You can slap a MacOS X label on a camel's butt too, but it doesn't mean it *is* MacOS X. :P
I still stand by my comparison that Rhapsody -> MacOS X as System 6 -> MacOS 9.x.
The basic ideas are the same in most places, but hardly a piece of the OS, from the kernel to the GUI, hasn't undergone some fairly serious modifications.
I still stand by my comparison that Rhapsody -> MacOS X as System 6 -> MacOS 9.x.
You're comparing a specific revision of an OS to an entire family tree.
If you must use a timeline comparison, at least use specific versions. Rhapsody to Mac OS X 10.0 is more akin to Mac OS 8.0 to Mac OS 9.x IMO. And then the jump from 10.0 to 10.2 is massive in itself. That doesn't make Rhapsody any less Mac OS X than Public Beta, 10.0, 10.1 or 10.2.
You're comparing a specific revision of an OS to an entire family tree.
If you must use a timeline comparison, at least use specific versions. Rhapsody to Mac OS X 10.0 is more akin to Mac OS 8.0 to Mac OS 9.x IMO.
That's your opinion. In my opinion, your opinion is wrong. *shrug*
Quote:
And then the jump from 10.0 to 10.2 is massive in itself. That doesn't make Rhapsody any less Mac OS X than Public Beta, 10.0, 10.1 or 10.2.
So, given also your comment that:
Quote:
It *is* Rhapsody, only refined. Steve-O basically made a fruit-colored lickable layer-cake diagram with a few minor alterations and Rhapsody became Mac OS X
Which is it? A massive jump from Rhapsody to MacOS X 10.2.6, or minor alterations?
I firmly believe the latter, easily as large a jump as System 6 -> 9, while you've been arguing the latter, apparently.
Some people have been saying that Rhapsody and MacOS X are essentially equivalent, with 'minor alterations'. The alterations are fairly substantial, and easily on par with the development from 6 -> 9.
IMO, of course. YMMV. Agree to disagree, and move on.
Comments
I still stand by my comparison that Rhapsody -> MacOS X as System 6 -> MacOS 9.x.
The basic ideas are the same in most places, but hardly a piece of the OS, from the kernel to the GUI, hasn't undergone some fairly serious modifications.
Originally posted by Kickaha
I still stand by my comparison that Rhapsody -> MacOS X as System 6 -> MacOS 9.x.
You're comparing a specific revision of an OS to an entire family tree.
If you must use a timeline comparison, at least use specific versions. Rhapsody to Mac OS X 10.0 is more akin to Mac OS 8.0 to Mac OS 9.x IMO. And then the jump from 10.0 to 10.2 is massive in itself. That doesn't make Rhapsody any less Mac OS X than Public Beta, 10.0, 10.1 or 10.2.
Originally posted by Eugene
You're comparing a specific revision of an OS to an entire family tree.
If you must use a timeline comparison, at least use specific versions. Rhapsody to Mac OS X 10.0 is more akin to Mac OS 8.0 to Mac OS 9.x IMO.
That's your opinion. In my opinion, your opinion is wrong. *shrug*
And then the jump from 10.0 to 10.2 is massive in itself. That doesn't make Rhapsody any less Mac OS X than Public Beta, 10.0, 10.1 or 10.2.
So, given also your comment that:
It *is* Rhapsody, only refined. Steve-O basically made a fruit-colored lickable layer-cake diagram with a few minor alterations and Rhapsody became Mac OS X
Which is it? A massive jump from Rhapsody to MacOS X 10.2.6, or minor alterations?
I firmly believe the latter, easily as large a jump as System 6 -> 9, while you've been arguing the latter, apparently.
Some people have been saying that Rhapsody and MacOS X are essentially equivalent, with 'minor alterations'. The alterations are fairly substantial, and easily on par with the development from 6 -> 9.
IMO, of course. YMMV. Agree to disagree, and move on.
who gives a crap
check out this item on eBay .
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...&category=4610
neat !
This may be of interest to all of you.