Linked by David Adams on Mon 4th Oct 2010 19:32 UTC, submitted by Idefix
OSNews, Generic OSes Once upon a time, operating systems used to matter a lot; they defined what a computer could and couldn't do... Today, there's only one operating system: Unix (okay, there are two, but we'll get to that). This is why I contend that the OS doesn't matter - or that we need to take another look at the word's content, at what we mean when we say 'Operating System'.
Thread beginning with comment 443735
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: JLG is right
by malxau on Mon 4th Oct 2010 20:45 UTC in reply to "JLG is right"
malxau
Member since:
2005-12-04

What matters is the experience you get, the high level stuff, not what's under the hood...

As a user, this makes complete sense. However, JLG seems to contradict himself when he mentions the steady movement towards a particular "under the hood" implementation - if what's "under the hood" really didn't matter, why would Apple or Palm incur such disruptive expense to change it all?

One could suggest that what's "under the hood" matters a whole awful lot, and individual companies can no longer compete on building a solid OS implementation, which forces them to use technology developed externally. User expectations about the capabilities of an OS are just too high to have a zillion competing reimplementations. The UX story, valid as it is, relies on having a complex OS with a large number of functions to expose to the user.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: JLG is right
by tony on Mon 4th Oct 2010 20:59 in reply to "RE: JLG is right"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

"What matters is the experience you get, the high level stuff, not what's under the hood...

As a user, this makes complete sense. However, JLG seems to contradict himself when he mentions the steady movement towards a particular "under the hood" implementation - if what's "under the hood" really didn't matter, why would Apple or Palm incur such disruptive expense to change it all?

One could suggest that what's "under the hood" matters a whole awful lot, and individual companies can no longer compete on building a solid OS implementation, which forces them to use technology developed externally. User expectations about the capabilities of an OS are just too high to have a zillion competing reimplementations. The UX story, valid as it is, relies on having a complex OS with a large number of functions to expose to the user.
"

The underlying complex OS has pretty much been conquered in terms of the needs of a complex UI/UX. Take Android: It's based on Linux, but assuming the drivers were there, would it be a different platform if it ran on top of FreeBSD? What about iOS versus Android. Threading, schedulers, I/O, etc., that's all pretty much been conquered. What low-level feature does iOS have that Android doesn't, and vice versa? What about Windows 7? It's all the higher level stuff that's the big differentiation.

Reply Parent Score: 3