5 ms·

For anyone who is prone to ignore vertical dynamics, keep in mind that this OS was competing with Mac OS 8, Windows 98, and GNU/Linux in the Lesstif/GNOME 1.x e

For anyone who is prone to ignore vertical dynamics, keep in mind that this OS was competing with Mac OS 8, Windows 98, and GNU/Linux in the Lesstif/GNOME 1.x era. In short, it trumped all the rest in speed, development environment, multimedia, stability... But the Wintel cartel was stronger than ever. Microsoft even settled with Be years afterwards for colluding to keep their OS off of any vendor computers. But that can't ever commit backwards into history what computing would be like if the best OS at the time had been given a fair shake.

pjmlp 12y ago
It was given a 2nd opportunity, but its owner was too greedy.
- 72deluxe 12y ago
  Crazy eh? OSX could have had BeOS undergarments instead of BSD.
- cturner 12y ago
  It might have been the VC behind it, rather than him directly. We won't know until an insider writes a history.
fulafel 12y ago
What would have been the plausible avenue via which it could have taken off, even if Microsoft didn't take interest? There was no software, and the only connection to outside software world was the POSIX API supported for text-only apps. Their aim was to be acquired by Apple and get the throne that OS X now occupies, and after missing that chance they were left a niche hobbyist OS for Amiga refugees looking for a new technically superior underdog to root for.
- ab5tract 12y ago
  There were quite a few interesting softwares on BeOS. It's always the same thing: "you have no software, so you have no users / you have no users, so you have no software". If I had to guess, I would say the real growth markets would be audio and video. Your claim that it was only ever a bid to be sold by Apple is a bit ridiculous, IMO. They needed to look for a buyer because they could not get a single preinstall. The 'OS X throne' you are talking about was by no means a guaranteed outcome. It took almost a decade from the NeXT purchase to having real traction amongst Mac professionals. My only point is that NO ONE can say for sure what would have happened if there were not a monopoly standing in the way, using illegal tactics to shoulder out potential competition.
  - fulafel 12y ago
    The chicken and egg problem is no joke. All surviving desktop operating systems (NT/OS X/Linux [source only]) launched having compatibility with existing apps. Of course nobody can say for sure, but their chances didn't look good.
    - ab5tract 12y ago
      You can go ahead and ignore the vertical dynamics of the illegal Wintel alliance on their chances if you want, but then I think we have nothing left to discuss. Also, Sheepshaver (sp?) was available on the PPC version, allowing Mac OS apps to run.
    - danieldk 12y ago
      Of course nobody can say for sure, but their chances didn't look good. Ignoring POSIX compatibility. You have to remember that this was still Mac OS classic time, and a lot of Mac developers were interested in and porting to BeOS. I used R4.5 and R5, and there was already quite some interesting software for it from former Mac developers, such as Gobe Productive, the Pe editor, and if I remember correctly some AAA games around the same time Loki existed.
glandium 12y ago
Both KDE and Gnome were actually in their 0.x's when the first non-preview BeOS was released, and BeOS had been kicking asses long before these projects were even started. It was also kicking asses in the era of Mac OS 7 and Windows 95. Although at the time, I think it was pretty much limited to the BeBox (which in itself was an amazing machine).
- ab5tract 12y ago
  Good point. I was referring to the 1999 date of the demo, but you are 100% spot on here.
optimusclimb 12y ago
Was just chatting with someone about my feelings toward the "new" Microsoft. I admitted that, no matter what moves they'd make, I just wouldn't care, as I really can't forgive them as a company for all of the shitty, anti-progress moves they made. Embrace-and-extend anyone? Thanks for the reminder (that I had forgotten about) of just one of the many actions they took that makes me wish corporate capitol punishment had been an option. If I were BillG I'd be trying to philanthropize my heart out too.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  Sadly i fear that many companies will do just the same given the chance, open source or not.
  - mveety 12y ago
    They're amoral entities that are effectively programmed to make the most money. So really they're working as intended if they do that shit because it allows them to make more money.
blackoil 12y ago
Even without MS push, it may not have been a different story. BeOS was to generic, without any niche. Without MS Office etc it would have been difficult to capture any market. Linux was successful as a free UNIX clone, so instead of paying 1000s of dollars to sun, IBM you could have a free UNIX with a good webserver with PHP Java and all. BeOs never had such a ready market nor a niche.
- thom 12y ago
  It did have a niche, it just didn't have any software. I remember waiting/hoping in the 90s for Adobe and Quark to port over to BeOS so we could ditch Mac OS for publishing. In fact, it would have been interesting for someone like Adobe to buy Be, and become the de facto standard platform for most kinds of creative work. I can't imagine in that universe that there'd be a MacBook on basically every creative's desk, as there is now.
  - Zardoz84 12y ago
    I remember that BeOS was publicised as the dream OS for multimedia creation.
antocv 12y ago
I cant understand why more people dont realize US is not a capitalist or free market economy. Or even the EU. If you look closer at any industry you'll see cartels, monopolies, government support and skeweing what and who gets the money. Who gets payed and who doesnt. The best products do not win, the best companies do not win. It seems the different vs USSR is the scale of the economy.
- geon 12y ago
  Cartells and monopolies is the result of unregulated capitalism. To get a free market you need quite a bit of regulation.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >I cant understand why more people dont realize US is not a capitalist or free market economy. Because the presense of "cartels, monopolies, government support and skeweing what and who gets the money" doesn't preclude it being "capitalist" or "free market". There's the abstract "capitalism"/"free market" and there's the concrete reality, which is that it goes hand in hand with these things and always had. It's like Christianity -- in theory it's this perfect thing touting peace and love --, but in reality it's involved in everything from the crusades and the enslaving on native indians in the Americas to present day right wing bigotry.
  - antocv 12y ago
    In reality what EU is and USA today, is economically, financially, not very different than what USSR or SFRY was. Planned economy. The distinction private-public doesnt even make sense, with state subsidized private losses. Its just a few groups of people controlling systems.

pjmlp 12y ago

It was given a 2nd opportunity, but its owner was too greedy.

