Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ryaxnb · Jan 30, 2008, 06:42 AM

We all know Mac OS X came from two sources: OS 9 and OPENSTEP/Rhapsody. Rhapsody came from NeXT. Anyway, I found in interesting picture:
Rhapsody Resource Page

As you can see, they're very similar. Most of the differences are system-wide (e.g. Aqua buttons); if the system hadn't changed in so many other ways, this would be identical. Any other notes on almost-identical to Mac OS 9 or Rhapsody behavior, behind the scenes or in interface?

On Panther, QuickTime 6 was one of the last vestiges of OS 9. It worked basically identically to in OS 9. Tiger revamped Quicktime with v. 7. Also, QuickDraw is of course the same as in OS 9 (same as in OS 8, in fact.)However, that's deprecated. AppleScript, including AppleScripting dictionaries for some programs (e.g. Finder) is very similar to OS 9, particularly in Panther.

As for Rhapsody, TextEdit and Stickies bring up a flash to the past. They haven't changed much. Interface Builder is similar.

0157988944 · Jan 30, 2008, 05:42 PM

You can't get very innovative with a color picker.

timmerk · Jan 30, 2008, 08:55 PM

ryaxnb: What's your point? Mac OS X's icons came from System 1.0. So did the menubar now that I think about it - yes, somethings never change.

msuper69 · Jan 30, 2008, 08:58 PM

OS X is a direct derivative of NextStep.

Even the APIs begin with NS.

Nothing new here.

ghporter · Jan 30, 2008, 09:22 PM

Wait a minute-I thought OS X was derived from FreeBSD. Or are you simply referring to the user interface of certain parts of the OS?

And as adamfishercox points out, how creative can you get with a color picker, especially knowing how many people will gripe if you don't "remain consistent" between OS versions? If the color picker hadn't been very similar from OS 9 to OS X then there would have been hysteria about how Apple was "completely abandoning a great user interface..."

timmerk · Jan 30, 2008, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Wait a minute-I thought OS X was derived from FreeBSD. Or are you simply referring to the user interface of certain parts of the OS?

From Wikipedia:

Mac OS X is based on the Mach kernel and is derived from the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) implementation of Unix in Nextstep.

C.A.T.S. CEO · Jan 30, 2008, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Wait a minute-I thought OS X was derived from FreeBSD. Or are you simply referring to the user interface of certain parts of the OS?

And as adamfishercox points out, how creative can you get with a color picker, especially knowing how many people will gripe if you don't "remain consistent" between OS versions? If the color picker hadn't been very similar from OS 9 to OS X then there would have been hysteria about how Apple was "completely abandoning a great user interface..."

If I remember correctly, Darwin (the core) is a mix of FreeBSD/Apple's own code. OS X's API's come from NeXTSTEP and OS 9.

edit: timmerk got it.

cgc · Jan 30, 2008, 09:58 PM

Install almost any variant of Linux and you'll see a gazillion (I've counted) similarities, some nearly exact, some very close.

ghporter · Jan 31, 2008, 10:58 AM

I wasn't aware that Nextstep was BSD-based. I've learned something useful already today. Thanks.

OreoCookie · Jan 31, 2008, 11:04 AM

The userland (roughly, the command line) is based on FreeBSD.

Big Mac · Jan 31, 2008, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Wait a minute-I thought OS X was derived from FreeBSD.

OS X is comprised of its Darwin core (Mach microkernel + FreeBSD + some proprietary additions like I/O Kit + a supposed minor sprinkling from other BSDs like NetBSD), core foundation software layer above and higher level system services like QuickTime and the Cocoa and Carbon APIs layered on top of that. The guts of the OS are for the most part descended directly from NextStep/OPENSTEP, with the exceptions of QuickTime and Carbon. Some components are completely new to OS X, like Quartz. But what is being discussed in this thread is the similarities between certain OS X interface elements and the OSs that came before. OS X represents a genuine merger and continuation of the two OSs that preceded it.

ghporter · Jan 31, 2008, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

OS X represents a genuine merger and continuation of the two OSs that preceded it.

...Which is the point I have an issue with. If there hadn't been some obvious continuity from OS 9 then there would have been lots and lots of angst about how Apple was "abandoning" a working UI. Now it seems that some people want to be unhappy that a working UI was retained...

Am I missing a point on this?

Big Mac · 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

...Which is the point I have an issue with. If there hadn't been some obvious continuity from OS 9 then there would have been lots and lots of angst about how Apple was "abandoning" a working UI. Now it seems that some people want to be unhappy that a working UI was retained...

