[alexkent]

Well it is, lets face it.

I don't mean to be alarmist or want to get loads of flames, because i think osX is really really good, and hopefully will do great and make all out machines faster + more stable and so on...

But it is certainly the end of the Mac as we know it.
However you look at it osX is not a logical progression from MacOS9.
It is a fundamentaly different OS, and should be treated as such.
Its as different as MacOS and Windows, well, more precisely as different as MacOS and NExTStep.
Don't get me wrong, i am really excited about OSX i can't wait for the final release i will eagerly install it and use it as soon as i can, but what Apple is asking us to do is switch OS's, to dump what we have been using for the last 10years and jump onto a revamped version of Nextstep, for which there is basically no software; while classic will allow you to run existing programs, lets face it, they're going to run better in OS9, (access to hardware / finder interaction etc). In reality if you want to run OS9 apps, then you wil use OS9. OSX will be for OSX apps.
But I'm sure it will be great, i am confident that all the big software companies will be ready and waiting with carbonised versions of the major software, and everything will be peachy.

/
also, if they did make this change to using intel/amd/crusoe/... chips that everyone is arguing about then there really would be nothing left of the Machintosh.
(q) Whats the difference between different type of personal computer: Mac, Wintel, BeBox, Amiga, etc.?

(a) The OS and the hardware its runs on.
So now were changing the OS (hopefully for better), if the hardware changes too, then apple shouldn't keep calling it a Mac. As there will no longer be any links with these machines we are currently using, they will use a different OS and will not be able to run any current software, so they would be a new platform, not really a Mac at all.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by alexkent:
(a) The OS and the hardware its runs on.
So now were changing the OS (hopefully for better), if the hardware changes too, then apple shouldn't keep calling it a Mac. As there will no longer be any links with these machines we are currently using, they will use a different OS and will not be able to run any current software, so they would be a new platform, not really a Mac at all.

The hardware *is* irrelevant. The change from MC680x0 to PowerPC was a colossal one, as was the design revolution beginning with the iMac, and they changed the Macintosh less than probably System 6 to System 7.
Also, there was the switch from almost entirely proprietary hardware to off-the-shelf PC hardware components.

Yes, the Mac is changing, and it always has changed. And, while how different the General UI of OS X is gonna be from OS 9 remains to be seen in the Final Release and further updates, the matter of hardware design is not what defines the Macintosh experience as long as certain criteria are met.

And Apple will long continue requiring their proprietary hardware, since that's what they live off.

-chris.

[mr_sonicblue]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word of that.

A name is just a name. Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and Windows 2000 have the same name, but are vastly different OS's. In fact, Windows 3.1 wasn't even an OS! I was just a creative frontend for DOS.

Windows 95 and NT have different kernels, different a different API set, and a slightly different interface. NT runs newer and better things (services) than 95.

And look at Linux. We name that simply by the kernel. All the distributions are vastly different.

Believe it or not, Mac OS X is the next Mac OS. The name is more general than the sum of its parts.

And who cares if hardware changes. The crapintoshes I used in High-school had floppy drives, serial mouse and keyboard ports, and a different processor. The most similar thing between those and my new PowerBook is the Apple Logo shape (the colors even changed).

------------------
-Eric Schneider (SonicBlue)

[Brass]

I agree in principle to what you've said, because it really is a colossal change. However, I think that in some ways it's only a bit more of a change from OS 9 to OS X than from Macintosh System 5 to Mac OS 9. Allow me to explain...

There's no doubt that somewhere inside Mac OS 9, there is still a bit of code originally written for Macintosh System 5. However, that amount of code is probably less than 0.05% (this is due largely to rewrites for PPC code, but also many other rewrites). So in reality, Mac OS 9 is almost a completely different operating system from Macintosh System 5 IN TERMS OF THE SOFTWARE CODE. In the same way, Mac OS X is in fact a completely different operating system from Mac OS 9.

There are 2 major differences here, as I see it:

1. Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X is a very sudden transition, whereas System 5 to Mac OS 9 took 15 years and had several steps in between.

2. From 5 to 9, the user interface was essentially the same, even though the underlying code is majorly different (OS 9 had added features to System 5 but not removed any).

What I'm saying here is that it is the USER INTERFACE that has made the Macintosh what it is (I also think that it's the tight integration of operating system and hardware as a single package, called a "Macintosh", but that's beyond the scope of this discussion).

I believe that if Mac OS X had a platinum appearance, and a Finder that looked the same as the Mac OS 9 Finder, it would still be perceived as much a Macintosh as any classic Mac OS. All the other changes would be similar to the many other changes to the classic Mac OS, as far as the user is concerned - ie, small change in directory structure, some menu changes, new security model, better multi-tasking, memory protection, access to a command line. From the user's point of view these changes would be almost insignificant, if the Finder and general user interface had not changed.

