My 'computer class' teacher in high school in '98 routinely made fun of me for liking Apple and having the idea that they'd do some great things. I wonder what that fellow is up to now.

@@MattExzy Apple sucks

@@MattExzy You must be an iSheep

Well, the first in modern times perhaps, though not the first in history. Click link below to find out more! Enjoy! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mdV5oZt11NbbiWQ.html

@@MattExzy funny, apple didn't do anything interesting or innovative for years until the release of the ipod in 2001, and even that, whilst largely popular, was a horrible device that tied you into a walled garden drm infested music library and vastly inferior to alternatives such as iriver. So if you really were claiming they were somehow amazing in 1998 you either could see the future or just loved their horrible dated power pc based computers and OS. Apple fans WERE a joke before the iPhone and OSX, and thats coming from someone who likes their stuff nowadays. Their customer service is a joke though. See Louis rossmann for that.

Muhammad flushed commodore down the toilet

Yep. Those guys - Irving Gould and Mehdi Ali - couldn't give two shits about the actual computer and had no clue about what they actually had. They kept the price far too high for too long, even when the competition was catching up fast, and worst of all, spent almost nothing on advertising (especially in mainstream avenues) until near the end of the Amiga's life.

The Amiga GUI sucked, and the OS was unstable. "GURU Meditations", anyone? Also, the OS lacked graphical primitives like Quickdraw had. In MacOS, when an app wanted a circle drawn, the app told Quickdraw to draw a circle, and Quickdraw translated that to the bitmap of the display. With AmigaOS, if an app wanted a circle, it drew a bitmap resembling a circle directly. This made adapting apps to higher resolutions impossible. BTW, anyone remember me from comp.sys.amiga.advocacy?

1.0 through 1.2 was unstable, but once 1.3 came on board stability was greatly improved. I had an Amiga 1000, 500 and 1200 and very rarely experienced crashes after 1.3. All the other points I made are still valid, however: Amiga beat those guys in preemptive multitasking (by about a decade), available colors, sound options and expansion (the Achilles heal of Apple products to this day) Come to think of it, Apple STILL wants you to upgrade your iPhone or Mac to a new one rather than upgrade what you have, which is why, even to this day, no iPhone has had a memory card slot (though fans have requested one since the iPhone 1). Was Workbench the best? No.

Commodore's management was completely inept at marketing this machine. @Markus Bruch, I can't find your comment, but you said: "The problem for the Amiga - as I see it - was, that Commodore didn’t manage to come out with that 'fabulous' AAA chipset." This'll make you cry. Have you ever seen the specs for the AAA (Hombre) chipset? Check this out: (from wikipedia) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *Design* Hombre is based around two chips: a System Controller chip and a Display Controller chip. The System Controller chip was designed by Dr. Ed Hepler, well known as the designer of the AAA Andrea chip. The chip is similar in principle to the chip bus controller found in Agnus, Alice, and Andrea of the Amiga chipsets. The chip features the following: - A 100+ MHz PA-7150 SIMD microprocessor - An advanced DMA engine and blitter with 3D texture mapping and gouraud shading - 16-bit resolution sound processor with eight voices The Display Controller Chip was designed by Tim McDonald, also known as the designer of the AAA Monica chip. It is similar in principle to the Denise, Lisa, and Monica chips found on original Amigas. In addition, the chipset also supported future official or third party upgrades through extension for an external PA-RISC processor. These chips and some other circuitry would be part of a PCI card, through the ReTargetable Graphics system. There were plans to port the AmigaOS Exec kernel to low-end systems, but this was not possible due to financial troubles facing Commodore at that time. Therefore, a licensed OpenGL library was to be used for the low-end entertainment system. The original plan for the Hombre-based computer system was to have Windows NT compatibility, with native AmigaOS recompiled for the new big-endian CPU to run legacy 68k Amiga software through emulation. Commodore chose the PA-7150 microprocessor over the MIPS R3000 microprocessor and first generation embedded PowerPC microprocessors, mainly because these low-cost microprocessors were unqualified to run Windows NT. This wasn't the case for the 64-bit MIPS R4200, but it was rejected for its high price at the time. *Features* Hombre was designed as a clean break from traditional Amiga chipset architecture with no planar graphics mode support. Commodore also decided to drop support of the original Amiga eight sprites because at the time sprites became less attractive to developers for its limitations compared to fast blitters. Despite lack of compatibility, Hombre introduced modern technologies including these: - a fill rate of 30 million 3D rendered pixels per second (similar to Sony's PlayStation performance) - 16-bit chunky graphic modes (to reduce costs, Commodore abandoned 256 color mode with Color LUT registers) - 32-bit chunky with 8-bit alpha channel - 1280 × 1024 pixel progressive resolution with a 24-bit color palette - one sprite with a 24-bit color palette, used for the mouse pointer - four playfields at 16-bit graphics mode each - 3D texture mapping engine - Gouraud shading - Z-buffering - YUV compatibility with JPEG support - Standard TV and HDTV compatibility - 64-bit internal data bus and registers The chipset could be sold either as a high end PCI graphics card with minimal peripherals ASICs and 64-bit DRAM, or as a lower cost CD-ROM based game system (CD64) using cheap 32-bit DRAM. It could also be used for set-top box embedded systems. According to Dr. Ed Hepler, Hombre was to be fabricated in 0.6 µm 3-level metal CMOS with the help of Hewlett-Packard. HP had fabricated the AGA Lisa chip and collaborated in the design of the AAA chipset. Commodore was planning to adopt the Acutiator architecture designed by Dave Haynie for Hombre before it filed bankruptcy and went out of business. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I would have creamed my jeans, as they say....

