Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Oct 2006 19:29 UTC
Mac OS X Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak says that Apple did not need NeXT, the company that provided the foundation for Mac OS X; he argues that System 7 wasn't nearly as bad as it was made out to be. Wozniak also says that Mac OS 9 was more secure than OS X is now: Mac OS X is built in Unix and is therefore more prone to attacks because people are familiar with the holes in Unix, explained Woznaik. "Some of the holes in Unix are well known. So keeping Firewalls on is more important. And we keep announcing, even our own security fixes, not as many as Microsoft but still we never really had those in the OS 9 days."
Thread beginning with comment 175364
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I think what Woz is hinting at is that Apple needed not ditch the structure of OS 7-9 in favour of a UNIX-based one. I think he wants to say, hey, we could've extended and improved our existing OS, so that it would be capable of doing all the things OS X does now.

And I think he has a point.

Reply Parent Score: 1

s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

...need one say more?

How many years of development was it before Apple finally discarded the idea of the '32-bit, multi threaded, multi tasking, memory protected, smp-aware modern OS based on OS 7.x'???

I personally don't think they'd ever get it right... It'd be too much work, too many changes had to be done.

Edited 2006-10-25 21:32

Reply Parent Score: 1

helf Member since:
2005-07-06

SO they could have spent millions trying to get their not-so-great older OS proper memory protection, SMP support, preemptive multitasking etc etc or purchase a very nice, already completed OS and add a VM that would run a version of the older os for backwards compatibility?

I think NeXT was a MUCH better choice. They would have had to completely rewrite classic and still had to use a VM (most likely) to be properly compatible with older apps.

or maybe im totally wrong.. who knows...

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Erm, it is not as if OSX is NeXT 2.0. They used components and ideas from NeXT.

I think that in the end, either way would've succeeded. Personally, I would've preferred they bought Be, since I like BeOS more than I do UNIX or UNIX-like systems.

Reply Parent Score: 1

TheBadger Member since:
2005-11-14

"I think NeXT was a MUCH better choice. They would have had to completely rewrite classic and still had to use a VM (most likely) to be properly compatible with older apps."

Indeed. Apple's operating system rewrite projects were just tar pits, and the infighting and politics that make up 90% of the Apple story would have made the whole strategy unviable. If you have to credit Steve Jobs with one thing it's cutting right through all that and giving the Mac the operating system it should have had all along.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

If you're talking about Rhapsody ...? From what I understand, anything that offered protected memory, true multiprocessor support, and multitasking was going to require a start from sratch approach; very little of the original OS could've been used.

Reply Parent Score: 1

MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

I agree that Woz has a point.

Apple's failure to produce a "modern" operating system was the result of bad management, rather than the shortcomings of the classic Mac OS. It took Apple many years after the acquisition of NeXT to recover from those management issues and produce a mediocre operating system (Mac OS X 10.0 and Mac OS X 10.2).

Carbon itself should be ample evidence that Mac OS could have been modernized. It is the classic Mac OS API, adapted for memory protection and preemptive multitasking and other such goodies. But Apple felt that they had to reinvent itself, so NeXT became the keystone.

Reply Parent Score: 1