I miss my candy coated unix as I used to lovingly refer to 10.1 on my iBook back in the day.
MacOS X 10.1 (2001)
141–150 of 185 posts
Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Search as the primary interaction method instead of menus and icons is pretty dramatic shift though; compare vscode command palette to traditional vs, or windows 7 and later start menu to its predecessors. Another thing, especially on Windows, is the de-emphasis or straight out removal of menu bars, once staple of desktop interfaces. As a more generic trend, I think modal dialogs with forms were far more common inter…
> Search as the primary interaction method Thanks, I hate it. Search is terrible for browsing/discovery, in spite of many people liking it.
Personally I love it, but I love it a lot more paired with a robust system for browsing.
Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)
#143Wow, unbelievable that it was designed in 2001! It still looks fresh and modern, although maybe a bit too playful so that it appears a bit childish? But only barely. It appears to have all the basic functionality expected from a modern operating system, I instantly feel right at home although I've never used it. I find the review terrible though, one of the major changes was the user interface, revolutionary I would…
Windows XP looked "childish", too. That was the style for the time, it seems.
Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)
#144So, I’ve got to ask the practical question. For you early-adopters, is it stable enough to upgrade to, yet? :p
Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet another one was going with LLVM. Now that they had a decent running GCC on PowerPC they want to build a compiler infrastructure from scratch? Apple is full of those decisions. I'm just glad they don't take advices from me.
LLVM is because they don’t want GPLv3. They just went ahead with a stack where they can be in control on their own terms. Basically GNU gambled and lost, they wanted to make a big stand against software patents and some other powerful forces had different opinions.
[deleted]
Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet another one was going with LLVM. Now that they had a decent running GCC on PowerPC they want to build a compiler infrastructure from scratch? Apple is full of those decisions. I'm just glad they don't take advices from me.
LLVM is because they don’t want GPLv3. They just went ahead with a stack where they can be in control on their own terms. Basically GNU gambled and lost, they wanted to make a big stand against software patents and some other powerful forces had different opinions.
I believe LLVM was chosen because it was easier to make new compilers to work with it. GCC's intermediate representation was a bit of a mess for a long time and from what I understand, Apple did not find GCC's Objective-C support to be satisfactory.
Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLVM is because they don’t want GPLv3. LLVM and Clang are also about having a compiler stack that provides the information you need for a modern graphical IDE. For instance, GCC had made some decisions that made it difficult to point to which line of code caused a particular error message. Apple's Chris Lattner covered this in a 2007 tech talk he gave at Google introducing LLVM and the (then) new Clang project. htt…
> LLVM and Clang are also about having a compiler stack that provides the information you need for a modern graphical IDE. Is that why all GNU utilities shipped with OSX were also stuck at the GPLv2 versions and never upgraded?
No. That's why LLVM and Clang were developed.
Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)
#148So, I’ve got to ask the practical question. For you early-adopters, is it stable enough to upgrade to, yet? :p
Using it since the Public Beta that came out in 2000, no complaints here
Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)
#149Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)
#150Wow, unbelievable that it was designed in 2001! It still looks fresh and modern, although maybe a bit too playful so that it appears a bit childish? But only barely. It appears to have all the basic functionality expected from a modern operating system, I instantly feel right at home although I've never used it. I find the review terrible though, one of the major changes was the user interface, revolutionary I would…
> It still looks fresh and modern, although maybe a bit too playful so that it appears a bit childish? The aesthetics is called „Frutiger Aero“. Lots of colors and especially of blue, lots of transparency effects and fake light reflections. It all is inspired by natural landscapes with blue skies or blue water surfaces. Also skeuomorphisms everywhere. Windows 7 could be called the pinnacle of the use of Frutiger Aero…
Nah, the aesthetic is called Aqua, not a name borne out of a Windows OS that copied Aqua five years later. And Apple hardware never transitioned to a Google software interface concept.