Why did all consumer OS gain real multitasking and non-shit kernels exactly in 2001, the first year of 21st century? You may argue that windows 2000 was consumer too, and while that's true, barely anyone used it, and still, it was released in 2nd millennium.
>>54186482
Hardware interaction breakthroughs is my guess.
>>54186513
then apple should get that before
>>54186482
Microshaft copying Apple as usual.
>>54186584
Apple is dum, though
>>54186482
>2001, the first year of 21st century?
>2001
>the first year
what happened to 2000?
>>54186606
century counts 2001-2100
>>54186606
2000 wasnt in the 21st century according to some people
>>54186606
there is no year 0, so the first century was from year 1 to year 1000 inclusive
>>54186606
>>54186625
like 1801-1900, 1901-2000, 2001-2100
>>54186586
but MS had a NT windows since at least 1996
wouldn't that be apple copying MS?
>>54186482
just a coincidence that it happened around the turn of the millennium
>>54186625
>>54186627
>>54186637
>>54186640
makes no sense to me, 2000-2001 is a years' worth of time, and 2000 is the first year beyond the end of the 20th century (midnight 31 dec 1999/1 jan 2000), clearly making it the first year of the 21st century
>>54186749
windows nt 3.1 is the first version (of nt), it was released in 1993
>>54186776
os/2 was released in 1987, is the basis for NT. In the same time as NExTSTEP, the basis for OS X though. Coincidence again???
>>54186872
microsoft did unironically copy NeXT's beveled UI style there
>>54186764
Someone needs to go back to kindergarten.
>>54186931
b-but original os/2 looked the same
>>54186764
century 1: Jan 1 0001 - Dec 31 0100: 100 years
century 2: Jan 1 0101 - Dec 31 0200: 100 years
etc
>>54186964
yeah identical
>>54187000
>>54187014
>ms gets blamed for copying apple
>copies nextstep instead
>nextstep merges with apple, ms gives up and copies apple with almost every major version
>>54186482
xp was so comfy looking. apple has kept pretty much everything in os x intact except for the look of things, while microsoft kept fixing what wasn't broken, coming up with new shit design languages all the while keeping compatibility with legacy stuff thus resulting in the mess they're in right now. they should have just kept xp as a base and add to it
>>54186764
how old are you exactly?
So:
basis for both os x and modern windows gets released in 1987
both of them reach the consumer in 2001
windows nt 4.0, microsoft's experiment with NT gets released in 1996, while apple rhapsody, apple's experiment with nextstep gets announced in january 1997
mac os x server 1.0, apple's server OS which got used by some enthusiasts gets released in 1999, while windows 2000, microsoft's server & client OS which was used by some enthusiasts gets released in 2000, yet RTM in 1999.
COINCIDENCES? Apple and MS are secretly the same company.
>>54186482
The millenium didn't go as planned.
>>54186600
Microsoft is dum.
Windows 9x had real multitasking (i.e preemptive multitasking).
It was Mac OS the one that got real multitasking in 2001.
>>54188185
yeah, no. mac os too had multitasking, a bit worse kind, yet it didn't crash as often. and windows 9x didnt use preemptive multitasking for all applications.
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/D8mkOCo.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>54186482
nigga pls
>barely any one used it
Well it's still consumer tier (2k and this)
-
Anyway: addressing your post -
Reasons why: Backwards compatability, Hardware
Mid to late 90s apple had to still support their 68K macs - probably some issues with supporting old shit too idk i wasn't a macfag then (or now really)
Microsoft - similar with 486. also part of the magic was they saved time by laying on top of dos, and having the ability to use shitty old drivers.
Hardware:
Real multitasking took a beast of a CPU and RAM (for the time) and that was expensive for your average consumer which came down to - why the fuck are we wasting time supporting this feature that people with a $3500 PC can only use. Microsoft wanted to be normie-friendly and that meant cheap and compatible (even if it was a rough spot)
In 2001, what's your chances of running a PC that could multitask?
but in 1998? 1995?
