Unix dates back to the 1960s. you have to count back to the BELL/AT&T days as it was available to educational institutions.

apple was still using BASIC on Thier first machines long after netbsd

Microsoft was '81 for acquiring DOS (and that's technically a lie, they didn't have the source code for several years later. but it's how they convinced IBM)

both MS and Apple were living BASIC at this time. Basic is not a operating system, it's a pre-compiler environment. it's designed to let you run code directly without machine code. as assembler and C was not a thing or rather licensed yet.

BSD specifically Netbsd exists as they were part of the invention of C code. BSD was ported from assembler/machine code to be portable with C.

MSdos, which Microsoft acquired by buying Qdos (aka 86dos), was written by a developer who stole most of the code and copied the rest from a existing operating system (which I cannot recall at this time). both were In negotiations with IBM. just Microsoft lied through their teeth to get the contract and won.

apple at the same time had fallen behind. the Lisa and apple II were still running a basic interpreter on top of ROMMON. Wozniak who wrote ROMMON and later large portions of apples next two OSes including OSx. kept pushing to get a actual Unix like Operating system on the device.

however Steve jobs was cruel, and demanded no new changes... it's why Wolfenstein was nearly out before a true OS existed from Apple... Steve had a long history of trying to control advancement through forcing model version advancements with weaker hardware than the previous so you would be encouraged to upgrade.

?? I'm not following. sure you can run arm based CPUs as a mobile device, but performance of large applications or x86 applications is poor.

there is also the addressable memory space issue that exists due to most arm core designs targeting phones... the bus is super limited, despite the architecture technically supporting much much more.

current RiscV cores suffer this same flaw as well.

the reason arm cores have better battery life is they are designed with phones in mind... not a desktop cpu. x86 mobile CPUs are cut down desktop CPUs with tdp restrictions. there is a massive difference as a result.

we are talking completely different design philosophies. it's like comparing a ebike to a sports car... sure the ebike gets great energy economy when you scale the batteries. it's half petal powered and has tiny draws on lightweight frame. it's apples to oranges.

motorcycles would be more apt, but for arm, none really exist outside of obscenely priced workstations.

Did you actually look at the link?

There’s nothing mobile about that computer, it’s cool to not like arm but Apple isn’t the only company selling it.

Again, how do we trace the lineage of smart phones if not through PDAs?

Doesn't play integrity make you feel "safer"?

Obviously not, but it’s not like I can dictate what companies do :(

Yeah, but you realistically have to use de-culting tactics as that kind of shame as you say is hard to break out of

IOS is pretty good, actually, which explains the popularity of the Wii ! The interface was just so intuitive !