Mac OS Evolution: from System 1.0 to Snow Leopard (55 images)

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by Axemantitan, Dec 18, 2009.

  1. Bkxmnr macrumors regular


    Feb 9, 2009
    Wichita, KS
    That's really cool. Was something wrong with Sytem 4 the System 5 had to be released the same year?
  2. MisterMe macrumors G4


    Jul 17, 2002
    I have never heard of a problem with System 4. The thing that you should understand is that software development back in the 1970's and 1980's was much faster than it is now. It was standard practice for software back then to receive major updates less than a year after introduction. There would have been nothing unusual about seeing System 5 during the same year that System 4 was released.

    Macintosh Systems were available for sale, but they did not a generate revenue. The standard distribution model for Macintosh applications was to sell them on bootable 800 K floppy disks. Until the release of the Macintosh II, Macintosh computers used only optional external hard drives. The floppy could hold the application, your data, and a complete System. That System could be used to run applications that did not ship with one. System 7 was the first Mac System that was intended to generate revenue for Apple. But I digress.
  3. acurafan macrumors 6502a

    Sep 16, 2008
    good googly, look how ugly mac os looked before OS X. no wonder Jobs left apple...:D
  4. Darth.Titan macrumors 68030


    Oct 31, 2007
    Austin, TX
    How was System 2 released in 87 when System 3 was released in 86? (According to that site.)
  5. edgew8 macrumors regular


    Dec 8, 2008
    It may look tired to some people but I still miss the simple white gloss of Tiger. Leopard and SL are just too dull and gray to me:(
  6. jaw04005 macrumors 601


    Aug 19, 2003
    I was reading an old interview with Steve Jobs when OS X was introduced that said OS X’s GUI would match the look of Apple’s products on the market.

    If you go back in time and look, it makes sense. Especially now with the current line-up of everything aluminum.
  7. Forsaken macrumors regular


    Dec 1, 2009
    Awesome link, thanks.

    Interesting to see that Systems 1 through 6 looked just about the same on the surface, then System 7 comes along and changes everything. My favorite out of all the classic OSes has got to be OS 9.
  8. mysterytramp macrumors 65816


    Jul 17, 2008
    I'm wondering about this guy's numbering. I don't believe anyone called it System 1.0 when it came out, though I remember an upgrade that folks referred to "Finder 1.1g" -- System 2? Some of them might be arbitrary backdating to support later revision numbers.

    4 & 5 might have to do with the release of MultiFinder. Some apps died because they addressed memory incorrectly and 5 could have been a patch to prevent some issues. (Five points to anyone who names MultiFinder's original name and it's author without using Wikipedia.)

    Might 5 also been the original release of HyperCard, which might have necessitated some OS level changes?

  9. MisterMe macrumors G4


    Jul 17, 2002
    IIRC, the Lisa OS was System 1. System 6 saw the advent of the Multi-Finder, HyperCard, QuickTime, TrueType, and 32-bit Addressing. System 5 [or was it System 4] had the Switcher.
  10. elppa macrumors 68040


    Nov 26, 2003
    Internet Explorer:mac 5.1 Preview Release.

    Bringing back bad nightmares.

    All the “Safari/Chrome/Firefox sucks” whingers on MacRumors should have to suffer that for a week. They'd be complaining a lot less I fancy.
  11. jodelli macrumors 65816


    Jan 6, 2008
    Windsor, ON, Canada
    System software release 2.01 was actually the same as System 4, or something like that.
    The incremental releases didn't match the System numbers until around System 6, which was coincidently the first release that I ever used.

    It was as if Snow Leopard was software update 10.4.19 and System 10.6 at the same time.
  12. ArrowSmith macrumors regular

    Dec 15, 2009
    Essentially System 1-9 looked liked crap, then Steve Jobs re-appeared and BOOM OS X was a quantum leap. Suddenly the MS Windows UI didn't look better anymore, but more primitive! Even Windows 7 doesn't look as nice as OS X.
  13. elppa macrumors 68040


    Nov 26, 2003
    Well Systems 1- Mac OS 9 should be compared to what they were up against at the time. OS X was noticeable less responsive than Mac OS 9 on Macs in the early years (2001-2003).

    There is a subtleness to the platinum appearance which I quite liked.

Share This Page