Gassée: Thank God Apple chose NeXT over my BeOS(9to5mac.com)
9to5mac.com
Gassée: Thank God Apple chose NeXT over my BeOS
http://9to5mac.com/2011/11/11/gassee-thank-god-apple-chose-steve-jobss-next-over-my-beos/
12 comments
I was an early BeOS convert, but it couldn't even print (pretty important for a potential Mac audience). The point Gassee is making obliquely is that if BeOS had been acquired by Apple, Apple's management would have stayed in charge. by acquiring NeXT, which was also a better OS than BeOS all things considered, Apple got Steve Jobs who fired the board and shortly afterwards got rid of Amelio.
During the BeOS negotiations rumor had it that the sticking points were - aside from money -largely cultural and managerial. None of the former Apple people at BeOS wanted anything to do with Apple management and they were negotiating for things like not having to be in Apple's org chart. This was NOT a recipe for success.
During the BeOS negotiations rumor had it that the sticking points were - aside from money -largely cultural and managerial. None of the former Apple people at BeOS wanted anything to do with Apple management and they were negotiating for things like not having to be in Apple's org chart. This was NOT a recipe for success.
Your 2nd paragraph is an excellent insight on nerd negotiation skills.
Too many times i was also fooled bymyself in thinking negotiations, be it companies or even buying a car, followed a logical progression.
Too many times i was also fooled bymyself in thinking negotiations, be it companies or even buying a car, followed a logical progression.
> computer hardware had advanced so much that there was very little demand for a high-performance operating system in the desktop market.
That was kinda the problem. BeOS was built around the 1990s mentality that PC hardware was quite limited, and a light fast OS was more important than security, robustness, etc. It ran like greased lightning, but really wasn't a whole lot more advanced than other contemporary consumer OSes.
Next, on the other hand, was always intended to be a workstation OS (with 'enterprise frameworks') and was a much better fit for the hardware of the 2000s. With MS moving to the NT line, it would have been a huge mistake for Apple to adopt a single-user OS like Be.
That was kinda the problem. BeOS was built around the 1990s mentality that PC hardware was quite limited, and a light fast OS was more important than security, robustness, etc. It ran like greased lightning, but really wasn't a whole lot more advanced than other contemporary consumer OSes.
Next, on the other hand, was always intended to be a workstation OS (with 'enterprise frameworks') and was a much better fit for the hardware of the 2000s. With MS moving to the NT line, it would have been a huge mistake for Apple to adopt a single-user OS like Be.
Well said.
Back in the day, I actually used both the NeXTcube and a BeBox (although neither as a primary environment)
The NeXT environment enamored everybody who was introduced to it... for a day or two. Them almost everybody moved away from it because it was so... damn.. slow. The base cube only had 8MB of RAM (a decent amount in those days!) which wasn't nearly enough for the big heavy frameworks it used. NeXT had to retrofit all of the cubes with 40MB SCSI drives just for swap. The display postscript system was elegant (it provided a common display engine for both the screen and the NeXT-brand laser printer, for instance) but ate up precious cycles of the 68030. The magnetic-optical drive that supposedly was the future of personal storage had horrible performance (although the drives mercifully gave out after a few years anyway)
In short, the NeXTcube's we had were the machines everybody loved but few wanted to actually use.
The BeBox by contrast was nothing if not zippy! There were too many missing bits for it to really be my main environment, but you really felt that you were using the future of operating systems. After years of using UIs that always had at least some lag the BeBox's instantaneous response was almost a shocking experience.
When Apple was quite publicly looking for an OS to buy I was certainly rooting for Be. It seemed to fit their needs perfectly: it already ran on PowerPC and its responsiveness would have been great for the multimedia creators that were Apple's bread-and-butter. When they went with NeXT instead I thought it was just another of Apple's classic missteps. I couldn't see why they were hitching their wagon to an OS that was last decade's news.
Clearly I was wrong, even if you ignore the Steve Jobs factor. The hardware advances underway quickly made the amazing responsiveness of BeOS moot; now every OS feels like the snappy BeBox did in 1995. As memory sizes grew the NeXTstep frameworks came into their own (probably if the NeXTcube could have had 1GB of RAM it would have been fine!)
To put it simply, Be built an OS in 1996 that was perfect for 1996. NeXT build an OS in 1989 that was suited for the 2000s.