Why did he stay so long with one job?

@@LMB222 I can't speak for him, but it was a different time, and a lot of people stayed with one company if they thought the idea was good. But the management "style" of the past 20 (?) years has turned loyalty into a one-way expectation, and the only way to advance while staying technical is to switch companies -- there are only so many team leads compared to middle managers.

Ye have to consider that the video was made almost 3 years ago

@@nushnum Yea true

***MONTEREY INTENSIFIES***

Big Sur is still technically the same architecture. I guess everyone is rebranding their OSes now of days.

*Ventura Intensifies*

Sure, sure. But the early versions bombed several times a day. OS7 was way better than OSX when it came out it was ridiculous.

OSX crashed all the time up until Tiger

I used it for graphics work for maybe five years or so. I recall some crashing, but it wasn’t that bad. I mean I got work done. Of course a lot depends on how you use it. Maybe you guys were pushing its limits more. Anyway, yeah FreeBSD under the hood was a game changer. Seems a little odd not to mention it. But maybe he wanted to focus on the dev hell aspects of the story, which are admittedly more interesting.

@@lo-fidevil2950 I used it for 2d art for work, and photoshop crashed sometimes (definitely more than os9 which never did), but the real nightmare was in my spare time when I was trying to do 3d. That crashed all the time, and with different software.

I'm willing to bet most Apple Users have no idea about FreeBSD.@@lo-fidevil2950

Yep. It seems like every CEO they had after Jobs left was an idiot.

Kiyoshi Kirishima even jobs wasn’t enough, the only reason why apple is still alive is because of the huge investments Microsoft made in apple in the 90s to get them back and profitable.

Which was really a smart move "Who wouldn't want a less capable competitor that makes us look able by comparison ?"

Nope. I don't know why people still think MS saved Apple. In fact it was all orchestrated by Steve Jobs because MS was caught stealing Quicktime codes, and the "investment" was really an out-of-court settlement, and Jobs realised suing Microsoft is waste of time and money because MS will just drag the lawsuit. www.theregister.co.uk/1998/10/29/microsoft_paid_apple_150m/ www.zdnet.com/article/stop-the-lies-the-day-that-microsoft-saved-apple/ web.archive.org/web/20041012044019/news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Apple/2100-1001_3-202143.html www.thefreelibrary.com/APPLE+AND+MICROSOFT%3A+JOBS+BAREFOOT+UNDER+A+TREE.-a053999515

alphazar Exactly!! The $150 million investment was a drop in the bucket. Apple wasn't doing nearly as badly as people made it out to be.

It’s amazing how similar this sounds to Windows 8 & 10. This cool feature we’re probably making is coming soon™️

Oh, it was worse. Every Mac-related magazine seemed to have a "Copland!" feature every month or two. It was so constantly hyped, and they'd shoot out screenshots of supposed actual builds that Are Totally Real And Coming Soon, Guys. It was gonna be a revolution of the Mac in ways that'd never be the same, too, it wasn't just cool features. It was supposed to be like the difference between a normal human and superman in terms of how it was going to make use of a PowerPC (of course, I had to upgrade since one magazine suggested that PPC 601 computers wouldn't get Copland).

Funny how Microsoft got into the same patch through Windows Phone, too bad for them, it didn't end up the same way.

Copland was in our minds just a kluge bridge to what we _really_ wanted, which was project *Gershwin.* That was the one that competed directly with Windows 95: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_(operating_system) _Copland's planned successor, codenamed _*_Gershwin,_*_ was intended to add advanced features such as application-level multithreading._

Bless you Confederate Fursuiter

The better kid than the old shit os

The new kid on the block is iOS

It's more amazing that macOS has technically been around much, much longer. Take a look at the demos of the original NextStep OS and how similar it is to the macOS of this day. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oJZilZt32uCbY3U.html

OSX is proper oldschool UNIX. System 6/7/8 was a nice GUI computer appliance.

