Back to Blog
Sheepshaver closes immediately5/28/2023 XP was also NT, an OS that was built from the ground up ("replace all the OS/2 code") long after the Mac OS was developed. Thirdly, as others have said, ME was a total piece of garbage (I'd have used OS 9 any day over it). Some other boneheaded (ironically, XP was good for consumers because they didn't have to constantly chase the upgrade genie) moves may happen, but those lessons have been learned. Something like that is never going to happen again. XP is like Intel getting caught with its pants down with NetBurst. It is trying to follow the Jobsian model of rapid planned obsolescence. Secondly, Microsoft has no intention of ever letting XP happen again. See how much modern XP-compatible software requires at least SP2. That software was still recently being written for it (hence making it usable) is a sign of the unsuccessful transition from it rather than any comment on Mac OS 9.įirst of all, Windows XP SP3 (plus the security patches and other updates that continued until this year and still continue for corporate clients) is hardly the same thing as XP 1.0. People didn't really start upgrading from XP en masse until Windows 7 came out in 2009. In addition, the successor to XP, Longhorn, was cancelled and Vista when eventually launched did not sell well. I imagine if you tried this experiment with Windows ME (equivalent end of line of the previous generation and predecessor to XP) you'd have the same results - though with a lot of blue screens of death. It is a sign of the successful transition that there was no need to continue to write software for Mac OS 9, which is why it's not really usable today.įor Microsoft, Windows XP was also their next generation OS (NT Kernel) release for consumers. Mac OS 9 was released as a stop gap transition while we waited for OS X, Apple's next generation operating system, which everyone eventually moved to once the bugs were sorted. Here is actually a pretty good summary of how Apple got into the situation it did where they needed NeXTSTEP to save them I think Windows could be a lot better if it could fully get away from the remaining legacy code, but unless Windows 10 is hiding something under the hood, we're still kind of stuck with the registry, dll nightmares and other rubbish, so in a way Windows users are still stuck with their OS 9 =P The difference was that in order to focus on improvements Apple ditched legacy support, while Windows is still stuck with it to this day for Apple it makes sense as the OS isn't their main money-earner (though it contributes strongly to the experience) whereas Windows is the main product, even with Microsoft branching out more into hardware with the Surface.Īpple probably could have modernised OS 9 over time like Microsoft did with Windows, but given how much better NextStep was it just made so much more sense to go for a fresh start rather than dealing with the headaches of legacy stuff. It wasn't until a later OS X (probably Panther or Leopard) or Windows 7 before it was really perfected. I'd say the switch to OS X was similar to the switch to Windows Vista the technologies in OS X and Vista were clearly superior to what they were replacing, but the execution was much too poor for anyone to seriously adopt it. OS 9's lack of usefulness is purely a result of the lack of program support which was driven by Apple's aggressive push forward requiring developers to move with them or stop working on new OS X versions. So windows XP is just as old, yet, still useful while Mas OS 9 is not even close? Even 10.5 is not really usefull anymore.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |