2006-01-18
Member since:
2005-11-28
Not that the reg is good with facts.. unless it is syndicated or connected with flogging t-shirts it has turned into the IT equivalent of "That's Life"...
Shame really.
Regarding the comments from Kroc, it did have POSIX underpinnings to an extent and multiuser, although was not present in BeOS had the fundamental building blocks in place with the file system and process control etc...
OS X would never have been BeOS based, remember Jobs and JLG were both ex Apple execs who split to form their own companies. I don't think you would have ever seen JLG and Jobs on the same platform.
Jobs is a manager and a businessman, JLG is a businessman who knows and loves technology, this is his weekness, he does not seem to compromise his beliefs for a quick buck and does speak his mind.
If JLG was running the show at Apple I would have more white boxes littering the place than the Mac Shop iPod return department.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_C_Library
BeOS' libroot.so, it's C library - used by all BeOS applications (C/C++) - is Be's implementation* of POSIX. The kernel in turn provides the necessary interface and services that the C library expects. This is very similar to Linux, BSD & friends. A kernel, a C library, more libraries and programs linked to these libraries.
In short: BeOS does not have a separate POSIX -layer-. It's very much an integrated part of the system. (Note: This, however, does not make BeOS a unix.)
*(GNU's implementation, if you like.)
Edited 2007-01-31 17:29
Member since:2005-07-06
Jobs is a manager and a businessman, JLG is a businessman who knows and loves technology, this is his weekness, he does not seem to compromise his beliefs for a quick buck and does speak his mind.
I get it... you're implying the The Steve DOES compromise his beliefs for a quick buck.
...I guess it's a matter of opinion. I firmly believe that keeping the Mac closed is an example of The Steve *sticking with* his beliefs. Are those beliefs to an extent profit-oriented? Yes. But do they allow Steve to keep investing in making the cool technology he wants to make? Yes.
Admittedly, I'm not happy with the whole iTunes/iPod side of things, since I refuse to buy media that limits the devices on which I can play it. But do I believe Jobs potentially averted much more disastrous outcomes with his implementation, thereby opening up consumers and the industry to the idea of buying music online? Absolutely.
Also note: The Steve has had enough experience that he now only makes drastic decisions when he is *sure* he can win. We will see things like the Tablet Mac and the licensing of OS X, only when such scenarios reach *the point of assured success*.
Member since:
2006-03-17
I remember - and still sometimes use my Be machine. It's an AMD 766Mhz with 512Ram with a Hauppage TV Tuner - and it still feels more responsive than my dad's 2.4Ghz WinXP Dell... That's still impressive to me considering the machine's about ten years old!
The only major problem I found with BeOS was in developing applications - the BeApi was (to me) unavailable and obscure. I can write C++ (it's not exactly my favorite language), but I could never find any substancial references to work from. Apparently, Java on BeOS seems to be coming together - so that would end up being my language choice at this point.
BeOS was (and still is) an amazing feat of software engineering, and I really hope Haiku gets up and fully-running soon. If you've still got an old computer laying around (and who doesn't these days?) give BeOS Max 3.1/4 a try and you might just find yourself (if nothing else) an awesome arcade machine!
Member since:
2005-07-06
BeOS ... yeah ... back then ... it had some features that Microsoft only offers now with Vista, like the set volume per applicaiton.
But well ... Be is a part of the past. And now we have ZETA and Haiku. But ZETA doesn't feel as fast as BeOS used to be, i think. But well, it has multi-user support since version 1.5, inclusive file permissions and everything.
Member since:
2006-07-26
IMHO, the biggest thing that BeOS had going against it was the lack of a decent web browser. (Ironically I'm running NetPositive right now since Firefox crashed on my last Woot!-off and took my bag of crap with it.) If it hadn't been for that little fact, I'd say that R5 PE would have caught on. It was fast, better at playing media than Windows, more stable, and the learning curve was extremely slight for Windows users. It also didn't require that you repartition, so people could try it out fairly easily. Even the media coverage was decent. I actually used it quite a bit back then, but that was because my boarding school's firewall didn't work with it. So I could use Napster, usenet, FTP, and even visit certain sites that every 15 year old male wants to go to. More recently, I switched to BeOS for 90% of the stuff I do because Windows did something that really pissed me off (I forget what that was now). Linux was being a pain to install (I tried 4 distros and only one would install), so I decided to pick up the BeOS once again. Needless to say, with Firefox it became perfect for most of the stuff I do.
