Slashdot Mirror


Looking Back At OS X's Origins

DJRumpy writes "Macworld Weekly has an interesting look at the history of OS X from its early origins in 1985 under NeXT and the Mach Kernel to Rhapsody, to its current iteration as OS X. An interesting, quick read if anyone is curious about the timeline from Apple's shaky '90s to their current position in the market. There's also an interesting link at the bottom talking about the difference between the original beta and the release product that we see today."

6 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. 90's OS by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
    In the 90's, all OS sucked. Networking and the internet made them look old. Mac OS still sucked less because of the way it interacted, and continued to interact, with standard compliant devices. The primary problem was that the motorola chips were becoming dated, which Apple fixed in the Mid 90's with the power PC.

    It is interesting to note that at that time MS also released their first real GUI OS, Windows NT. By 1996 MS has a credible OS, which remain useful until 2000, when XP became a reasonable successor. Like Mac OS 9, however, NT was not that consumer friendly.

    In a world where the web has reached a point where social media consumption and creation is what most people do, neither Mac OS X or Windows 7 will be the solution. As much as pundits want to say that people spend their days typing reports, creating powerpoints, that is not what people to. They post to video blogs and watch videos and text. We will see machines that run Windows 7 for business, and Mac OS X for software development and creative content creation, but the that is going to be an increasing niche market. People will be buying iOS and Android devices, because these are going to let them do stuff for $300. An external keyboard and google docs will let them do anything they need for school. Windows Mobile is not going to do it. We have seen the succor to Mac OS X, and it is iOS.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:90's OS by uglyduckling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I ran NT4 as my primary OS for about 8 months, and that wasn't my experience at all. Maybe rubbish shareware and 3D games wouldn't work, but all of the desktop productivity type software I had worked, all of the esoteric engineering apps for my uni course worked well. The main issue was device drivers for cheaper hardware, but then it was those that made Win 9x so unstable.

  2. Re:Oops. by NJRoadfan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Kinda sad the Apple IIgs had a Mac style GUI in color before the Mac did.

  3. Re:What the article doesn't mention by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe it's just a rationalization 20 years later for why Apple didn't adopt color graphics earlier.

    Maybe it's just the realization that most software developers do a crappy enough job in black and white that giving them even more freedom to screw up in even more garish ways isn't that great of an idea. Really. You may hate Steve for this, but if it avoids a system looking like Microsoft Windows' Default - Blue Luna, it's worth it.

    --
    That is all.
  4. Re:What the article doesn't mention by bonch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Colors in OS X are often muted because of people doing visual work. Many (if not all) of Apple's Pro apps use grayscale window controls and highlights regardless of what the rest of the system is configured to use.

  5. Re:Finder by Draek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would anyone assume that return means open?

    Because it had meant "take whatever I wrote, execute it and show me the results" for decades before Macs, and "take whatever I selected, and try to show it to me" is the closest analogue in the graphical world.

    Under the Mac OS Finder return means "toggle editing the name", another defined action which at least makes a little sense since return ends the editing just like return on a typewriter ends the current line.

    Oh no, it really doesn't. The logical jump from "end current line" to "edit selected item's name" is far too large to call it "[making] a little sense", larger still than the aforementioned "execute" -> "open" one which also has the benefit of being an analogy to another kind of computer rather than a whole different (and very much dead and forgotten) class of machines.

    Sorry, but as much as it may pain some of the Apple crowd around here, Microsoft *did* actually go with the saner choice here.

    --
    No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.