Cliff Porter Yep. The original NeXT cube even had a vector processing unit in the form of a Motorola 56k DSP chip. In 1988. 😳

As funny as this can be, it's probably the least accurate description of anything related to Macs in all history.

il biggo: Have you ever used System 6 or earlier?

Mathead - quite extensively, yes. I've been using a few Macs in the mid-80s, and when I finally got my own SE/30 in 1988 it came with System 6. As I wrote somewhere else, I used to leave the machine on all day long, sometimes even overnight or for a few days, saving my work only when it was finished. Hangs and crashes on the Mac? Yes, the frequent kernel panics of OS X. The classic System might have sadmacced me ten times in fifteen years, and it has happened almost exclusively with Pro Tools.

il biggo: I remember frequent crashes with systems earlier than 6. Usually, the Mac would just freeze, often with a flashing, empty alert box on the screen. Or it contained words like: "Sorry, can't continue because of &(/6%)%2=&3"". Or the screen would freeze with parallel vertical lines and noise similar to an electric shaver. I loved my Macs and I still do but that was a great part of my day-to-day experience with early Mac Systems.

Mathead - Parallel vertical lines, I can relate to that: the SE/30 badly needs recapping since the early 2000s .-D Seriously, I never experienced any of the stuff you mentioned. Bad software, yes, I've seen some. I even caused a few crashes myself, by tinkering with stuff I shouldn't have tinkered with (particularly MacsBug). But the OS itself in everyday use has always been stable as a rock to me. Guess I've been lucky, or you haven't.

Oh nice game. Darn I don’t want to be hooked again.. :D

No Hellcats, no win.

evandarkfire: _"Thank you for remaking this video, the original one had horrible quality."_ Well... the old version of this video was probably edited on _Windows Movie Maker._ This new one probably on _Final Cut X_ 🤪

Edwin van den Akker His editing is basic enough for it to not really matter what software he uses.

@@rwx-zach woooosh

muad yussuf 😊

It took that long? I remember doing multitasking like that on Windows 98

@@evanbarnes9984 Yeah, weird actually, especially since the original Mac OS (pre NeXT) was more or less based on Unix, so I honestly think that it was not multitasking before this time purely because Apple were afraid of how it would perform on the hardware they supplied. Prior to Mac OS X, the operating system was painful when it came to "multi-tasking". Even if you clicked on a menu at the top of the screen, it would hold up almost every process running.

I remember noticing that when using my school's computers at the time which were Macintosh Color Classics that had some version of System 7 installed. Switching tasks would cause the app/game I was leaving to stop making sound and I found it jarring because I had never experienced that when using my parent's Windows 95 computer at home. It's not the only reason, but falling behind so badly in OS development was probably a big reason why they nearly went under in those days.

Interesting, I've ripped CDs while listening to music in iTunes on Mac OS 9 before, and I'm sure the Bondi Blue iMac G3 I was doing it on was plenty capable of doing more than that. Of course, it had a RAM upgrade beyond it's original 32MB. Can't speak for 8.x or anything before System 6, though. The only other times I got the chance to use Mac OS really outside of a very brief time with 8 on a Centris 610 was running System 6 and 7 on my Macintosh SE and PowerBook 180, and let me tell you that "sluggish" does not begin to describe System 7.5's performance on a Macintosh SE with it's original 20MB Miniscribe hard disk! Let me also tell you, however, that there was strong reasoning that OS X dropped support for anything slower than a G3. I assure you it would have been nothing short of an awful experience on a 603/604 or god forbid a 601. Even on some lower spec G3s it was a struggle.

@@AiOinc1 Hey there! Sounds like you may have been in the Mac game for a long time. I'm much the same. Whilst pre OS X systems could do these things, a lot of what happened was NOT true multi-tasking. I can even remember once having a process completely stop when selecting from the Menus at the top. Very bad indeed! Later versions improved a lot, but still did not even get close to OS X. Also a really bad experience was AppleTalk - nice idea, but once you had more than a few Macs connected, made networks extremely busy and prone to issues.

Yeah it sounded to me the guy was just bitter, not being part of that development.

Steven Schneider OS X was a complete overhaul of the Mac OS And Windoze copied the Dock idea and added it to vista I witnessed all of this happen Today in 2018 you can run windows on your Mac if need be Using BootCamp and other stuff using Wine like games I shall not use BootCamp Can a PC do that ? Also you can run Android apps using Bluestacks If you need to.