Having said that, the Finder is only one small part of the OS, it is just that it's the part the user notices the most. So if that changes, then it is really just the user's perception of the OS that has changed. Hey, I could almost convince myself that the entire OS could change and still be a Mac OS.

In that case, the only thing that makes it a Macintosh, would be its being an integrated OS and hardware package marketed as a Macintosh.

I think I'm changing my mind?

[The Evener]

Originally posted by alexkent:
Well it is, lets face it.

*snip*

Don't get me wrong, i am really excited about OSX i can't wait for the final release i will eagerly install it and use it as soon as i can, but what Apple is asking us to do is switch OS's, to dump what we have been using for the last 10years and jump onto a revamped version of Nextstep, for which there is basically no software; while classic will allow you to run existing programs, lets face it, they're going to run better in OS9, (access to hardware / finder interaction etc). In reality if you want to run OS9 apps, then you wil use OS9. OSX will be for OSX apps.

*snip*

So now were changing the OS (hopefully for better), if the hardware changes too, then apple shouldn't keep calling it a Mac. As there will no longer be any links with these machines we are currently using, they will use a different OS and will not be able to run any current software, so they would be a new platform, not really a Mac at all.

Alex,

OS X is a major change for the Mac, no doubt about it. But after using it, I can say that it is a change for the better in numerous ways. For the first time, geeks and PC users are actually excited about the Mac -- this is a big plus. A modern and stable OS for the Mac is long overdue. Apple has crafted an amazing GUI for OS X that makes platinum look like aluminum. Power users can really get into the OS thanks to the CLI, or if you prefer, simply ignore it and you'll never miss it. OS X's Unix underpinnings is paving the way for a host of high-power and specialized software packages to be ported to the system, opening doors to a whole new group of users and computing environments. At the same time, OS X retains the simplicity of the original OS which is sure to please the Mac faithful. Classic works surprisingly well for a Beta, and I certainly look forward to the finished product when OS X final is released.

Sure, there will be some changes in the ways we do things, but there's too much to be gained by letting this opportunity pass. Also, I don't think this "break" with the past is as large as you make it sound, nor is change unprecidented in the history of the Mac. The PowerPC is a completely new chip that bears no relationship with the original 680x0 in the first Macintoshes, beyond the fact Moto made both. To run old 680x0 apps on the PowerPC, Apple used a 68LC040 emulator, allowing a huge majority of apps to work on the new architecture. In short, Apple pulled off a fantastic transition, and very few Mac users would ever be aware that they are basically using a 'different' machine than they did before the switch. And we gained a lot with the jumpt to 64-bit.

Just as we'll gain with the jump to Mac OS X.

[mitchell_pgh]

I never trust anyone with less then 40 posts

>However you look at it osX is not a logical progression from MacOS9.

However YOU look at it, THERE IS NO LOGICAL PROGRESSION TO MacOS9! OS9 is as far as Apple can stretch the OS, and It has faired well over the years. I will miss you...

NOTE: Apple tried to get Java 2 on mac OS 9, and couldn't due it because A) the OS underpinnings just aren't there and would take years to implement. B) It would be dog slow after all those years

>It is a fundamentaly different OS, and should be treated as such.

You spelled fundamentally incorrectly, but if you were using OSX PB, the universal spell checker would have caught that. It is a different OS, but should resemble OS9 as it is a product from Apple.

From this point on, you began to babble incoherently!

Point Blank:
Apple Needed a New OS
Apple bought Next
Next owned this nifty little OS that was rock F@#$ing solid!
Apple updated that OS to be more Mac Like
Bingo Bango Bongo... Here is OSX

Use OS9 when using OS9 applications, and OSX for OSX applications???
Windows 95 could run Windows 3.11 apps, why shouldn't OSX run old apps? It's just temporary until people develop apps

Hey, Alex, hold it RIGHT there.

OS X is a real major change for the Mac and its users. It is radical. And that is what is so exciting about it. Its new. Its bold. Its fresh. But then, who is to say that its illogcal. Yes, it may be radical, but certainly not illogical. Think of the iMac, not exactly a logical progression from other computers. Definately a radical departure form the standard. But not illogical. it was new. It was bold. It was fresh. And thats not all. It opened Apple up to a whole new genre of customers.
And in many ways, OS X is exactly the same. No matter how illogical you may see it as, it will open up Apple to new possibilities. Logic though can be used to prove anything. that is its power - and its flaw. But whatever you think, it does no way signify the endo f the Mac. It takes alot to break Apple - and I suspect that it will take more to break OS X. Go check this forum. Support and positive attitude is rife. The Mac will live on. And OS X will prolong that life.

