News: 1616761204

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Mac OS X at 20: A rocky start, but it got the fundamentals right for a macOS future

(2021/03/26)


Two decades ago this week, the [1]first version of Mac OS X hit shelves . We're not talking figuratively. The software was sold direct to consumers on disk, with a suggested retail price of $129 (roughly $190 today, adjusted for inflation).

Back in 2001, Mac OS X 10.00 Cheetah was a rough-around-the-edges break from the ageing Classic Mac OS, which had much of its origins in the original Macintosh’s System 1 software. In the years since, the platform has undergone two architecture shifts ( [2]PowerPC to Intel , and now [3]Arm ) and matured to the point where it commands nearly 10 per cent of desktop market share globally.

[4]

Getting there, however, wasn’t easy.

From big problems to big cats

[5]

The story of Mac OS X didn’t start in 2001, but rather in 1985, when [6]Steve Jobs was ousted from Apple following a failed boardroom coup, and multiple product flops. The Apple Lisa project was a dismal failure, selling just 10,000 units. The Macintosh, although infinitely more successful by comparison, failed to slow the ascent of IBM in the PC market, and didn’t meet the company’s lofty sales goals.

Although Jobs was no longer part of Apple, he remained involved in the computer industry, later founding NeXT Inc, which aimed to build workstation-class machines for the higher education market. Its first computer, revealed in 1988, was a powerful (albeit excruciatingly expensive) [7]cube of black aluminium based on a 25MHz Motorola 68030 CPU and 68882 FPU, with 8MB RAM and an optional 330MB or 660MB hard disk. It came with a bespoke UNIX-based operating system called [8]NeXTSTEP that was founded on the Mach and BSD kernels, with object oriented programming principles throughout.

It was revolutionary, but that wasn’t enough to overcome its steep $6,500 ($14,500 in today’s money) asking price. Universities didn’t bite – although the hardware was used to develop the first web browser and server, as well as id Software’s [9]Doom and Quake . By 1993, NeXT had left the hardware business to focus on porting NeXTSTEP to IBM-compatible PC, as well as PA-RISC, SPARC, and the Motorola 68k architectures.

Apple had its own problems, too. The Macintosh was stagnating. Windows 95 – which combined the previously separate DOS and Windows software – proved to be a roaring success, helping Microsoft expand its market share. When it arrived in 1995, Windows 95 was highly usable for first-time computer owners, and had features Mac OS 7 simply lacked, like preemptive multitasking. Separately, a [10]disastrous decision by then-CEO Michael Spindler to license Mac OS 7 to third-party manufacturers resulted in the company’s high-margin hardware sales shrinking further.

The Next Step

By 1997, Apple was mere weeks away from bankruptcy. As a Hail Mary, CEO Gil Amelio (who replaced Spindler in 1996) acquired NeXT, bringing Jobs back to the company he founded from a Los Altos garage. While Jobs (who would assume the top role the following year) would ultimately nurse the company [11]back to health , Apple was most interested in the NeXTSTEP operating system.

The Fat iPhone, 11 years on: The iPad's over a decade old and we're still not sure what it's for [12]READ MORE

You see, Mac OS was, at the time, stagnant. Whereas Windows had made leaps and bounds in terms of things like peripheral support and the internet, Apple had yet to implement basic system-level features like pre-emptive multitasking, multithreading, and protected memory. During the Amelio years, Apple had attempted to [13]create a new operating system on a clean-sheet kernel called Nukernel, but it died in the fiery pits of development hell.

With Jobs at the helm, work started on a new operating system based on NeXTSTEP. The old Mac OS 9 nanokernel was replaced with Darwin, itself a direct descendant of the NeXTSTEP kernel. Other NeXT features - like the use of object-oriented programming, the Objective-C language, and the Dock - also made an appearance. It was a clean break with the past, with a brand new interface dubbed Aqua, and APIs that would allow developers to port their existing software.

[14]

The full release version of Mac OS X 10.0's UI (click to enlarge)

This, ultimately, [15]became Mac OS X 10.00 Cheetah . And while its legacy continues to this day, the initial launch was somewhat underwhelming. It lacked feature parity with Mac OS 9, with DVD playback and CD burning unavailable at launch. Despite the release of a public beta, many developers (including Microsoft and Adobe) hadn’t updated their software to use the Aqua APIs. And it was dog slow, particularly when running applications using the backwards-compatible Classic APIs.