Right, and, although I say it myself, I never looked much at the look. I was thrilled by that fact that here there was a real new OS. What with Unix underneath and stuff. Yeah, even if the very first releases felt often clunky, I made the transition pretty immediately, relying on 9 just were absolutely necessary. OS X was the reason I stayed with the Mac.

Macorian OS X was why I stayed too But I like the fact that Apples hardware isn't cobbled together junk like a pc Unix made the OS pretty stable and the bugs were reduced through the app sand boxing I worked in the retail environment selling them so I'm not just saying stuff I used them too I used to talk to many Mac users 😊

I was just about to make a very similar comment, i am in full agreement. I felt OS X to be quite the revolution at the time. Who remembers the little demo program Jobs ran at it's announcement that just crashed to demonstrate how nothing else was effected. Seriously stable OS. It did have some clunkiness to it with permissions but a lot of that got polished out real quick.

Agreed. It was far better then what IBM, Apple or Microsoft offered. Sadly, their management left a lot to be desired...

COMMODORE! COMMODORE! COMMODORE! COMMODORE!

Nope, it was SGI's IRIX, period.

Since when did SGI made "Home Computers"?

T o a s t e r !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Larry!!!

weird audio thing here no? 3:38 "...and while the second version... *seems to trail off* ...and even more so Windows 3!" I think its just a small cutting error, but maybe it's not even an error maybe its like in the right place but I'm hearing it wrong? What's your call on that? It doesn't break the video. I was surprised to find that I was not already subbed to them, I enjoyed the Clippy documentary, I should've subbed then

It was a very interesting and dynamic video, I enjoyed watching it too! :)

FFS Larry! Stop stalking me from video to video!!!! ;)

How'd ya like being in the Knud?

Kiyoshi Kirishima Agreed. I remember they demonstrated it on Computer Chronicles. It was a solid system that went nowhere sadly...

The most probable reason why A/UX, Apple's own Unix distribution, didn't go anywhere was that commercial BSD/Unix licensing, due to where it came from, was an *absolute nightmare* all the way into the late 90s. Linux was originally created because of what a nightmare this was and how it caused Unix-based operating systems to be really expensive. Other than that there's also the fact that being descended from the mainframe world Unix-based operating systems were much more advanced than most other operating systems and were thus much heavier to run. In contrast classic MacOS, being based on a nanokernel architecture, was very simple and thus took up little of the computers' processor time and memory for itself even by desktop operating system standards.

Unfortunately lacking the explanation for what "pre-emptive multitasking" and "symmetric multitasking" might be.

GS/OS was also in many way better than Macintosh 5.

Windows NT was developed from scratch with one of the core architects of VMS from DEC. Windows NT (which includes XP) are constructed a lot more like VMS than UNIX, but over time it has been beaten into supporting some amount of other stuff (there used to be a POSIX subsystem as well as an OS/2 subsystem).

You must not maintain your computers properly. My mac does not crash at allZ

@@Applecompuser It's not the same now. When MacOSX was introduced they crashed all the time. All. The. Time. It took them at least 8 years to get them minimally stable. I think my Centris crashed twice in 5 years with os8/9, my G3 crashed at least once a day with OSX.

@@nicksterj I think my G3 shipped with it, but my memory can betray me on that point.

The Apollo moon lander had preemptive multitasking in 1969.

@@mnealbarrett yeah, and everyone could buy his own moon lander.. ;)

Rob S 😊

Thanks AT&T, Carnegie Mellon University, UC Berkeley, Linus Torvalds and all the other developers who provided the FOSS that Steve stole and made proprietary. Give credit where it's due.

sans

That is an excellent observation!

No, OSX is not UNIX. The mishmash of free operating systems that Apple co-opted to use for OSX were taken from 4.4BSD-Lite that was famously sued by USL to have every last vestige of UNIX code removed from it. The Mach microkernel is not part of UNIX history, nor is the big steaming pile of proprietary stuff that bears no resemblance whatsoever to UNIX that runs on top and cannot be separated out or opened up.

@@StringerNews1 Thats completely wrong. macOS is absolutely UNIX, it is certified by the official UNIX certification agency, and in fact macOS has been a certified UNIX for years.

@@Billy123bobzzz sorry but _you_ are the one who is wrong to use that as an excuse to call me wrong. The fact that the UNIX brand was separated from the UNIX code base decades after the fact, and that now companies can pay to have UNIX branding does not magically give OSX roots all the way back to 1969. Reality does not work that way. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, nothing more, nothing less. They are "officais" for themselves only, so don't be a pompous ass with me. You're not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes with all the bluster. And the fact is that OSX was _not_ certified for a number of years because Apple failed to pay its debts.

