macOS vs. Windows vs. Linux

[Keith_W]

I did use OS/2 for a while, but I was in university and I needed my computer to do work. The only word processor for OS/2 was Wordperfect, and it was almost impossible to find printer drivers for OS/2. I switched back to Windows pretty quickly.

 

[celt]

Oh please, most of us put that ideological debate to rest 20 years ago.

No...just you...

 

[anmpr1]

I loved OS/2 and mourned it's decline. And before I'm corrected, I'm aware that Arca Noae, LLC announced that they had secured an agreement with IBM to resell OS/2 - however I understand that hardware support is currently limited.

OS/2 was always a hardware problem. When it first arrived it required pretty beefy iron compared to DOS or even a Win3x system. For it to run to its capabilities you really needed a 486DX2 with minimum 8 megs of RAM (preferably 16) and a large HD (it came on about 8 or 9 high density compressed floppies as I remember). All that was expensive back then. From my own expereince, it barely ran on an IBM 386 with 6 megs of RAM. A Pentium 60 with 8 meg worked OK, but by then it was about over for the product.

Otherwise it was quite configurable and flexible. You could do a lot with it, if you had the need. However, mainstream software picks were rather slim, which was expected.

Arca has the rights, but there's not any real point to it unless you have a legacy need. It's not any cheaper than a Windows license, and is 32 bit. Back in the day there was a consumer fanbase push for IBM to open source it, but evidently there was so much proprietary code from so many different sources that that was impossible. At least it's the story I heard.

 

[JayGilb]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

Linus Torvalds created the Linux kernel based off of Minix, which is a stripped down version of Unix. He copied all of the functionality of the Unix system calls, but did not copy the code. Unix and Linux are intertwined on every level.
MacOS is a variant of BSD (Berkeley Standard Distribution) which is once again a variant of Unix.

 

[nugget]

You are submitting proof that you are not remotely knowledgeable on this topic.

Dude, let it go. You’re clinging to a 20 year old fan-favorite argument from the Usenet era. The point you are so stubbornly and acrimoniously defending is even less applicable to modern computing as the old RISC vs CISC arguments.

All you are doing here is defending a trademark and you’re misspelling it. Your argument has no technical or practical relevance in 2023.

 

[audio_tony]

OS/2 was always a hardware problem. When it first arrived it required pretty beefy iron compared to DOS or even a Win3x system. For it to run to its capabilities you really needed a 486DX2 with minimum 8 megs of RAM (preferably 16) and a large HD (it came on about 8 or 9 high density compressed floppies as I remember). All that was expensive back then. From my own expereince, it barely ran on an IBM 386 with 6 megs of RAM. A Pentium 60 with 8 meg worked OK, but by then it was about over for the product.

It's a long time ago now, so my memory might be a little warped (pun intended) but the first time I ran OS/2 (before Warp) was on a 286 with 2M of RAM.

I later ran Warp V3 on a 386SX with 4M ram and a 40mb HDD.

I had no issues with display drivers, the two video cards I had at the time were supplied with OS/2 drivers.

Amusingly, Windows 3.1 ran faster under OS/2 than natively on the same hardware. How IBM achieved that I don't know.

The last PC I ran it on was a 486DX (AMD chip) and I had no issues with it.

But I can honestly say I had no issues with hardware. It did even support the sound card and CDROM drive I had at the time (this being around 1994/95).

 

[Berwhale]

OS/2 was always a hardware problem. When it first arrived it required pretty beefy iron compared to DOS or even a Win3x system. For it to run to its capabilities you really needed a 486DX2 with minimum 8 megs of RAM (preferably 16) and a large HD (it came on about 8 or 9 high density compressed floppies as I remember). All that was expensive back then. From my own expereince, it barely ran on an IBM 386 with 6 megs of RAM. A Pentium 60 with 8 meg worked OK, but by then it was about over for the product.

I looked after an IBM PS/2 55sx (with an i386sx CPU) that ran OS/2 and IBM PC Gateway software that provided around 50 users with 3270 access to the mainframe. The gateway PC sat on the floor by the door into the comms room. The PC would occasionally get turned off by someone accidentally kicking the front off whilst entering the room in a hurry, those were days...

