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

NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened

computerhistory.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 104 posts

Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened

#11

Post by buserror »

stcredzero wrote: post #9
zeveb wrote: post #6

The article in general is pretty good, but this is off: > The Macintosh’s operating system was showing its age, especially compared to Microsoft’s Windows 95. I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95.

System 9 still lacked preemptive multitasking, due to a pragmatic decision from the very beginning of MacOS. (Perhaps even predating the Mac?) That alone would be enough to say that it was showing its age. As someone who was using System 9 at the time, I would say that this is indeed what knowledgeable users were thinking.

It's not entirely true. Copland microkernel was in (hidden) in System 8.5 onward, and provided preemptive multitasking, file mapping, timers etc. It's just that the only real 'task' on it was the old cooperative OS.

They had made a LOT of work on that, and the driver model by the time System 9 arrived. What really failed on Copland was the 'userland' equivalent. At the time, Apple had gone into a completely bizarre way of designing complex APIs for everything and most of them had no use whatsoever. There were heaps of crap, like OpenDoc and many others and Copland was 'trying' (and failing miserably) to integrate all of that.

How do I know? I have a collector t-shirt with 'Copland Driver Kitchen' on it ;-)

Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened

#13

Post by stuckagain »

buserror wrote: post #11
stcredzero wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

System 9 still lacked preemptive multitasking, due to a pragmatic decision from the very beginning of MacOS. (Perhaps even predating the Mac?) That alone would be enough to say that it was showing its age. As someone who was using System 9 at the time, I would say that this is indeed what knowledgeable users were thinking.

It's not entirely true. Copland microkernel was in (hidden) in System 8.5 onward, and provided preemptive multitasking, file mapping, timers etc. It's just that the only real 'task' on it was the old cooperative OS. They had made a LOT of work on that, and the driver model by the time System 9 arrived. What really failed on Copland was the 'userland' equivalent. At the time, Apple had gone into a completely bizarre w…

8.5 wasn't released until years after Win 95, though.

Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened

#14

Post by awfgylbcxhrey »

FreakyT wrote: post #8
zeveb wrote: post #6

The article in general is pretty good, but this is off: > The Macintosh’s operating system was showing its age, especially compared to Microsoft’s Windows 95. I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95.

They really were, though; astoundingly, System 7/8/9 didn't even support preemptive multitasking [1] which Windows 95 did have. [1] http://forums.macnn.com/64/classic-macs-and-mac-os/44121/wha...

And the Amiga had preemptive multitasking in 1985. :-)

(It didn't have per-process memory protection, though, but it was a huge point of pride for Amiga users back in the early 90s)

Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened

#15

Post by wilsynet »

zeveb wrote: post #6

The article in general is pretty good, but this is off: > The Macintosh’s operating system was showing its age, especially compared to Microsoft’s Windows 95. I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95.

> I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95.

Systems 7, 8 and 9 had better font handling, prettier icons, a more comprehensive GUI experience (eg. drag and drop worked everywhere), and a richer desktop publishing ecosystem.

But with respect to multitasking, 32-bit application support, protected mode, and networking, including support for, you know, the Internet -- Windows 95 was way, way, way better than Mac OS.

Apple had a 11 year head start with the Mac. With Windows 95, Microsoft had finally caught up, and then some.

The only people who thought Win 95 = Mac 84 were Apple fanboys.

Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened

#16

Post by AWildDHHAppears »

zeveb wrote: post #6

The article in general is pretty good, but this is off: > The Macintosh’s operating system was showing its age, especially compared to Microsoft’s Windows 95. I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95.

Windows 95 had protected memory and virtual memory. You are simply wrong.

Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened

#17

Post by AWildDHHAppears »

wilsynet wrote: post #15
zeveb wrote: post #6

The article in general is pretty good, but this is off: > The Macintosh’s operating system was showing its age, especially compared to Microsoft’s Windows 95. I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95.

> I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95. Systems 7, 8 and 9 had better font handling, prettier icons, a more comprehensive GUI experience (eg. drag and drop worked everywhere), and a richer desktop publishing ecosystem. But with respect to multitasking, 32-bit application support, protected mode, and networking, including support for, you know, the Internet -- Wi…

And paid apple astroturfers.

Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened

#18

Post by mrbill »

UnixWorld asked on it's April 1993 cover: "Does Steve Jobs have a future in software?"

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbill/29870210

One of my prized possessions is my NeXT Cube[1], finally acquired in 2014. I'd wanted one ever since I saw the "Actual Size" marketing brochure that came out in '89 or '90.

I owned a series of slabs (mono, color, turbo color) throughout the years, but never managed to get my hands on a Cube. A friend took pity on me in '14 and sent me one, and then I got the bits (special cable) needed to hook up a VGA flat panel though the non-ADB soundbox.

NeXT steps: finding enough 4M 30pin parity SIMMs to max out the memory, then replacing the internal 18G SCSI disk (a SCA drive with an adapter) with a SCSI2SD board and MicroSD card in order to reduce the number of moving pats.

I chuckle when I realize that I spend most of my day in front of a MBP at work and a Mac Mini at home - both running what is basically the descendant of NeXTstep.

[1] https://www.mrbill.net/next/

Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened

#19

Post by bluedino »

wilsynet wrote: post #15
zeveb wrote: post #6

The article in general is pretty good, but this is off: > The Macintosh’s operating system was showing its age, especially compared to Microsoft’s Windows 95. I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95.

> I don't think that there was ever a point where Systems 7, 8 or 9 were worse than Windows 95. Systems 7, 8 and 9 had better font handling, prettier icons, a more comprehensive GUI experience (eg. drag and drop worked everywhere), and a richer desktop publishing ecosystem. But with respect to multitasking, 32-bit application support, protected mode, and networking, including support for, you know, the Internet -- Wi…

>> networking, including support for, you know, the Internet -- Windows 95 was way, way, way better than Mac OS.

I don't know about that - Macs with Mosaic and then Netscape were the internet surfing tools of choice in the Windows 3.x and 95 days.

Anyone remember winnuke?

Re: NeXT: Steve Jobs’ Dot.com IPO That Never Happened

#20

Post by yuhong »

mrbill wrote: post #18

UnixWorld asked on it's April 1993 cover: "Does Steve Jobs have a future in software?" https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbill/29870210 One of my prized possessions is my NeXT Cube[1], finally acquired in 2014. I'd wanted one ever since I saw the "Actual Size" marketing brochure that came out in '89 or '90. I owned a series of slabs (mono, color, turbo color) throughout the years, but never managed to get my hands on a…

This reminds me of 4MB 30-pin SIMMs based on 350 mil 4Mbit chips, which was hard to fit into the NeXT Cube. The early 16Mbit chips was 400 mil which is even worse and probably part of why 16MB 30-pin SIMMs was never very popular.
Post reply on HN