Worse, while many had hoped the Unix foundations and protected memory of Mac OS X would improve stability when compared to its predecessors, the software was rife with fatal bugs, which frequently presented themselves when using external peripherals.

The road since travelled

Teething problems with Mac OS X Cheetah didn’t stop Apple’s upward trajectory, and many of these issues were resolved in later releases. The next release, Mac OS X 10.1 Puma focused on performance improvements and improving feature parity with the Classic Mac OS, and was offered as a free update to existing users.

The next major update came in 2002. Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar fixed the long-standing issues with printer support through the release of CUPS – the Common Unix Printing System – which was subsequently open-sourced and is now [16]widely used across the Linux sphere . By that point, Apple was so confident in Mac OS X, Jobs performed a mock funeral for the Classic Mac OS X on stage at the company’s Worldwide Developers Conference.

[17]Youtube Video

At the time, Mac OS X was exclusively available for the PowerPC platform. By the decade’s halfway point, it was struggling to compete with chips from Intel in key metrics like power consumption. IBM, which built PowerPC chips on behalf of Apple, was manufacturing on larger nodes than those used by Intel, which was [18]already transitioning to 65nm . Whereas it once enjoyed a competitive edge in processing power, Apple was faced with the prospect of losing that advantage.

And so, in 2005, [19]Apple announced the transition to Intel , starting with Mac OS X 10.4.4 Tiger. This had been on the cards for some time. For each version of Mac OS X released, Apple had secretly created an x86 port, so there wasn’t much re-architecting required internally.

Apple had flirted with a move to Intel in the past. [20]Rhapsody OS , which later became Mac OS X Server 1.0, was released for both PowerPC and x86, with versions for IBM RISC System/6000 and DEC Alpha architectures considered. Additionally, the foundational basis of Mac OS X, NeXTSTEP, was also available for Intel processors. This preparation and experience allowed Apple to recognise the writing on the wall and pivot.

As transitions go, the [21]shift to Intel was as painless as could be, especially compared to the jarring leap from Mac OS Classic to Mac OS X. Legacy apps were able to run via the Rosetta compatibility mode (which was later discontinued in 2012). Developers could target both PowerPC and Intel platforms with universal binaries. And Apple offered developers a rental “transition kit” ahead of the public launch, giving them a head start.

In retrospect, this experience informed Apple’s next platform shift, with the company moving from Intel to its own Arm-based Apple Silicon processors in 2020. It has used the same playbook, down to the developer tools and pre-release transition hardware.

Plus ça change

In the two decades since the launch of Mac OS X, a few things have changed. Objective-C is declining in popularity, with Apple’s syntactically nicer [22]Swift programming language gathering pace. The name changed a few times too, with Apple re-branding the system OS X in 2012, and finally macOS with the launch of version 10.12 Sierra. We’ve seen the launch of the Metal graphics API, which provided better rendering performance for games and other visually-intensive apps, as well as the inclusion of iOS and iPadOS features, like Siri.

Apple: We'll tailor Swift to be a fast new programming language [23]READ MORE

But the foundations first introduced in 2001 are still there, from the UNIX underpinnings to the NeXTSTEP Dock. While Windows has undergone multiple UI changes, macOS has largely remained mutually intelligible with its predecessors. As a [24]collector of retro Apple kit (your correspondent has around 30 machines, ranging from a Mac OS 7-era Performa, to various post-Jobs PowerBooks and iBooks), it’s amazing to see how little has changed. I can use an iBook G4 running Mac OS X 10.3 Jaguar and feel just at home as I would with a latest generation M1 MacBook Air.

