“Apple’s Mac Mini is a step in the right direction for the Appliance PC and what consumers are looking for. Last month I focused on the negative aspects of Apple’s new products to make a point. And, based on the feedback I got, the point I appeared to have made is that there are an awful lot of Apple folks who really don’t like anyone who disparages their beloved products,” Rob Enderle writes for DesignTechnica.
“While there are a number of trade offs that Apple made for the Mini that I don’t think were necessary, the product is actually closer to what I think the consumer market is actually looking for in a desktop offering. No, Steve Jobs didn’t just arrive at my house with explosives, or worse, attorneys. I just think it is time I acknowledged that there are a couple things I really wish the other vendors would learn from what Apple has done,” Enderle writes.
“I am convinced it is time we also rethink the operating system. Windows was largely based on OS/2, which came out in the mid 80s, and both Linux and the MacOS X are based on UNIX which is even older. All three platforms are based on the way the world was in the 80s and both hardware technology and users have changed dramatically since then. When these OSs were new, users were still relatively technical while now the platform has to deal with a much lower understanding of the core technology as users increasingly abstract these old cores behind applications,” Enderle writes.
“Particularly when you look at the security exposures that exist today and the inability of traditional virus companies to get signature files out quickly enough and the massive problems all three platforms are having with patches I believe it is time to take a step back, lose the religion, and see if we can’t do better. In fact, I think we should probably do this about once every 20 or so years,” Enderle writes.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: What “massive problems” is Mac OS X “having with patches,” exactly? Enderle has no credibility.
RandyJ70999: “VMS is the Virtual Architectural Extention to RSX-11M+ (PDP) not TOP-10/20. Windows 3.x through 98 was an application on top of DOS, Windows NT through 200x is based roughly on VMS as one of the Architects helped design VMS”
I stand corrected. However, I believe TOPS-10/20 had significant influence on the VMS (I have never used RSX-11, so I cannot say for sure).
“Windows NT through 200x is based roughly on VMS as one of the Architects helped design VMS.”
Unfortunately, MS chose to implement MS-DOS CDL instead of VMS CDL. Cutler probably did a great job on the OS and MS did bring decent GUI (relatively speaking. I believe Windows was big improvement over DECwindows), but implementing MS-DOS CDL for compatibility was just a bad idea (I doubt it was his choice).
Al: “Unix is 40+ years old. What bullshit.”
I agree. I don’t think today’s unix has much of codes from the original unix (SCO probably disagrees, but that is another story). Similarly Windows 2000/XP’s codes are probably quite different from “original” RSX-11. So both OS contains experience of 40+ years, but the code in the OS are not that old. When MS developed Windows from experience of “VMS”, the OS took a big step back (I believe VMS was one of most secure OS available, possibly true even today).
Hey RandyJ7099 and s, you’re both right, though s has the more complete story, since TOPS-10 did influence VMS (and I’m speaking from considerable personal experience of RSX-11, TOPS-10 and VMS).
As I implied previously, “Code concepts developed for TOPS-10 ended up in RSX-11 that ultimately ended up in OpenVMS. These same operating system design ideas can probably be traced to current operating systems like Microsoft’s Windows NT.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPS-10)
s and Al:
“Al: “Unix is 40+ years old. What bullshit.”
I agree. I don’t think today’s unix has much of codes from the original unix ….”
I would differ on this point, as in the same way a Fortran compiler then is still a Fortran compiler today, albeit evolved (rather than devolved), Unix today is essentially based on Unix 40+ years ago. No bullshit at all! The codebase has evolved and expanded considerably (I used to be able to run a multiuser Unix (AIX) on a 75MB hard disk with multiple compilers, editors, graphics packages, and usual Unix tools, and still have 30MB left for user space!) but it is still definably Unix. And I make no real distinctions between UNIX/BSD/Linux/OS X as they all yield the essential Unix experience from a User and Developer perspective.
Magic word is final as in there is unlikely to be a final OS!
“10.3.8 Installed but why does my mouse disappear when i move it into the tools area of Safari……Hmmm….”
Actually, what NoMacForYou says also affects my Mac. The disappearing cursor is a pain in the ass. When I move the cursor into that same upper area of Safari it occasionally disappears for me too. And I’m still running 10.3.3. It bothers me that this is still occurring in 10.3.8.
Thorpedo:
unix/bsd/linux/os x may yield same unix experience, but the code that instructs computer to interpret the command may be rewritten few times.
Think of it this way. Bell Lab wrote the original unix. UCB extended unix, then after court case, they removed the original unix source code and created NET1(?), which became BSD. While BSD was busy with court case, Linux and GNU rewrote the code from scratch. Meanwhile Avi and Co. had a better idea and developed microkernel and run BSD on top of microkernel. So, I think there are at least two unix like OS (BSD and Linux), which claims to be free of original unix source code.
If you mean both BSD and Linux have 40+ years of experience, then yes they do. However, the source codes in these two OS are not as old as original unix. I don’t know how much of SCO unix contains the source code from original unix. More interesting question will be how much of BSD is in SCO unix, but that is another matter.
Similary, both FORTRAN and Fortran compilers may yield same machine code (which I doubt) when it compiles a Fortran program, however the compilers were probably rewritten several times over the years by many different groups. Again all groups have learned from experience of original compiler and subsequent compilers from various groups (ok, may be not MS).