I don't mean that last bit as a pure complement, by the way. The "too far ahead of its time" is a cliche about failed tech products. Building something that only works with hardware 10+ years in the future is hardly a recipe for success. It's only through the accidents of history that NeXTstep got its chance to shine years after its original failure. 99% of products in that position only get to be footnotes.
Back in the day, I actually used both the NeXTcube and a BeBox (although neither as a primary environment)
The NeXT environment enamored everybody who was introduced to it... for a day or two. Them almost everybody moved away from it because it was so... damn.. slow. The base cube only had 8MB of RAM (a decent amount in those days!) which wasn't nearly enough for the big heavy frameworks it used. NeXT had to retrofit all of the cubes with 40MB SCSI drives just for swap. The display postscript system was elegant (it provided a common display engine for both the screen and the NeXT-brand laser printer, for instance) but ate up precious cycles of the 68030. The magnetic-optical drive that supposedly was the future of personal storage had horrible performance (although the drives mercifully gave out after a few years anyway)
In short, the NeXTcube's we had were the machines everybody loved but few wanted to actually use.
The BeBox by contrast was nothing if not zippy! There were too many missing bits for it to really be my main environment, but you really felt that you were using the future of operating systems. After years of using UIs that always had at least some lag the BeBox's instantaneous response was almost a shocking experience.
When Apple was quite publicly looking for an OS to buy I was certainly rooting for Be. It seemed to fit their needs perfectly: it already ran on PowerPC and its responsiveness would have been great for the multimedia creators that were Apple's bread-and-butter. When they went with NeXT instead I thought it was just another of Apple's classic missteps. I couldn't see why they were hitching their wagon to an OS that was last decade's news.
Clearly I was wrong, even if you ignore the Steve Jobs factor. The hardware advances underway quickly made the amazing responsiveness of BeOS moot; now every OS feels like the snappy BeBox did in 1995. As memory sizes grew the NeXTstep frameworks came into their own (probably if the NeXTcube could have had 1GB of RAM it would have been fine!)
To put it simply, Be built an OS in 1996 that was perfect for 1996. NeXT build an OS in 1989 that was suited for the 2000s.
I don't mean that last bit as a pure complement, by the way. The "too far ahead of its time" is a cliche about failed tech products. Building something that only works with hardware 10+ years in the future is hardly a recipe for success. It's only through the accidents of history that NeXTstep got its chance to shine years after its original failure. 99% of products in that position only get to be footnotes.
"(probably if the NeXTcube could have had 1GB of RAM it would have been fine!)"
That 68030/optical disk/40MB swap drive era didn't last very long.
NeXTSTEP was quite nice with a 16MB 25MHz 68040, and a decent hard drive, as seen in the NeXTStation from 1990. Even the price was competitive if you didn't mind the 2-bit greyscale monitor.
NeXTSTEP 3.3, running in color on a Pentium Pro (or better), or even better a 1994 HP PA-RISC workstation, was SWEET.
That 68030/optical disk/40MB swap drive era didn't last very long.
NeXTSTEP was quite nice with a 16MB 25MHz 68040, and a decent hard drive, as seen in the NeXTStation from 1990. Even the price was competitive if you didn't mind the 2-bit greyscale monitor.
NeXTSTEP 3.3, running in color on a Pentium Pro (or better), or even better a 1994 HP PA-RISC workstation, was SWEET.
> That 68030/optical disk/40MB swap drive era didn't last very long.
And rightly so. But given that the hardware was built (at great expense!) specifically to run that OS, I think it's fair to consider their performance together.
Certainly the gap between "the hardware the OS needs" and "what is readily available" shrunk as time went on. The slabs with more RAM were substantially better than the cubes had been. I think calling NeXTstep with 16MB "quite nice" is still being generous though - my recollections of 16MB NeXTstep was "swaps less". With 32MB it started to get pretty reasonable but, gosh, that was $1000+ of RAM back then.
I knew people who ran NeXTstep on Intel but they tended to turn into early linux adopters. X11+fvwm (or, later, AfterStep) was more responsive on their hardware.
By the time NeXTSTEP 3.3 came out (and NeXT basically left the OS game, instead focusing on OpenStep and WebObjects) the performance gap was a lot smaller, at least if you could afford a really nice computer. When it reemerged as a product 5 years later as OS/X 10.0 that gap had evaporated. Suddenly it was living in its moment, 12 years after its debut.