>>54188218
>mac os 7 multi tasking
>a bit worse
Fff-fuck off
>>54188467
beos surely isnt a consumer OS
and all motorola macs were discontinued by 1997 already (same time when rhapsody was announced)
and apple computers were always expensive, yet apple supported mac os 9 up until 2002!
apple had all requirements met for OS X, yet they waited for windows 2000 to finally announce os x (5th january 2000, windows 2000 was released to manufacturing in december 1999)
Taking over this thread with no survivors.
So /g/ which desktop layout makes you more productive: Taskbar and window title buttons, or a dock with global topmenu? Essentially do you like working in the classic Windows environment or OSX environment? Perhaps something else entirely?
>>54188855
i3 DWM TILING DYNAMIC WINDOW MANAGER
>>54188855
>>54188884
I feel more productive when I use a tiling wm, but mostly because it makes it easier to make virtual desktops.
>Windows
>non-shit kernel
>>54189085
compared to 9x NT is a very good kernel
multitasking is wrong.
do one thing, do it well. you don't need to check facebook every 5 minutes.
i'd be completely satisfied if computers were designed to only run one program at a time, unless they were inter-working programs, like a midi slave host and an digital audio software.
>>54188855
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emLXJadj9s4
>>54189164
install freeDOS
Pretty sure BeOS and OS/2 existed before 2001.
>>54189217
yeah right consumer os. before 2001 we had nextstep, amiga os and various unix derivatives too.
>>54189248
BeOS and OS/2 were both consumer OSes.
>>54188855
>So /g/ which desktop layout makes you more productive:
It entirely depends on your work flow and what your work actually is.
Any window manager will do provided it has sane keyboard controls.
If I'm fucking around with audio production (hobby, nothing of any worth), any big DE so I can use the various tools. The exception being traditional style trackers, stuff like Renoise and others, which have sane keyboard controls.
>>54189252
well so was nextstep, compared to beos. but barely anyone used that in their PC.
>>54189319
Nextstep was for workstations I thought.
>>54189364
so is beOS
>>54189319
NeXTSTEP was not even close to a consumer OS, nor was it ever intended to be.
>>54187261
Indeed.
Worst thing is over all these years they haven't fixed a fundamental aspect: font rendering. Any current OS that is not Windows does it properly, either by default or with easy to install engines. Windows needs to rely on hacks which don't work well with every application and have kerning issues like mactype (and we know how much microsoft loves to update your shit so you don't tinker with it now)
>>54186513
Nope. The Apple Lisa had preemptive multitasking and protected memory in 1983. The reason classic Mac OS did not have it is because the first Lisa had 1MB of RAM while the first Mac had 128K.
Windows didn't have it because it evolved from DOS and initially ran on PCs with similar resource restrictions (192K).
Thing is, once you define a runtime environment that's cooperative and lacks memory protection, and people write software to that spec, it's a bitch to change because you end up breaking most old software.
Microsoft slowly evolved their APIs and a compatibility layer over time until they felt confident that consumers could migrate to a modern OS and most of their software would work.
Apple tried to do it all at once (Copland) and failed, mainly due to mismanagement and feature creep. So they bought NeXT and built something closer to a virtual machine (classic layer) into the OS along with the Carbon API, an overhaul of the Toolbox API that made it easier to port applications to the PMT/PM environment of OS X.
>>54188467
>Real multitasking took a beast of a CPU and RAM (for the time)
Any of the Macs from the Mac Plus on could have handled a PMT/PM OS. The Lisa did it with 5 MHz / 1MB.
But if Apple had modified Mac OS (say, System 6 or 7) to be preemptive/protected it would have broken literally ever Mac app on the market.
>>54186749
Mac OS X is using NeXTSTEP, which is UNIX. Developed in the 80s and 90s, it was Steve Job's personal project after he was forced out of Apple.
>>54188185
>Windows 9x had real multitasking (i.e preemptive multitasking).