I'm getting so tired of Apple problems, especially the mac's feel like lipstick on a pig.

V. Sigma well tbf XP came out in 2001, Tiger and Leoaprd from 2005 and 2007 respectively. But to compare say Tiger/Leopard with Vista, I don’t think many people will come to Vista’s defence!

Gary Kildall oh good lord! Vista vs. Leopard was probably the biggest gap Apple had over MS since the original Macintosh vs DOS.

@@garykildall4111 I'd come, by service pack 2 (I know, it was too late and the damage was done), Windows Vista was pretty stable, and the interface, although it looks old by today's flat standards, it's pretty good looking

Snow Leopard is my favourite. Leopard was nice, Snow Leopard perfected it.

@@bluesdealer I will take Vista's defence no matter what. I haven't used Tiger of Leopard, but I've used Vista for years (from age 7 to 12, soo of course I'm biased). I never had problems. Idk about OSX, but wonder why, if the gap was so huge, were the apple ads of the days talking mostly about Windows rather than OSX. (I only saw the ads years after the facts, and they are petty at best honestly) iLife was great though.

Why not? Spit 'em out instead! We wanna know!

Windows NT was THE BEST OS from Microsoft. I never ever crash 3.51 and belive me.. I try hard. ;-) 4.01 wasn't so good. To many M$ code inside I think. ;-)

Crazy how it's the other way around now. My mac has crashed 3 (maybe 4) times since I bought it. 6 years ago. And that's only counting macOS crashing (not kernel panic, just a freeze which I wouldn't wait through); Counting the time I installed Windows 10 on it wouldn't be fair because it never lasted a day without crashing and taking all my work with it.

@@LemonChieff I call bullshit on win 10 crashing once a day.

@@LemonChieff Colossal BS. My Windows 10 crashed maybe twice on 5 separate computers for the last 3 years since its release. While my Macbook Pro I have from work crashed twice in the last week. One of those times forced to use Apple Care and be without a computer for 2 days.

@@Vapefly0815 Your mileage may vary. For the short time I used it for if it crashed once a day that was an achievement. You can call it whatever you want it's still not stable and I still won't use it. I rather use wine in arch if I need to use some windows software since it ends up always being more stable somehow.

Computers back then even when they were new were barely useable for anything productive if you already had a graphical environment running. Have you tried doing anything more advanced than word processing on a 128K Macintosh? You can't. I have a Mac Plus from 1987 that originally had 1MB of RAM and even that seems bare minimum even for applications from the late 80s/early 90s. It's been upgraded to 4MB which makes a massive difference and even enables things like PDF editing and primitive web browsing but I've still run into memory errors trying to uncompress software with Stuffit Expander. Even with the limitations, it's pretty damn impressive what can be done with 4MB of RAM.

4gb is plenty if you know hw to manage browser tabs

I had to wait in the 90's until I collected enough money to buy 32MB RAM in order to run Windows NT, and be able to ditch the horrible windows 95. I think it happened around 1997.

blame lazy modern developers for making 4gb unusable, back in the days 64mb is enough for a pc

@@marcuscook5145 We did plenty with a LCII. Freehand was amazing, and QuarkExpress got the work done really well. Photoshop was hard, but using brightness and contrast/levels on images was already a huge leap forward.

True, I still think it could potentially have been developed into a more efficient, faster OS than what became of OS-X. But with the Unix core underneath, OS-X is at least a solid system, more so than the older MacOS.

They should regret quoting such a high price, otherwise apple would have bought it instead of nextstep

Beos was cool.

it actually wasnt fantastic. the ideas behind it were fantastic. the concept was. the actual implementation not so much.

Haiku OS is a reimplementation of BeOS for modern hardware. if you like it you may have fun test driving it

Robert44444444 I’m a gamer and musician so life is rough. I currently maintain a Mac as a daily driver but also have a self built gaming rig running Windows. I wish Apple gave a damn about 3D APIs (Sony made OpenGL work for the PS3-PS4; what’s Apple’s excuse? Where’s Vulcan support?) and offered the hardware value they did in the mid-2000s, actually shipping decent GPUs or offering user upgradability.

@@bluesdealer I read somewhere that companies are really insincere about standards. When they are weak, then they lobby for openness and collaboration, but when they feel that they are strong then they push their own proprietary standards. Late 1990’s to about 2010, Apple added OpenGL and TCP/IP and Java, and donated OpenCL to the Khronos Group and developed WebKit in the open, and so on. Late 2010’s Apple feels that they are strong, and therefore they are splitting up with the Khronos Group, they have deprecated OpenGL and will likely remove it within the next few years, and they insist that 3D applications should use Metal and the various Kits (ARKit, etc.) instead of open APIs. In short, they do care about 3D APIs, but they believe that they can get developers to use their proprietary APIs instead of OpenGL and Vulkan.