And hell, now the OS that I used to curse for its unreasonable hardware demands comfortably runs on my cell phone. Technology is funny that way.
And rightly so. But given that the hardware was built (at great expense!) specifically to run that OS, I think it's fair to consider their performance together.
Certainly the gap between "the hardware the OS needs" and "what is readily available" shrunk as time went on. The slabs with more RAM were substantially better than the cubes had been. I think calling NeXTstep with 16MB "quite nice" is still being generous though - my recollections of 16MB NeXTstep was "swaps less". With 32MB it started to get pretty reasonable but, gosh, that was $1000+ of RAM back then.
I knew people who ran NeXTstep on Intel but they tended to turn into early linux adopters. X11+fvwm (or, later, AfterStep) was more responsive on their hardware.
By the time NeXTSTEP 3.3 came out (and NeXT basically left the OS game, instead focusing on OpenStep and WebObjects) the performance gap was a lot smaller, at least if you could afford a really nice computer. When it reemerged as a product 5 years later as OS/X 10.0 that gap had evaporated. Suddenly it was living in its moment, 12 years after its debut.
And hell, now the OS that I used to curse for its unreasonable hardware demands comfortably runs on my cell phone. Technology is funny that way.
I must be the only one, but BeOS felt faster in 90s hardware than OS X does on this 32 GB Mac Pro.
I love OS X and Unix but it has always felt dog slow to me. It was infuriating in PPC days but it's still frustrating even in current hardware.
As someone who has worked on Macs with kilobytes of RAM and was flabbergasted by BeOS, waiting for my computer to respond seems unacceptable.
I love OS X and Unix but it has always felt dog slow to me. It was infuriating in PPC days but it's still frustrating even in current hardware.
As someone who has worked on Macs with kilobytes of RAM and was flabbergasted by BeOS, waiting for my computer to respond seems unacceptable.
The headline only quotes half of the money quote. The half they don't quote puts the "thank god it didn't happen" in a pretty different light: "because I hated Apple’s management."
This is either sour grapes because the deal fell through or else the deal fell through because he let personal issues get in the way of business. I lean strongly towards the latter, given Gassée history and the unreasonable price tag he put on BeOS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e#1980s:_A...
This is either sour grapes because the deal fell through or else the deal fell through because he let personal issues get in the way of business. I lean strongly towards the latter, given Gassée history and the unreasonable price tag he put on BeOS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Gass%C3%A9e#1980s:_A...
It's probably not sour grapes. At the time, Apple's management was widely considered to be an incoherent mess. They'd run the company damn near into the ground, and Jobs threw most of the people Gassée would have had to deal with out when he was brought in, in favor of NeXT personnel.
In fairness, Jobs hated Apple's management too. In the biography he refers to them as bozos.
It really was a remarkable operating system, way, way ahead of its day.
As was NeXTSTEP. The difference being it was, by that point, a mature OS and framework set with a wide variety of actual deployed applications, cross-platform support, tooling. BeOS, in comparison, was a clever and incomplete tech demo. And Apple had no shortage of those (Copland, Taligent, SOM, OpenDoc, PowerTalk, etc, etc, etc). Buying another one would have been catastrophic.
As was NeXTSTEP. The difference being it was, by that point, a mature OS and framework set with a wide variety of actual deployed applications, cross-platform support, tooling. BeOS, in comparison, was a clever and incomplete tech demo. And Apple had no shortage of those (Copland, Taligent, SOM, OpenDoc, PowerTalk, etc, etc, etc). Buying another one would have been catastrophic.
" mature OS and framework set with a wide variety of actual deployed applications, cross-platform support, tooling."
And had been used in important roles in industry, particularly the financial industry.
And had been used in important roles in industry, particularly the financial industry.
I have to admit to still having a strong dislike for Gassée because of the way Be and BeOS played out. I've been trying to let go of those feeling, however, because they won't change anything.
I, too, think that getting Steve back was the right move, with NeXTSTEP as an added bonus. I'm just sad that BeOS died an undignified death - a few years ago I bought a BeOS CD off eBay and was very impressed with the OS. It was more responsive on a 100MHz machine than Windows XP was on a 2GHz machine. Yes, I know there's Haiku, but they're really just catching up to where BeOS was 15 years ago. Imagine what BeOS would be like today if it continued to be developed and improved.
