continued OS9 development.

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

  1. poundsmack macrumors 6502


    Apr 28, 2005
    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


    Feb 27, 2005
    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


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


    Jul 22, 2002
    San Francisco, CA
    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