Sort of. 16-bit apps and libraries broke it. That wasn't a trivial thing in 1995 since most 32-bit apps called into at least some 16-bit libraries.
>>54188593
From an end user's perspective System 7 and Win95 multitasking felt about the same.
>>54189248
>unix derivatives
GNU/Unix derivatives
>>54187000
looks better than Windows 10 desu
>>54189857
dont know if memeing but nextstep uses in-house, original UNIX and bsd developed apps
>>54189391
>>54189532
Kind of iffy on that, the BeBox was surely a workstation-class box and BeOS started out tackling a market segment reserved for SGIs and Macs, but later in its life it was intended to directly compete with Windows and Mac OS.
>>54189857
But none of those used any GNU software whatsoever
>>54186931
Everybody ripped off Xerox Alto.
>>54190440
Additionally, AmigaOS had full multitasking in 1985 and was very much a "consumer OS" in its time.
>>54189083
>cockmail
>implying the gubmints don't have your data already
That shit was raided, anon.
>>54190440
I don't really like this meme.
The Macintosh/Lisa and Windows interface models may use the desktop/windows metaphor (and in the Macintosh/Lisa case, the black and white bitmapped display) like the Alto but other than that those platforms feel very different.
The closest thing to a real rip-off is probably the PERQ.
>>54190993
ALL DYNAMIC WMs ARE RIP-OFFS CONFIRMED
>>54190467
>Additionally, AmigaOS had full multitasking in 1985 and was very much a "consumer OS" in its time.
And where is it today?
I don't see it in retail.
>>54190993
>The Macintosh/Lisa and Windows interface models may use the desktop/windows metaphor (and in the Macintosh/Lisa case, the black and white bitmapped display) like the Alto but other than that those platforms feel very different.
The XEROX GUI didn't have drop down menus, shortcuts, etc. Apple did a lot of development on the basic idea. XEROX didn't do anything much with any of their ideas because the NY HQ was mesmerized by the photocopier. Otherwise they could have been dominant rather than a footnote.
Apple paid for the rights to the GUI with Apple stock.
Microsoft just copied it. Badly.
>>54186482
>and still, it was released in 2nd millennium.
No, it was released in 1999. ME was released in 2000.
>>54192259
it was released in 2000 too. RTM isn't general availability.
1985 here, y'all slow as fuck.
>>54189754
well not apple, and apple bought next in 1997, 1 year after nt release
>>54187384
>implying
>>54187358
this
>>54192236
it's often said that Windows 95 is a System 7 clone
and at times, it really is
it's also got a really nice, consistent UI that only has some minor warts here and there
it's probably the only time Windows has had a really good, top-notch interface (even if it isn't terribly pretty)
>>54189164
It would be shit having to compile with bash and then have to close it to somehow open nano, or even gedit and then need to close it again. It would be fucking horrible if I wanted to learning something with my browser open while programming side by side without the hassle of clicking shit around.
>>54189702
underrated post
>>54195362
*with
>>54189164
even in a purely terminal environment, multitasking is useful
run a build in the background and work on other stuff
you also end up with programs that desperately try to emulate multitasking on non-multitasking systems, such as was common on mid-late dos era systems (not even like shells or whatever, just programs that try to link together into other programs so you can copy shit from one to another, or big programs that do everything, so they pretty much have their own internal cooperative multitasking system)
>>54192173
the Amiga's biggest issue was that it wasn't an IBM compatible machine, and the Amiga's custom chips for their very advanced-at-release graphics and sound lost their edge when Commodore didn't have the income to keep updating them to be ahead of the game with what was available on IBM compatible PCs
>>54195226
from daily driving both System 7 and NT 4 for extended periods of time I don't see that much of a resemblance either in looks or usability
I always found 7 to be much better at using low res monitors effectively though
>>54195474
> their very advanced-at-release graphics and sound lost their edge
huh, I don't really like the amiga 'jerk that much but were later PC cards really that good? I just can't see my 486 shitboxes even running that shitty juggling real-time 3D demo fanboys keep posting every time someone mentions the platform