Member since:
2005-07-06
I've seen more in-depth articles about Beos in the Past.
This one does not tell anything more. I also think it doesn't put much attention to Haiku... which indeed is the most important thing in BeOS world right now (you can argue that Zeta is the most important piece of software right now: i still don't think so.)
Member since:2005-11-13
Member since:2007-01-22
Member since:
2007-01-22
I don't think microsoft was really worried about linux as a desktop OS. But they were really worried about BeOS as a long term threat and weren't going to let that happen.
BeOS wasn't perfect but even if it was, would that make much difference if Apple could get Steve? With Steve they get not just an OS but also the imac, ipod, hollywood, etc. So what if nobody else used objective C? (you can debate C++ vs C vs java but do you know anyone who uses objective c???)
It also didn't help that JLG screwed up every project he touched.
BeOS even in 2007 still remains the best foundation for a new desktop OS. It doesn't deserve amiga syndrome which at least had lots of commercial apps and games for it.
Member since:
2005-12-02
Member since:2005-07-20
Member since:2005-12-02
"It certainly did not run in Windows - it just lived on your Windows partition. Booting into PE would reboot the machine into BeOS. What machine did you try it on? Hardware can be a major factor of it hanging on boot."
Well, for the PE it required Windows to install, but no, it did not run in Windows. The professional version did not require any OS to be on the machine. I can't remember the machine exactly, hell it was back in 1999 or so when I tried it, so would have been a Pentium at probably 100 MHZ or so with what I had back then. I tried it again with a fresh download after seeing this article on a Dell GX110 I happen to have for older testing, and the same thing. No non-standard hardware.
Member since:
2005-10-09
Before you blast me for being off topic, please read to the end. 
A potential niche for Haiku to fill could be high end audio. Create a music production system that is "all in one". Basically, play Apple's game, but take it to the next step. Integrate X hardware with Y OS with Z software.
Get some pro level gear support for an audio interface, pro level midi, and *working* VST plugin support. Take something like Ardour, give the guy some cash for a native BeOS port (or chip in help, however you want to go about it), sort out the VST issues, get better MIDI editing tossed into the mix, and bam - you've got a kick-butt music production system, completely integrated.
We know Haiku has limited hardware support, but in this instance - it's fine. Pro audio guys don't care, heck they're buying macs already, and they only come in a few configurations.
All I know, I shelled out $5k+ on a mac pro, $1k on logic pro, and deal with all kinds of "issues" due to OSX/Logic's closed architecture. Bugs don't get squashed if they aren't deemed important enough to prevent revenue generation for Apple. They are a business, I don't blame them.
However, if you want to get Haiku adoption rates up there, offer an alternative that performs better, and can do it for much less money - and you're a winner.
One key is getting third party plugins functional, since most musicians rely on them (and they heavily influence buying habits of DAWs and systems.) That said, if alternative OSS plugins are developed which can replace things such as Ivory, Reaktor, etc - that would make it non-necessary for most new users who don't mind relearning. That would be the target market, regardless.
-------------------
Apple made a good choice at the time they did with NeXT, getting Jobs (as much as I cannot stand his personality, he has done wonders for the company.) As others mentioned, the networking in BeOS (including 5) was terrible, it only got better in the unreleased Dano. There were many other niggles "back then" that made NeXT a better choice. BeOS had some benefits, but in terms of overall worth, I think Apple decided correctly. Most shareholders will agree.
That said, nostalgia for "what could have been" and BeOS doesn't get Haiku any further. We should learn from the success of modern day Apple, and run with it! Embrace the past, learn from it, and move forward. Haiku is playing catch-up now in some areas, the most important being marketshare. A "killer" use/application/whatever like suggested above would really help propel it into the limelight.
Good luck Haiku, the past is the past, let's move forward!
Member since:2007-01-22
if you say the networking in beOS was terrible, I could say the responsiveness in OS X 10.0 was really terrible.
That's not what really mattered. It was the aqua, icons and dock that sold the OS. Even Nextstep had a cooler UI than BeOS/Zeta/Haiku yellow and grey. yuck
Looks will always win.
