←back to thread

X and NeWS history

(minnie.tuhs.org)
177 points colinprince | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.519s | source
Show context
wwweston ◴[] No.15325475[source]
> I have a section in the book that I'm writing where I talk about how to design a good API. I pose the question of why none of the original Apple Mac API published in 1985 taking about 1,200 pages is in use today whereas almost all of the UNIX V6 API published in 1975 taking 321 pages is still in use and has been copied by many other systems. I'm sure that everyone on this list knows the answer.

I'm not sure I do. But it does seem like a good question.

Also:

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/x-windows/disast...

replies(2): >>15325555 #>>15326484 #
valuearb ◴[] No.15325555[source]
My guess is that the original Mac OS provided a great GUI, but not much of an OS. It loaded a single application at a time that had access to all of memory. That's why it had desk accessories, to give you apps you could use without quitting the main application. It had handle based memory management so the OS could move memory blocks more contagiously to create enough open space for new memory allocations.

Over time they added cooperative multitasking, which meant the foreground app had to consciously give time to let background apps do stuff.

But they could never build a real OS with security and memory protection out of it. So Apple bought NeXT to get industrial strength unix as their core OS, and switched all Apple development to NeXTStep, or at least the modern derivative of it, called Cocoa.

My dust covered Inside Mac volumes were made useless nearly 20 years ago.

replies(3): >>15325585 #>>15326081 #>>15327274 #
1. Someone ◴[] No.15326081[source]
”Over time they added cooperative multitasking”

You may know, but for readers who don’t: ”they” didn’t, Andy Hertzfeld did (https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Switcher.txt)

It helped that he had intimate knowledge of the Mac operating system’s internals, but many of them were documented in Inside Macintosh, and others could have been found with (quite) a bit of effort; one didn’t have to be at Apple or even have access to the system’s source code to implement that.

And those volumes aren’t useless; they are reminders of about the last time hacking an OS was fun :-;

replies(2): >>15327325 #>>15331748 #
2. rasz ◴[] No.15327325[source]
Great story. What jumped at me was Andy's reaction to Steve's 100K offer. Mine was to counter with "I already have one client lined up, and their lawyers will be happy to deal with any 'confidential information' issues". I suspect mere mention of Microsoft would make Jobs mad and at least double the offer.
3. yuhong ◴[] No.15331748[source]
What is fun is the Switcher/Multi-Mac debacle. Notice that it was mentioned that "I knew that releasing it would have me having to keep up with all the new ROM releases from Apple in the future." At the time, even with the 128K ROM I think they still had to put special code to support Switcher into there (Andy was also working on the Font Manager at the time).