Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If OSX didn't exist...
- Thread starter macDonalds
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
+3 more for Ubuntu 
...
Just like someone else mentioned, at home I am using Ubuntu desktop, & my (web/file) server is Ubuntu server.
At work, like several of my colleagues, we were given PCs with XP and installed Linux ourselves. It seems most people choose Fedora or Ubuntu. I use Ubuntu full time at work, except when I bring my MBP.
On *nix I have mostly used OS X, FreeBSD, Solaris, Redhat, Slackware, SUSE, Debian & Ubuntu.
... Just like someone else mentioned, at home I am using Ubuntu desktop, & my (web/file) server is Ubuntu server.
At work, like several of my colleagues, we were given PCs with XP and installed Linux ourselves. It seems most people choose Fedora or Ubuntu. I use Ubuntu full time at work, except when I bring my MBP.
On *nix I have mostly used OS X, FreeBSD, Solaris, Redhat, Slackware, SUSE, Debian & Ubuntu.
No Mac OS X ?!?!!?.... please.. wake me up from this nightmare...!
I would think I would have joined Steve's NeXTstep / OPENSTEP on some cool looking hardware.
Probably would have had a Dual Boot NeXT and Win Intel
I would think I would have joined Steve's NeXTstep / OPENSTEP on some cool looking hardware.
Probably would have had a Dual Boot NeXT and Win Intel
PC-BSD probably. It's FreeBSD under the hood, just with KDE preinstalled and the .pbi package system, which works a lot like downloadable .exe/.pkg installers for Windows/OS X. You also have the ports tree available exactly like FreeBSD.
No! Really?
Say it's not true!!!
That's not what the OP asked though...
still though, he said "if OSX didnt exist" what operating system would you have? and u answered OSX. so.... something sounds wrong here
Lol MS won't have Vista because their engineers cannot come up with anything close to OSX without an example on the market; Vista would probably try to rip off Mac OS 9 instead.
Ubuntu
I'd have some trouble since I have a good amount of FariPlay DRM...thats besides the point here I think
I'd have some trouble since I have a good amount of FariPlay DRM...thats besides the point here I think
Probably Ubuntu, since I'm using it now, although some flavor of Unix is possible since the PC BSD disk is sitting here too. Maybe OS 9.x.
When Jobs & Co. got back to Apple, OS 8.6 and 9 were focussed and reliable releases considering the mess they had inherited and at the same time they were focussing on the next generation.
Here's a recap
OS 8.6
Co-operative Multitasking (not the preemptive variety in OS X, but a start)
Better speed and stability
System wide font smoothing
OS 9
Keychain (for storing passwords)
Software Update
Multi User Support and Voice Login
I wish there was not so much rewriting of history (I don't doubt much of it is unintentional, memories fade over time). All this OS 9 sucked stuff is annoying me as in reality it was one of the best software releases to come out of Apple for quite some time.
Sure rebuilding the desktop and extension management was a PITA but compared to the competition OS 9 WAS very good.
Windows ME and Windows 98 powering the majority of PCs at the time were not much more stable as they weren't NT based, they were DOS based.
Also in reality many users didn't move to OS X until 2002 or 2003, when there applications were ready and the UI was more responsive. Things like spring loaded folders and disc burning just weren't in the first releases of OS X.
Here's a recap
OS 8.6
Co-operative Multitasking (not the preemptive variety in OS X, but a start)
Better speed and stability
System wide font smoothing
OS 9
Keychain (for storing passwords)
Software Update
Multi User Support and Voice Login
I wish there was not so much rewriting of history (I don't doubt much of it is unintentional, memories fade over time). All this OS 9 sucked stuff is annoying me as in reality it was one of the best software releases to come out of Apple for quite some time.
Sure rebuilding the desktop and extension management was a PITA but compared to the competition OS 9 WAS very good.
Windows ME and Windows 98 powering the majority of PCs at the time were not much more stable as they weren't NT based, they were DOS based.
Also in reality many users didn't move to OS X until 2002 or 2003, when there applications were ready and the UI was more responsive. Things like spring loaded folders and disc burning just weren't in the first releases of OS X.
I think he is implying some version of classic, meaning he would still be using some iteration of the mac operating system.
I actually think that the majority of you "Linux" voting people would actually be using Windows if there was no OS X.
That's not a stab. But complete practicality.
That's not a stab. But complete practicality.
Maybe for the others, but not me. There is nothing windows has to offer me.
I'm talking about as my main OS, of course, for doing all my work. My game system uses windows already. My main computer could be Linux for sure, and it has been in the past anyway.
I'm using Linux now on two computers including a dual boot Mac. It's fast enough on a hyperthreaded 3.0 Ghz P4 that shows up as dual processors in the cpu monitor.
It's a piece of cake compared to about ten years ago when for instance trying to get video to work right on a vga monitor.
I recently bought a new PC which came with Vista. I installed Linux, tried Vista in parallel for about a week, then completely removed Vista and reclaimed the space in a Linux partition.
There is one Windows only tool I rarely need to demo to new users at work (this app has a browser-based alternative). When I reboot into my XP partition at work and open Outlook, it literally takes 30 mins before the system is completely booted up, logged in, and Outlook is done loading everything to the point of being usable.
In that same timeframe on the same hardware, I could probably install a new Linux distro (& do actual work from the Live CD while the OS is installing), configure the bundled mail client, & load mail to the point of being usable.
There is one Windows only tool I rarely need to demo to new users at work (this app has a browser-based alternative). When I reboot into my XP partition at work and open Outlook, it literally takes 30 mins before the system is completely booted up, logged in, and Outlook is done loading everything to the point of being usable.
In that same timeframe on the same hardware, I could probably install a new Linux distro (& do actual work from the Live CD while the OS is installing), configure the bundled mail client, & load mail to the point of being usable.
Vista or XP, but I think it would be Vista.
I miss the old times where I was spending 50% of my computer time with maintenance....NOT
I miss the old times where I was spending 50% of my computer time with maintenance....NOT