Member since:2005-10-09
10.0 was a "alpha" of sorts, that's why they gave out free upgrades. It was very prematurely released. Just as a FYI - nobody who actually really *used* their machines ran 10.0 by itself, if at all. Most still stuck to OS9 through that HORRIBLE transition.
NeXT was a much more "usable" product than BeOS at the time of Apple's decision, which was the intent of my post to clarify. Just because Apple fumbled and released an "alpha" quality hacked-up derivative doesn't mean BeOS would have been a better choice.
Member since:2007-01-22
Member since:2007-01-31
Member since:2006-11-24
Honestly, I think Haiku, if developed correctly and given enough time, could become what Desktop Linux is trying to accomplish with Beryl.
I mean, sure, the conservatives at Haiku forums are mostly dead-set against the idea of a hardware-accelerated Haiku desktop because of the supposed "frivolities" involved (not to mention the necessary hardware, which is still out of reach for the majority of computer users), compared to the acclaimed simplicity of the BeOS architecture.
However, BeOS, when first released (1991), was made to take advantage of modern desktop hardware from that period. From Wikipedia:
Optimized for digital media work, BeOS made full use of multiprocessor systems by utilizing modular I/O bandwidth, pervasive multithreading, preemptive multitasking and a custom 64-bit journaled file system known as BFS.
So my question is: why not make Haiku (post-Glass Elevator) take full advantage of 2007's hardware?
That is, unless such a system like Haiku's will find a niche that none of the other three desktops are destined to fill anytime soon.
I mean, Windows and Mac OS X have both become server operating systems (for those who want a user-friendly GUI), and Linux has become a home desktop operating system (for those who want....uh...better Internet?).
What if Haiku finds its niche in education?
Member since:2007-01-22
hardware accelerated desktop yes. Absolutely. of course this depends on good drivers.
see
http://www.freelists.org/archives/haiku-appserver/10-2004/msg00046....
What you are probably referring to is the idea that Haiku should allow unlimited theming so that it can have thousands of goth skinz.
Member since:2005-07-28
"I mean, Windows and Mac OS X have both become server operating systems (for those who want a user-friendly GUI), and Linux has become a home desktop operating system (for those who want....uh...better Internet?). What if Haiku finds its niche in education?"
OS X server is one solid system. It only promises to get better.
BeOS could have been a server system and it would have been great as one.
Member since:2006-07-30
"BeOS could have been a server system and it would have been great as one."
Are you sure? I always thought there was some sort of trade off involved like moving parts into the kernel that did not belong there to increase desktop performance, optimizing for responsiveness rather than throughput, ...
Of course, the massive multithreading would totally rule on todays multi core servers.
You might know more about the matter but it seems to me that trying to be a jack of all trades will almost certainly compromise performance when compared to a solution that is specifically tailored for desktop or server.
Member since:2005-08-18
"BeOS could have been a server system and it would have been great as one."
Only if you removed everything that makes it a good desktop system and replaced that with things a server need.
As it was designed and released, BeOS was entirely unsuitable as a serious server system.
Member since:2006-07-01
Member since:2005-07-06
Totally agree with you on the need for a good niche - I think the whole "Media OS" could still be a reality. At the very least, it could make the ideal "Media Hobbyist OS."
The big advantage I see is that, in BeOS, simple multimedia tasks actually are simple. I convert a lot of vinyl records/audio cassettes to CD for people - and while I cut up the files using Audacity in Windows, I find that the actual recording is much much simpler in BeOS. Choosing the input source and setting the levels is much easier with the BeOS media prefs panel; it's also nice that a simple-but-functional audio recording app is included with the OS itself. And when the recording is finished, saving the file is just a matter of right-dragging to the desktop and selecting "Make AIFF Clipping" from the pop-up menu.
Member since:2005-08-09
A potential niche for Haiku to fill could be high end audio. Create a music production system that is "all in one". Basically, play Apple's game, but take it to the next step. Integrate X hardware with Y OS with Z software.
Actually, this has really happened: Tascam made a hardware DAW station using BeIA internally. I couldn't find a spec sheet for one of the actual machines, but the press release is here:
http://www.crmav.com/46/tascam_and_be.shtml
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-08-01
Member since:
2005-12-13
Why is it that whenever somebody says 'Mac OS X' somebody shout 'BeOS' as if they know better what makes the world turn around...
