3 ms·

> the closest ancestor to MacOS X is System 7. How do you figure? System 7 was part of the Classic Mac OS line, the last of that line was System 9 (Mac OS 9).

> the closest ancestor to MacOS X is System 7. How do you figure? System 7 was part of the Classic Mac OS line, the last of that line was System 9 (Mac OS 9). This was a proprietary kernel developed by Apple. Mac OS X is a Unix based OS derived from technologies they acquired from NeXT. To say MacOS X is an ancestor of System 7 seems completely nonsensical.

scarface74 7y ago
No MacOS X when it was originally released had parts from NextStep and parts ported from Classic MacOS including QuickDraw, AppleScript, QuickTime, some audio frameworks etc. The entire Carbon API was a port of classic MacOS APIs to make porting from classic MacOS to OS X easier. MacOS X was a combination of both. That was the whole brouhaha of why Apple ported Carbon APIS to OS X because major developers like Adobe and Microsoft insisted on it. That’s not to mention that the first 5 versions of MacOS had an entire OS 9 emulator built in. To take the analogy to the extreme. MacOS had two parents - Classic MacOS and NextStep.
- cptskippy 7y ago
  I would disagree, most of what was brought from Classic OS was ported, adapted, out of necessity and short lived. OSX was an entirely new operating system that ported some frameworks and software but wasn't backward compatible. Were it so, they wouldn't have provided an emulator. I think you're just supporting the original assertion that Apple does not support things for very long. Does Software written for OS X v10.1 run on Catalina today without using 3rd party tools or emulators? Software written for Windows 95 still runs on Windows 10.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    You call the Carbon API that existed from 2001-2018 “short lived”? The entire Carbon API was used to port software like PhotoShop and Office. Carbon was a port of enough of the Classic API to port major important programs. AppleScript is still built into the current version of OS X. It was introduced in 1993-94 And seeing that 10.1 was PPC only, do you expect them to keep a PPC emulator around? Can you run PPC based Windows NT software today on an x86 PC?
    - virtue3 7y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_(API) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_(API) "Carbon was an important part of Apple's strategy for bringing Mac OS X to market, offering a path for quick porting of existing software applications, as well as a means of shipping applications that would run on either Mac OS X or the classic Mac OS. As the market has increasingly moved to the Cocoa-based frameworks, especially after the release of iOS, the need for a porting library was diluted. Apple did not create a 64-bit version of Carbon while updating their other frameworks in the 2007 time-frame, and eventually deprecated the entire API in OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion, which was released on July 24, 2012. Carbon was officially discontinued and removed entirely with the release of macOS 10.15 Catalina." I think you are confusing "supported" with EoL. Adobe was pissed because there was originally talk of doing a carbon64bit and they never supported it so they had to move their entire app over. The main point is, that Windows would never stop that api from "existing" In some manner. Unlike Apple. This is just a difference in how both companies view themselves. While Apple claims "it just works". That isn't quite true in some of the cases we have seen. Microsoft has actually done a far better job of this. I know someone that worked on the visual studio team. They literally had 100-200 servers that would run overnight with each build guaranteeing that the software would install and run on every single permutation of windows on an array of hardware.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        So, what exactly did you say they refuted anything I said? The Carbon API was 32 bit only and was supported until the latest release of MacOS. Do you realize how many deprecated end of life frameworks that Microsoft has been lugging around for decades? So should Apple have kept support for 68K software in 2019? Also, do you realize that for all intents and purposes the entire .Net Framework is deprecated and EOL except for minor compatibility updates? There are plenty of “pissed” .Net Framework developers who feel abandoned by MS.
        jsgo 7y ago
        I've only heard complaints from Silverlight and Windows Phone/Mobile developers anecdotally. From a web perspective (and my experience), .NET Framework 2/4 -> Core is actually not a big changeover outside of the views (probably better if you switched to MVC). The Windows Phone apps I built are dead now, but that isn't a matter of APIs no longer being supported, but an entire platform going under. As a macOS user, I had one operating system update kill external GPU w/ Nvidia cards (that sucked) and another update kill 32 bit apps (that one isn't a big one for me personally). All on the same computer.