I too miss the alternative OSs. It'd be great to see what BeOS could have been, along with OS/2.
Haiku shows a lot of promise despite how few developers they have. You should really give it a spin, especially when they hit beta.
If they finish their Wifi implementation (it works, even with WPA2 now, just doesn't have a complete GUI), bring their Webkit browser up-to-date, and get a bit more stability it would be a pleasant system to use on a day-to-day basis.
I honestly think if it had the momentum of a larger community, it could easily be open source's triumph on the desktop.
If they finish their Wifi implementation (it works, even with WPA2 now, just doesn't have a complete GUI), bring their Webkit browser up-to-date, and get a bit more stability it would be a pleasant system to use on a day-to-day basis.
I honestly think if it had the momentum of a larger community, it could easily be open source's triumph on the desktop.
I loved Gassée's Freudian slip at 0:10:44:
"... now I'm a vulture capi... er, venture capitalist."
His story of getting himself fired from Apple by Scully a bit prior to that was also quite amusing and revealing of his frank nature.
I also loved Bill Atkinson's story at 18:17 paraphrasing Steve Jobs convincing him to drop out of med school and join Apple:
"You know how fun it is to surf on the front edge of a wave? Now think about the poor guy dog-paddling on the tail end of the same wave... it's no fun! You go the same distance, you know, but this guy's just eating the back of the wave; this guy's surfing. Come to Apple and surf!"
And finally, for those wanting to skip the bulk of the video and go straight to the part with Gassée discussing NeXT and Be, it's at 58:22.
"... now I'm a vulture capi... er, venture capitalist."
His story of getting himself fired from Apple by Scully a bit prior to that was also quite amusing and revealing of his frank nature.
I also loved Bill Atkinson's story at 18:17 paraphrasing Steve Jobs convincing him to drop out of med school and join Apple:
"You know how fun it is to surf on the front edge of a wave? Now think about the poor guy dog-paddling on the tail end of the same wave... it's no fun! You go the same distance, you know, but this guy's just eating the back of the wave; this guy's surfing. Come to Apple and surf!"
And finally, for those wanting to skip the bulk of the video and go straight to the part with Gassée discussing NeXT and Be, it's at 58:22.
15 years later and he's still trying to spin his terrible negotiating into a positive.
Company worth $80 million.
Buyout offer at $125 million.
Hold out for $275 million.
Get nothing and go out of business.
Company worth $80 million.
Buyout offer at $125 million.
Hold out for $275 million.
Get nothing and go out of business.
This isn't completely accurate is Be Inc. did successfully IPO in 1999 and won a lawsuit against Microsoft.
Yeah, even the investors who didn't cash out at the IPO did eventually end up with $35 million for the company: $11 million from the 2001 asset sale to Palm, and $24 million from the 2002 settlement with Microsoft.
If you're curious, here's the HackerNews homepage and a few sample apps on Haiku, the operating system inspired by BeOS: http://bit.ly/sTLZne
Link redirects to http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2038028/public/Screen%20Shot%202011-...
I personally don't like going to sites without knowing their address. To expand shortlinks, try http://longurl.org/
I personally don't like going to sites without knowing their address. To expand shortlinks, try http://longurl.org/
Alternatively you can append `+` to the end of any short url and get the same information.
Is that true for ALL short URL services?
That's awesome! Thanks a lot.
Remember too, NeXT didn't just have a desktop OS, it had an enterprise application framework, which Apple used to build the Apple Online Store. That may or may not have been an important factor at the time, but given the inroads Microsoft was making in enterprise backoffices at the time, it was probably a consideration for Apple's board and management.
I loved BeOS back in the day. Such a beautiful and clean interface. I loved the philosophy behind it, and the disdain for 'cruft' as they called it. I still have the discs lying around somewhere...
BeOS's idealism also held it back. They didn't want any ported apps; everything was supposed to be written from scratch. So no Mozilla, no Java, etc. Unfortunately, the BeOS market was never large enough to justify writing large native apps, so they just never happened.
I really hated the small title bars. Never got used (admittedly, never tried that much) to them. We had a BeOS machine at the office in 1998, a beautiful IBM Aptiva S.
I keep hearing that Apple acquired NeXT over Be because of every reason aside from quality of the technology.
Was BeOS worse than NeXTSTEP?
Was BeOS worse than NeXTSTEP?