OpenStep and NeXTStep had superior APIs though BeOS might have very superior kernel designs and speed from the fully multi tasking and multithreading environment it was, but as has already been pointed out - e.g. networking sucked like nothing else...
The wish to see BeOS as a viable alternative to Windows NT was years away...just like Mac OS X 10.2 and above is just soooooo much better than 10.0.... Everything has its staring point and OpenStep was the more mature of itself and BeOS at the time...
I'd love for BeOS and Haiku to gain momentum, but the fact that the open source clone is still about 10 yrs behind the closed source 'mothership' makes me doubt that it'll happen, which in turn make me glad Mac OS X happened, otherwise we'd still run Mac OS 9.6 featuring cooperative multitasking and no memory protection on our state of the art Macs... (That is, I have no faith in Apple having been able to conceive what has been conceived within these past 6-7 yrs on its own...)
Mod me down all the way, but this seems more or less like the battle between OS/2 and Windows NT... I looooove OS/2 but today it's just old and outdated so I get on with my life!)
Edited 2007-01-31 01:53
Member since:2007-01-22
"otherwise we'd still run Mac OS 9.6"
who is we? Most people want an OS that will run on any PC. As long as macos is only for mac, it's not going to affect Haiku. BeOS was more relevant to Apple because of its history but Haiku is going after Windows on its own turf.
And you don't think that's exciting?
Member since:2005-12-13
I said that, and I quote:
'otherwise we'd still run Mac OS 9.6 featuring cooperative multitasking and no memory protection on our state of the art Macs...'
...thus by 'we' I mean 'Mac users', because face it: No Mac OS X (or BeOS for that matter) there'd be no Intel switch happening the past year...
Everything'd probably be the same old same old for Apple and Mac OS 9 would probably still be around in some updated version...
Member since:2007-01-22
I'm not so sure about that because there are a lot more C++ developers in the world than objective c. I don't argue that Steve is better than Be for Apple but it's his sense of style...let's put if this way. If Be made BeOS look like nextstep and Steve made nextstep look like BeOS, MacOS X would *probably* be based on BeOS.
Apple is now primarily about imac and mac mini. Computers for people who basically want to surf the web and check their email and that's it.
No 3rd party apps for iphone? who cares? It's cool. See what I'm getting at? There's something really missing from Apple and it bothers me. It used to be more about doing more with your computer instead of treating it like a toy.
Member since:2006-09-22
No 3rd party apps for iphone? who cares? It's cool. See what I'm getting at? There's something really missing from Apple and it bothers me. It used to be more about doing more with your computer instead of treating it like a toy.
First of all, the iPhone isn't a computer. Second, maybe it's not about doing more with the computer but doing the stuff you need to do in a simple way. Many Mac users like Macs mostly because it doesn't ask much from the user, it just works and lets them get their work done. Granted, this won't fit every user out there but nothing really does. And I had the opportunity to lay my hands in a Mac Mini and, IMHO, it can do way more than surfing the web.
OT: Remember when phones were used to talk to other people?
Member since:2006-10-08
"Apple is now primarily about imac and mac mini. Computers for people who basically want to surf the web and check their email and that's it."
No, I rather think people who surf the web and check their email usually buy a new PC with "Windows" preinstalled (or let someone install a pirated copy for them), because nothing else exists. :-)
Member since:
2005-06-30
One feature I did like about BeOS was the ability to dynamically load and unload drivers/processes. This is one of the things I think Linux distributions could learn from. Also BeOS paved the way for MacOS X/Windows XP, and all the MP3/WMA players out there. Too bad it wasn't marketed enough.
Member since:
2006-08-16
Member since:2007-01-22
Member since:2005-11-21
Steveboy killed the ppc clone market because he knew BeOS was going to eat Apple's lunch. That is what saved Apple.
That is the single most moronic comment regarding this BeOS should have been chose debate that has hung around since 1997.
The amount of technologies that Apple got that had yet to be released by NeXT are still being felt with each revision of OS X. Having worked for both I got to see it before such tools have been released.
Member since:2007-01-22
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-01-22
Member since:
2006-08-16
Be had a shipping product (as well as momentum)