These were both released in the year 2000

These were both released in the year 2000.

Attached: kodiak vs 2000.png (1920x1080, 1.33M)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS#Mac_OS_X_Public_Beta
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000
archive.org/details/Unix_World_Vol02_10.pdf/page/n21
trinitydesktop.org/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

the nextstep inspired icons are still great.

Pretty and useless on the left, functional but plain on the right. What more would you like to know?

>What more would you like to know?
how'd you get that retarded? how is a search function and the indentical web browser more useless?

Left is pretty and functional. Try spinning up a UNIX shell on the right without third-party tools.

macos was a toy before leopard

>Try spinning up a UNIX shell on the right without third-party tools.
How is this even an argument?

Are you pretending to be retarded?

>How is this even an argument?
Are you retarded? The left provides a great polished UI and a standard UNIX environment for all the productivity you could possibly desire. Right is good for running Office and Visual Basic, I guess.

>2 dudes kissing
I can't get over the finder icon

Tiger was great, only issue is Spotlight wasn't too great until Leopard

>How is this even an argument?
A UNIX shell is all you need

Yeah but Windows isn't ran by a sodomite with 2 dudes kissing as it's main icon.

Sadly it got shitty and died after leopard.

Great argument, but Steve wasn't a sodomite. He just had AIDS, probably from fucking a monkey on one of his acid-fueled trips through India.

Ah shit now I can’t unsee it

> Left has a Unix terminal

Everything you need even in 2022. Even in 2022 Windows Command Prompt is shit.

He died of HIV, he was a closet sodomite or a drug addict. Idk which ones worse.

>A UNIX shell is all you need
Or third party tools.

Nah sorry mate, I need more software compatibility you know because I desire more productivity.

Better than Gates who's still alive. He's gonna force you to eat the bugs and take your tenth booster.
Compatibility with what software?

>Windows is totally better, just lemme install all this extra shit to make it better
kek

>Compatibility with what software?
All of it.
>>Windows is totally better, just lemme install all this extra shit to make it better
Who the fuck leaves their install in a base state?

>Even in 2022 Windows Command Prompt is shit.
WSL2, Powershell, Windows Terminal... the list goes on.

>Who the fuck leaves their install in a base state?
Hopefully nobody, but the fact that you need a bunch of third party tools for what should be basic functionality is laughable

Apparantly Mac fags? Haha lame.

>Two dudes kissing
>Apple gaybow logo

Someone is a sodomite at that company. Unless they're just did that to appeal to their customer base.

>All of it.
Please show me how to run the BSD coreutils natively on Windows 2000 (or GNU, I don't judge).

Man being a Win32 retard makes one immensely dense I can tell.

I don't see how that is basic functionality.

That's because you don't do anything except browse the internet and play video games on your computer. Windows is perfect for you, we know, though you would have been better off with 98 SE at the time.

Windows is for british cigarettes

Being a paid Apple shill means you should be banned from Any Forums.

You still didn't explain how it fits in the category of 'basic functionality'.

>decent text editor (emacs and vi)
>text processors (sed and awk)
>decent scripting languages (python and ruby)
>ssh
>decent search (grep)
>etc.

>paid Apple shill
>shilling for early OS X
No, modern macOS is made for toddlers, but when it came out OS X was legitimately the best OS you could possibly run. XP was the toddler OS at the time.
UNIX is the standard, and the coreutils are a required part of any UNIX implementation.

But why does Windows need either GNU of Unix coreutils?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Back to little wintoddler.

>UNIX is the standard, and the coreutils are a required part of any UNIX implementation.
UNIX is went schizophrenic and died back in the stone age. Linux the spiritual successor copied all of its bad habits.

Because its own equivalents are significantly worse.
>Notepad/Wordpad
garbage
>text processors
Does it even have an equivalent?
>scripting languages
Have fun with Visual BASIC
>ssh
Enjoy that unencrypted telnet session

BSDs are the literal successors of UNIX. Linux is a very successful copycat. OS X is BSD with a different kernel.

Based nix enjoyer

It's a bit more complicated. OS X's kernel is a hodgepodge of FreeBSD, NeXTSTEP, and Mach, while the userland is a mix of BSD and GNU coreutils

Dont forget powershell is infinitely worse than zsh

Sure but we're talking Windows 2000. Besides, no need for zsh when ksh exists

You sure? I thought they were using BSD coreutils with a few GNU tools like bash. Still, it's certified UNIX.

and both are better than their 20 year old later versions

Positive, OS X's userland is a very strange mix of the two

>baww windows needs unix
cygwin
>BUT NOT SUPPORTED ON 2K KEK
It was when 2k was an active OS, cygwin started in the mid fucking 90s. 2k is dead now so of course it's no longer supported.
>but not built in KEK
No single person cares. You have to install all sorts of shit to make any crApple computer functional, same with Windows.