[25]

And that is the story of Mac OS X. It didn't seem like it would make it, but getting the fundamentals right – dare we say it even more than the cult of Steve Jobs – matters. ®

Get our [26]Tech Resources



[1] https://www.theregister.com/2001/03/23/apples_special_os_x_marketing/

[2] https://www.theregister.com/2005/09/20/apple_intel_mac_timeline/

[3] https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/23/apple_armed_for_x86_rebellion/

[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YF4TNFnSPQEuTbb@QUdOFwAAANI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0

[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YF4TNFnSPQEuTbb@QUdOFwAAANI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[6] https://www.theregister.com/2011/10/06/steve_jobs_bio_1/

[7] https://www.theregister.com/2013/04/09/feature_ten_sexy_computers_roundup/?page=3

[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92NNyd3m79I

[9] https://www.theregister.com/2018/12/10/doom_turns_25/

[10] https://www.theregister.com/1999/12/06/mac_clone_killoff_worst_business/

[11] https://www.theregister.com/1998/10/15/apple_posts_106_million_profit/

[12] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/29/ipad_11_years_old/

[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_(operating_system)

[14] https://regmedia.co.uk/2011/03/22/cheetah_2.png

[15] https://www.theregister.com/Print/2011/03/24/apple_mac_os_x_ten_years_old/

[16] https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/15/apple_cups_develoment/

[17] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl7xQ8i3fc0

[18] https://www.theregister.com/2004/12/09/intel_demos_yonah/

[19] https://www.theregister.com/2005/06/06/jobs_intel/

[20] https://www.theregister.com/1998/11/05/who_killed_apples_rhapsody/

[21] https://www.theregister.com/2005/06/06/apple_intel_analysis/

[22] https://www.theregister.com/2014/06/02/apple_aims_to_speed_up_secure_coding_with_swift_programming_language/

[23] https://www.theregister.com/2014/06/02/apple_aims_to_speed_up_secure_coding_with_swift_programming_language/

[24] https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/07/dyspraxia_and_the_ibook/

[25] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/oses&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YF4TNFnSPQEuTbb@QUdOFwAAANI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0

[26] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/

UNIX

Androgynous Cupboard

It's always the right answer.

Re: UNIX

45RPM

Damn right. Have an up-vote

Re: UNIX

Charlie Clark

Seeing as BeOS was also an option, that's not always the case.

Its still a bit marmitey though

Gordon 10

Finder in particular feels like it needs to be taken around to the back of the barn and shot. Examples:

Fundamental inability to use breadcrumds to navigate up and down a deep folder structure.

Search needs a major overhaul.

Launch Pad needs to die

Re: Its still a bit marmitey though

David Lawton

Finder - View - Show Path Bar, and you get breadcrumbs at the bottom and you can double click any folder in the breadcrumb to jump to it.

Re: Its still a bit marmitey though

Nick

Who would downvote this helpful and polite post?

There should be an option to discount any future forum votes from these people as I don't care about anything that they say or do from here on in.

Re: Its still a bit marmitey though

Lord Elpuss

"Who would downvote this helpful and polite post?"

There are any number of rabid anti-Apple nutjobs around here. They'll downvote anything that isn't outright critical of fruity companies or products.

Re: Its still a bit marmitey though

45RPM

You can also Command-click on any title bar (whether an opened document, folder name in Finder or even a URL in Safari) and, as long as it’s been built with Apple’s APIs (and most have) then you’ll get a drop down menu showing the path. You can click on any item from the menu to be taken to that location.

MacOS has done this for as long as I can remember, back to System 6 days I think, and it’s one of the most useful tricks there is. I miss it on every other OS.

Re: Its still a bit marmitey though

Charlie Clark

Thanks for the tip, although I don't think I need it. I just tend to have lots of Finder windows open so that I don't even have to think about the path in Finder, unless searching.

45RPM

I replaced my 486 PC, with Windows 3.1, with a superficially less powerful Mac SE/30 only to be astonished with the way that the Mac could spank the PC on day to day performance (not gaming though, plus ca change) thanks to the tight integration of OS and hardware.

The OS was a bit crashy, but wasn’t everything in those days? Well, no. My university lecturer put me right - A/UX was just the ticket. It looked like Mac OS, ran Mac OS software - but with Unix underneath it was preemptively multitasking and memory protected. Sure, if a Mac OS app crashed then it could take out the other Mac OS apps - but your Unix stuff would stay running. Perfect. And quite a lot like MacOS today conceptually.

