OS X vs OS 9

knightjp · Jun 22, 2007

I know that OS 9 is kinda old...
OK... its really, really old, but what I want to know is, why did they change the platform for OS X?? Whart was wrong with Apple's OS platform

The old OS was apple's original platform design. Having changed it to something else is really sad... I'd say.
Although I use OS 10.3 Panther now (because of all the availability of software on the web), I actually much prefer the old OS and would consider downgrading if someone can show me a way of surviving with OS 9 in todays OS X world... ;D

I liked alot of features on it... like the voice activated login password. OS X doesn't have that. Plus other features..... like the complete ability to customize the appearance of the OS.

baggss · Jun 22, 2007

OS9 was simply old. Apple had pushed the core of the OS as far as it could go, and it was showing it's age. Don't forget, Apple tried to write a whole new OS back in the 90s and failed miserably, so the "Classic" OS got a bit of reprieve and few more years of life. It was a great OS, for the 80's, but by 95-96 was just too old and outdated to handle the way the industry and computers were going.

It had some nice features, but nowhere near the scalability, functionality, security or stability of OSX.

knightjp · Jun 22, 2007

baggss said:
OS9 was simply old. Apple had pushed the core of the OS as far as it could go, and it was showing it's age.

I guess ur right.... but isn't Unix from the same age??? How come a completely unstable platform like Windows get so much hype and survive till they changed it to Vista????

What I want to know is why did the Apple OS become too old to go on??? Was it the programming??? Was it the support??? Or was it just because the others had outside help an Apple didn't.

yogi · Jun 22, 2007

OS 9 was simply beginning to lag behind standard features that had become commonplace in other OSes. Graphically, OS 9 is pathetic compared to windows 98.

I think watching the MacWorld 2000 keynote will give you some insight:

Here's part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko4V3G4NqII&mode=related&search=

cwa107 · Jun 22, 2007

knightjp said:
I guess ur right.... but isn't Unix from the same age??? How come a completely unstable platform like Windows get so much hype and survive till they changed it to Vista????

What I want to know is why did the Apple OS become too old to go on??? Was it the programming??? Was it the support??? Or was it just because the others had outside help an Apple didn't.

You have to understand the goals of classic Mac OS vs. UNIX. UNIX (or BSD, which is the flavor of UNIX that OS X uses) was built for mainframe computers. Those computers were built to handle hundreds of attached terminals, servicing many, many users. It was also designed to never need a reboot, never crash and not need much maintenance - not to mention the fact that UNIX was built to be a network OS. Classic Mac OS was designed for the needs typical of computer users in the 80s. As the needs of users changed and things like multitasking, networking, multiprocessing and Internet access became more prevalent for all users, Mac OS had to change too.

Don't forget that Windows went through a similar change with Windows NT. Windows 3.1, 95, 98 and Me all ran on top of good old MS-DOS. Windows NT was basically built for servers and gradually matured to run on the desktop where it continued to evolve into Windows 2000, XP, 2003 and now Vista. Although they may look similar, the underpinnings (kernel) of Windows 98 and Windows XP are as different as OS 9 and OS X.

Sherman Homan · Jun 22, 2007

I voted for OS X, but I still grin a bit when confronted with a System 9 machine.

baggss · Jun 22, 2007

cwa107 said:
You have to understand the goals of classic Mac OS vs. UNIX. UNIX (or BSD, which is the flavor of UNIX that OS X uses) was built for mainframe computers. Those computers were built to handle hundreds of attached terminals, servicing many, many users. It was also designed to never need a reboot, never crash and not need much maintenance - not to mention the fact that UNIX was built to be a network OS. Classic Mac OS was designed for the needs typical of computer users in the 80s. As the needs of users changed and things like multitasking, networking, multiprocessing and Internet access became more prevalent for all users, Mac OS had to change too.

Don't forget that Windows went through a similar change with Windows NT. Windows 3.1, 95, 98 and Me all ran on top of good old MS-DOS. Windows NT was basically built for servers and gradually matured to run on the desktop where it continued to evolve into Windows 2000, XP, 2003 and now Vista. Although they may look similar, the underpinnings (kernel) of Windows 98 and Windows XP are as different as OS 9 and OS X.

And don't forget, NT first debuted back in 93.....

cwa107 · Jun 22, 2007

baggss said:
And don't forget, NT first debuted back in 93.....

...which was around the time Apple was cooking up their replacement kernel for Mac OS. I think this point underscores the argument that Apple and Microsoft both recognized that the underpinnings of their respective OSes were in need of an overhaul.

baggss · Jun 22, 2007

cwa107 said:
...which was around the time Apple was cooking up their replacement kernel for Mac OS. I think this point underscores the argument that Apple and Microsoft both recognized that the underpinnings of their respective OSes were in need of an overhaul.

