16 ms·

>Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. The operating system itself has probably seen very little ch

by mthoms 5y ago

>Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. The operating system itself has probably seen very little changes since NeXTSTEP's first release in 1989, it only appears different, and the vast majority of changes are in the graphical interface. Well, that range covers three different CPU architectures(!) and at least one complete file system rewrite. But your point is fair - to the layperson there hasn't been much change.

Maursault 5y ago
> Well, that range covers three different CPU architectures(!) The exercise proves that hardware is irrelevant to an operating system > and at least one complete file system rewrite. Which filesystem was completely rewritten, and why? Unless you're referring to AFS... which wasn't rewritten, but developed. > But your point is fair - to the layperson there hasn't been much change. Pretty sure not a whole lot has changed for the experienced expert, either. What has incrementally changed (but not so much it's unrecognizable) is the graphical user interface. A GUI is not an operating system.
- mthoms 5y ago
  >Unless you're referring to AFS... which wasn't rewritten, but developed. You know what I meant and the distinction is irrelevant in this case, so don't be that guy. The point is, a lot of impressive engineering resources have gone in to the OS over the years. In particular the seamless transition (due to Rosetta x 2) from Motorola -> Intel -> Apple Silicon (among other things) so the statement that MacOS 10 -> 12 has little fundamental difference is a bit hyperbolic. Anyways, I'm not sure why you're trying to start an argument but I'm not interested. You sound way more uhhh... passionate about this topic than I care to be.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    It's really ok if someone disagrees with you. It doesn't make them argumentative. NeXTSTEP was compiled to run on 68k, x86, RS6000, and Spark, it didn't change the version number. Tiger and Leopard ran on PowerPC and Intel. Snow Leopard ran both 32-bit and 64-bit with distinct kernels. Big Sur and Monterey run on Intel and ARM. In each instance, these are the same OS at the same version running on different platforms. But in each instance, it is still the same operating system, regardless of any differences in the code on any particular platform. The hardware is irrelevant. There are technologies introduced and some simultaneously deprecated at each increase of a macOS version number. Most of this has to do with the user interface, but there are some changes to the OS having little to do with the user interface. These changes, however, are incremental point increases, at best, not version whole number advances, which Apple has inexplicably ticked forward every year since 2012. What are the differences between Monterey and Mountain Lion that warrants their distinction? Ignoring platform, shown irrelevant above, they merely appear very different, along with a few inconsequential new or removed features, but they are more alike than they are different. So I think Apple has employed version numbering as marketing rather than marking milestones of significant advancement. Microsoft has done this too, in spades. Sure, Vista and Windows 8 are unrecognizable, but they are both still fundamentally NT, and not distinct operating systems.
    - mthoms 5y ago
      >It's really ok if someone disagrees with you. It doesn't make them argumentative. No, but tone does. As does uncharitably interpreting comments. And I never said hardware itself mattered, I said the level of software engineering in seamlessly transitioning MacOS across different architectures was impressive and resource consuming. Rosetta (executed flawlessly twice) in particular is an incredible feat. As were Time Machine (effortless backups), full disk encryption (seamless and transparent) at the time they were released. Not world changing, sure - but what OS feature in the past 20 years is? >Apple has inexplicably ticked forward every year since 2012. What are the differences between Monterey and Mountain Lion that warrants their distinction? You've moved the goal posts. The comment I replied to was: >Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. Anyways, I'm no Mac fanboy so it feels weird trying to hype MacOS up. My only point was that the above statement comes across as more than a little hyperbolic. I'm not entirely sure how to counter your argument since you've provided no criteria for how much the OS should have changed over the years. You've only said it hasn't changed enough. That's a bit vague. What OS meets your criteria? What obvious feature is MacOS lacking? What's your gold-standard benchmark for what an OS should be? To be clear, I agree with you that many (most) MacOS changes are marketing-driven fluff. But I also fail to see any significant advancements in other OS's that MacOS sorely needs.
      - Maursault 5y ago
        Well, calling a dissenter argumentative, or griping about tone, is actually ad hominem fallacy, because it ignores the argument entirely and personally attacks the man. In fact, you did list migrating platforms to support macOS versioning, which can be interpreted as saying the hardware matters enough to advance versioning. Goal posts weren't moved (farther apart, they were moved closer together). This is not the same thing as the meaning of the idiom "moving goal posts," especially because no goal was met. > since you've provided no criteria for how much the OS should have changed over the years. This is actually a good example of moving goal posts, because it is beyond the scope of supporting the argument. It is perfectly ordinary that something be proved as less than ideal without providing what a perfect or better ideal is. > But I also fail to see any significant advancements in other OS's that MacOS sorely needs. This is a straw man and skew to the argument, which is simply that calling annual upgrades a new operating system due to new GUI features doesn't make one OS distinct from it's previous incarnation, but they are instead, at best, incremental point increases of the same operating system (which is actually what Apple does, 10.5, 10.6, etc.). I'm not sure where you got the notion that I was arguing anything beyond that, arguing anything beyond decrying the Adobe-style marketing strategy of labelling the same software as though it were new and innovative. With Mac OS X, OS X and macOS, the kernel hardly changes and the user land barely changes if at all, and even the window manager barely changes. What mostly changes is a few GUI features deprecate while adding a list of new GUI features; what changes between macOS versions is superficial and incremental. And it is merely my opinion, not a claim of some fundamental truth. So let me tell you what you're going to do, you're going to have better days and not sweat it so much.

