Talk:Mac operating systems/Archive 1

Archive 1

List of version

It would be nice to have a list of the 10 versions of the MacOS:

• Version number
• Date of publication
• Prominent new features
• Minimum hardware requirement

-- mpt

I've started on a list in History --Damian Yerrick

Easter eggs

maybe somebody could add in some eeggs? (if you don't know what those are, look at eeggs.com)

Do you mean Easter Eggs? I once opened one of the system files (I can't remember which -- maybe "System" or "Finder") with Norton Disk Editor and I found text near the start of the file, along the lines of "hehlp help I'm trapped in a software development factory". This was system 7.something -- Tarquin

Removed reference to Windows

Removed:

"Microsoft Windows, a response to Macintosh, eventually overtook the Macintosh in popularity and now has a monopoly in the OS market."

• Was it "a response"?
• Is is more popular, or just more common?
• When is "now"?
• MS does not have a monopoly. Perhaps it currently has a near-monopoly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.135.xxx (talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 December 2001 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows was an effort to duplicate (as best Microsoft could) the Macintosh's advanced windowing and point-and-click graphical system. You can read more about it here. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.42.21.95 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives

I'm not sure about the need for "Alternative operating systems include...", since Windows can't run on Mac. Can Linux? -- Tarquin

Don't see the need either. Even if Linux could run on a Mac, only mentioning Windows and Linux isn't really useful. The OS article contains a much longer list, so a reference there would do IMO. Jeronimo

Running Linux under Mac OS X is significant because OS X itself is also UNIX based and open source, FreeBSD 3.2. It is not uncommon to unplug the BSD kernel and put a real Linux in its place.

Do you mean running Linux in an emulator or virtual machine under Mac OS X? Or running Linux on a Mac instead of Mac OS X? --Brion

FYI, there is a version of Linux that runs on Mac hardware. I believe it's called MkLinux. AFAIK, it is a standalone OS, not runnin gunder OS X or Mac OS 9. GRAHAMUK 04:57, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Linux does run on Mac hardware. Numerous distributions, such as Debian, Yellow Dog, and Gentoo support PPC Macs. I've got a PowerMac 7500 running Debian 3.0 in my office at work. I don't know if there are any distributions anymore for m68020/30/40 Macs still being maintained, but the kernel does still support all that Mac hardware so it's possible. It's just a bit of work. There's also a project called Mac-On-Linux that runs "Classic" Mac OS on top of Linux, kind of like how OS/2 used to run DOS on top of itself. But running the OS X GUI on top of Linux, no... OS X might run under Mac-on-Linux but that's not the same as replacing the BSD kernel with Linux. It's also possible to run NetBSD and OpenBSD on most Macs, and there was a version of BeOS for pre-G3 PPC Macs. Someone swore to me once that he got the PPC version of Windows NT 3.51 running on Mac hardware but I've never heard of another person making that claim. If indeed it was possible, which I doubt, it certainly wasn't common.

Now, as far as Windows vs. Mac OS, there's plenty of evidence that work on Windows 1.0 began before Microsoft got its first Mac prototype. But it's undeniable that some of the Mac's ideas found their way into Windows and Gates was infamously unapologetic about that. But name one Microsoft product that didn't borrow heavily from an earlier, competing product. Other than Bob. Dave Farquhar 03:32, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what the evidence is. If MS announced Windows in 1983, but had been working on Excel and Word for the Mac since 1981, it looks as if MS saw a Mac before they thought of Windows. However, of course it's possible that Windows 1.0 developments started long before it was announced, or it may be that the Excel/Word work doesn't go back that far and the quoted dates are wrong. It's probably not really all that important, but for historical accuracy it would be great to establish the facts, whatever they are. Surely somebody can give a definitive perspective on this? GRAHAMUK 04:17, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's quite possible that MS had something Windows-like in the works; Smalltalk publicity ca 1980-81 had got most of the computing world's attention, and everybody (including me :-) ) was scheming about how to get that cool interface onto regular hardware. However, MS was a smallish place back then, and "working on Windows 1.0" might have meant one person fooling around with bitblts in his spare time. I don't have any helpful reference works tho. Stan 13:06, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Merge with Mac OS history

