This page is a wiki. Please login or create an account to begin editing.


21 posts / 0 new
Last post
xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7
Is WinXP more Mac like than Mac OS X?

In an interview the developer of the editor Pepper, Maarten Hekkelman, states:

"I really believe WinXP is the true successor of the old Mac OS. It is fast, stable and if you pick your software well it is also easy to use. Personally I also prefer that Windows look over Aqua."

(Source: http://daringfireball.net/2002/08/pepper_author_maarten_hekkelman)

What do you think?

Comments

Protocol 7's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Aug 7

I guess the real question is "how Mac-like is OS X?"

Bolkonskij's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 3

One thing I love about OS 9 is that it's so customizable. It's possible to build it according to your needs - much easier than with OSX or XP. It's very slim as well in terms of hardware requirements. Last but not least the flexibility... only recently I copied the OS 9 installation of my PowerMac G4 to a Blue & White G3 I had here with OS 8.6 running. Didn't want to go through the whole "find the CD" and "installation OS + all the updates" thing again. So I put my PowerMac G4 folder onto the hard disk, booted the G3 up and I had OS 9 running with my settings. That's an amazing amount of flexibility. Try that with an installation of XP or OS X ....

iig's picture
iig
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jul 16

Nope.

IIGS_User's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Apr 8

"I really believe WinXP is the true successor of the old Mac OS"

Probably, but XP in WinXP stands for "expired", from its very beginning. Wink

Vitoarc's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Aug 15

I like XP and and I've used both XP and OSX for years so I'm very familiar with both. Whether or not XP is "more Mac like" is a moot point; this original article was written in 2002.

In my opinion, OSX is ahead of Windows at this point in terms of speed, stability, and flexibility. It's fun to look back and compare operating systems, and with the advent of Vista it appears many PC users were looking back, but not just for comparison; they were choosing XP over Vista. LOL

Euryale's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jul 22

I think WinXP is better than Mac OSX

oops, did I say somethin´wrong

Vitoarc's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Aug 15

Tongue

bertyboy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jun 14

The original quote sums up Windows XP perfectly. In 2001 it required too much CPU, RAM and disk for your average PC (forcing everyone to upgrade hardware). Now, 3 Service Packs later and with CPU, RAM and disk space more than adequate to run it well. Helped to an extended life by the train wreck that was Vista.
Like they say, if you pick well written and mature software, it can be a dream to use.
Hate the colour schemes though, just a bit too cartoony.
And of course I'd use Mac OS X any day over it.

Balrog's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Apr 24

I suggest you all read the PDF linked from http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter1/ .

In short, Windows XP isn't much at all like Classic Mac OS, neither is it much like Mac OS X.

MadMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Mar 20

Windows XP was cool for the standars pcs, but MacOS X kick ass from its very beginning... in every sense.
Probably the similar points were some things about the user interface, but even Linux has them.
I remember when I install MacOS X 10.2.8 in my G3 266 Desktop... now, try to install the XP in a 1997 PC...

iig's picture
iig
Offline
Joined: 2009 Jul 16

Windows xp works great on my dell, but if i had a choice, i'd hack leopard and install it Tongue (as i have no leopard compatible computer Sad )

amatecha's picture
Offline
Joined: 2010 Mar 10

I don't think he was saying XP is more Mac-like than OS X. He just thinks it's a successor, whatever that means. I think it's a pretty useless statement,that he made.

MikeTomTom's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Dec 7

And considering the interview was recorded in 2002... XP might have been pretty much the current Win OS at the time, the Mac was Jaguar (I think)... I wonder what he would have to say about the current Mac and Windows OS's?

xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

I personally think there is no successor to classic Mac OS. This operating system attracted so many creative software developers, interface and hardware designers as no system before and after. It was inspiring. That is gone forever. Of course there are always exceptions like for instance Mellel for Mac OS X with its unique text engine (but its ugly interface). On whole, however, all operating systems and programs today are big, 'useful', and dull. Nowadays, if you look into a new Mac you look into Steve Jobs bad mooded face. And Windows is still imitating - only that it has not to try hard anymore...

Offline
Joined: 2009 Nov 14

I'm not going to lie: until Mac OS 10.4, Mac OS 10 sucked. Killing OS 9 was a way to get more people to join OS X.

The fact that really irks me is that Mac has been trying to advertise for years about "ooh, we're the creative system" but there's no way to change the look of the system, at all! There's no Kaleidoscope equivalent for OS X, no wacky extensions that do crazy things...

Balrog's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Apr 24

Extensions for OS X that do crazy things? If you're running 10.6 TotalFinder does pretty crazy things. There are many others. Their method of operation is different, but the design of the Objective-C runtime makes it easy for "extensions" to hook into programs and modify their behavior. I have several such enhancements installed.

Did OS X suck before 10.4? It sure was more solid than 9.x but without many native apps you were stuck.

xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

Before the comeback of Steve Jobs Apple had a corporate culture of creativity. The company was a heaven for programmers who wanted to try out things. There were many of development departments who did their own thing. However, this brought Apple on the verge of bankrucpty as the company did not really focus on one sucessful goal. Steve Jobs refocussed Apple and saved it. But the magic was gone. Now that Apple has abundant cash again it maybe would be interesting to invest in the development of Mac OS 9.5 not only because it is much more creative but also because it needs much less memory and is exceedingly more elegant. Wouldn't it be great to have a Mac OS 9.5 with full Unicode and OTF support?!

Balrog's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009 Apr 24

But Classic Mac OS just doesn't scale. It is full of old, ugly code which would take immense effort to rewrite into anything more modern. Apple did what they had to do, and switched to something which has lasted over 10 years (20, if you count NeXT), and which won't be obsolete anytime soon.

Apple Confidential 2.0 is a quite comprehensive look into Apple's early days.

xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

Check out this too: John Markoff, What the Dormouse Said: How the 60s Counterculture Shaped the Personal Shaped the Personal Computer:
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Dormouse_Said
Interview: http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/interviews/v6i29_markoff.html
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/What-Dormouse-Said-Counterculture-Personal/dp/0670...
Google: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1012&bih=601&q=John+Markoff+W...

Apple's colours derived from LSD.

xy
Offline
Joined: 2009 Aug 7

Ask him! Here is his email address:
http://www2.cmbi.ru.nl/who-and-where/staff/43/
Here is his website; he just ported his new editor Japi from Mac OS X to Windows 7:
http://www.hekkelman.com/