I like changes and I'm happy with windows 11 design although I wished all UI elements were coherent.

I'm currently happier with Windows than with MacOS, tbh (I have both). I haven't yet moved to Windows 11, tho.

The only thing I don't like about macOS (or Mac OS) is that they screwed up almost every goddamn time on legacy support. Microsoft wins in this regard. You can't run the original Halo for Mac OS on the latest hardware, or at least without full emulation. The last version of the Mac OS that supported the old PowerPC software was Snow Leopard.

@@nathanlamaire They don't screw up. It is intended. The same way the fought files compatibility until they couldn't do it anymore. Trying to use Mac files on a Pc in the 90s was an absolute nightmare.

Not to mention OS7 was so vastly superior to Win3.1 in usability. It's hard to grasp now, because so far in time it may seem like OS7 features were very basic, but at the time Windows didn't even have the most basic stuff like moving icons with the mouse. MacOS7 user interface already behaved like a current OS.

OSX was AWFUL. I never had a computer crashing so much as my G3 with OSX. I don't remember my previous Macs crashing pretty much ever when using OS7/8/9. I'm sure they did sometimes, but always after installing something or doing something wrong in the system folder... the G3 with OSX crashed randomly at least twice a day.

I remember the days. 1% "Just a few geeks". 2% "Still insignificant". 3% "Well OK, but it will never go mainstream". 4% "Let's not get carried away".

And the majority of that, Ubuntu.

Linux is at 1.68% according to statcounter (world figures). And one can only speculate what the 1.97% unknown is. Chrome OS is considered separately, and is at 1.08%. gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide

I said mostly. Also some distros like Fedora change information in the user agent tag within, for example chrome, from "Linux_x64" to "Fedora Linux" Meaning they'll show up as "other" on some of these statistical analysis sites.

All 3 of my desktop computers run Ubuntu Linux and my laptop runs Arch Linux. I don't dual boot. (Actually, I have a laptop with Windows 10, but it hasn't been turned on in over 6 months.) I'm happy to be in the 4.7%.

Motorola and PowerPC are superior chips to Intel, the problem with them is that they didn't capture the market like Microsoft & Intel did because in great part, the great arrogance of Steve Jobs and that he wasn't willing to make shitty computers like Microsoft and Intel were.

@@laughingvampire7555 MS and Intel didn't make computers, and only in the past maybe 8 years has Microsoft made "computers " (more the MS Studio and then their laptops/tablets, which actually aren't that bad, especially considering the higher-end ones run a normal version of Windows which is beneficial because it runs desktop software, whereas for Apple's they still have two different OSes and not all desktop apps are available for the iPad or lack some features due to limitations of the iPad, but Intel and MS really didn't get into the PC building business). You may be thinking of IBM.... And actually when the IBM PC came out, It gave Apple a good run for its money and I'd say that when the clones started to come out (Compaq, etc) that's where non-Apple computers started to take over and gain a bunch of market share because now you weren't tied one company, and there were other OSes available at the time (OS/2 which failed in the market place) and a few others (such as Linux as well, which could and still can run on Intel-based hardware).

OS/2 on PC had preemptive multitasking since its first release in 1987. I started in 1993 with version 2.1, which was a 32-bit OS with full preemptive multitasking for native programs, DOS programs, and 16-bit Windows programs. It's not the PC that sucked, but the software that most people ran it with.

Nobody made money on those things, except the people who made a lot of graphics for Babylon 5 using Toaster.

It may be more accurate to say that Next took over Apple by stealth.

Howie Isaacks Agreed

Dude, you should be a stand-up comedian! Those jokes were spot on!

"...Objective-C and related SDK were 10 or more years ahead of their time in the late 1980s. This stands in stark contrast to that of the original Mac OS, MS-DOS..." You mean "stark contrast" as in "apples to oranges comparison? :rolleyes: The late "1980s"? Try a decade later. OSX didn't drop until the end of the century, and old Mac OS didn't come with a free Next computer. Get real. IIRC the original IBM PC came out at the beginning of the decade, not the end, so it was a different computer for a different time. But it did come with a ROM-based BASIC interpreter, and offered a variety of OS/development environment choices ranging from the legacy CP/M (the platform that most users were coming from, Pascal (the predecessor of Delphi) and of course PC-DOS, with numerous 3rd party compilers available. For a developer it was freedom of choice vs. owing your soul to the company store. For the consumer it meant more stuff to run. Props must be given to the FOSS community for contributing (much without their consent) the Mach microkernel, the MkLinux/BSD-Lite OS layer that became Darwin, the GCC compiler and countless visual elements that were swiped from the X Window System. Yeah, it's easy when you copy other people's good work. But it's still _their_ work.

