If you used the first version of MacOS X server that was released, it was exactly like that screenshot. It was very much a port of NeXtStep with a Mac GUI and still retained the postscript engine.
Yup, I mentioned this earlier, but you said it more bluntly.
I'll say it even more bluntly... Rhapsody was released, and it was marketed as a Mac OS X product. So if Rhapsody's GUI and codebase are half-baked, the current OS X's GUI and codebase are maybe 3/5ths baked.
Yup, I mentioned this earlier, but you said it more bluntly.
I'll say it even more bluntly... Rhapsody was released, and it was marketed as a Mac OS X product. So if Rhapsody's GUI and codebase are half-baked, the current OS X's GUI and codebase are maybe 3/5ths baked.
Check out some of those screenshots...A few panels and apps there look familiar?
Well, having used GNUStep on FreeBSD, almost all the applications look familar. From what I have heard there is a move to create NeXt Step, but base it on Linux and GNUStep. Lets see how that goes. So far there seems to be alot of stuffing around.
As for what is happening now, I'd love to see 10.3 synced up with FreeBSD 5.2 once it has been released. By then KSE and libpthreads will be finished and also, IIRC, GCC 3.3 will be the default compiler.
Eugene, Rhapsody had a half-baked UI and a half-baked codebase. Jesus, it really is that simple.
You are correct. It was a half-baked version of OS X.
When Panther is unleashed, the cake will finally be about "done", it has been a long, long wait on the oven since december 1996.
Quote:
Originally posted by Barto
As it turned out, Mac OS X has a lot of differences from OpenStep, and has a very, very different GUI from Platinum. It was a waste of time.
If Rhapsody didn't exist, we would have got Mac OS X SOONER, not never.
Mac OS X have a lot of implementation differences from OpenStep, but much less fundamental architectural differences than you would believe.
If Rhapsody hadn't existed, we would never have got Mac OS X, period.
Having used all of the predecessors to OS X helps to gain perspective, trust me.
Quote:
Originally posted by Barto
The code based lacked a lot of things. I'm not enough of a programmer to go into it properly, but a lack of a Carbon-like API is a very good argument.
Application developers wern't going to rewrite everything just so their apps could run on Rhapsody, therefore the codebase was "half-baked" - the thinking that produced it wasn't complete.
It was too large a step to take to begin with. They had a few weeks to put up an OS strategy for MW Jan 1997 and didn't get all things right at once. Big deal - that is how software development works. One more iteration on the planned feature set and you had OS X.
It is true that Carbon surfaced due to demands of "classic" Mac OS developers who didn't want to make major changes to their codebase - so Apple listened to that part of their developer base (and rightly so from a business perspective, even if it slowed down things quite a bit).
If they had chosen to not do Carbon, we would have had a mature OS X release much quicker (and perhaps even a Finder that worked), but without any applications like Photoshop etc.
Rhapsody is to MacOS X as System 6 is to System 9.
Sure, there's a history there, and much of the underlying code is similar.
But everything that the *user* cares about has undergone a drastic shift, from how the GUI looks and operates to the typesetting engine.
Seriously, the difference between the two OSs for intents and purposes is pretty drastic, and I don't mean in an eye-candy sort of way.
Cocoa has been *drastically* improved since Rhapsody, Carbon is brand-spanking new, Classic is now a minor miracle of clever elegance... and this doesn't even get into the graphics subsystems (Quartz, Quartz Extreme), the manner in which type and graphics are handled within those systems, or any other number of fairly large changes that have been made from the lowest Mach system up through the user interface.
Are they similar? Sure.
But to say that there's really no difference is just a slap in the face of the amazing amount of progress that has been made, and IMHO doesn't reflect reality.
Seriously, the difference between the two OSs for intents and purposes is pretty drastic, and I don't mean in an eye-candy sort of way.
Absolutely, no dispute. 10.1 was the first usable release, 10.2 is really good - Panther will be interesting...
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Cocoa has been *drastically* improved since Rhapsody,
Actually not really. Sure, there have been improvements, but not nearly to the same degree as core os features (driver model, power management, SMP capability, etc, etc) or Carbon/Classic as you mentioned. A lot of cocoa has looked the same since 1995.