 

[Moonbase]

The first IBM OS/2 machine I saw was shipped direct from the US, sadly the Tec. guys had plugged it in before I arrived and the 240v didn't agree with it. The good bit of OS/2 made it into windows anyway and well RISC processor kinda died out along with Sun. Anyway most OSs are based on Linux these days else they steel code from it. Handy for using a CLI or scripting.

 

[blueone]

Linus Torvalds created the Linux kernel based off of Minix, which is a stripped down version of Unix. He copied all of the functionality of the Unix system calls, but did not copy the code. Unix and Linux are intertwined on every level.

Torvalds claims Linux never included or was based on Minix code, which is what you seem to be implying. For one thing, Minix has a microkernel architecture, while Linux doesn't. That's a pretty significant difference in implementation which runs against a "based on" claim, don't you think?

 

[celt]

Dude, let it go. You’re clinging to a 20 year old fan-favorite argument from the Usenet era. The point you are so stubbornly and acrimoniously defending is even less applicable to modern computing as the old RISC vs CISC arguments.

All you are doing here is defending a trademark and you’re misspelling it. Your argument has no technical or practical relevance in 2023.

Indeed let it go...says the person who responds with "let it go"

 

[JayGilb]

Torvalds claims Linux never included or was based on Minix code, which is what you seem to be implying. For one thing, Minix has a microkernel architecture, while Linux doesn't. That's a pretty significant difference in implementation which runs against a "based on" claim, don't you think?

Torvalds tried to get access to Minix POSIX standards, but was unable. He then went and used SunOS documentation to try and learn about and mimic system calls.
You are correct, that was my error, Linux was based on Unix.

 

[Djsedaw]

GEM OS for me!

 

[nugget]

GEM OS for me!

November 20th was the 38th anniversary of TOS 1.0

 

[terryforsythe]

Looks like Mac and Unix/Linux swapped places in 2022 (and 2019) but likely within margin of error. I'd assume some people are reporting using more than one OS.

But closer to home, I was a bit surprised by this poll's result so far. More Mac users than Windows, and more Linux than I expected as well.

Take a look at the poll again. It definitely shows more developers using Windows than Mac. The thing about the poll is that the percentages do not add up to 100%. So, like I said, take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Moonbase]

November 20th was the 38th anniversary of TOS 1.0

International tos 1.0 day?

 

[nugget]

Take a look at the poll again. It definitely shows more developers using Windows than Mac.

I'm pretty sure @Axo1989 was referring to the poll at the top of this thread (closer to home) where macOS leads Windows.

 

[terryforsythe]

I loved OS/2 and mourned it's decline.

I used to impress my friends by playing multiple videos and running Windows 3.1 at the same time on the same desktop (all on a 386 SX with 2M RAM).

It was so far ahead of it's time and had development continued, would probably knock the socks off anything we have today.

And before I'm corrected, I'm aware that Arca Noae, LLC announced that they had secured an agreement with IBM to resell OS/2 - however I understand that hardware support is currently limited.

I had OS/2 back in the very early 90's, maybe around 1991 or 1992. I really liked it. But, there was software I needed to run that was Windows only, so I switched to Windows 3.0.

 

[Moonbase]

If I remember correctly OS/2 had window compatibility mode that you could assign to an application. No idea how good it was thu.

 

[audio_tony]

If I remember correctly OS/2 had window compatibility mode that you could assign to an application. No idea how good it was thu.

It would run Windows apps using the Window kernel if I remember correctly.

So you could run a Windows app as if it was an OS/2 app, but OS/2 was actually running the Windows subsystem in the background.

 

[BenjaminB]

I have been using EXEC8, JCL (both mainframe OS), Sintran 2&3, VMS, Dos 2,3,4, Win 1,2,3, ... 10 and now 11. Mac OS ~30 years ago (whatever that was), Linux various since about 10 years. Android as well.
Family uses Win 10 / 11, I use mainly Linux as I am using the pc:s the rest of the family has retired - these are ~10 years old, works fine with a mid lightweight Linux but would not work at all with Win 10 or 11.

In my view all OS of any given time are about the same, the main difference is the related eco-system. Personally, I am happy to use any OS that is up-to-date.