Once setup like that, I was good and the charms of Windows 9x and A/UXless PowerPC passed me by. I did consider jumping to Linux full time as my Quadra (which replaced the SE/30 as A/UX workhorse - though I still have both) got long in the tooth and Apple had apparently abandoned any idea of having a serious OS. Then Next happened, I kept using A/UX well after sell-by - and then updated to MacOS X on a PowerMac G3.

Steve Jobs does deserve credit for bringing the talented engineers together who made OS X happen. But it’s the engineers themselves who are deserving of the lions share of the glory.

486 PC, with Windows 3.1

Mage

Even NT 3.51 on a suitable 386 made Win 3.1 look stupid on a 486. Also did you have 32 bit disk drivers, a similar amount of RAM and a decent graphics card?

Also some 486 computers were slow.

We only used Win9x for games.

Win NT3.5 -> 3.51, 4, 2000 then Linux for Servers.

Workstations/laptops: WFWG3.11 with Win32S, 33 bit disk, -> NT 4.0 Workstation -> XP -> Linux.

In up till about 2006 some PCs/Laptops had WFWG3.11/Win95/XP/Linux multiboot using NT Boot.ini and a WFW/Win98 selection option after DOS 7.0

Charlie Clark

Macs benefitted from things like 68000 CPUs and SCSI

Dave 126

SCSI - helped with offboard storage and high res scanners, the sort of thing that later on FireWire would be handy for.

It was all downhill after Snow Leopard

Empire of the Pussycat

Fluffiest of the big cats.

Re: It was all downhill after Snow Leopard

sbt

Really? I started with Snow Leopard (bought the DVD!), Mavericks was better but not really happy until El Capitan. I'll finish upgrading my desktop to Mojave one of the days (that's as far as it will go).

Re: It was all downhill after Snow Leopard

2+2=5

Last year I retired my Macbook Pro 2009 model and put Snow Leopard back on it. With an SSD drive the boot time is about 10s to the user desktop - and that includes a second or two checking the DVD to see if there is a disk present. The brand new Macbook Air M1 takes about 35 seconds to boot to the user desktop.

But... but.. progress!

I did like Aqua

SW10

Today I can see that it took up a ridiculous amount of real estate, but it was so different and very pleasing

Hardly a success

trevorde

Two decades on, stuck at 10% of the desktop market and *still* no decent software

Re: Hardly a success

Timbo 1

Oh dear. There's always one.

I can't be arsed biting, nearly home time (aka two steps to my couch). Anyone else up for it?

Re: Hardly a success

DoctorNine

It's not volume alone that determines sales success. It's profit per unit sales. For reference, see Chanel. Or Porsche.

I suppose the utilitarian view of the computer as a machine, which those of us at The Reg can espouse since we generally use whatever is thrown at us, would simply assess capabilities and compare the cost to obtain them within each ecosystem. But consumers don't generally do that. They want a curated, premium experience, and will buy based upon that criterion.

Apple delivers on that.

Since the desktop is no longer where most consumers do their computing, by far the most important thing to them is ease of use with their watches, phones, intelligent houses, and cars. In this competition, which you can see with Apple Car Play, Apple watches, and Apple phones, they have a reasonable amount of success.

So despite the desktop OS per se not holding a great percentage of the desktop market, the ecosystem which it created, has a very large percentage of mindshare. And that's what's important.

Re: Hardly a success

Lord Elpuss

"Hardly a success"

I can give you $2.024 trillion reasons why your post is bollocks.

DrBobK

System 7 was so bad that I switched to windows. By Vista I switched back to macOS and I'm still there (although I have to have windows and linux machines for specific projects). Nothing on the horizon seems to be pointing me away from macOS anytime soon.

I don't *love* MacOS, but I do like...

Nick

...the fact that its Time Machine backup (and restore) just works every time. This unlike anything I've ever experienced on the Windows platform, paid or otherwise (excluding several very solid disk imaging progs - but that's not really a backup)

Re: I don't *love* MacOS, but I do like...

Tim99

I agree. I rotate 3 TM backup disks, which have saved me from self-inflicted brain-fade on a couple of occasions; in particular being able to put back deleted emails. BUT, because I have earnt my paranoia, I have 3 Rotated Carbon Copy Cloner bootable back-ups too.