There is a lot of emotion people have in a question like this.
I think the best answer is BeOS wasn't as complete as NeXT. Specifically it had a fairly poor network stack (it was being retooled around the time BeOS became part of palm, no idea if it was finished)
It lacked the kind of print support MacOS and NeXT had. It lacked the same caliber of internationalization. All fixable stuff but also all stuff requiring some investment.
It also remains to be seen how well BeOS would actually scale, it was an RTOS with a UI, it could absolutely do sexy stuff on low powered machines of the day, that doesn't mean it could run a 12core dual i7 machine well. Maybe it could, we really don't know.
I think the best answer is BeOS wasn't as complete as NeXT. Specifically it had a fairly poor network stack (it was being retooled around the time BeOS became part of palm, no idea if it was finished)
It lacked the kind of print support MacOS and NeXT had. It lacked the same caliber of internationalization. All fixable stuff but also all stuff requiring some investment.
It also remains to be seen how well BeOS would actually scale, it was an RTOS with a UI, it could absolutely do sexy stuff on low powered machines of the day, that doesn't mean it could run a 12core dual i7 machine well. Maybe it could, we really don't know.
iZ Corporation's RADAR runs on BeOS. It's a DAW system of exceedingly high quality. We can only guess how well it'd scale, but Be looks to me not to be the sort of software that helps sell hardware.
Almost nothing runs great on that many cores.
Certainly not Xnu.
Certainly not Xnu.
Worse is subjective. It was 'less ready for prime time'.
It was amazing technology. It is still the most reliable desktop I ever had. It could play more videos/music etc at once with my 32 megs on a dual 66 ppc than my macbook pro w/ 4 gigs on memory and some 2.8ish dual core processor does today. Anecdote-
I used to blow people ( including myself away ) by downloading large video and music files from the internet and then launching them and playing on a loop. I got up to play in the 20-30 range at once without any lack of responsiveness and with no stutter etc.
It was amazing technology. It is still the most reliable desktop I ever had. It could play more videos/music etc at once with my 32 megs on a dual 66 ppc than my macbook pro w/ 4 gigs on memory and some 2.8ish dual core processor does today. Anecdote-
I used to blow people ( including myself away ) by downloading large video and music files from the internet and then launching them and playing on a loop. I got up to play in the 20-30 range at once without any lack of responsiveness and with no stutter etc.
BeOS was a real time OS, all other client operating systems were not, and still aren't, real time. The responsiveness of BeOS and its multimedia capabilities were due to this design choice.
It felt better when you were using the GUI, and maybe this is all that matters to most users, but the implementation was significantly poorer compared to NeXTSTEP.
A real time OS has some advantages as a desktop OS, everything is instant and without lag, but the total throughput of the system is significantly lower. To make a stupid car analogy, a RTOS is a Ferrari while a conventional OS is a massive off-road vehicle. Personally I think a RTOS is the way to go for a desktop OS.
It felt better when you were using the GUI, and maybe this is all that matters to most users, but the implementation was significantly poorer compared to NeXTSTEP.
A real time OS has some advantages as a desktop OS, everything is instant and without lag, but the total throughput of the system is significantly lower. To make a stupid car analogy, a RTOS is a Ferrari while a conventional OS is a massive off-road vehicle. Personally I think a RTOS is the way to go for a desktop OS.
BeOS is not a realtime OS. It's scheduler is just optimized for multimedia tasks and GUI responsiveness. The popular realtime OS from the BeOS glory days days was QNX (and it's Photon graphical interface), but it certainly never "felt" faster than BeOS on the same hardware.
BeOS was definitely a real time OS. BeOS had two scheduling classes, threads with a priority level between 1-99 were time shared threads where the quantum was proportional with 2^priority_level, threads with a priority level between 100 and 120 were real time threads, they could preempt any other thread, including any kernel thread, they were locked to a CPU and never preempted. And when a real time thread was created, it preempted any time shared thread immediately, the scheduler run at creation, it wasn't only added to a scheduling queue like time shared threads.
QNX is a still very popular realtime OS in the embedded world today. Btw, the OS run by the BlackBerry devices is QNX. Usually you'll find QNX in control systems like avionics.
QNX is a still very popular realtime OS in the embedded world today. Btw, the OS run by the BlackBerry devices is QNX. Usually you'll find QNX in control systems like avionics.
