Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Mar 2011 17:24 UTC
Mac OS X Ten years ago, to the day. March 24, 2001, the first official released version of Mac OS X went on sale, for USD 129. It was a massive step up and a massive step down from MacOS 9 at the same time - technically way more advanced, but clearly still in its infancy and pretty much unusable. Kernel panics, crashes, incredibly slow, and lacking many key features. It was so bad, in fact, that Mac OS X 10.1 was released as a free upgrade. Of course, we geeks know that Mac OS X is technically a lot older, but alas, let's just celebrate these 10 years. Maybe Lion will finally bring a usable non-crashing Finder!
Thread beginning with comment 467743
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Swift kick in the butt for themes
by joekiser on Thu 24th Mar 2011 20:01 UTC in reply to "Wow!"
joekiser
Member since:
2005-06-30

Yeah, I remember seeing that one screenshot that introduced the Aqua interface. It showed transparency with menus and dialog boxes, and the blue scrollbars or whatever, and it was so ridiculously cool.

http://www.coolmacintosh.com/macos.jpg

Suddenly everyone wanted their computer to look like that...about every other theme on Gnome-look or Mozilla (the seamonkey kind) became a ripoff of the new interface. This got to the point that Apple responded with a bunch of cease and desist letters to people providing Aqua themes. Even Microsoft trashed their Whistler theme for the now famous fisher-price interface on XP, which I thought was a knee-jerk response. They promised everyone that XP would have a fully skinnable interface (ten years later we have a whopping three themes that were ever released without needing a hacked Uxtheme.dll file).

It also lead to a pretty big discussion about why XFree86 couldn't pull off the transparency and stuff. In those days, it was difficult to even have your XFree86 support Truetype fonts much less anti-aliasing and transparency. It took a couple of years, but eventually we got xcompmgr and later, Compiz-Fusion to provide cool graphics effects. But I still think it all started with what OSX was doing at the time.

Reply Parent Score: 7

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm not a particular fan of Mac OS X's interface. I would've preferred a modernisation of Platinum, instead of the inconsistent mess we have today... I can use Mac OS X, but it doesn't endear itself as much as Platinum did.

http://toastytech.com/guis/macos9about.png

Reply Parent Score: 3

malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

...instead of the inconsistent mess we have today...


Totally agree with this. IMO as software has become more complex, worked on by more people, we've ended up with UIs that are less consistent and have a whole pile of incoherent ideas thrown together. While many of the ideas are valid or even valuable, losing consistency has been a big loss. This isn't a criticism of Apple either - it seems like a general industry trend.

Reply Parent Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Platinum consistent? You kidding right?

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4065/macos9wc6.jpg

I can understand aesthetically preferences, for colors as they say there are tastes. And I do prefer "squarish" GUIs to Aqua's roundness. But just say so, do not try to justify it with an argument which is so patently false. Classic MacOS may have had a simpler GUI, but consistency was one of its main attributes. It may have looked "more consistent" when compared to the wild west of GUIs at the time.

Edited 2011-03-24 23:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

I'm not a particular fan of Mac OS X's interface. I would've preferred a modernisation of Platinum


That was Rhapsody/Mac OS X Server 1.x... it looked awful. You also need to contend with the fact, it's just not the same OS. It was an OS with a subset of the old Classic Mac API (Carbon) and a way to emulate the rest of the OS (Classic). If you had anything to do with the ALPHA and BETA program, Aqua was a progression that was more or less made sense.

Reply Parent Score: 2