Exactly. That was the same time Apple was working on ill-fated Copeland, and trying to figure out if Pink or Taligent had any use at all.

knightjp · Jun 22, 2007

Apple try again...

Anyone every suggested that Apple try again to make a completely new OS from scratch....

Pretty sure that there are no short of really good programmers and considering Apple is using an Intel base now it should be relatively easier.

What do you think??? Plus once again Apple would have an something that they can truely call their own.

baggss · Jun 22, 2007

That's actually a pretty tall order. Considering the issues that MS had with Vista, which isn't really even new, I'm not sure Apple would go that route. Many of the "new" features that were supposed to ship with Vista were delayed or outright canceled in the end.

The best part about Unix is it is always being updated and developed by a large body of folks worldwide. Apple can tap into a lot of that stuff and purchase it or make it proprietary as they see fit. Why reinvent the wheel?

knightjp · Jun 22, 2007

baggss said:
That's actually a pretty tall order. Considering the issues that MS had with Vista, which isn't really even new, I'm not sure Apple would go that route. Many of the "new" features that were supposed to ship with Vista were delayed or outright canceled in the end.

The best part about Unix is it is always being updated and developed by a large body of folks worldwide. Apple can tap into a lot of that stuff and purchase it or make it proprietary as they see fit. Why reinvent the wheel?

Excellent point.... Plus I guess you are giving Unix programmers another platform to write software for aren't you.... I mean, considering that normal Desktop computing is more of what is available in the common market, Unix programmers can now tap into and sell inventions that are for home users and stuff, instead of just servers.

However one has to ask the question, is there anything that Apple has that they can truely call their own now??? I mean is there any product of apple's that's not a copy or a mod of another product???

baggss · Jun 22, 2007

Well, the core of OSX is Unix, but all of the layers that run on top of it were made by Apple. Some of them are based on NeXT, which Apple bought though.

I think the current iPod OS was built by Apple when they stopped using PortalPlayers OS. I'm not sure about the AppleTV or the iPhone, although the iPhone supposedly runs a modified version of OSX.

knightjp · Jun 22, 2007

iPhone

the iPhone is just amazing.....

If you've seen Microsoft's new surface invention, you'll like the iPhone. The iPhone is surface in a phone.... thats it. My brother saw a demo on it. He's a Windows freak and he was impressed. ;D

Sorry about the earlier comment about Apple not innovating.... just saw the videos of OS X introduction. Alot of thought went into it.

You think Microsoft's media centre is a rip from Mac OS X. If so, which one....

baggss · Jun 22, 2007

I've never seen or used any version of MS Media Center so I honestly can't say.

cwa107 · Jun 22, 2007

knightjp said:
Excellent point.... Plus I guess you are giving Unix programmers another platform to write software for aren't you.... I mean, considering that normal Desktop computing is more of what is available in the common market, Unix programmers can now tap into and sell inventions that are for home users and stuff, instead of just servers.

However one has to ask the question, is there anything that Apple has that they can truely call their own now??? I mean is there any product of apple's that's not a copy or a mod of another product???

An interesting side note is that Microsoft is not solely responsible for the NT kernel either. It was co-developed with IBM and is a variation on OS/2. But that's another interesting story in and of itself.

cwa107 · Jun 22, 2007

knightjp said:
Anyone every suggested that Apple try again to make a completely new OS from scratch....

Pretty sure that there are no short of really good programmers and considering Apple is using an Intel base now it should be relatively easier.

What do you think??? Plus once again Apple would have an something that they can truely call their own.

Why reinvent the wheel? UNIX (BSD, more specifically) is extremely robust, time-tested and user-proven. Plus, being a UNIX variant (much like Linux) it is able to tap into a wealth of open-source software. This is a boon to the Mac community.

Brown Study · Jun 22, 2007

knightjp said:
I know that OS 9 is kinda old...
OK... its really, really old, but what I want to know is, why did they change the platform for OS X?? Whart was wrong with Apple's OS platform

<Snip>

I actually much prefer the old OS and would consider downgrading if someone can show me a way of surviving with OS 9 in todays OS X world... ;D

Apple poured millions of dollars into OS X. I doubt it would have done so had 9 been salvagable. Almost everything beyond the bare necessities, and sometimes even those, runs through its system extensions, and with every update the system had to be extended yet again with more, creating another opportunity for a system civil war.

The system was too creaky by half, and getting creakier. I'm still dealing with extension conflicts. If I load them all, the thing hangs at startup, and has for years. It's a ricketty OS that can't run because some bolted-on system extension hangs. (In my case, there is more than one conflict, which means three or four extensions, so I can't be bothered fixing it.) But the OS can't even handle its own or the apps' RAM.

An app crashes. Why? Who knows? A system-extension conflict? Do I have to increase the app's RAM? Is there insufficient virtual memory so I have to increase it?