by mthoms 5y ago

Maursault 5y ago

> Well, that range covers three different CPU architectures(!) The exercise proves that hardware is irrelevant to an operating system > and at least one complete file system rewrite. Which filesystem was completely rewritten, and why? Unless you're referring to AFS... which wasn't rewritten, but developed. > But your point is fair - to the layperson there hasn't been much change. Pretty sure not a whole lot has changed for the experienced expert, either. What has incrementally changed (but not so much it's unrecognizable) is the graphical user interface. A GUI is not an operating system.

mthoms 5y ago
>Unless you're referring to AFS... which wasn't rewritten, but developed. You know what I meant and the distinction is irrelevant in this case, so don't be that guy. The point is, a lot of impressive engineering resources have gone in to the OS over the years. In particular the seamless transition (due to Rosetta x 2) from Motorola -> Intel -> Apple Silicon (among other things) so the statement that MacOS 10 -> 12 has little fundamental difference is a bit hyperbolic. Anyways, I'm not sure why you're trying to start an argument but I'm not interested. You sound way more uhhh... passionate about this topic than I care to be.
- Maursault 5y ago
  It's really ok if someone disagrees with you. It doesn't make them argumentative. NeXTSTEP was compiled to run on 68k, x86, RS6000, and Spark, it didn't change the version number. Tiger and Leopard ran on PowerPC and Intel. Snow Leopard ran both 32-bit and 64-bit with distinct kernels. Big Sur and Monterey run on Intel and ARM. In each instance, these are the same OS at the same version running on different platforms. But in each instance, it is still the same operating system, regardless of any differences in the code on any particular platform. The hardware is irrelevant. There are technologies introduced and some simultaneously deprecated at each increase of a macOS version number. Most of this has to do with the user interface, but there are some changes to the OS having little to do with the user interface. These changes, however, are incremental point increases, at best, not version whole number advances, which Apple has inexplicably ticked forward every year since 2012. What are the differences between Monterey and Mountain Lion that warrants their distinction? Ignoring platform, shown irrelevant above, they merely appear very different, along with a few inconsequential new or removed features, but they are more alike than they are different. So I think Apple has employed version numbering as marketing rather than marking milestones of significant advancement. Microsoft has done this too, in spades. Sure, Vista and Windows 8 are unrecognizable, but they are both still fundamentally NT, and not distinct operating systems.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    >It's really ok if someone disagrees with you. It doesn't make them argumentative. No, but tone does. As does uncharitably interpreting comments. And I never said hardware itself mattered, I said the level of software engineering in seamlessly transitioning MacOS across different architectures was impressive and resource consuming. Rosetta (executed flawlessly twice) in particular is an incredible feat. As were Time Machine (effortless backups), full disk encryption (seamless and transparent) at the time they were released. Not world changing, sure - but what OS feature in the past 20 years is? >Apple has inexplicably ticked forward every year since 2012. What are the differences between Monterey and Mountain Lion that warrants their distinction? You've moved the goal posts. The comment I replied to was: >Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. Anyways, I'm no Mac fanboy so it feels weird trying to hype MacOS up. My only point was that the above statement comes across as more than a little hyperbolic. I'm not entirely sure how to counter your argument since you've provided no criteria for how much the OS should have changed over the years. You've only said it hasn't changed enough. That's a bit vague. What OS meets your criteria? What obvious feature is MacOS lacking? What's your gold-standard benchmark for what an OS should be? To be clear, I agree with you that many (most) MacOS changes are marketing-driven fluff. But I also fail to see any significant advancements in other OS's that MacOS sorely needs.
    - Maursault 5y ago
      Well, calling a dissenter argumentative, or griping about tone, is actually ad hominem fallacy, because it ignores the argument entirely and personally attacks the man. In fact, you did list migrating platforms to support macOS versioning, which can be interpreted as saying the hardware matters enough to advance versioning. Goal posts weren't moved (farther apart, they were moved closer together). This is not the same thing as the meaning of the idiom "moving goal posts," especially because no goal was met. > since you've provided no criteria for how much the OS should have changed over the years. This is actually a good example of moving goal posts, because it is beyond the scope of supporting the argument. It is perfectly ordinary that something be proved as less than ideal without providing what a perfect or better ideal is. > But I also fail to see any significant advancements in other OS's that MacOS sorely needs. This is a straw man and skew to the argument, which is simply that calling annual upgrades a new operating system due to new GUI features doesn't make one OS distinct from it's previous incarnation, but they are instead, at best, incremental point increases of the same operating system (which is actually what Apple does, 10.5, 10.6, etc.). I'm not sure where you got the notion that I was arguing anything beyond that, arguing anything beyond decrying the Adobe-style marketing strategy of labelling the same software as though it were new and innovative. With Mac OS X, OS X and macOS, the kernel hardly changes and the user land barely changes if at all, and even the window manager barely changes. What mostly changes is a few GUI features deprecate while adding a list of new GUI features; what changes between macOS versions is superficial and incremental. And it is merely my opinion, not a claim of some fundamental truth. So let me tell you what you're going to do, you're going to have better days and not sweat it so much.