Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why did Apple rewrite Mac OS code?

majordude

majordude

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Apr 28, 2007
2,443
75
Hootersville
I was wondering about this the other day. XP kinda sucks but Vista seems even worse. Would Microsoft consider scrapping Win32 code and just jump on Unix or something like Apple did?

And just why did Apple do what it did? What made them switch between proprietary OS code (up through 'X' was it?) and jump to Unix?
 
Classic sucked. I only got a Cube because I knew it was turning Unix soon.
 
majordude said:
I was wondering about this the other day. XP kinda sucks but Vista seems even worse. Would Microsoft consider scrapping Win32 code and just jump on Unix or something like Apple did?

And just why did Apple do what it did? What made them switch between proprietary OS code (up through 'X' was it?) and jump to Unix?
Click to expand...

OS X was running into the same issues that Windows is running into. The old legacy code is slowing down advancements in technology and makes the OS run slower. It really comes down to legacy code. Windows is getting more and more bloated and by Windows 8 or 9 it will require a complete rewrite.
 
While the Classic OS, was a fine OS it lacked a lot of the stuff modern OS's had at the time.

At the time the toolbox and all the stuff that came with it had boxed them into a programming corner.

Apple tried several object oriented projects to bring this stuff to the Mac, and failed. Buying a complete OS solved the problem.

---

Right now Apple has again programmed themselves into a corner, but the Intel switch has sort of contracted the supported OS's to 10.4.9 an given them an opening to rewrite a good chunk of the OS and dump some legacy issues.
 
Benjamindaines said:
Explain?
Click to expand...

Legacy code base ... you follow a path and you keep the maintaining and patching code base and you add new features.

Sometimes you reach a point where supporting that code base becomes a problem and limits your ability to support new technologies.

At some point you have to spend time fixing your mistakes and plain rewriting some of the code, hence Snow Leopard.

A simple example is going back and updating Altivec/SSE routines with the current technology.
 
majordude said:
I was wondering about this the other day. XP kinda sucks but Vista seems even worse. Would Microsoft consider scrapping Win32 code and just jump on Unix or something like Apple did?

And just why did Apple do what it did? What made them switch between proprietary OS code (up through 'X' was it?) and jump to Unix?
Click to expand...

It is important to remember that Apple had been trying to write a new OS for years in order to replace System 7. They never managed to produce anything usable. When they went looking for a replacement, they ended up choosing NeXTSTEP, which just so happened to be a UNIX-based and Mach-based system.

Microsoft is renowned for being able to produce software, so they would never end up in quite the same spot. If they ever do a complete replacement of Windows, it will be their own product that does it. They won't do this until Windows is clearly dead, because it is the Windows lock-in that makes them the big money.
 
Amdahl said:
It is important to remember that Apple had been trying to write a new OS for years in order to replace System 7. They never managed to produce anything usable. When they went looking for a replacement, they ended up choosing NeXTSTEP, which just so happened to be a UNIX-based and Mach-based system.

Microsoft is renowned for being able to produce software, so they would never end up in quite the same spot. If they ever do a complete replacement of Windows, it will be their own product that does it. They won't do this until Windows is clearly dead, because it is the Windows lock-in that makes them the big money.
Click to expand...

vista was originally supposed to be a ground up new operating system, but they couldn't pull it off and fell back on xp to provide the base code. maybe windows 7 will be more successful, although until they kill off legacy support they might be stuck.
 
windows 2k wasnt that different from 98/ME. just a different gui and etc. the code base was still from MS DOS.

apple will rewrite all the apps in snow leopard, all of them into 64-bit, as most are still 32-bit legacy on the 64-bit os.
 
SnowLeopard2008 said:
windows 2k wasnt that different from 98/ME. just a different gui and etc. the code base was still from MS DOS.

apple will rewrite all the apps in snow leopard, all of them into 64-bit, as most are still 32-bit legacy on the 64-bit os.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that not only is Apple dropping support for PPC machines, but also 32bit Intel machines (anything with a coreduo processor)?
 
SnowLeopard2008 said:
windows 2k wasnt that different from 98/ME. just a different gui and etc. the code base was still from MS DOS.

