Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard... aka Vista Killer

wolfman

As a developer, I've yet to touch a Mac Bits of C++, Java and now (more so) .Net. All done via Gentoo and Windows.

Macs are too restrictive, which is why true techies and geeks tend to stick with Linux (or even a form of BSD!), and then secondly Windows (as it has a large development platform and gaming).

Don't get me wrong I do like Apple hardware. And OSX is a very good operating system. It doesn't mean Vista won't be though, nor will it be a "Vista killer" as there's more to the Windows platform than just its OS.

wolfman

newfoundglory wrote:

I disagree... OS X is based on the kernel and userland of FreeBSD 5.

And BSD is more geek than you'll ever get from Linux!

FreeBSD is derived from Unix. In the case of OS X, it's a closed source operating system, so whether it's FreeBSD or not doesn't matter. Ok, so Windows is the same, but it has a much larger user base and development platform.

And it's not necessarily more "geek". In most cases (or the case of FreeBSD) it's an open source environment, but the development and submission process is much more tightly monitored and tested. A more professional environment if anything.

You'll find a much larger community surrounding Linux.

newfoundglory

Too restrictive? Only the Aqua GUI is closed-source! So the fact you can install KDE on your mac makes it restrictive.... and that underlying Darwin unix is open source?


I suspect some of the secret features of Leopard will be to do with virtualisation..... including running Windows applications natively within OS X with no copy of XP installed.... via full support of the Windows API directly in the Leopard kernel (or something similar to that effect).

There were details about this, backed up by the fact Apple actually has the legal right use the Windows API from XP. Can you imagine.... Windows apps and games on your mac.... with no copy of windows to buy!

And I would place money on this having been up and running in the Apple labs for quite some time... just as every release of OS X had been secretly compiled for Intel processors.

Vista-killer, quite.

We shall have to wait and see what extra goodies apple delivers come Macworld in Jan

wolfman

newfoundglory wrote:

Too restrictive? Only the Aqua GUI is closed-source! So the fact you can install KDE on your mac makes it restrictive.... and that underlying Darwin unix is open source?

Hmm, fair point regarding Darwin, but it's still not a completely open system, and Darwin hasn't exactly been a success, it just doesn't have the base of Windows or Linux.

OS X is a good operating system, and come new year I'm sure it'll get even better. It won't be a Vista killer though. It'll be adopted by a small community of users (usually non-techie) that want a polished, solid operating system that works out of the box.

Linux will still be heavily adopted by the open source, "techie" community. And Windows will still be heavily adopted (personally and by businesses), mainly because of its rather large foothold and user familiarity, but also because it offers a simpler alternative to BSD/Linux for most PC users, and is by far the best gaming OS available.

manutd_2

intel macs can run all operating systems via bootcamp and parallels, a pc cant run mac os

wolfman

manutd wrote:

intel macs can run all operating systems via bootcamp and parallels, a pc cant run mac os

Yeah you can. It's been done many times before. It's not exactly easy though. Might not be fully stable either. With Macs being on the Intel chips, PC's and Mac's share a lot more on common. It's one reason why there are rumours about Apple closing up more of the source on their operating system.

manutd_2

wolfman wrote:

Yeah you can. It's been done many times before. It's not exactly easy though.

not legally mac os is only for macs

MercilessKiller

Lol who wants to run MAC OS on a pc when theres windows and linux? and if you wanan run vista on a mac hardware spec then its a paradox ^-^ you hate microsoft so you buy a mac, and then still buy a MS OS lol!

wolfman

Hence it's restrictive. An OS that can only run on one type of machine, what a brilliant idea.

woo

wolfman wrote:

Hence it's restrictive. An OS that can only run on one type of machine, what a brilliant idea.

you don't hear the apple shareholder complaining

i think a lot of the mac heads forget that apple is a company whose aim is to make money too... just like MS.