Quartz is actually very similar to DPS as a graphics model (no surprise, PDF is to a large degree essentially dumbed-down postscript after all), even if it is architecturally quite different (c function interface rather than the client/server architecture used by DPS). QE and the compositing engine is very cool though.
I think most people who have ported old DPS code (pswrap:ed functions etc) have found that it was a quite straightforward mapping.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
But to say that there's really no difference is just a slap in the face of the amazing amount of progress that has been made, and IMHO doesn't reflect reality.
Agreed - there have been an amazing amount of progress and kudos to the whole engineering team at Apple for it!
The point was just that it is reasonable to expect that they have been able to keep most of the codebase on x86 if they wanted to and that the relationship indeed is there (as system6 / OS 9, the analogy is fine by me).
it would be cool to hear some-ones experiences with it.
I got a chance to use it at MacWorld Boston in 1995 or 96. It was a very primative build, because it didn't even have the Platinum interface, it looked like System 7.1 with some of the other Copland features like window tabs at the bottom of Finder, windows that spun when opened, multiple file copying in the Finder, button view, etc.
One word: Unstable. The Finder crashed constantly. I wasn't able to do much with it because, basically, there were very few 3rd party apps that ran under it. Most of the stuff I played with was Open Doc stuff.
I did get a really cool CD demo of it, though. I still have it.
Actually not really. Sure, there have been improvements, but not nearly to the same degree as core os features (driver model, power management, SMP capability, etc, etc) or Carbon/Classic as you mentioned. A lot of cocoa has looked the same since 1995.
Yup, and yet they managed to add Scripting support, Undo support, Key/Value support... all without changing the existing APIs. You've gotta love dynamic languages... but more to the point, they added new design philosophies in a way that a) didn't break existing code, b) made sense. From a design standpoint, it's quite the coup.
Now add to that the shift to CoreFoundation under fairly significant pieces of Cocoa, and it starts to add up to a nicely improved system.
I think the amount of utter changes completed *without* making Cocoa look like it's shifting is just plain amazing.
Can anyone suggest a website that details the history of Mac OS's. All I know about Copeland is that never say the light of day. Even that I'm not sure of. Archive.org had an old episode of Computer Chronicles where some guy from Apple showed off Copeland but. Link is here: http://www.archive.org/movies/detail...lectionid=1313
I was too young/ignorant back then to have any background knowledge of Apple. In the mid-ninties I thought my LC630 was the apex of technology so I obviouly had no clue what Apple was up to.
Damn. Looks like they kept most of the good stuff (find, though we could use the Save find feature) and dropped the wastage with OS X. That multi-user system was especially boneheaded IMO. Thanks for the link!
Apple generally lets you (ie, doesn't sue you) sell seeded hardware/software when it becomes irrelevent to them and their current strategy. That is, Mac OS X 10.0 for x86 would land you in court, but I doubt Star Trek (System 7 for x86) would.
Very little is actually different. There are nitty gritty evolutional changes, but nothing revolutionary.
This is just not true. I have still some CDs with Rhapsody/x86 and it is a completely different beast than MacOS-X
.- MacOS-X is no longer based on a straight Mach kernel, but a heavily modified one (able to send Carbon events et al)
- Rhapsody had no Quicktime and no AppleScript, two technologies that are quite fundamental to what MacOS is compared to OpenStep.
- the driver model is completely different in MacOS-X. AFAIK, kernel extensions like today were not supported back then either.
Oh, and I still own a 7100 and some Copland previews. Every other year or so, I install them just for the heck of it and watch this amazing startup-movie...
Apart from that it is completely unusable. Slow as 10.0 and totally unstable.
.- MacOS-X is no longer based on a straight Mach kernel, but a heavily modified one (able to send Carbon events et al)
So in exactly what way do you suggest that the kernel have been modified to be able to "send Carbon events" ?
Quote:
Originally posted by Smircle
- Rhapsody had no Quicktime and no AppleScript, two technologies that are quite fundamental to what MacOS is compared to OpenStep.
Hardly, it is just two frameworks implemented on top of an operating system foundation. The foundation may have been improved to facilitate the implementation of QT (I would imagine the work on making the kernel preemptive would have been useful for the QT folks that have some sort of time constraints). In fact, the same people who have been leading up the work on Quartz implemented a "QT lookalike" on top of OpenStep called... "NEXTIME". It even played some QT movies (and was originally showing of some cool wavelet codec that a guy called Richard Crandall was behind - who is also now at Apple).