Re: Time Machine

Steve Davies 3

Is also great for moving to another system. Take a backup and then connect the TM drive to the new system while you are setting it up and MacOS does everything for you. No more searching for license keys or software. All your files and apps get moved over.

This is the sort of thing that Windows has been lacking in since V1.0.

Windows 95 – which combined

Mage

The article describes either NT4.0 or NT3.51 with the Preview of the explorer shell.

Win95 didn't initially have USB.

It didn't do 32 bits or multitasking any better than Windows For Workgroups 3.11 with 32 bit drivers, VFW etc. It added Direct X to allow easy porting of DOS games. NT had OpenGL, which didn't exist on Win95. Essentially WFWG 3.11 with an updated VFW and the 32 bit Wins and 32 bit drivers bundled. It wass still mostly 16 bits, so was massively slower on a Pentium Pro than NT3.51 or NT4.0

The comparison for OS X is NT 5.1, AKA Windows XP, and maybe for OS 9, NT 3.51 and NT 5.0 AKA Windows 2000.

Windows 95 had good driver support, the Explorer Desktop and the upgrade to Office 4.3. It loaded via booting DOS. It more seamlessly ran DOS games and the new DirectX ports from DOS.

By default it didn't have TCP/IP installed, but like WFWG 3.11, the NetBEUI.

The description of NextStep, OS9 and OSX sounds plausible. But not that of Win95. Win95 damaged NT workstation sales and OS/2 sales more than Mac, which by then outside the USA was a niche for publishing. Adobe Premiere Video Editing worked as well on Win 3.1 etc as Win95, and on win95 initially used win 3.x drivers and ISA cards for the video I/O.

Mac was in decline till MS gave a cash injection and people bought the original CRT all-in-one iMac due to hype. Apple's finances only turned around due to the iTunes per track deal with record companies and the iPod. Which initially was hard to connect to Win 9x.

TRT

It's always been a favourite in my line of work. There's such a load of niche software around; some of it runs only on Windows, whereas a lot of the "power" tools are 'nix, and then there's the typographic beauty that the Macintosh systems seem to excel at (OK, maybe they've lost that edge now, but still...) and the ease with which you can put a GUI onto a 'nix command line application... it's just the perfect tool for HE & research.

Anonymous Coward

Indeed, and it comes with full man pages (and info pages, if so inclined). I essentially live in an xterm.

Best bit about MacOS...

theOtherJT

While Windows has undergone multiple UI changes, macOS has largely remained mutually intelligible with its predecessors

While Apple has many faults the fact that they've resisted the urge to fuck about with the core UI design concepts is very much to their credit. It's not perfect by any means but unlike windows I can't remember any point in the last 20 years where it just took a massive step... well, if not backwards, then certainly sideways... for no obvious reason.

Re: Best bit about MacOS...

TRT

The traffic light button functions... that's a minor irritation, but still a bit of a shift in UI function. Some of the individual Apple Apps have seen some terrible design shifts - column sorting in Mail, for example. But still very much how it's always been. To give Microsoft some credit... they ditched TIFM-by-force pretty rapidly.

Re: Best bit about MacOS...

Anonymous Coward

The latest version though is pretty bad compared to the previous versions. They're trying to treat the laptops / desktops as giant mobile devices. Especially annoying are the calendar notifications which are now hard to clear (the close cross is hidden) and a click in the wrong place launches the calendar which is irritating.

Windows 95 wasn't better, but it was just good enough

Charlie Clark

Windows 95 was still a shell that ran on DOS and used the same kind of cooperative multitasking that MacOS did. But the GUI was good enough for the mass market and the APIs were good enough for the developers. Not that companies were ready to ditch their expensive beige boxes for even more expensive but prettier ones from Cupertino.

Apple has always been guilty of picking its customers and often going for style over function. It got this right with the iMacs, which were bought by people who didn't want PCs any more. This pivot to the consumer was a risk that paid off and has continued to pay off since then. For Jobs, Next was a necessary evil and you can see that Apple are trying to get rid of the unix underpinnings as they drive everything towards some form of IOS, which is a pity because the shell, along with DisplayPostscript, is one of the nicest bits of the OS.

UNIX underpinnings?

/tmp

https://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/2002/02/25

The person you rejected yesterday could make you happy, if you say yes.