72deluxe 12y ago
Crazy eh? OSX could have had BeOS undergarments instead of BSD.
cturner 12y ago
It might have been the VC behind it, rather than him directly. We won't know until an insider writes a history.

fulafel 12y ago

What would have been the plausible avenue via which it could have taken off, even if Microsoft didn't take interest? There was no software, and the only connection to outside software world was the POSIX API supported for text-only apps. Their aim was to be acquired by Apple and get the throne that OS X now occupies, and after missing that chance they were left a niche hobbyist OS for Amiga refugees looking for a new technically superior underdog to root for.

ab5tract 12y ago
There were quite a few interesting softwares on BeOS. It's always the same thing: "you have no software, so you have no users / you have no users, so you have no software". If I had to guess, I would say the real growth markets would be audio and video. Your claim that it was only ever a bid to be sold by Apple is a bit ridiculous, IMO. They needed to look for a buyer because they could not get a single preinstall. The 'OS X throne' you are talking about was by no means a guaranteed outcome. It took almost a decade from the NeXT purchase to having real traction amongst Mac professionals. My only point is that NO ONE can say for sure what would have happened if there were not a monopoly standing in the way, using illegal tactics to shoulder out potential competition.
- fulafel 12y ago
  The chicken and egg problem is no joke. All surviving desktop operating systems (NT/OS X/Linux [source only]) launched having compatibility with existing apps. Of course nobody can say for sure, but their chances didn't look good.
  - ab5tract 12y ago
    You can go ahead and ignore the vertical dynamics of the illegal Wintel alliance on their chances if you want, but then I think we have nothing left to discuss. Also, Sheepshaver (sp?) was available on the PPC version, allowing Mac OS apps to run.
  - danieldk 12y ago
    Of course nobody can say for sure, but their chances didn't look good. Ignoring POSIX compatibility. You have to remember that this was still Mac OS classic time, and a lot of Mac developers were interested in and porting to BeOS. I used R4.5 and R5, and there was already quite some interesting software for it from former Mac developers, such as Gobe Productive, the Pe editor, and if I remember correctly some AAA games around the same time Loki existed.

glandium 12y ago

Both KDE and Gnome were actually in their 0.x's when the first non-preview BeOS was released, and BeOS had been kicking asses long before these projects were even started. It was also kicking asses in the era of Mac OS 7 and Windows 95. Although at the time, I think it was pretty much limited to the BeBox (which in itself was an amazing machine).

ab5tract 12y ago
Good point. I was referring to the 1999 date of the demo, but you are 100% spot on here.

optimusclimb 12y ago

Was just chatting with someone about my feelings toward the "new" Microsoft. I admitted that, no matter what moves they'd make, I just wouldn't care, as I really can't forgive them as a company for all of the shitty, anti-progress moves they made. Embrace-and-extend anyone? Thanks for the reminder (that I had forgotten about) of just one of the many actions they took that makes me wish corporate capitol punishment had been an option. If I were BillG I'd be trying to philanthropize my heart out too.

digi_owl 12y ago
Sadly i fear that many companies will do just the same given the chance, open source or not.
- mveety 12y ago
  They're amoral entities that are effectively programmed to make the most money. So really they're working as intended if they do that shit because it allows them to make more money.

blackoil 12y ago

Even without MS push, it may not have been a different story. BeOS was to generic, without any niche. Without MS Office etc it would have been difficult to capture any market. Linux was successful as a free UNIX clone, so instead of paying 1000s of dollars to sun, IBM you could have a free UNIX with a good webserver with PHP Java and all. BeOs never had such a ready market nor a niche.

thom 12y ago
It did have a niche, it just didn't have any software. I remember waiting/hoping in the 90s for Adobe and Quark to port over to BeOS so we could ditch Mac OS for publishing. In fact, it would have been interesting for someone like Adobe to buy Be, and become the de facto standard platform for most kinds of creative work. I can't imagine in that universe that there'd be a MacBook on basically every creative's desk, as there is now.
- Zardoz84 12y ago
  I remember that BeOS was publicised as the dream OS for multimedia creation.

antocv 12y ago

I cant understand why more people dont realize US is not a capitalist or free market economy. Or even the EU. If you look closer at any industry you'll see cartels, monopolies, government support and skeweing what and who gets the money. Who gets payed and who doesnt. The best products do not win, the best companies do not win. It seems the different vs USSR is the scale of the economy.

geon 12y ago
Cartells and monopolies is the result of unregulated capitalism. To get a free market you need quite a bit of regulation.
coldtea 12y ago
>I cant understand why more people dont realize US is not a capitalist or free market economy. Because the presense of "cartels, monopolies, government support and skeweing what and who gets the money" doesn't preclude it being "capitalist" or "free market". There's the abstract "capitalism"/"free market" and there's the concrete reality, which is that it goes hand in hand with these things and always had. It's like Christianity -- in theory it's this perfect thing touting peace and love --, but in reality it's involved in everything from the crusades and the enslaving on native indians in the Americas to present day right wing bigotry.
- antocv 12y ago
  In reality what EU is and USA today, is economically, financially, not very different than what USSR or SFRY was. Planned economy. The distinction private-public doesnt even make sense, with state subsidized private losses. Its just a few groups of people controlling systems.