Quote:
Originally posted by Smircle
- the driver model is completely different in MacOS-X. AFAIK, kernel extensions like today were not supported back then either.
Evolution here as well I'd say. OpenStep uses an OO driver model based on Objective-C (DriverKit). Mac OS X uses an OO driver model based on C++ (I/O Kit). I don't know of any other OS:s that uses an OO driver model. I haven't written device drivers for either OS, so I can't comment on how similar they are, but I would assume that they took a long hard look at what was right/wrong with DriverKit when designing the new driver model.
This is just not true. I have still some CDs with Rhapsody/x86 and it is a completely different beast than MacOS-X
.- MacOS-X is no longer based on a straight Mach kernel, but a heavily modified one (able to send Carbon events et al)
- Rhapsody had no Quicktime and no AppleScript, two technologies that are quite fundamental to what MacOS is compared to OpenStep.
- the driver model is completely different in MacOS-X. AFAIK, kernel extensions like today were not supported back then either.
NOTHING is based on a straight Mach kernel...it is useless in its most basic form.
Rhapsody and OS X Server 1.0 had QuickTime 2.5. The latest version would have been implemented in time a consumer release. AppleScript is many layers of the cake up from what Barto would call the 'codebase.'
.kexts in NeXT or OpenStep? The implementation isn't different enough for me to care about.
And everybody keeps ignoring the fact that Rhapsody was named Mac OS X Server at one point. Rhapsody was the very first Mac OS X available...ever!
Comments
Originally posted by coocoocachoonz
If you used the first version of MacOS X server that was released, it was exactly like that screenshot. It was very much a port of NeXtStep with a Mac GUI and still retained the postscript engine.
Yup, I mentioned this earlier, but you said it more bluntly.
I'll say it even more bluntly... Rhapsody was released, and it was marketed as a Mac OS X product. So if Rhapsody's GUI and codebase are half-baked, the current OS X's GUI and codebase are maybe 3/5ths baked.
And to reiterate: http://www.levenez.com/NeXTSTEP/NextApps.html
Check out some of those screenshots...A few panels and apps there look familiar?
Originally posted by Eugene
Yup, I mentioned this earlier, but you said it more bluntly.
I'll say it even more bluntly... Rhapsody was released, and it was marketed as a Mac OS X product. So if Rhapsody's GUI and codebase are half-baked, the current OS X's GUI and codebase are maybe 3/5ths baked.
And to reiterate: http://www.levenez.com/NeXTSTEP/NextApps.html
Check out some of those screenshots...A few panels and apps there look familiar?
Well, having used GNUStep on FreeBSD, almost all the applications look familar. From what I have heard there is a move to create NeXt Step, but base it on Linux and GNUStep. Lets see how that goes. So far there seems to be alot of stuffing around.
As for what is happening now, I'd love to see 10.3 synced up with FreeBSD 5.2 once it has been released. By then KSE and libpthreads will be finished and also, IIRC, GCC 3.3 will be the default compiler.
Originally posted by Barto
Eugene, Rhapsody had a half-baked UI and a half-baked codebase. Jesus, it really is that simple.
You are correct. It was a half-baked version of OS X.
When Panther is unleashed, the cake will finally be about "done", it has been a long, long wait on the oven since december 1996.
Originally posted by Barto
As it turned out, Mac OS X has a lot of differences from OpenStep, and has a very, very different GUI from Platinum. It was a waste of time.
If Rhapsody didn't exist, we would have got Mac OS X SOONER, not never.
Mac OS X have a lot of implementation differences from OpenStep, but much less fundamental architectural differences than you would believe.
If Rhapsody hadn't existed, we would never have got Mac OS X, period.
Having used all of the predecessors to OS X helps to gain perspective, trust me.
Originally posted by Barto
The code based lacked a lot of things. I'm not enough of a programmer to go into it properly, but a lack of a Carbon-like API is a very good argument.
Application developers wern't going to rewrite everything just so their apps could run on Rhapsody, therefore the codebase was "half-baked" - the thinking that produced it wasn't complete.
It was too large a step to take to begin with. They had a few weeks to put up an OS strategy for MW Jan 1997 and didn't get all things right at once. Big deal - that is how software development works. One more iteration on the planned feature set and you had OS X.