...
Click to expand...
Not true. Windows 2000 was the first attempt to move the entire Windows user base to a Windows NT-based operating system. Windows NT was based on OS/2 but with incompatible APIs. NT's commandline APIs were carryovers from OS/2. Its GUI APIs came from Windows 3.x. Windows 98 and Windows Me were the last two MS-DOS-based operating systems.
 
tuffluffjimmy said:
Does this mean that not only is Apple dropping support for PPC machines, but also 32bit Intel machines (anything with a coreduo processor)?
Click to expand...

No, the OS is able to run the 64-bit applications in a 32-bit compatibility mode. Should work fine, though of course most of them will run better on a 64-bit system if only because they don't have to have any changes made to them.

jW
 
Because it provides the ability to expand into the future, for example;

If you have a punto and you want it to be a track car, think about the amount of add ons and time you need to put into it for it to run that fast (even though you are limited by the car), and its always going to be a punto.

OR

You buy a lotus from the beginning and its already faster, it might take more money and time to get to, but it will always be faster.

Please correct me if this doesn't make any sense or i don't know what I'm talking about.
 
SnowLeopard2008 said:
windows 2k wasnt that different from 98/ME. just a different gui and etc. the code base was still from MS DOS.
Click to expand...

Nope. Windows 2000 was based on Windows NT which was Microsofts professional workstation / server OS. It never contained DOS. All it had was a DOS emulating command prompt, but it missed certain features from DOS and was fully 32-bit.
 
Microsoft is renowned for being able to produce software, so they would never end up in quite the same spot. If they ever do a complete replacement of Windows, it will be their own product that does it.
Click to expand...

That's a little sympathetic. Microsoft brough in Dave Cutler to build NT and its development was influenced heavily by VMS. DOS was brought in from another company as well.

MisterMe said:
Not true. Windows 2000 was the first attempt to move the entire Windows user base to a Windows NT-based operating system.
Click to expand...

Quite:
NT4 - NT4
NT5 - Windows 2000
NT5.1 - Windows XP
NT6 - Vista / Mojave
NT7 - Windows 7 (codename)
 
NT4 - NT4
NT5 - Windows 2000
NT5.1 - Windows XP
NT6 - Vista / Mojave
NT7 - Windows 7 (codename)
Click to expand...

You left off NT 3.1, NT 3.5, and NT 3.5.1 (grin)

Man, this thread just reminded me that Windows NT turned 15 this year.
 
By the '90s the original MacOS was suffering under the weight of its early '80s legacy. It could not be made to do modern things such as preemptive multitasking. Apple attempted to overhaul the OS with the Copland project, into which they sunk hundreds of millions of dollars over several years, and in the end had little to show for it. This is when they began to look outside for a more modern OS onto which they could built a new MacOS.
 
Microsoft have a nasty habit of changing their kernel every release of Windows. They then say, well how backwards compatible do we need to be? And then they go and dump all that legacy crap on top so Windows is backwards compatible. This is terrible for developers, and is one of the reasons why Vista is so poor, and why it took so long for some half decent drivers to come out for Vista.
 
For me, this sums it up for Microsoft. Good ideas, poor implementation. I'm actually excited about Windows 7 because it has (up till now) a small and efficient kernel. But I know that by the time its released, it will be bloated as hell. So, meh...
 
darkcurse said:
For me, this sums it up for Microsoft. Good ideas, poor implementation. I'm actually excited about Windows 7 because it has (up till now) a small and efficient kernel. But I know that by the time its released, it will be bloated as hell. So, meh...
Click to expand...
Vista has a small and efficient kernel, so does XP. Vistas kernel is about 8mb in size. It's all the legacy support, eye candy, and Direct X crap that bloats it out, most of it intentionally.
 
darkcurse said:
For me, this sums it up for Microsoft. Good ideas, poor implementation. I'm actually excited about Windows 7 because it has (up till now) a small and efficient kernel. But I know that by the time its released, it will be bloated as hell. So, meh...
Click to expand...

Kernel size has no real bearing on operating system efficiency. Just look at Linux. Everything is contained in the kernel, all the drivers, networking etc etc and it is still a perfectly usable and efficient OS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back