Good points. No wonder QNX feels so snappy on the playbook.
I sometimes don't understand people's hate for the playbook, it is a wonderful tablet. IMHO it is a much better tablet than kindle fire (which is inspired heavily by the playbook btw), with TAT integration and two extra cameras and an active bezel. I time and time again feel that Google should buy rim and integrate QNX and Android.
I sometimes don't understand people's hate for the playbook, it is a wonderful tablet. IMHO it is a much better tablet than kindle fire (which is inspired heavily by the playbook btw), with TAT integration and two extra cameras and an active bezel. I time and time again feel that Google should buy rim and integrate QNX and Android.
Do you have any recommendations for a current real-time OS to use? I'd like to try one out on a desktop...
"Real time" can mean many different things.
And how "fast" and "real time" a desktop feels usually has little to do with the technically real time (or lack of thereof) of the kernel.
That said, Plan 9 has an interesting implementation of real time capabilities: http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/real_time/
And how "fast" and "real time" a desktop feels usually has little to do with the technically real time (or lack of thereof) of the kernel.
That said, Plan 9 has an interesting implementation of real time capabilities: http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/real_time/
Windows CE, apparently... ;)
But there seem to be some other interesting examples, like QNX: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_real-time_operating_sys...
But there seem to be some other interesting examples, like QNX: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_real-time_operating_sys...
Linux can be configured as RTOS too, but I doubt that it would improve desktop responsiveness.
RTAI and Xenomai can be considered real time Linux and both require application support. Applications don't just become real time, they must be programmed that way. Common Linux desktop application are not programmed this way.
RTLinux is more widely used than RTAI or Xenomai, but it's a completely different model, it's more like a hypervisor. Again, it doesn't help. While the OS provides the serivices, applications must be programmed specifically to use it.
RTLinux is more widely used than RTAI or Xenomai, but it's a completely different model, it's more like a hypervisor. Again, it doesn't help. While the OS provides the serivices, applications must be programmed specifically to use it.
Most people at the time felt that BeOS was the better choice. BeOS was ready and could have replaced MacOS the next day, it was already being marketed as a replacement for MacOS and I think that is why Gassée tried to kill the deal, I think he truly thought that people where going to buy a Mac and switch to BeOS. The only thing that BeOS was missing was apps, had he been able to convince more flagship app makers like Photoshop to develop their apps for BeOS he may have succeeded, it really was the only thing that was missing. Meanwhile NeXT was reworked over the next couple of years just to get it running on the hardware and then the first versions of OSX where horribly slow. So Apple spent lost 2 years and had a slower product by going with NeXT when BeOS was ready to go, most people at the time did not see the logic. Today history has plaid out and the truth is they where not just buying an OS they needed much more.
> BeOS was ready
BeOS was arguably less ready than NeXTSTEP, lacking a network stack and printing (as has been pointed out elsewhere), and had very few apps and very few users, whereas NeXT was already deployed and in use by a lot of people.
> and could have replaced MacOS the next day
Not at all. One of the main points that MacOS had to support Mac application. There is no way that Apple ever would have released a Mac operating system (be it Copland, Rhapsody or MacOS X) without a "yellow box" MacOS System 8 layer.
Didn't happen with NeXTSTEP either -- a lot of stuff, like QuickTime and Finder, had to be ported over first.
BeOS was arguably less ready than NeXTSTEP, lacking a network stack and printing (as has been pointed out elsewhere), and had very few apps and very few users, whereas NeXT was already deployed and in use by a lot of people.
> and could have replaced MacOS the next day
Not at all. One of the main points that MacOS had to support Mac application. There is no way that Apple ever would have released a Mac operating system (be it Copland, Rhapsody or MacOS X) without a "yellow box" MacOS System 8 layer.
Didn't happen with NeXTSTEP either -- a lot of stuff, like QuickTime and Finder, had to be ported over first.
I do not remember BeOS lacking networking, it may have lacked TCP/IP at one point, but so did MacOS at the time, you had to get it and a PPP app via a third party application. My memory could be failing me on this one, but I don't seem to recall not having networking in BeOS. My point though was not to compare BeOS to now, but BeOS to the Mac OS that was shipping in which case, besides for a few items and apps, BeOS was ready and would have been a huge improvement with little investment in development. They would have needed to provide a virtulization environment for the old OS, printing support as well as a few other odds and ends. Remember most OS's of the time where not multiuser, security was not at the forefront and most where on dial-up. Comparing what OSX became to what they where trying to accomplish at the time is a little bit of apples and oranges. They where touting shared memory and symmetric multiprocessing. It was still at that basic of a level that the old MacOS was so far behind on. To many observers BeOS fit the bill perfectly and would have had the users on a modern OS in short order. In the end they made the better choice but many, I would dare to say most of us just did not see the logic at the time.
