continued OS9 development.

Discussion in 'Community' started by poundsmack, May 14, 2005.

  1. poundsmack macrumors 6502

    poundsmack

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    #1
    why not open the source ot OS9 and let the development be continued insead of letting it sit on a shelf and die. or do simething like IBM did with OS/2 by licencing it to Serenity Systems (eComstation). or Palm did with BeOS to YellowTab (Zeta)
     
  2. Plymouthbreezer macrumors 601

    Plymouthbreezer

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #2
    Why not let it die?

    There's nothing so amazing about OS 9 thesedays that we should still be developing software for it.
     
  3. poundsmack thread starter macrumors 6502

    poundsmack

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    #3
    same could be said for BeOS and OS/2 but it seemes everything has its nitch
     
  4. iindigo macrumors 6502a

    iindigo

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #4
    No, here's the difference: BeOS was actually a kick-butt OS. It had metadata (hmmm, where have we seen that? ;)), a killer filesystem, was rock-stable, and incredibly fast. In fact, if it had a larger amount of software I would consider it a worthy rival to OS X. There is quite a bit of reason to continue development.

    OS 9, on the other hand, was rather slow, buggy, crashy and limited. It's yesterday's technology and is missing all kinds of modern features - it's obselete. It's got nothing against OS X - There's no reason to continue development. I'm sorry to say it, but OS 9 isn't even a decent rival of Windows XP.


    So basically, why on earth continue developing OS 9? I see no good reason. And besides, if development did continue, it would encourage those stubborn companies who are STILL on OS 9 to continue to ignore OS X development of their software.
     

Share This Page