>However I myself haven't experienced such things because
>I don't have any needs that Linux nor Unix meet.
This is not about you having a need for some OS.
Consider this.
You already have a car, house, wife, etc.
But a friend of your forcing to try the new BMW.
The BMW cost less than your car, but better.
You said to him that you don't have the need for some car.
It's true, but once you tried it, it might change your way of thinking.
That there were another beautifull OS out there, that MS
trying to hide. This is not about having a need for something.
>Geeze you're a touchy one. I didn't say anything of the kind,
>thank you very much. If you want any one to take you seriously
>then you might want to consider not over-reacting so much and
>jumping on me for asking a perfectly reasonable question.
Sory.
I feel offended with the way you asked the Quake I things.
(Although Quake I, Quake II, Quake III run on BeOS -- yes we do have
binaries for it).
>My point is that at home I have a LOT of MS Windows software.
>So why would I want to switch to another OS and lose my ability
>to use all of that software?
That's the problem for most BeOS newbe.
They don't want to lose their investment.
But after a while some stay, some dual boot, some gone.
>Just because that OS is free? So is Linuz,
BeOS is not free.
The free download is not as fully loaded as the commercial one.
>but you don't see me switching to that.
I don't like Linux for desktop either.
Try that, hate that. Too hard for me.
>But the MAJORITY of software developers release their products ONLY for Microsoft OSs.
>So if BeOS can't run Windows software, even in an emulation mode, then really what IS the
>point? That's it's free? Is it worth it if you can't use any good software on it?
Every one millage may vary.
Some would love it, some will have another consideration.
>So why would I want the hassle of switching to
>something that I'd have no software support for?
Advanture.
Knowladge.
Ever heard the art of Zen??
You learn more about Windows by using other OS such as Linux, BeOS or OS/2.
If you only use Windows, your knowladge were limited to Windows.
You need to get out and see other OS archivement in order to know how good
is the OS that you used.
Especially you were software developer.
You should do try competitor product.
Or competitor product of the OS that you support.
>Thank you, but no. Besides the fact that I wouldn't be able to use any of my software,
>there is also the fact that the last thing I want to deal with is taking a perfectly stable
>computer and make it unstable by messing around with a new OS and a lack of driver support.
The free version, install under Windows.
You don't need to make partition, etc.
It were just like a windows apps.
If you don't like it, you can click un install.
It delete the directory, and all regestry key.
The commercial version.
install in seperate partition.
Run faster.
>Umm ... forgive me for not seeing how that makes any sense. As a software engineer
>who has intentionally left a lot of my code as single-threaded because there was
>nothing to gain by making it multi-threaded other than multiple processor support,
>and sometimes even slowing the software down because of synchronization issues,
>how can BeOS just magically make my software synchronized and multi-threaded?
>And what could I do if I didn't WANT it to multi-threaded?
Well, you don't quite right here.
In BeOS all apps were *VERY* responsive thank's to multi-threaded.
I could burn CD, run 8 videos, 10 MP3 at the same time on Single P-III 450,
and my system still responsive.
I learned that by multi-threading an apps it make the apps & system very
responsive, although it's on single processor. When I'm on MS Win land,
I see this idea as invalid. But once I'm in BeOS land, my vision changed.
I see from your profile that you were software developer.
I'm only halfway there
![;) ;)]()
, and my native language is not english.
So maybe some word I said doesn't have the quality of showing my point.
>So in other words, the API is multi-threaded. But the program routines themselves
>are still all in one thread, unless you actually write your software to be specifically
>multi-threaded.
yes.
>In which case it really means that there's no advantage to using BeOS over
>anything else because in order to make your processor-intensive programs
>actually process along multiple threads, you still have to do all of the work
>yourself just like you have to do in ANY other OS.
It's easier to do compare to other OS.
Because BeOS were natively SMP OS.
Well Mr. Slvr_phoenix,
I believe you can't judge one OS just by looking into it.
If you really interested, you should try it.
This is hard to tell with word. Seeing is believing.
>So what's the point?
>I mean it sounds like an interesting idea on one hand. But it sounds like from a
>software engineering aspect it'd make my job even harder, or at the very
>least just as difficult. And it would make my programs even less efficient
>unless I were to actually be running them on multiple processors.
>Forgive me for not seeing any advantages whatsoever to programming or using BeOS.
>Maybe it makes sense for people with multiple processors. But really, how many people
>actually have multiple processors?
>And if I can't run the software that I need on it, what point is there to using it?
Maybe BeOS is not for you.
But as reviewer site, THG should know about it.
>I can EASILY understand why THG doesn't take this OS very seriously. Who would?
I CAN'T agree you with this.
This conclusion is pointless.
And show *VERY* MS minded of you.
Are you bob (Bob = MS dog)?
THG is review site. It has to take every OS seriously even thought he won't using it.
Why? Because in order to give judgement to one problem, he has to see the whole
truth.
I mean he has to know about OS/2, BeOS, Linux, Windows to know how good or
bad Windows is.
Even the OS only good but have no software, THG as good reviewer should know about it.
I feel you conclosion is too Bob....
Get BeOS (
http://free.be.com)
The Best ever Operating System