Itoddlers btfo
W2000 was 10 times better.

>You have no idea what you're talking about. Back to little wintoddler.
Argument not detected.

Huh, sounds like I can solve a lot of those issues with third party software and boy is there a wide selection thanks to Windows' emphasis on compatibility.

>BSDs are the literal successors of UNIX. Linux is a very successful copycat. OS X is BSD with a different kernel.

Yeah but who uses them? Pic in OP was comparing two OS's that were meant for consumers that probably couldn't tell you anything besides their desire to download more RAM.

>Huh, sounds like I can solve a lot of those issues with third party software
Yeah, we already covered that. Thing is you shouldn't fucking have to.

>These were both released in the year 2000.
Source?

At what? Hosting a server? You just used a different UNIX for that, like Linux or Solaris.
>Pic in OP was comparing two OS's that were meant for consumers
Windows 2000 wasn't meant for consumers, ME was the consumer version. OS X was intended for both consumers and developers (see: the /dev/null ad).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS#Mac_OS_X_Public_Beta
>On September 13, 2000, Apple released
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000
>released to retail on February 17, 2000

I meant the source code.

You're going to find more on the OS X side of things than the Windows side (actually I think Win2k's been leaked) but look up Darwin

holy shit I hate that "brushed metal" design in macOS, good thing they got rid of it.

Not only did they do the same thing, but one was useless and only did half of what the other could do.

Attached: 1614025211213.jpg (365x346, 12.57K)

SOVLLESS / SOVL

Left: polished shit
Right: simplicity in design, power behind curtains

fpbp

>Windows 9x
>power
Even Microsoft knew it was shit, that is why they only sold Windows NT to enterprise users. But even that is shit for work compared to Unix. The only reason to ever use Windows is as a toy for playing with.

>The only reason to ever use Windows is as a toy for playing with.
Exactly. I fucking love shitting around with Windows and their server software garbage

>WSL2, Powershell, Windows Terminal... the list goes on.
But what's the point of using an OS if you're only going to use to run a virtual machine with better a better OS installed on it

fuck you

>MUH SHINY BUTTONS
>MUH WINDOW SHADOW

>WSL2
Literally a virtual machine
>Powershell
it sucks
>Windows Terminal
iTerm and Terminal.app are much better than this slow junk

>WSL2, Powershell, Windows Terminal... the list goes on.
you obviously don't use this garbage. package management and unix-like shell solutions for development on windows is pure pain, it is always some sort of heavily limiting compromise and clusterfuck

98/XP theme is great, i used it on win7 too.

Nobody here cares for your boyfriends OS. Don't forget to dilate.

A beta is not a "release". Also OSX looks like a toy designed for toddlers. Windows looks like a utilitarian business machine designed to get work done. I say this as a GNU/Linux user who hasn't used either since 2005.

Oh look, the 38 year old tranny janny is drunk and posting Apple bait spam as usual.
Isn't the fucking life expectancy of these degenerate fuckheads something like 28 years? You're gonna do it eventually anyway, tranny janny. Do us all a favor and make it sooner rather than later.

Windows 2000 was actually better here than modern Windows. It had the Windows Subsystem for POSIX Applications, which unlike "WSL2", is an actual Windows Subsystem, a component that translates a POSIX-like system call API to the underlying NT kernel interfaces.

Attached: interix.png (800x600, 31.87K)

>thinking that's a good thing
Windows Subsystem for POSIX was and is a steaming pile of shit.

It's not. It's a genuine implementation of a Unix system call API and its userland was derived from OpenBSD, recognised as a fine Unix. The early versions were primitive but the later Interix found from Win2k onwards was much more sophisticated. It could even run GNOME or KDE (love how GNOME morons today are basedfacing over the prospect of doing this with WSL2g.)

So is NT. WSL1 was abandoned because NT's file I/O design is so braindead that operations on large git repos were actually faster in a VM.

Mac OS X was real UNIX, Windows will never be a real UNIX

Nothing has beat the look of this since

Attached: Windows_Vista-57c956973df78c71b606e86f.png (800x600, 125.73K)

>this is what wintoddlers legitimately believe
Windows Vista look was comfy. Can't lie.

neither of them were
windows 2000 came out in 1999, and mac os x in 2001

KDE2 also came out in 2000.

Attached: KDE_2.2.2.png (1024x768, 179.93K)

I want to go back

Attached: 343.jpg (596x628, 40.43K)