StringerNews1 Ummmm no... the OP is exactly right, Objective-C and the associated dev tools came out in the late 80s, and they are direct ancestors of what would become Mac OS X and Xcode years later.

Antonio Tejada, you can save the RDF bullshit for the True Believers, I know better. Although you can trace the heritage of Objective C all the way back to Smalltalk in the '70s, Interface Builder didn't come from Apple until OSX, and OSX did not exist in the 1980s, full stop. When the intention is to deceive, half-truths are full lies.

+StringerNews1 I worked as a software developer on a project beginning in 1990 that used IB on NeXTStep. IB was been part of NeXTStep since about 1988. OS X is a very direct descendant and essentially the same as NeXTStep. Your facts are just wrong, sorry to say.

The past macos or today's version?

Cross compiling only gets you binaries but you need Apple h/w to run the OS for build tests of the application w/o violating the EULA, not recommended. Most companies have to work within the EULA.

Apple has had a repeatedly sad and demoralizing history within the Enterprise. It was only because of the server capabilities they bought with NeXT that Apple tried that niche again. There were some excellent XServe blades for a number of years accompanies by excellent Mac OS Server versions 10.2 through 10.4. But as of Mac OS X Server 10.5, everything started to fall apart. There was a strong but small market that loved the stuff, not profitable enough for Apple to bother caring any longer. XServe was killed and Mac OS X Server is in notable decay and decline. I'd be surprised to see Apple make another go at the Enterprise. They've been knocked down too many times. This of course has no relationship to the quality of Windows Server, which has had a shocking history, despite it being the darling OS of the Enterprise. I could lecture about the ramifications of appalling Windows security for hours. It's abysmal.

@@zunipus Apple never committed to being an enterprise vendor. Doing so requires long product support windows to last depreciation and capital investment fiscal cycles. Corp buyers need the option to rely on hardware support until it dies. Instead they acknowledged they are only a consumer product company only interest is short release and support cycles and planned obsolescence.

@@zunipus IIS is probably least secure server on the web. I work as a pentester on a small company and most of the issues present are on IIS. I guess someone with good knowledge and experience can easily hack IIS servers.

…until Big Sur!

It seems like those are software updates and not new models. However, it would not surprise me at all if it was the case that they would only sell the new software with a new PC. The whole 'annual upgrade cycle' that seems to afflict everything in our lives is ridiculous and mostly artificial, with there being many instances of 'new products' being released that were essentially identical to the 'old' product just with a +1 version number. *cough* intel 14nm+++++++

That’s what it was like in 1983

RAM was fucking expensive back then...

You should check out the prices on the Apple III. Over $4,000 and complete garbage. Insane prices on crappy hardware has always been their trademark. Kinda funny how the 128K Mac was supposed to use a Motorolla 6809 processor and retail for $1,000. It ended up selling with almost the same hardware but for $2,500, just because management thought it was so awesome. It was a sales disaster.

I still remember going to the parts place for my boss, and writing. a $3000 check for a ten meg hard drive!

Customer service and GOOD hardware. You ever actually open up a Mac and physically work on it? I fixed PCs for 20 years. Plastic crap. My laptop is solid aluminum, and the build quality is excellent.

The CPUs weren't made by Apple - that was Motorola (68xxxx), MOSTEK (65xx) and IBM (PowerPC). Even the Ax series SOCs now are ARM cores with others' peripherals. But you're right - Apple is comprised of cooks. They don't make ingredients, just the finished dish.

Mac OS 9 still lives - macos9lives.com/ arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/09/an-os-9-odyssey-why-do-some-mac-users-still-rely-on-16-year-old-software/

sunnohh - and rightly so. OSX was a disaster until Panther came out.

My first post 9 OS was 10.3

OSX was the worst OS I ran in my life for at least the first 5 years.

His mic is fine, there is low quality at higher volumes, but it’s okay as long as your volume is low enough

the problem with that is many modern programs won't run on it, which has always been a problem with OSX

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Being the best of the worst is not impressive...