This article is pretty weak the way it is (which includes the stuff I wrote) and Mac OS history is weak the way it is. Is there a reason why we don't merge these two together? It's hard to talk about MacOS without talking history. Fuzheado 00:22, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Applications, not OS, are classic

I do not feel comfortable enough to change it but it is the applications that are classic not the operating system Freeware 16:04, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Classic, strictly speaking, is the name of the environment used to run Mac OS 9 and its applications on Mac OS X. The term has been generalized to refer to both "Classic applications" and "Mac OS Classic", which may not be strictly correct but is nonetheless generally understood.Drernie 19:43, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) Drernie 19:43, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Classic Mac OS

The use of "Classic Mac OS" is wrong and confusing. Better use Mac OS, as the newer Mac OS X is never called Mac OS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.115.134.51 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 25 June 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think a compromise would be not to capitalize "classic" when it appears next to Mac OS or applications (except at the beginning of sentences or in titles) and to place it in quotes much of the time. This would help differentiate it from the Classic Environment, or even the Macintosh Classic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.42.22.216 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Splitting software list

I think the software list could be split into OS X and classic. Perhaps also moved to a seperate page. As it approaches becomming comprehensive it would be huge list...  :Flimsyq 21:26, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Actually I think it would be a sensible move to create a separate page, List of Macintosh software, which can be linked from several Mac related entries. I think the inclusion of these lists (of which there are several scattered on different pages), actually doesn't enhance these articles, and is problematic due to the sheer potential length of the list. The list should be broken down into sections - Currently released by Apple, formerly released by Apple, and third parties. Graham 22:51, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Help with writing

I've been at Apple 18 years working on nearly every version of the OS we've had. I'm happy to help edit some of this stuff but I'm not a writer so while I can help with content, history etc someone else can feel free to edit/clean up my entries.

I've been there since 1980 and worked on OS 6/7/8, A/UX, MAE, AIX, OS X, Darwin. The one OS that I didn't work on was the infamous and eventually cancelled Copland project...

"So many OS's, so little time"

JK

New World Machines

"Until the advent of the G3 era systems (the so-called "new world" machines),"

This is not correct. The first G3 machines were old world, for example, the G3 233, 266 and 300, and the Powerbook G3 series, called "Walstreet".

How about "The return of Steve Jobs, ushering in the new world ROMs, USB, Firewire, and banishing floppy drives and ADB peripherals and serial printers." Castlan 13:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't sound very encyclopedic, that sounds more like something from a story passage. I've made a more basic change to the sentence that makes it correct. — Wackymacs 13:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Mac OS X

"Interestingly, as of 2004, every update to Mac OS X since the original public beta has had the peculiar quality of being noticeably faster and more responsive than the version it replaced, the opposite trend of most operating systems. As noted by John Siracusa of Ars Technica: For over three years now, Mac OS X has gotten faster with every release — and not just "faster in the experience of most end users", but faster on the same hardware. This trend is unheard of among contemporary desktop operating systems. [1]"

I would remove this entire block and replace it with something more objective that reflects clearly what Mac OS X is all about, especially within the context of the 'Mac OS'. The point that OS X, generally speaking, may have got faster with subsequent releases is not really a key fact in summarizing what OS X is about. It almost feels like an advert as well, relying on opinion from a somewhat consumer-oriented/industry gossip website to try and carry it.

It lacks neutrality and is not really informative or helpful to the reader at all in forming a brief understanding but rather distracting. I would replace this with something else entirely.

This is true, Mac OS X is getting faster, but this can be also described as getting "less slow". Mac OS X was a major speed hit for Mac OS 9 users - computers that run Mac OS 9 used to "walk" with Mac OS X. It is also natural for Mac OS X to become faster over time, as it was a port of NextStep software to the Macintosh platform, and it takes a lot of time to optimizes and improve such a big project.

Mac OS Classic hold-outs

I've been asked if hard numbers are available for Mac users who are still using pre-X versions of Mac OS. I don't have any, but I used the term "significant" based on a combination of factors that - taken together - are fairly credible.