Play it cool Alex,

[strobe]

You need to qualify what a mac is. MacOS 9 has virtually no resemblance to System 1. The only items in the Apple menu (which should die in OS X) were DAs. Only one 'app' ran (which was a simple routine which polled for events) and the file system wasn't hierarchical.

So are you going to say System 5 was the end of the mac? System 7?

I define a mac as having UI uniformity. I don't use the desktop (worst idea the mac ever implemented) I don't use the Apple menu (using Drop Drawers instead) and I don't like title bars which are longer than the title.

OS X is close to having UI uniformity. Cocoa needs to change text handling behaviors and the Swing API is insufficient to make Swing apps behave like mac apps, however eventually Cocoa and Carbon apps ought to behave the same. I can't say the same with any other OS.

So long OS X retains UI uniformity and an ease of use in terms of maintenance I'll be happy to call it a mac, although I'll pronounce it Mac Oh Ess Ex, not 10.

[sixkiller]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The hardware *is* irrelevant. The change from MC680x0 to PowerPC was a colossal one, as was the design revolution beginning with the iMac, and they changed the Macintosh less than probably System 6 to System 7.

This is not a fair comparison, as the PowerPC has the ability to run 68k code. Wintel box do not run 68k/PPC code so it _is_ a complete switch.

I for one will never accept Apple releasing any version of OS X for wintel if they're crazy enough to do a thoughtless thing like that. And I stick with my position.

Very very good post, strobe. You said what I've been trying to say, and your crituque of OS X's uniformity, or the steps to make it so are right on the money.

[mitchell_pgh]

alexkent,
What a total pile of flame-bate. Apple isn't going anywhere. Please think before you post! I'm getting tired of people trying to be cool simply by posting a total carrot in front of the loyal Mac users.

Grow up a little Junior Member!!!

[This message has been edited by mitchell_pgh (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Petrie]

Originally posted by alexkent:
Well it is, lets face it.But it is certainly the end of the Mac as we know it.However you look at it osX is not a logical progression from MacOS9.It is a fundamentaly different OS, and should be treated as such.

Maybe it would help you to look at it instead of as a radical change, but as an evolution on steroids.

Petrie

------------------
The bad new is I have MS. The good news is I don't mean Microsoft.

[alexkent]

ok, well i knew this post woud get a few people going. surely thats the point of a discussion though? if i just said something everyone agreed one. Maybe i was a little over the top in places.

I'll try and condense (this is mainly because i just spent 2hours writing a good long reply only to have os9 crash on me when i went to post - instant karma?).

an OS is defined by its software back catalogue. If osx were released and apple shifted to using intel/amd/whatever chips then no legacy software would run at all, all software would have to be written from scratch, that to me makes it a new os.

ppc - intel shift, not comparable to 68k - ppc shift. since all ppc stuff would run at a snails pace, vpc allday everyday anyone? i know that would only be an interim measure, actually apple probably would not bother with it at all, it would not be fast enough to be acceptable.

Linux is not really comparable with Mac OS because the Mac is "a simple and integrated hardware software solution". Try to apply that sentence to any Linux box and it kinda sticks in your throat don't you think?

I know win3.1/95/98/me are all just flashy front ends for dos (yes, 95/98/etc is as well). But i was just trying to illustrate the difference. In core/gui/structure/everything.

if apple were to release osx onintel, then they would have to change the name anyways, simply to avoid the massive confusion of all the *normal* everyday users who have g3/g4/g5/whatever with osX and don't understand why this new osxintel program doesn't work.

Mitchell_pgh - apart from all the insults, i agree with you, os9 wasn't going anywhere osX is the next move. But os9 - osX isn't an upgrade, its a different os.

"don't trust anyone with less than 40 posts" ?!?!
why ? suddenly because i don't have time to post everyday my opinion doesn't count.

Saying the GUI is staying the same. Well, it is a bit. More so with the new stuff at mwsf, but it is as big a difference as os9/win95. Instead of having disks and trash on the right and a menu accross the top, or a button in the bottom left that runs everything, now we have stuff in the middle at the bottom that is the centre of attention. To new users, it may as well be an entire different computer.

I am not saying osX is a bad thing, i think its brilliant. I hope in final form it is everything we hope for, i think this is a real chance for apple to win a lot of new users.
Maybe i was a little over the top, but OSX is a major turning point in the life of the Apple computer.