It is true that Carbon surfaced due to demands of "classic" Mac OS developers who didn't want to make major changes to their codebase - so Apple listened to that part of their developer base (and rightly so from a business perspective, even if it slowed down things quite a bit).
If they had chosen to not do Carbon, we would have had a mature OS X release much quicker (and perhaps even a Finder that worked), but without any applications like Photoshop etc.
What good would that have been?
Originally posted by Eugene
Check out some of those screenshots...A few panels and apps there look familiar?
I especially like http://www.levenez.com/NeXTSTEP/Mail.gif
which captures Mail.app, the font panel and the color panel in one go...
Sure, there's a history there, and much of the underlying code is similar.
But everything that the *user* cares about has undergone a drastic shift, from how the GUI looks and operates to the typesetting engine.
Seriously, the difference between the two OSs for intents and purposes is pretty drastic, and I don't mean in an eye-candy sort of way.
Cocoa has been *drastically* improved since Rhapsody, Carbon is brand-spanking new, Classic is now a minor miracle of clever elegance... and this doesn't even get into the graphics subsystems (Quartz, Quartz Extreme), the manner in which type and graphics are handled within those systems, or any other number of fairly large changes that have been made from the lowest Mach system up through the user interface.
Are they similar? Sure.
But to say that there's really no difference is just a slap in the face of the amazing amount of progress that has been made, and IMHO doesn't reflect reality.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Seriously, the difference between the two OSs for intents and purposes is pretty drastic, and I don't mean in an eye-candy sort of way.
Absolutely, no dispute. 10.1 was the first usable release, 10.2 is really good - Panther will be interesting...
Originally posted by Kickaha
Cocoa has been *drastically* improved since Rhapsody,
Actually not really. Sure, there have been improvements, but not nearly to the same degree as core os features (driver model, power management, SMP capability, etc, etc) or Carbon/Classic as you mentioned. A lot of cocoa has looked the same since 1995.
Quartz is actually very similar to DPS as a graphics model (no surprise, PDF is to a large degree essentially dumbed-down postscript after all), even if it is architecturally quite different (c function interface rather than the client/server architecture used by DPS). QE and the compositing engine is very cool though.
I think most people who have ported old DPS code (pswrap:ed functions etc) have found that it was a quite straightforward mapping.
Originally posted by Kickaha
But to say that there's really no difference is just a slap in the face of the amazing amount of progress that has been made, and IMHO doesn't reflect reality.
Agreed - there have been an amazing amount of progress and kudos to the whole engineering team at Apple for it!
The point was just that it is reasonable to expect that they have been able to keep most of the codebase on x86 if they wanted to and that the relationship indeed is there (as system6 / OS 9, the analogy is fine by me).
Mac OS X is a moving target, it just happened to be called NeXTStep in the very beginning, Rhapsody later, and now Mac OS X.
Originally posted by zenarcade
did any of you got to play with copland ?
it would be cool to hear some-ones experiences with it.
I got a chance to use it at MacWorld Boston in 1995 or 96. It was a very primative build, because it didn't even have the Platinum interface, it looked like System 7.1 with some of the other Copland features like window tabs at the bottom of Finder, windows that spun when opened, multiple file copying in the Finder, button view, etc.
One word: Unstable. The Finder crashed constantly. I wasn't able to do much with it because, basically, there were very few 3rd party apps that ran under it. Most of the stuff I played with was Open Doc stuff.
I did get a really cool CD demo of it, though. I still have it.
Originally posted by Eugene
BuonRotto's quote is a bit erroneous anyway.
Whoops. I do know the difference between a framework and an OS, I swear.
Originally posted by The Bishop
Actually not really. Sure, there have been improvements, but not nearly to the same degree as core os features (driver model, power management, SMP capability, etc, etc) or Carbon/Classic as you mentioned. A lot of cocoa has looked the same since 1995.
Yup, and yet they managed to add Scripting support, Undo support, Key/Value support... all without changing the existing APIs. You've gotta love dynamic languages... but more to the point, they added new design philosophies in a way that a) didn't break existing code, b) made sense. From a design standpoint, it's quite the coup.
Now add to that the shift to CoreFoundation under fairly significant pieces of Cocoa, and it starts to add up to a nicely improved system.
