Talk: Mac OS
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
It would be nice to have a list of the 10 versions of the MacOS:
- Version number
- Date of publication
- Prominent new features
- Minimum hardware requirement
-- mpt
I've started on a list in /History --Damian Yerrick
maybe somebody could add in some eeggs? (if you don't know what those are, look at eeggs.com)
Do you mean Easter Eggs? I once opened one of the system files (I can't remember which -- maybe "System" or "Finder") with Norton Disk Editor and I found text near the start of the file, along the lines of "hehlp help I'm trapped in a software development factory". This was system 7.something -- Tarquin
Removed:
"Microsoft Windows, a response to Macintosh, eventually overtook the Macintosh in popularity and now has a monopoly in the OS market."
-Was it "a response"?
-Is is more popular, or just more common?
-When is "now"?
-MS does not have a monopoly. Perhaps it currently has a near-monopoly.
I'm not sure about the need for "Alternative operating systems include...", since Windows can't run on Mac. Can Linux? -- Tarquin
- Don't see the need either. Even if Linux could run on a Mac, only mentioning Windows and Linux isn't really useful. The OS article contains a much longer list, so a reference there would do IMO. Jeronimo
- Running Linux under Mac OS X is significant because OS X itself is also UNIX based and open source, FreeBSD 3.2. It is not uncommon to unplug the BSD kernel and put a real Linux in its place.
- Do you mean running Linux in an emulator or virtual machine under Mac OS X? Or running Linux on a Mac instead of Mac OS X? --Brion
- FYI, there is a version of Linux that runs on Mac hardware. I believe it's called MkLinux. AFAIK, it is a standalone OS, not runnin gunder OS X or Mac OS 9. GRAHAMUK 04:57, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, Linux does run on Mac hardware. Numerous distributions, such as Debian, Yellow Dog, and Gentoo support PPC Macs. I've got a PowerMac 7500 running Debian 3.0 in my office at work. I don't know if there are any distributions anymore for m68020/30/40 Macs still being maintained, but the kernel does still support all that Mac hardware so it's possible. It's just a bit of work. There's also a project called Mac-On-Linux that runs "Classic" Mac OS on top of Linux, kind of like how OS/2 used to run DOS on top of itself. But running the OS X GUI on top of Linux, no... OS X might run under Mac-on-Linux but that's not the same as replacing the BSD kernel with Linux. It's also possible to run NetBSD and OpenBSD on most Macs, and there was a version of BeOS for pre-G3 PPC Macs. Someone swore to me once that he got the PPC version of Windows NT 3.51 running on Mac hardware but I've never heard of another person making that claim. If indeed it was possible, which I doubt, it certainly wasn't common.
- Now, as far as Windows vs. Mac OS, there's plenty of evidence that work on Windows 1.0 began before Microsoft got its first Mac prototype. But it's undeniable that some of the Mac's ideas found their way into Windows and Gates was infamously unapologetic about that. But name one Microsoft product that didn't borrow heavily from an earlier, competing product. Other than Bob. Dave Farquhar 03:32, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to know what the evidence is. If MS announced Windows in 1983, but had been working on Excel and Word for the Mac since 1981, it looks as if MS saw a Mac before they thought of Windows. However, of course it's possible that Windows 1.0 developments started long before it was announced, or it may be that the Excel/Word work doesn't go back that far and the quoted dates are wrong. It's probably not really all that important, but for historical accuracy it would be great to establish the facts, whatever they are. Surely somebody can give a definitive perspective on this? GRAHAMUK 04:17, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- It's quite possible that MS had something Windows-like in the works; Smalltalk publicity ca 1980-81 had got most of the computing world's attention, and everybody (including me :-) ) was scheming about how to get that cool interface onto regular hardware. However, MS was a smallish place back then, and "working on Windows 1.0" might have meant one person fooling around with bitblts in his spare time. I don't have any helpful reference works tho. Stan 13:06, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
This article is pretty weak the way it is (which includes the stuff I wrote) and MacOS history is weak the way it is. Is there a reason why we don't merge these two together? It's hard to talk about MacOS without talking history. Fuzheado 00:22, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I do not feel comfortable enough to change it but it is the applications that are classic not the operating system Freeware 16:04, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Classic, strictly speaking, is the name of the environment used to run Mac OS 9 and its applications on Mac OS X. The term has been generalized to refer to both "Classic applications" and "Mac OS Classic", which may not be strictly correct but is nonetheless generally understood.Drernie 19:43, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) . Drernie 19:43, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I think the software list could be split into OS X and classic. Perhaps also moved to a seperate page. As it approaches becomming comprehensive it would be huge list... :Flimsyq 21:26, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, Actually I think it would be a sensible move to create a separate page, List of Macintosh software, which can be linked from several Mac related entries. I think the inclusion of these lists (of which there are several scattered on different pages), actually doesn't enhance these articles, and is problematic due to the sheer potential length of the list. The list should be broken down into sections - Currently released by Apple, formerly released by Apple, and third parties. Graham 22:51, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