scarface74 7y ago

No MacOS X when it was originally released had parts from NextStep and parts ported from Classic MacOS including QuickDraw, AppleScript, QuickTime, some audio frameworks etc. The entire Carbon API was a port of classic MacOS APIs to make porting from classic MacOS to OS X easier. MacOS X was a combination of both. That was the whole brouhaha of why Apple ported Carbon APIS to OS X because major developers like Adobe and Microsoft insisted on it. That’s not to mention that the first 5 versions of MacOS had an entire OS 9 emulator built in. To take the analogy to the extreme. MacOS had two parents - Classic MacOS and NextStep.

cptskippy 7y ago
I would disagree, most of what was brought from Classic OS was ported, adapted, out of necessity and short lived. OSX was an entirely new operating system that ported some frameworks and software but wasn't backward compatible. Were it so, they wouldn't have provided an emulator. I think you're just supporting the original assertion that Apple does not support things for very long. Does Software written for OS X v10.1 run on Catalina today without using 3rd party tools or emulators? Software written for Windows 95 still runs on Windows 10.
- scarface74 7y ago
  You call the Carbon API that existed from 2001-2018 “short lived”? The entire Carbon API was used to port software like PhotoShop and Office. Carbon was a port of enough of the Classic API to port major important programs. AppleScript is still built into the current version of OS X. It was introduced in 1993-94 And seeing that 10.1 was PPC only, do you expect them to keep a PPC emulator around? Can you run PPC based Windows NT software today on an x86 PC?
  - virtue3 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_(API) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_(API) "Carbon was an important part of Apple's strategy for bringing Mac OS X to market, offering a path for quick porting of existing software applications, as well as a means of shipping applications that would run on either Mac OS X or the classic Mac OS. As the market has increasingly moved to the Cocoa-based frameworks, especially after the release of iOS, the need for a porting library was diluted. Apple did not create a 64-bit version of Carbon while updating their other frameworks in the 2007 time-frame, and eventually deprecated the entire API in OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion, which was released on July 24, 2012. Carbon was officially discontinued and removed entirely with the release of macOS 10.15 Catalina." I think you are confusing "supported" with EoL. Adobe was pissed because there was originally talk of doing a carbon64bit and they never supported it so they had to move their entire app over. The main point is, that Windows would never stop that api from "existing" In some manner. Unlike Apple. This is just a difference in how both companies view themselves. While Apple claims "it just works". That isn't quite true in some of the cases we have seen. Microsoft has actually done a far better job of this. I know someone that worked on the visual studio team. They literally had 100-200 servers that would run overnight with each build guaranteeing that the software would install and run on every single permutation of windows on an array of hardware.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So, what exactly did you say they refuted anything I said? The Carbon API was 32 bit only and was supported until the latest release of MacOS. Do you realize how many deprecated end of life frameworks that Microsoft has been lugging around for decades? So should Apple have kept support for 68K software in 2019? Also, do you realize that for all intents and purposes the entire .Net Framework is deprecated and EOL except for minor compatibility updates? There are plenty of “pissed” .Net Framework developers who feel abandoned by MS.
      - jsgo 7y ago
        I've only heard complaints from Silverlight and Windows Phone/Mobile developers anecdotally. From a web perspective (and my experience), .NET Framework 2/4 -> Core is actually not a big changeover outside of the views (probably better if you switched to MVC). The Windows Phone apps I built are dead now, but that isn't a matter of APIs no longer being supported, but an entire platform going under. As a macOS user, I had one operating system update kill external GPU w/ Nvidia cards (that sucked) and another update kill 32 bit apps (that one isn't a big one for me personally). All on the same computer.