Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'macOS' started by menziep, Jul 4, 2006.
When and where was Mac OS X 10.0 Released?
Edit: Main article on 10.0
Another example of why Wikipedia needs to be taken with (at least) a grain of salt... attempts started long before 1996. Copland was started around 1994 and I doubt that was even the first attempt by Apple.
I think the article is referring to the start of OS X creation, not the whole process of remaking mac OS
"Completely overhaul" sounds like a remake to me.
Ugh 10.0 scary memories! Some things come out too soon, and 10.0 was one of them.
Well, Apple acquired NeXT in December of 1996, Rhapsody (which other than Blue Box was all previous NeXT technology) was started in 1997 and Carbon (which was Copland technology) was first introduced in 1998 (along with the name Mac OS X).
I'm not sure that acquiring NeXT would count as the start of OS X creation as the only thing Apple did at first was continue to sell the NeXT product line via a new division called Apple Enterprise.
The only significant things that happened in 1996 was the cancellation of Copland and the search for a new foundational OS (which ended up being OPENSTEP). At least 1997 was the start of development on the Rhapsody project which led to Mac OS X... where as 1996 just seems like an odd choice if you know the history.
There's a whole article on Copland (1994-96) and it's pretty clear from both that and the context in the Mac OS X article, that 1996 is the beginning of the Mac OS X (at that point Rhapsody) development.
The problem is at that point (1996) there wasn't either Mac OS X or Rhapsody. At the end of 1996 there was only OPENSTEP 4.1.
I've documented all the relevant dates for Rhapsody on my Rhapsody Timeline page on my site.
Like I said, Wikipedia is an okay general info source... but it seems to miss on some of the little details. There are articles on Rhapsody and Mac OS X Server on Wikipedia too, and both those articles are either short on details or skip some details altogether*. And if you look at the entries for WriteNow and TextEdit you would be led to believe that NeXT replaced WriteNow with TextEdit... which they didn't**.
There is a very good reason why you shouldn't depend too much on what is provided in Wikipedia.
* Wikipedia says that "Server 1.0 was replaced by a version based on Mac OS X v10.0 in 2001", which overlooks the fact that Server 1.0 had two updates (1.0.1 and 1.0.2) and was replaced by 1.2 (which was later replaced by 1.2v3... there was no upgrade path between 1.2 and 1.2v3). Also Blue Box originally ran Mac OS 8.5. It could be updated to 8.5.1 and (after installing the 1.0.2 update) could be upgraded to 8.6. Mac OS X Server 1.2 and 1.2v3 both shipped with 8.6 on their Blue Box disk images.
** Wikipedia says that "WriteNow for NeXT was transferred to a start-up company; TextEdit, which could essentially be considered a heavily stripped-down version of WriteNow, was its replacement" and "TextEdit is a simple word processor and text editor, first featured in NeXT's NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP." This is odd as TextEdit was introduced with OPENSTEP 4.0 as a demo app and didn't exist at all in NEXTSTEP. The word processor/text editor featured in both NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP was Edit. It was the systems default until it was finally replaced by TextEdit in Rhapsody. I have an extensive page on TextEdit's history here.
Edit: Fixed broken links.
I just got my OS X 10.0.3 disk in the mail today but since Pearpc and my mac cant boot it, Im stuck with it.
I have 10.1 on my iMac, and while it's generally RUBBISH, on a good machine (not a 350 MHz G3), it's still better than XP!
Just wanted to let you know.
There really is no reason why you should be saying this. If Wikipedia is wrong then you should correct it - it's a Wiki after all.
Correcting the NeXT pages there would be far more beneficial than writing it all out here every time someone mentions the company.
Until you've done that, you can't really say "Wikipedia is not quite right on this" all the time.
I don't get involved with Wikipedia because there are just too many egos at play there. I've watched many pages and topics suffer from the internal politics there. I've watch people who have no background on a subject try to remove pages as not being worthy of Wikipedia.
Further, I don't just write it all out here... I have two web sites devoted to these subjects (here and here) which I provide and maintain for the community to make sure that there are places on the net to get this information. Those sites have taken countless hours to research and build, and have cost me quite a bit of money over the years that they have been up.
And to top it all off, I can provide a ton more information on my sites than any Wikipedia page could ever hope to.
Actually, I can.
All the information I provide on my sites and in the forums I frequent is completely open for public use. I have never put any restrictions on anything I've written, and don't require that I be referenced or credited for any information that I provide.
It is there for anyone and everyone who wants to use it.
Further, someone put one of my sites as an external link on the Wikipedia Rhapsody OS page. So other than things I haven't actually put up on my sites, it isn't like the people who maintain those pages don't have access to that information.
Plus, one has to wonder why people who have never used NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP would be allowed to write about such things in the first place. I mean, no one who ever used NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP as their primary OS would have made the mistake of forgetting Edit.
But if you want to find out why the mistake on the TextEdit page was made, you could ask the person who made the mistake yourself (here). Of course the person that made a similar mistake on the WriteNow page can't be tracked down (this was the version of the page in which the erroneous information was added).
Of course if they crack down on the egomaniacs and Wiki-elitists that they have there, maybe I'll take the time to participate.
But as it is, I already provide more for the community than most people... and at my own personal expense at that.
Almost anything is better than XPee in my opinion.
I still have a copy of the public beta for Mac OS X floating around somewhere...