5 ms·

Exploring the Macintosh ROM (2019)

62 points by zdw 3y ago

ivolimmen 3y ago
I do not know if I am the only one but I can not connect to the site. The DNS resolves but I get the feeling this is "their way" of dealing GDPR? That or it actively blocks me because I have Linux in my user-agent? It's fishy.
- 0xDEADFED5 3y ago
  I can't connect either, probably the HN Embrace of Doom? https://web.archive.org/web/20231106024332/https://macgui.com/news/article.php?t=493 https://web.archive.org/web/20231106024332/https://macgui.co...
  - dirtyhippiefree 3y ago
    Doing a Google Advanced Search for the exact phrase “HN Embrace of Doom” shows •one• link…this post… Show HN a Googlewhack: Success Productive use of a term Google can’t find: Thought experiment but nothing else
    - swagempire 3y ago
      Please me more expansive in your mind and support starting new trends...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
TMWNN 3y ago
This site's focus is on the very earliest Macs, especially the original 128K model in early 1984. I've been reading and enjoying systemtalk.org's examination of each month's MacUser from this era. It's striking how much sheer support, in terms of new hardware and software, the Mac received right out of the gate despite being, well, almost completely useless given the limited RAM (the "Fat Mac" appeared very quickly for a reason), no Apple hard drive, and not even a second floppy drive available at launch; the endless disk-swapping was enough to cause insanity. Nonetheless, it was good enough to make the 128K Mac the first $2500 impulse buy. <https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-cincinnati-enquirer/31276226/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-cincinnati-enquirer/3...> Although Amiga and Atari ST followed within 18 months later with far superior hardware, it's clear in retrospect (and, I suspect, to anyone at the time comparing Macworld/MacUser/MacWeek to the corresponding Amiga/ST publications) that Apple had completely sucked up the air in the "not PC" segment of the market. Apple had the credibility to do so in the first place, of course, because of its success with the Apple II. In turn, Mac's share of the market was minuscule compared to what the IBM PC had built around itself since 1981, as any comparison of PC/PC World/InfoWorld to the above Mac publications would have shown. But it was enough to survive for the long term. Desktop publishing and "people who love windows and mice" were niche markets c. 1985-1990, but it is a niche, and a reasonably defendable one; Amiga's desktop video niche was correspondingly much smaller, and ST never found one at all outside maybe music.[1] I wrote "superior hardware", not "superior hardware and software". Not enough attention has been given to just how good classic Mac OS was from the beginning. I would say je ne sais quoi, but that's not accurate because the care given to both the UI (in the form of the Toolbox burnt into the ROM discussed in this post) and underlying architecture is obvious as opposed to being indefinable/ineffable. Atari and Commodore both outsourced their OS development and it shows. Yes, Amiga has out-of-the-box true preemptive multitasking.[2] But what good is it if the OS doesn't have quality libraries, toolkits, and primitives? As baroque and obscure as Inside Macintosh was for the Mac developer c. 1985, at least he had it as a resource, and at least the OS is sophisticated enough to justify such a baroque and obscure tome in the first place. And Atari TOS? Don't make me laugh; that it was tolerable to so many in Europe just shows how low a bar the ZX Spectrum had set for the masses there. [1] Yes, yes, Europeans, I know that Amiga and ST were much more successful across the Atlantic. That only meant that the PC takeover of the entire market skipped the first half of the DOS era in Europe, as opposed to not happening at all. (And yes, I know about the Amstrad clones.) [2] I dare anyone, then or now, to a) succinctly and accurately explain the difference between AmigaOS and AmigaDOS, and b) explain why that should matter in the first place
- blue1 3y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC AmigaOS is the whole operating system, while AmigaDOS is the part of that OS that handles disk I/O, plus the CLI, etc. Yeah, a naming mess.
  - snvzz 3y ago
    Yes, it refers[0] to dos.library and complementary software such as the shell, cli commands, scripts. exec.library is the kernel, which used to be called "ROM Kernel". The ROM portion of the OS is called Kickstart. The disk portion is called Workbench, but is also used to refer to workbench.library (mostly a file manager) today. The whole system became AmigaOS at some point, probably around the 2.x release (1991). IMHO exec.library is great, but dos.library was a huge mistake. 0. https://archive.org/details/amiga-rom-kernel-reference-manual-exec/page/n5/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/amiga-rom-kernel-reference-manua...
    - flopsamjetsam 3y ago
      > IMHO exec.library is great, but dos.library was a huge mistake. I'm interested in your take on this point. I cut my m68k teeth on Amiga demo programming, but never delved into exec (apart from a very small amount of init).
- nxobject 3y ago
  THere's another consequence of choosing DTP (and office suites as a positive consequence) over video production as a target market: at the launch of the product line, Steve Jobs chose the tradeoff of a high-resolution, square-pixel display, but only in B&W, over colour output formats that could only do high resolution with interlacing. For better or for worse, though, compact Macs never increased from the original 512x342; for the price, I think successor Amigas easily ate the Macintosh's lunch in terms of graphical capabilities. (Disclaimer: I know much, much more about early Macintoshes than Amigas, since it's what I col]leect.)
  - TMWNN 3y ago
neonate 3y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20231106024332/https://macgui.com/news/article.php?t=493 https://web.archive.org/web/20231106024332/https://macgui.co...
kabdib 3y ago
When I was at Apple (started in '87, about the time the Macintosh II shipped), many of the groups in the systems software and support orgs (development tools, networking, etc.) had a table where there were binders of ROM assembly listings, maybe 2-3 linear feet of paper bound in a metal rack. They were a big help with particularly tricky crashes, or for figuring out ROM bugs, or just learning about the system. This practice got more and more awkward as the number of Macintosh models ballooned, and was largely abandoned by the early 90s (too many machines, and groups got file servers and ethernet instead of floppy disks and localtalk). It was fun just reading the code; it was really well-commented, and nearly every line had someone's initials on it (spot a bug? track down the responsible party and talk about a patch...) Developing software without source control is difficult to imagine now. ("We do have source control, his name is Mike -- just give him a floppy disk with your changes and some instructions on how to integrate them.")
- nxobject 3y ago
  Managing a common large body of assembler like that, in hardcopy, seems to be a lost art... it reminds me of how the same amount of assembler needed to be managed in hardcopy for the Apollo DSKY/AGC, complete with paper changelogs, line number conventions, etc. [1] But a lot of the bookkeeping there looks like was needed as well to keep track of changes to punchcard decks. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y37tXoBDx0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y37tXoBDx0
cy384 3y ago
if you want to mess with Mac ROMs now, I think Ghidra is a nicer experience than most of the vintage tools, and you can use QEMU with GDB (at least for the Q800 ROM).
- msgilligan 3y ago
  I used MacNosy extensively in the Mac 68k era. Though I haven’t used Ghidra, reading about it reminded me of the fun (and frustration) I had with MacNosy. I have no doubt Ghidra has a superior overall user interface. But, as memory serves, Nosy had many features specifically for the classic MacOS and ROM that I assume Ghidra lacks.

