Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Exploring the Macintosh ROM (2019)

macgui.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: Exploring the Macintosh ROM (2019)

#11

Post by kabdib »

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.")

Re: Exploring the Macintosh ROM (2019)

#12

Post by zozbot234 »

TMWNN wrote: post #5

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 f…

The Amiga and Atari ST were home computers not workstations, their UI had to be usable on the crappy TV sets most households would have owned back then. When you account for that obvious difference, their UX was broadly on par and even sometimes superior to the early Macintosh, especially wrt. multimedia.

Re: Exploring the Macintosh ROM (2019)

#13

Post by rjsw »

TMWNN wrote: post #5

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 f…

The flat address space of the Atari ST made it a lot easier to port workstation software to it than the segmented memory management of Mac OS.

Re: Exploring the Macintosh ROM (2019)

#15

Post by Someone »

zozbot234 wrote: post #12
TMWNN wrote: post #5

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 f…

The Amiga and Atari ST were home computers not workstations, their UI had to be usable on the crappy TV sets most households would have owned back then. When you account for that obvious difference, their UX was broadly on par and even sometimes superior to the early Macintosh, especially wrt. multimedia.

> The Amiga and Atari ST were home computers not workstations, their UI had to be usable on the crappy TV sets most households would have owned back then.

It didn’t have to be; it was a design choice. It seems they found colour support and price more important than having a crisp display.

As examples why it is a choice:

- the TRS-80 (typically) came with its own monitor, for 64-character lines and ‘superior’ image quality (but do read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80#Video_and_audio)

- the PET similarly was monochrome.

They’re both older, though, and they couldn’t compete against home computers that did colour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_PET#Graphics_display: “In the home computer market, the PET line was soon outsold by machines that supported high-resolution color graphics and sound”)

So, I think it was the right choice for that kind of product at that time.

Re: Exploring the Macintosh ROM (2019)

#16

Post by vardump »

TMWNN wrote: post #5

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 f…

AmigaOS was pretty competitive for the time in 1985. Like you mentioned, pre-emptive multitasking, but also nice intertask (=process) communication, layers & windowing library, a good graphics library, a good set of GUI gadgets (=widgets), etc.

Anything you'd need to create great apps by 1985 standards.

Re: Exploring the Macintosh ROM (2019)

#17

Post by vardump »

rjsw wrote: post #13
TMWNN wrote: post #5

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 f…

The flat address space of the Atari ST made it a lot easier to port workstation software to it than the segmented memory management of Mac OS.

Mac OS and Atari ST had both Motorola 680x0 CPUs. So both had a flat address space.

Re: Exploring the Macintosh ROM (2019)

#18

Post by rjsw »

vardump wrote: post #17
rjsw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flat address space of the Atari ST made it a lot easier to port workstation software to it than the segmented memory management of Mac OS.

Mac OS and Atari ST had both Motorola 680x0 CPUs. So both had a flat address space.

Only one of them ran an operating system that exposed it to applications.

Re: Exploring the Macintosh ROM (2019)

#19

Post by TMWNN »

Someone wrote: post #15
zozbot234 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Amiga and Atari ST were home computers not workstations, their UI had to be usable on the crappy TV sets most households would have owned back then. When you account for that obvious difference, their UX was broadly on par and even sometimes superior to the early Macintosh, especially wrt. multimedia.

> The Amiga and Atari ST were home computers not workstations, their UI had to be usable on the crappy TV sets most households would have owned back then. It didn’t have to be; it was a design choice. It seems they found colour support and price more important than having a crisp display. As examples why it is a choice: - the TRS-80 (typically) came with its own monitor, for 64-character lines and ‘superior’ image qu…

> “In the home computer market, the PET line was soon outsold by machines that supported high-resolution color graphics and sound”)

PET and TRS-80's graphics are inferior to Apple II in their inability to do anything other than character-set graphics. Apple II in 1977 offered not just color, but bitmapped graphics.

Had IBM's MDA in 1981 offered Hercules-style bitmap graphics, it's possible that CGA might never have seen widespread use at all.

Re: Exploring the Macintosh ROM (2019)

#20

Post by icedchai »

rjsw wrote: post #18
vardump wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mac OS and Atari ST had both Motorola 680x0 CPUs. So both had a flat address space.

Only one of them ran an operating system that exposed it to applications.

Also, we should mention that early Mac OS "borrowed" the top 8 bits of a 32-bit pointer for operating system use: https://lowendmac.com/2015/32-bit-addressing-on-older-macs/
Post reply on HN