1. I do tech support for an art school, where there's a scanning computer in nearly every Mac lab, running OS 9 because the drivers don't work under OS X. Similarly, we have some perfectly good ADB Wacom tablets that only work under OS 9. One faculty member just upgraded his home-office systems (except a print server), and a few adjuncts report using it elsewhere (usually because they're freelancers too cheap/poor to upgrade). I won't be upgrading the last of the OS 9 iMacs in faculty offices until later this year.
2. Stats show that there are still oodles of Win98/ME systems out there (contemporary to Mac OS 8-9), and given Apple's reputation for long-lasting hardware (bolstered by the fact that I have an SE and a Quadra that still run), I have little doubt that there are significant numbers of PowerMac systems out there still getting work done on Mac OS 7-9.
3. Jobs has just started saying that the transition to OS X is "complete", and I'm automatically skeptical of claims like that.

Tverbeek 02:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I would guess that in Jobs' eyes, complete means >50%. At the university where I work, they have only just dropped official technical support for Mac OS 9, and I know there are still people here using it. While many are converting to OS X as they upgrade to new hardware, a more worrrying trend is the way that some managers are pushing through Windows machines because it's "just the same as OS X anyway". Graham 03:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read these last years, Mac users who still do not use Mac OS X are a small minority, small enough not to care about them.

According to the calculations here, as of January 2004, there were ~25 million mac users, ~11 million of which have machines capable of running MacOS X, of which, ~10 million are running OS X. So, It depends how you look at it. Only 40% of all Mac users are on OS X, but 90% of users with recent hardware are. -Adjusting 00:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

My brother does professional graphic design and he found that Mac OS X failed to recognize a huge number of expensive, commercial fonts his company bought and used without problems on System 9. After using OS X for a few months, his whole company hated OS X but were forced to use it because the new computers cannot run System 9. I have never seen a Mac user so hateful of his OS and want to switch to Windows.

I started using my Mac more and, you guessed it, I started disliking it (but only when I do semi–graphic design–related work) even though I am a long-time Unix user and even though I was perfectly comfortable with the pre-OS X Mac.

The facts that (1) the new computers are no longer capable of running OS 9 and (2) the new software require OS X probably explain why almost all the computers capable of running OS X are running it; this phenomenon has nothing to do with the quality of the operating system.—Gniw (Wing) 03:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't say I've had problems with fonts as such, as I don't use them professionally in the way a graphics designer needs to. I am a Mac developer however, and I think part of the problem at the moment is the way that Carbon's Font Manager API (which is a legacy from the old days) has been shoehorned into the newer font handling system on OS X. Many graphics apps such as Adobe's entire range are Carbon apps, and inherit this unfortunate legacy API as a result. The native font handling on OSX is FAR better than the classic Mac, but its true benefits are only realised when ditching the old APIs and moving to the new ones. This isn't much help if you rely on Adobe products however, or are used to things working the old way. However, there are so many advantages and benefits to OSX over the old Mac OS that condemning the entire OS due to a quirk of the legacy API in one small area does seem a bit out of proportion, though I do understand if all your work relies on fonts that this would be frustrating. On the other hand, have you ever tried installing fonts on Windows XP? I think a half hour spent doing that will show that the Mac is still superior with the way it handles fonts in the main. Graham 05:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd also have guessed that the Adobe software aren't using OS X native API's (I didn't know about the font API, but the poor memory management, unreliable printing support, etc. just seem fishy). However, I have to disagree about ease of font installation under XP. OS X's "Font Book" application (basically the only way a user can install fonts in 10.3) just does't work, esp. w.r.t. global font installation. But in OS X there are also all the other trivial incompatibilities that just drive ex-OS 9 users insane ("trivial" things like key binding incompatiblities in the Finder). The lack of transparency in Apple's bug reporting process (even if reported through an ADC account) just makes matters worse.—Gniw (Wing) 07:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well XP requires a reboot to install a font, which is nuts. Font Book appears to work OK for me, on the few occasions I've used it. The key bindings are a nuisance (I assume you're talking about the menu shortcuts) but you can reconfigure them. Once you get used to them they are a bit more logical - like command-N for New Window, just like every other application (though I agree it's annoying at first that this isn't New Folder!). I guess it's like anything - if you're used to somethign then you resent changes, but in this case they are easy enough to get used to and the benefits far outweigh either sticking with OS 9 or moving to Windows, IMO. Graham 09:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)