62 points by zdw 3y ago

I do not know if I am the only one but I can not connect to the site. The DNS resolves but I get the feeling this is "their way" of dealing GDPR? That or it actively blocks me because I have Linux in my user-agent? It's fishy.

0xDEADFED5 3y ago
I can't connect either, probably the HN Embrace of Doom? https://web.archive.org/web/20231106024332/https://macgui.com/news/article.php?t=493 https://web.archive.org/web/20231106024332/https://macgui.co...
- dirtyhippiefree 3y ago
  Doing a Google Advanced Search for the exact phrase “HN Embrace of Doom” shows •one• link…this post… Show HN a Googlewhack: Success Productive use of a term Google can’t find: Thought experiment but nothing else
  - swagempire 3y ago
    Please me more expansive in your mind and support starting new trends...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

TMWNN 3y ago

This site's focus is on the very earliest Macs, especially the original 128K model in early 1984. I've been reading and enjoying systemtalk.org's examination of each month's MacUser from this era. It's striking how much sheer support, in terms of new hardware and software, the Mac received right out of the gate despite being, well, almost completely useless given the limited RAM (the "Fat Mac" appeared very quickly for a reason), no Apple hard drive, and not even a second floppy drive available at launch; the endless disk-swapping was enough to cause insanity. Nonetheless, it was good enough to make the 128K Mac the first $2500 impulse buy. <https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-cincinnati-enquirer/31276226/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-cincinnati-enquirer/3...> Although Amiga and Atari ST followed within 18 months later with far superior hardware, it's clear in retrospect (and, I suspect, to anyone at the time comparing Macworld/MacUser/MacWeek to the corresponding Amiga/ST publications) that Apple had completely sucked up the air in the "not PC" segment of the market. Apple had the credibility to do so in the first place, of course, because of its success with the Apple II. In turn, Mac's share of the market was minuscule compared to what the IBM PC had built around itself since 1981, as any comparison of PC/PC World/InfoWorld to the above Mac publications would have shown. But it was enough to survive for the long term. Desktop publishing and "people who love windows and mice" were niche markets c. 1985-1990, but it is a niche, and a reasonably defendable one; Amiga's desktop video niche was correspondingly much smaller, and ST never found one at all outside maybe music.[1] I wrote "superior hardware", not "superior hardware and software". Not enough attention has been given to just how good classic Mac OS was from the beginning. I would say je ne sais quoi, but that's not accurate because the care given to both the UI (in the form of the Toolbox burnt into the ROM discussed in this post) and underlying architecture is obvious as opposed to being indefinable/ineffable. Atari and Commodore both outsourced their OS development and it shows. Yes, Amiga has out-of-the-box true preemptive multitasking.[2] But what good is it if the OS doesn't have quality libraries, toolkits, and primitives? As baroque and obscure as Inside Macintosh was for the Mac developer c. 1985, at least he had it as a resource, and at least the OS is sophisticated enough to justify such a baroque and obscure tome in the first place. And Atari TOS? Don't make me laugh; that it was tolerable to so many in Europe just shows how low a bar the ZX Spectrum had set for the masses there. [1] Yes, yes, Europeans, I know that Amiga and ST were much more successful across the Atlantic. That only meant that the PC takeover of the entire market skipped the first half of the DOS era in Europe, as opposed to not happening at all. (And yes, I know about the Amstrad clones.) [2] I dare anyone, then or now, to a) succinctly and accurately explain the difference between AmigaOS and AmigaDOS, and b) explain why that should matter in the first place

