3 ms·

The very most important thing an OS does is run software on hardware. Therefore any new entrant into the OS market must support as much software and hardware as

The very most important thing an OS does is run software on hardware. Therefore any new entrant into the OS market must support as much software and hardware as possible. The former is actually kinda doable with compatibility layers and emulation, the latter is basically impossible to catch up on.

HenryKissinger 6y ago
So what you're saying is that we're stuck with Microsoft for eternity. Fascinating. Microsoft is probably the most strategically important company on the planet. Literally too big to fail.
Jemaclus 6y ago
Yeah, I understand that. But the upside to succeeding is basically a license to print money, ie., so large that it would be worth it for someone to do it... Microsoft focuses on making software that supports as many hardware configs as possible and Google does the same with Android/ChromeOS, but Apple focuses on making the hardware-software integration seamless. They each succeed in different ways, but Apple devices feel like premium, high-quality things where other software-hardware integrations (Windows, Android, etc) feel less polished and less seamless. It seems like Microsoft or Google could double-down on the software-hardware integration and build a seamless, premium product that really, truly competes with Apple. It seems like it would be beneficial for MS or Google to identify and partner with (or acquire?) a hardware partner and develop their systems hard against that, creating a seamless hardware-software interface like Apple does with its devices. And I guess I'm just baffled that nobody else is doing that. On the contrary, everyone seems to be going the Microsoft route of developing for as many hardware configs as possible.
elihu 6y ago
If the OS can run in a virtualized environment, you can kind of cheat by letting some other OS like Linux handle the hardware compatibility. It's not as aesthetically satisfying as running on bare metal, but it can work. If some company wanted to create an Apple-like desktop experience with purpose-built hardware but with an open OS, this could be a good route: implement all the drivers needed to run well on bare metal on the company's own hardware products, but anyone can run it in a hypervisor on any computer.
- tabtab 6y ago
  That seems kind of a circular argument: we need another OS but which emulates existing OS's for compatibility. I agree that compatibility probably overrides other concerns. A 3rd OS would need some revolutionary feature(s) to overcome its compatibility limits. And that revolutionary feature would be something that can't be added to Windows or (x)nix. Anyone want to suggest game-changing OS features? A better goal would be to isolate OS features to give us more choice. The file system would be independent of the GUI engine, which would be independent of the executable manager, etc. It would give one mix-and-match ability. Possible partitioning: - Execution/task manager - GUI - File system - Security system - App and upgrade manager - Integrator

HenryKissinger 6y ago

So what you're saying is that we're stuck with Microsoft for eternity. Fascinating. Microsoft is probably the most strategically important company on the planet. Literally too big to fail.

Jemaclus 6y ago

Yeah, I understand that. But the upside to succeeding is basically a license to print money, ie., so large that it would be worth it for someone to do it... Microsoft focuses on making software that supports as many hardware configs as possible and Google does the same with Android/ChromeOS, but Apple focuses on making the hardware-software integration seamless. They each succeed in different ways, but Apple devices feel like premium, high-quality things where other software-hardware integrations (Windows, Android, etc) feel less polished and less seamless. It seems like Microsoft or Google could double-down on the software-hardware integration and build a seamless, premium product that really, truly competes with Apple. It seems like it would be beneficial for MS or Google to identify and partner with (or acquire?) a hardware partner and develop their systems hard against that, creating a seamless hardware-software interface like Apple does with its devices. And I guess I'm just baffled that nobody else is doing that. On the contrary, everyone seems to be going the Microsoft route of developing for as many hardware configs as possible.

elihu 6y ago

If the OS can run in a virtualized environment, you can kind of cheat by letting some other OS like Linux handle the hardware compatibility. It's not as aesthetically satisfying as running on bare metal, but it can work. If some company wanted to create an Apple-like desktop experience with purpose-built hardware but with an open OS, this could be a good route: implement all the drivers needed to run well on bare metal on the company's own hardware products, but anyone can run it in a hypervisor on any computer.

tabtab 6y ago
That seems kind of a circular argument: we need another OS but which emulates existing OS's for compatibility. I agree that compatibility probably overrides other concerns. A 3rd OS would need some revolutionary feature(s) to overcome its compatibility limits. And that revolutionary feature would be something that can't be added to Windows or (x)nix. Anyone want to suggest game-changing OS features? A better goal would be to isolate OS features to give us more choice. The file system would be independent of the GUI engine, which would be independent of the executable manager, etc. It would give one mix-and-match ability. Possible partitioning: - Execution/task manager - GUI - File system - Security system - App and upgrade manager - Integrator