Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Jul 2007 09:11 UTC, submitted by Tim Alson
Hardware, Embedded Systems Dell has taken the unusual step - for a PC vendor of its size - of toning down its sales pitch for Microsoft's Vista operating system and warning businesses of the migration challenges that lie ahead for them. The step is particularly unusual because one of the issues the hardware vendor is warning business about is the extra hardware they will need to buy.
Thread beginning with comment 253190
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

"so the solution to this is to begin a new OS development based on one of the Unixes available out there..."

From where and whence did the notion arise that *every* OS must be based on Unix? Unix is not the be-all and end-all of OS design. It is not the case that any OS that does things differently than Unix is doing those things wrong by definition. It's not the case that advancement in OS design stopped ~35 years ago with the birth of Unix. Even back in the day, there was much debate regarding Unix vs VMS. And there were OSes like TOPS-20/TWENEX being run by major corps and universities. There was no wide consensus that Unix > everything. (DEC's mismanagement killed off TOPS-20 and VMS, thus ceding the enterprise OS field to the Unixes, but Unix's victory over those OSes wasn't based on a consensus that Unix simply blew those OSes away technically.)

Remember, Mac OSX 10.0 was horribly slow (much slower than is Vista relative to their respective predecessors, Mac OS 9 and XP) and had many deficiencies, despite being built on Unix. Mac OSX improved with versions 10.1, 10.2, and finally 10.3 (the first really good version), just as Vista will improve with SP1 and SP2.

(Mac OSX being built on top of Unix wasn't out of some belief in the greatness of Unix, but was a side effect of being built on NeXTStep, which ran on Unix and NT at the time. Apple didn't go with the NT version of NeXTStep because that would result in a dependence on Microsoft, but the NT version of NeXTStep ran just as well as did the Unix version.)

(Speaking of Mac OS X, I would've preferred that Apple's Copeland project succeeded, so that their OS wouldn't be yet another Unix, and there'd be a third type of OS commonly in use (besides Unix-based and NT-based).)

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the NT-kernel. Replacing the NT kernel with Unix kernel buys nothing, and is in fact a step backwards. But if Microsoft wants to make a new OS, I'd prefer that they build on top of Singularity rather than the ~35-year old OS design that is Unix.

Edited 2007-07-05 18:11

Reply Parent Score: 4

hylas Member since:
2005-07-10

"... so the solution to this is to begin a new OS development based on one of the Unixes available out there ..."

Well, yes and no. It's just that no one is paying attention.

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/


"(Speaking of Mac OS X, I would've preferred that Apple's Copeland project succeeded, so that their OS wouldn't be yet another Unix, and there'd be a third type of OS commonly in use (besides Unix-based and NT-based).)"

I totally agree. But reality was knocking. It was ahead of it's time.

http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/1108.html

http://www.igeek.com/articles/History/CoplandAndNeXT.txt


A/UX

http://www.aux-penelope.com/index.htm

hylas

Reply Parent Score: 2

KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

It's not the case that advancement in OS design stopped ~35 years ago with the birth of Unix.

Certainly not! Look at GNU/Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris.

I would've preferred ... there'd be a third type of OS commonly in use (besides Unix-based and NT-based).

Me too. But OSes that follow in the traditions of BeOS or Amiga may one day be mature. As may SkyOS. In the mean time, there is a very wide selection of Unix-based OSes and variations to enjoy.

Reply Parent Score: 2

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

I doubt that "replacing the NT kernel with the Unix kernel...[would be]...a step backwards", since although Unix was originally designed 6 years before the kernel that NT reimplements, it HAS been developed further. And some things just work better in Unix than VMS/WNT (a single filesystem tree, for example). Besides, if anyone else (including Microsoft), in the past, now, or in the future wishes that their operating system had become a multi-vendor standard, then they should have taken the trouble to either open source it, or licence it to other vendors cheaply whilst making sure that all versions remained compatible.

Reply Parent Score: 2