Or in the case of some apps (such as Enhance, for instance, on a slower machine than I have now), did I forget to turn virtual memory off? But if I do, QuarkXpress will crash because unlike Enhance, it needs virtual memory turned on. Well, I'll quit Quark, turn virtual memory off, restart the computer, restart Enhance, finish the photo job, quit Enhance, turn on virtual memory, restart the machine, restart Quark, open the document, import the pic and hope it doesn't need more tweaking. Oh, jeez, it does. Well, do it all again.

The OS was a breakthrough when it first saw the light of day, but so was the steam engine. Steam locomotives are still fun to run and ride when nothing critical depends on them; tourist trains, for instance. And OS 9 can be fun, if nothing really critical depends on it. But like steam engines, it's labour-intensive to keep it healthy. Norton is a must. DiskWarrior is a must. Defrags are a must. Knowing its quirks is a must.

It's a wood-burning OS. But now it's almost a hobby for me — keeping it going on the net is a game. Running an OS 9 browser all pipelined up and with Firefox add-ons is ironically humorous, if nothing else. Using OS 9 to post in threads about how to fix OS X is, too. And despite all its hand-holding, it's good to have a backup system on another partition if X ever hoses itself. It's also handy as an OS X utility. There is no file in X in my machine that can't be manipulated from 9.

But its day in the sun is over.

technologist · Jun 22, 2007

Brown Study said:
Apple poured millions of dollars into OS X. I doubt it would have done so had 9 been salvagable. Almost everything beyond the bare necessities, and sometimes even those, runs through its system extensions, and with every update the system had to be extended yet again with more, creating another opportunity for a system civil war.

The system was too creaky by half, and getting creakier. I'm still dealing with extension conflicts. If I load them all, the thing hangs at startup, and has for years. It's a ricketty OS that can't run because some bolted-on system extension hangs. (In my case, there is more than one conflict, which means three or four extensions, so I can't be bothered fixing it.) But the OS can't even handle its own or the apps' RAM.

An app crashes. Why? Who knows? A system-extension conflict? Do I have to increase the app's RAM? Is there insufficient virtual memory so I have to increase it?

Or in the case of some apps (such as Enhance, for instance, on a slower machine than I have now), did I forget to turn virtual memory off? But if I do, QuarkXpress will crash because unlike Enhance, it needs virtual memory turned on. Well, I'll quit Quark, turn virtual memory off, restart the computer, restart Enhance, finish the photo job, quit Enhance, turn on virtual memory, restart the machine, restart Quark, open the document, import the pic and hope it doesn't need more tweaking. Oh, jeez, it does. Well, do it all again.

The OS was a breakthrough when it first saw the light of day, but so was the steam engine. Steam locomotives are still fun to run and ride when nothing critical depends on them; tourist trains, for instance. And OS 9 can be fun, if nothing really critical depends on it. But like steam engines, it's labour-intensive to keep it healthy. Norton is a must. DiskWarrior is a must. Defrags are a must. Knowing its quirks is a must.

It's a wood-burning OS. But now it's almost a hobby for me — keeping it going on the net is a game. Running an OS 9 browser all pipelined up and with Firefox add-ons is ironically humorous, if nothing else. Using OS 9 to post in threads about how to fix OS X is, too. And despite all its hand-holding, it's good to have a backup system on another partition if X ever hoses itself. It's also handy as an OS X utility. There is no file in X in my machine that can't be manipulated from 9.

But its day in the sun is over.

The strange thing is, by the time Mac OS X came out, the Classic OS 9 family had made great progress toward fixing these issues. The later versions of OS 9 were built on a preemptively multitasking microkernel. (Just like Copland promised.) Now, the Finder and other Mac applications did not take advantage of this (they all ran together in a single process on the kernel) but the potential was there. OS 9 was, technically, a much more advanced OS than System 7 or even Mac OS 8 was. It probably would have been possible to retrofit 21st-century features onto OS 9 if OS X had failed.

OS X didn't fail, though, and so Apple hasn't looked back.

OS X's disadvantages are not in its technical features, but in the user interface niceties that were lost. For example
- Network servers that don't beachball when the network goes down
- Finder windows that don't zoom properly (Four icons in a folder, and I can't see it without the scrollbars?)
- The Put Away command
- What part of "No windows under the dock?!" don't you understand?

But these are easy to solve...if only Apple ever decides to.

Brown Study · Jun 22, 2007

technologist said:
The strange thing is, by the time Mac OS X came out, the Classic OS 9 family had made great progress toward fixing these issues. The later versions of OS 9 were built on a preemptively multitasking microkernel. (Just like Copland promised.)

Other issues were important, too, though. I think that trying to market a new, improved 9-type OS would have been as successful as the New Coke. Disguising it with OS X-like eye candy wouldn't have worked, even if it could have handled it. And anything less than building a Great Pyramid wouldn't have satisfied Jobs on his return from the wilderness.

But X certainly redefined bloat.