Am I missing a point on this?

The point of this thread? I think the OP wasn't angry to find the same color picker in OPENSTEP; it just surprises some to find out about the NeXT roots of some OS X interface elements because NextStep/OPENSTEP are less well known to the Mac community. I don't think anyone is quarreling over it, at least not in this thread. You will still find people annoyed over the lack of such classic Finder elements such as tabs and true spatiality, but those aren't really gripes about NeXT versus Mac OS as much as Mac OS versus Mac OS X thang.

CharlesS · Feb 1, 2008, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

...Which is the point I have an issue with. If there hadn't been some obvious continuity from OS 9 then there would have been lots and lots of angst about how Apple was "abandoning" a working UI.

There was.

analogika · Feb 1, 2008, 06:21 AM

Oh boy, was there EVER!

Angst - heh. More like abject *terror*!

A big reason a lot of us regulars even came over here to the 'NN forums back in the early '00s - the Thaloid Wars of MacFixit.

A bunch of niner-whiners and self-proclaimed "professionals" (who, for some reason, could afford to spend *days* at a time on some internet discussion forum) lamenting the capitulation of Apple to the "digikid", and the abandonment of the "professional" and the company's obvious impending demise, and drowning anybody who actually considered OS X a step forward in deluge upon deluge of cleverly articulated horseshit.

Chuckit · Feb 1, 2008, 06:35 AM

In fairness, OS X did have a lot of problems back in the early '00s (I'm thinking specifically of 10.0.x, but it didn't really get going until 10.2 or so).

analogika · Feb 1, 2008, 07:42 AM

True.

But arguing that you were more in control of OS 9 because you could juggle extensions is just *silly* (and we *still* get to hear that occasionally).

ghporter · Feb 1, 2008, 11:04 AM

I'm beginning to feel like I'm coming to my first family reunion with my wife's family-and I don't have a program to fill me in on who's on the outs with whom...

Maybe it's a good thing I couldn't afford a Mac until relatively recently...

CharlesS · Feb 1, 2008, 11:07 AM

You're lucky. The early OS X days were... interesting times.

What didn't help was that the OS, although it didn't crash, was absolutely riddled with UI bugs. The forums were filled with endless flame wars between those who couldn't stand the badness of 10.0, and those who saw its potential to become a great OS down the road. And then there were those who couldn't accept change no matter what. I actually remember a thread on MacNN where some guy was claiming that OS X was unsuitable for "professionals" because "professionals" need to be able to manually allocate memory, and OS X, having modern memory management, of course doesn't do this.

analogue SPRINKLES · Feb 1, 2008, 01:35 PM

I can't believe the Mac OS 1.0 watch icon still comes up for some actions over the spinning wheel.

That just blows my mind.

analogika · Feb 1, 2008, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I actually remember a thread on MacNN where some guy was claiming that OS X was unsuitable for "professionals" because "professionals" need to be able to manually allocate memory, and OS X, having modern memory management, of course doesn't do this.

Oh yeah, that was even more ludicrous than the "I've lost control; I can't re-order extensions!" argument!

analogika · Feb 1, 2008, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES

I can't believe the Mac OS 1.0 watch icon still comes up for some actions over the spinning wheel.

That just blows my mind.

That has nothing to do with the OS, AFAIK. It's coded by application programmers.

Big Mac · Feb 1, 2008, 05:05 PM

Someone actually made a case for static memory allocation? LOL. That was a huge technical shortcoming of the classic OS.

As for the watch wait cursor, Carbon apps that still have old code apparently call the watch. The strange thing is, I think I've seen it in modern Apple apps too.

Art Vandelay · Feb 1, 2008, 05:19 PM

Safari uses the Classic watch for whenever html code calls for the "wait" cursor.

0157988944 · Feb 1, 2008, 05:20 PM

Even after the HIG bans it

Art Vandelay · Feb 1, 2008, 05:29 PM

Well, in Safari it's not an application cursor but an html cursor. So, I guess it can be argued that it doesn't violate the HIG.

analogue SPRINKLES · Feb 1, 2008, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

That has nothing to do with the OS, AFAIK. It's coded by application programmers.

Fine. Someone tell Apple they can't write their own apps.

Judge_Fire · Feb 2, 2008, 03:20 PM

There is so much familiar stuff in this NS demo by Steve Jobs, done about 15+ years ago.