blue1 3y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC AmigaOS is the whole operating system, while AmigaDOS is the part of that OS that handles disk I/O, plus the CLI, etc. Yeah, a naming mess.
- snvzz 3y ago
  Yes, it refers[0] to dos.library and complementary software such as the shell, cli commands, scripts. exec.library is the kernel, which used to be called "ROM Kernel". The ROM portion of the OS is called Kickstart. The disk portion is called Workbench, but is also used to refer to workbench.library (mostly a file manager) today. The whole system became AmigaOS at some point, probably around the 2.x release (1991). IMHO exec.library is great, but dos.library was a huge mistake. 0. https://archive.org/details/amiga-rom-kernel-reference-manual-exec/page/n5/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/amiga-rom-kernel-reference-manua...
  - flopsamjetsam 3y ago
    > IMHO exec.library is great, but dos.library was a huge mistake. I'm interested in your take on this point. I cut my m68k teeth on Amiga demo programming, but never delved into exec (apart from a very small amount of init).
nxobject 3y ago
THere's another consequence of choosing DTP (and office suites as a positive consequence) over video production as a target market: at the launch of the product line, Steve Jobs chose the tradeoff of a high-resolution, square-pixel display, but only in B&W, over colour output formats that could only do high resolution with interlacing. For better or for worse, though, compact Macs never increased from the original 512x342; for the price, I think successor Amigas easily ate the Macintosh's lunch in terms of graphical capabilities. (Disclaimer: I know much, much more about early Macintoshes than Amigas, since it's what I col]leect.)
- TMWNN 3y ago

neonate 3y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20231106024332/https://macgui.com/news/article.php?t=493 https://web.archive.org/web/20231106024332/https://macgui.co...

kabdib 3y ago

When I was at Apple (started in '87, about the time the Macintosh II shipped), many of the groups in the systems software and support orgs (development tools, networking, etc.) had a table where there were binders of ROM assembly listings, maybe 2-3 linear feet of paper bound in a metal rack. They were a big help with particularly tricky crashes, or for figuring out ROM bugs, or just learning about the system. This practice got more and more awkward as the number of Macintosh models ballooned, and was largely abandoned by the early 90s (too many machines, and groups got file servers and ethernet instead of floppy disks and localtalk). It was fun just reading the code; it was really well-commented, and nearly every line had someone's initials on it (spot a bug? track down the responsible party and talk about a patch...) Developing software without source control is difficult to imagine now. ("We do have source control, his name is Mike -- just give him a floppy disk with your changes and some instructions on how to integrate them.")

nxobject 3y ago
Managing a common large body of assembler like that, in hardcopy, seems to be a lost art... it reminds me of how the same amount of assembler needed to be managed in hardcopy for the Apollo DSKY/AGC, complete with paper changelogs, line number conventions, etc. [1] But a lot of the bookkeeping there looks like was needed as well to keep track of changes to punchcard decks. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y37tXoBDx0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y37tXoBDx0

cy384 3y ago

if you want to mess with Mac ROMs now, I think Ghidra is a nicer experience than most of the vintage tools, and you can use QEMU with GDB (at least for the Q800 ROM).

msgilligan 3y ago
I used MacNosy extensively in the Mac 68k era. Though I haven’t used Ghidra, reading about it reminded me of the fun (and frustration) I had with MacNosy. I have no doubt Ghidra has a superior overall user interface. But, as memory serves, Nosy had many features specifically for the classic MacOS and ROM that I assume Ghidra lacks.