4 ms·

Nor the CMU Mach years, nor the ancient Unix years?

• trimbo 8y ago
  Hm, well the way I think of it is, MacOS X 1.0 is to NeXTStep as Windows XP is to Windows NT. Both were releases on a decade-plus-old codebase, and had features (Carbon, e.g.) aimed at migrating legacy users from DOS and Mac. IIRC, it did have some differences that made it incompatible with NeXTstep (like DPDF), but I remember getting it and thinking it's basically the same OS with some Mac emulation and a different skin.
  • peatmoss 8y ago
    I played around on a NeXT cube last weekend at the Living Computer Museum and was reminded just how NeXT-like macOS is. I mean, I’ve played with NeXT in the past, and was aware of the continuity since the beginning, but playing with a NeXT in 2018 is uncanny. Of the noticeable UX changes in macOS, I’m not sure how many have been for the better. I’ve long been bummed out that there’s never been an open NeXT clone gain traction. GNUStep, Etoile (built on GNUStep), and Cocotron all tried to recreate the magic, but languished in obscurity. Back when Apple’s fortunes were down, betting on GNUStep would have been a decidedly quirky decision. But having the benefit of hindsight, I am convinced that had GNUStep been ready to ride Apple’s ride back to glory, we’d have a greater Linux user experience today, where popular software was a recompile away from running on both macOS and GNUStep.
    • itomato 8y ago
      Apple didn't exactly make it easy with all the changes and replacements to Core libraries. Keeping pace with Apple seems impossible, given the glacial pace of the improvement and development of ProjectCenter and GORM. It's not dead, in any case.
• pjmlp 8y ago
  NeXTSTEP might be a UNIX underneath, but the developer culture never was related to UNIX.