> I do not remember BeOS lacking networking, it may have lacked TCP/IP at one point, but so did MacOS at the time, you had to get it and a PPP app via a third party application. My memory could be failing me on this one, but I don't seem to recall not having networking in BeOS.
BeOS had a networking stack at the time; the problem was that it was notoriously buggy and incompatible with the standard POSIX APIs.
Be was working on a replacement to it when they were sold to Palm, known as BONE. You can find a bit of information about it here: http://wiki.bebits.com/page/WhatIsBone
At the time period we're talking about, it was clear that the writing was on the wall about the internet being the future, and the poor networking stack on Mac OS was going to be a major problem going forward. NeXT had a mature stack based on BSD; BeOS had an immature stack that was in dire need of being ripped up and rewritten.
On that front, NeXT's networking was a clear step forward, and Be's barely a step sideways.
BeOS had a networking stack at the time; the problem was that it was notoriously buggy and incompatible with the standard POSIX APIs.
Be was working on a replacement to it when they were sold to Palm, known as BONE. You can find a bit of information about it here: http://wiki.bebits.com/page/WhatIsBone
At the time period we're talking about, it was clear that the writing was on the wall about the internet being the future, and the poor networking stack on Mac OS was going to be a major problem going forward. NeXT had a mature stack based on BSD; BeOS had an immature stack that was in dire need of being ripped up and rewritten.
On that front, NeXT's networking was a clear step forward, and Be's barely a step sideways.
On that front, NeXT's networking was a clear step forward, and Be's barely a step sideways.
I am not saying they made the wrong decision, quite the contrary I am saying they made the right one, but I was just adding some historical context to the discussion that many of us at the time thought Be was the better choice. History has proven that we where wrong, but none the less a lot of us thought Be fit the bill. I no longer hold that position given what the future became, but I would be lying if I said, I and many people saw the logic back then.
I am not saying they made the wrong decision, quite the contrary I am saying they made the right one, but I was just adding some historical context to the discussion that many of us at the time thought Be was the better choice. History has proven that we where wrong, but none the less a lot of us thought Be fit the bill. I no longer hold that position given what the future became, but I would be lying if I said, I and many people saw the logic back then.
"yellow box" was more or less the NeXTStep stuff, the Classic emulation was the "blue box".
http://lowendmac.com/musings/boxes.shtml
Originally, Carbon was not in the plans at all (the yellow box corresponded to what is nowadays referred to as Cocoa). Adding that was a substantial additional task, but probably well worth it.
http://lowendmac.com/musings/boxes.shtml
Originally, Carbon was not in the plans at all (the yellow box corresponded to what is nowadays referred to as Cocoa). Adding that was a substantial additional task, but probably well worth it.
And the "yellow box" stuff had already been ported to run on top of Windows NT, which probably suggested those layers were pretty loosely coupled to the rest of the NeXT OS, and might be easier to integrate with Mac OS or whatever they came up with.
Yeah, sorry, I meant blue box.
On this thought I left out the classic runtime because it was needed with either direction, my point was many at the time saw BeOS as the shorter path to a modern OS. Because NeXT needed and got a reworking from the ground up. It is now apparent that that was the plan all along but from the arm chair quarterbacks, back then it seemed like a foolish move, a fair percentage of Mac users back then where rooting for Be because it had almost mystical quality for the time, it was like Amiga in it's day. I am not saying Apple made the wrong decision, just that back then most people including myself could not understand the decision. If you can find any of the old Mac User or Macworld rags from that period there where articles and articles lamenting over how they could not choose such an advanced OS as Be.
Memory's pretty hazy here, so someone correct me where I'm wrong
One of the major deficiencies in Apple's OS at the time was lack of real multi user capabilities; like Windows pre XP. NeXT, coming from BSD, had this built in but BeOS was pretty much a single user OS
One of the major deficiencies in Apple's OS at the time was lack of real multi user capabilities; like Windows pre XP. NeXT, coming from BSD, had this built in but BeOS was pretty much a single user OS
No the problem wasn't multiuser support it was multitasking (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking).