I think the amount of utter changes completed *without* making Cocoa look like it's shifting is just plain amazing.
I was too young/ignorant back then to have any background knowledge of Apple. In the mid-ninties I thought my LC630 was the apex of technology so I obviouly had no clue what Apple was up to.
damn damn damn.
would certainly pay from stuff like that . . . . .
eBay ?
Originally posted by zenarcade
velocitychannel !
damn damn damn.
would certainly pay from stuff like that . . . . .
eBay ?
I wonder how much I could get on eBay?
Originally posted by InactionMan
Archive.org had an old episode of Computer Chronicles where some guy from Apple showed off Copeland but. Link is here: http://www.archive.org/movies/detail...lectionid=1313
Damn. Looks like they kept most of the good stuff (find, though we could use the Save find feature) and dropped the wastage with OS X. That multi-user system was especially boneheaded IMO. Thanks for the link!
Originally posted by velocitychannel
I wonder how much I could get on eBay?
Are you sure you're even allowed to resell it?
Barto
Originally posted by Chucker
Are you sure you're even allowed to resell it?
It is not the actual OS, it is a CD Tour of all of it's features, etc. Apple was handing them out at MacWorld Boston in 1996. I have a few of them.
Originally posted by Eugene
Very little is actually different. There are nitty gritty evolutional changes, but nothing revolutionary.
This is just not true. I have still some CDs with Rhapsody/x86 and it is a completely different beast than MacOS-X
.- MacOS-X is no longer based on a straight Mach kernel, but a heavily modified one (able to send Carbon events et al)
- Rhapsody had no Quicktime and no AppleScript, two technologies that are quite fundamental to what MacOS is compared to OpenStep.
- the driver model is completely different in MacOS-X. AFAIK, kernel extensions like today were not supported back then either.
Oh, and I still own a 7100 and some Copland previews. Every other year or so, I install them just for the heck of it and watch this amazing startup-movie...
Apart from that it is completely unusable. Slow as 10.0 and totally unstable.
Originally posted by Smircle
.- MacOS-X is no longer based on a straight Mach kernel, but a heavily modified one (able to send Carbon events et al)
So in exactly what way do you suggest that the kernel have been modified to be able to "send Carbon events" ?
Originally posted by Smircle
- Rhapsody had no Quicktime and no AppleScript, two technologies that are quite fundamental to what MacOS is compared to OpenStep.
Hardly, it is just two frameworks implemented on top of an operating system foundation. The foundation may have been improved to facilitate the implementation of QT (I would imagine the work on making the kernel preemptive would have been useful for the QT folks that have some sort of time constraints). In fact, the same people who have been leading up the work on Quartz implemented a "QT lookalike" on top of OpenStep called... "NEXTIME". It even played some QT movies (and was originally showing of some cool wavelet codec that a guy called Richard Crandall was behind - who is also now at Apple).
Originally posted by Smircle
- the driver model is completely different in MacOS-X. AFAIK, kernel extensions like today were not supported back then either.
Evolution here as well I'd say. OpenStep uses an OO driver model based on Objective-C (DriverKit). Mac OS X uses an OO driver model based on C++ (I/O Kit). I don't know of any other OS:s that uses an OO driver model. I haven't written device drivers for either OS, so I can't comment on how similar they are, but I would assume that they took a long hard look at what was right/wrong with DriverKit when designing the new driver model.
Originally posted by Smircle
This is just not true. I have still some CDs with Rhapsody/x86 and it is a completely different beast than MacOS-X
.- MacOS-X is no longer based on a straight Mach kernel, but a heavily modified one (able to send Carbon events et al)
- Rhapsody had no Quicktime and no AppleScript, two technologies that are quite fundamental to what MacOS is compared to OpenStep.
- the driver model is completely different in MacOS-X. AFAIK, kernel extensions like today were not supported back then either.
NOTHING is based on a straight Mach kernel...it is useless in its most basic form.
Rhapsody and OS X Server 1.0 had QuickTime 2.5. The latest version would have been implemented in time a consumer release. AppleScript is many layers of the cake up from what Barto would call the 'codebase.'
.kexts in NeXT or OpenStep? The implementation isn't different enough for me to care about.
And everybody keeps ignoring the fact that Rhapsody was named Mac OS X Server at one point. Rhapsody was the very first Mac OS X available...ever!