But MacOS Classic is not stable and antique. I love and hate MacOS Classic. Good thing macOS and iOS and tvOS are based on Nextstep.

macOS has plenty of bugs in it, it's not perfect by any means. macOS, iOS and tvOS as is watchOS are descendants of NeXTSTEP in a chronological sense, that is true but there is no actual NeXTSTEP code left in them. Apple replaced the user interface of NeXTSTEP with the Macintosh user interface so that 95% of the NeXTSTEP was eliminated in that one move. The rest of the NeXTSTEP code was slowly eliminated and replaced with Apple original code such as: launchD. In addition to eliminating NeXTSTEP components, Appel replaced UNIX components with its own and then added its own "UNIX" components such as: CpMac; GetFileInfo; Plutil; and two or three dozen other unique "UNIX" commands (see www.matisse.net/OSX/darwin_commands.html for a more elaborate list). Apple was also the first to dump OpenSSL because of its security problems (this happened long before OpenSSL made the headlines for its "issues") and continues to create its own UNIX tools for macOS. So in reality, macOS only used NeXTSTEP as a temporary stepping stone to transition macOS into a UNIX environment with a unique to Apple Macintosh user interface. All of the underpinnings are now FreeBSD with a sprinkling of OpenBSD and a smattering of Apple created UNIX tools. Despite all that I still run into plenty of bugs and weird issues, macOS is still no where near as bad as Windows is and Linux is the biggest kludge I have ever experienced in my life so yes macOS appears to be rock solid, stable and dependable because of its UNIX core and yet there are days where the glitches still show up.

"The problem mac then was that if you wanted do desktop computing with a graphical user interface and make it somewhat affordable then the Mac was the only game in town because the Lisa was just horrifically expensive. There was no other way of building a graphical interface machine without incurring huge expenses, so the hardware had to be limited to your budget and then the software had to be limited to fit into that very limited hardware. " Atari ST says hello. 20% faster due to better design, higher resolution, and one third the cost at only one year later. You could literally buy an ST with a 2D accelerator (blitter), 4MB ram, hard disk, monitor and laser printer just for the price of a Laserwriter, or less than the price of two Mac 512k. This is no surprise, the original Macintosh devteam are very open about them having designed the mac to have a healthy profit margin at $1500 and being incredibly surprised and upset when it was listed at $2500. The realistic profit margin of such a machine by 1985 would be over $2000.

The user interface replacement was simply repainting the widgets. AppKit as a whole did not change much at first. The Foundation framework was refactored quite a bit though so that the objective C interfaces were re-implemented in pure C. Which essentially created the CoreFoundation API's. This refactoring of code is what made the Carbon API possible for the early days of OS X. While we sneer at Carbon today, OS X would not have succeeded with Mac Fans without it. Recall a much more straight forward project called Rhapsody was supposed to just re-paint NeXTSTEP in Mac OS "Platinum" clothing. However Developers did not want to rewrite their Apps in the "new" (for mac developers) NextStep API's. See this video for more info kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hatxms53mN-waI0.html

And here we are again, with ARM

Shows that Texas Instruments still want ridiculous amounts for 30 yar old calculator hardware.

Tis are the worst. Real math students had HP-48s.

@@BlownMacTruck I always wanted one that could do RPN.

Only twice? That's one hell of a slow calculator.

Why does spending £150 on a calculator sold in a blister pack make me feel uneasy?

From a programmer perspective, there actually is a fair amount different, although some compilers tried to make the distinctions as painless as possible. Applications would sit in a "wait for next event" loop, while desk accessories would receive a "program is waiting in event loop" callback.

Flat Finger Tuning Oh, thanks for the info!! Could you go into that a bit more, or do you have a link to good documentation on it?

The first Google hit for "Inside Macintosh Volume 1" looks like it should have loads of useful information. I have no idea if the link is an authorized or pirate source (Apple might have released that edition into the public domain when it was superceded by others, but I have no idea if they did). Any information about the file system is essentially obsolete (the flat file system got replaced by a hierarchical file system, which is described in Volume IV) as is any information about sound (superceded by the Sound Manager, described in Volume V) but the 1984 Volume 1 is a good place to start. Note that the original development language was Pascal rather than C, but Pascal data types translate fairly easily into C types, except that Pascal strings are preceded by a length byte.

iWillNot be buying any more Apple products.

I don't follow Apple news too closely, what changed?

LordOfTheCats Steve jobs died

@@lordofthecats6397 they made phones that cost over 1000$

zabaviteseinapravite Apple Cube?

Not true.

While not official, I don't see why Linux wouldn't work with Mac computers. Debian for a while supported PowerPC and there is nothing stopping you from booting any version of Linux on the newer x86 Intel compatible Macs. Granted, I don't know how well Linux ran on anything in the 90s, that was before my time as a Linux user. I have however booted Ubuntu on a Mac book though so I know there is a least some basic support for it. Hardware support like video drivers and wireless card drivers are probably a mixed bag though.

Woooooow

Dac DT uP