As well as Multiprocessor support, cooperative memory management AKA lack of OS controlled memory management and a host of other issues. Remember OS7 shared lineage from the original OS1, some sins that they hacked to make it work back then, where hard to remove after the fact. While they where technical marvels at the time (1984) they became handcuffs later on.
I have (fond?) memories of using Get Info on various applications and setting how much memory they would take from the OS, and then going to About This Macintosh to check how much memory I had left over.
Incidentally, up until version 7.6, the Mac OS was simply called "System", as in "System 6" and "System 7". (Systems 1-5 were rapidly iterated through and forgotten--even System 6 still ran on a Mac Plus). Mac OS 7.6 was the first version that was designed to run on clones, hence the change from generic "System" to "Mac OS".
Incidentally, up until version 7.6, the Mac OS was simply called "System", as in "System 6" and "System 7". (Systems 1-5 were rapidly iterated through and forgotten--even System 6 still ran on a Mac Plus). Mac OS 7.6 was the first version that was designed to run on clones, hence the change from generic "System" to "Mac OS".
The one thing I seem to recall, and this is fuzzy, is that BeOS had issues with large applications, like Firefox. I don't know if that was true or not.
BeOS was missing one important thing that NeXT Step had: Jobs Control.
I am at this point in the Steve Jobs book. Apple was considering using Windows as well. Bill Gates was furious when Apple bought NeXT, he really wanted Apple to run windows.
They where not considering it, the CHRP Mac's had a PPC version of NT that ran on it, I know because I installed that abomination one time just to see. It was probably the buggiest version of windows I have ever seen.
No CHRP Mac ever shipped. The closest anyone ever came was Motorola with the StarMax 6000. The CHRP spec evolved into the New World ROM architecture used from the original iMac to the end of the PowerPC era, though.
There was indeed a PPC version of NT that was designed for CHRP. But, separate from that, Apple also seriously considered using a custom version of NT with a Mac-like GUI to replace the Mac OS. It was one of many options under consideration along with Be, NeXT, and Solaris.
There was indeed a PPC version of NT that was designed for CHRP. But, separate from that, Apple also seriously considered using a custom version of NT with a Mac-like GUI to replace the Mac OS. It was one of many options under consideration along with Be, NeXT, and Solaris.
Sorry my post does look to reflect that they did, but yes the full CHRP never shipped, but the portions that allowed NT to run on the PPC did. There was a working version of NT that ran on Apples and the clones.
Didn't apple choose NeXT largely in part of beOS notoriously hard to skin nature?
No. NeXT was cheaper, they got the original visionary back to Apple and NeXT had a revenue stream (From my understanding Be Inc didn't have one to speak of).
NeXT was not cheaper; Gassee wanted 275M for BeOS, and they bought NeXT for 429.
NeXT was a bigger, more mature company with more assets and revenue, so even if you discount Jobs, buying NeXT for 429mm is less overpriced than Be for 275mm.
hard to skin nature?
I think hard to change the visual look and feel is what he means.
[deleted]
But Gassée fumbled it when courting Apple [1], and then sold it to Palm, who promptly killed it. It has taken years for a dedicated group of followers to rebuild it from scratch, and by the time they finished doing that, computer hardware had advanced so much that there was very little demand for a high-performance operating system in the desktop market.
So, I guess he can claim to be glad that his baby died a lonely and ultimately unremarkable death thanks largely to his own mishandling of it, but it sounds like sour grapes to me.
[1]: I remember reading an article a while back about the meeting between Amelio, Gassée, and Jobs. Reportedly, Gassée thought BeOS was a shoe-in, despite asking an astronomical figure for the sale, so he showed up to the meeting completely unprepared. Steve, in typical Steve fashion, showed up fully prepared and blew Gassée right out of the water. I've spent fifteen minutes searching for that article, and I can't find it [2] -- and it might be apocryphal anyway, according to a post on Slashdot (http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=129504&cid=108...). Still, Gassée and Jobs have had an uneasy relationship in the past (http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story...).
[2]: Woo, found it! http://macspeedzone.com/archive/art/con/be.shtml
edit: aside from that, it was great to see and hear Bill Atkinson, and Gassée had some funny quotes.