Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Jan 2007 23:40 UTC, submitted by anonymous
BeOS & Derivatives "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?"
Permalink for comment 207615
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So so article...
by pcummins on Wed 31st Jan 2007 04:59 UTC
Member since:

BeOS was pretty interesting at the time when you compared it to Mac OS 8/9, Windows 98/NT and Linux 2.0 (maybe RH5 or 6?). It had some cool features and pushed processing into SMP territory which was pretty rare back in the late 90's on a desktop computer.

The BeBox was pretty nifty by losing the L2 cache in favour of twin 603e CPU's, but nowadays it's quite slow from personal experience the last time I checked it out. The later Intel BeOS 5 ran circles around it on 400+ mHz Intel boxes with superior graphics hardware that had proper drivers.

Probably the biggest fault BeOS had was it didn't really have the driver support it needed compared to Linux's kernel drivers as well as no true blue Unix compatibility layer (it did support quite a bit, but not as much as GNU/Linux with X, libraries, etc). Just getting critical mass to support the BeOS API's was a bit of a tough ask.

These days again and again it's hardware support and application support that matters. All "the snap" and "way cool API's" don't mean much if you can't run the hardware you own and you can't run the applications you own.

Reply Score: 2