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

MacOS X 10.1 (2001)

toastytech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 185 posts

Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)

#161

Post by cguess »

Macha wrote: post #139
scarface_74 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t that the ultimate survivorship bias?

In terms of who the winners were, sure. There were many also-rans like Viber or companies that won only in certain markets like Line or Telegram. But the idea that the network effects couldn't be overcome was definitely false. Not only are MSN, AIM and YIM so dead their servers are shut down, but the services which displaced them (Facebook Messenger and Skype) have themselves been displaced by a third wave of service…

Viber is still big in certain places like the Philippines.

Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)

#163

Post by sangnoir »

badsectoracula wrote: post #64
Reason077 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boring, perhaps. But definitely not harder to read. The old styles with text against textured backgrounds (for example, the pinstriped menu bars) detracted from readability. Current design is significantly better, especially dark mode, although lately there is a trend towards low-contrast UI (text against similarly-coloured backgrounds) in recent versions of iOS and macOS which is also detracting from readability, IM…

The pinstripes were only in the earliest versions. By Leopard/Snow Leopard (which i also find the best one) the theme looked clean without looking flat.

pinstripes, brushed metal, linen; one could follow the trends by looking at cargo-culting designers were setting as the background image on their blogs. I'm sure they thought it looked good when viewing on their freshly updated Macs.

Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)

#164

Post by pjmlp »

cguess wrote: post #161
Macha wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of who the winners were, sure. There were many also-rans like Viber or companies that won only in certain markets like Line or Telegram. But the idea that the network effects couldn't be overcome was definitely false. Not only are MSN, AIM and YIM so dead their servers are shut down, but the services which displaced them (Facebook Messenger and Skype) have themselves been displaced by a third wave of service…

Viber is still big in certain places like the Philippines.

And several Mediterranean countries, it is easier to reach someone on Viber than WhatsApp.

Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)

#166

Post by WillAdams »

OnlyMortal wrote: post #49

Having developed for OSX in that era, IBM ViaVoice, it wasn’t a completely functional OS. The audio input was broken every alternate build, for instance. I’d come from a NeXT background and was surprised how slow OSX (OpenStep in essence) was on PPC.

Blame Adobe and their renegging of their promise to provide a free Display PostScript runtime.

Getting Quartz née "Display PDF" up to where it was took the better part of a decade as Mike Paquette explained in detail on comp.sys.next.advocacy

Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)

#167

Post by pjmlp »

tgv wrote: post #156
dsego wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It appears to have all the basic functionality expected from a modern operating system The truth is, for the most part operating systems haven't really advanced that much, at least from a ux standpoint. Speaking as someone who started using computers in 1997 on windows 95 and a 133mhz pentium. All the basic metaphors and mechanisms have stayed the same. Tabs in browsers were considered like a huge leap (I know it's…

One thing that makes macOS stand out, is the frameworks. Every version of the OS has come with improvements in the UI libraries. I remember being amazed at Cocoa's bindings, which developed into a way to bind arbitrary data to UI controls. It was reactive before React (although not taken that far, because the UI 'language' was limited). That's just one small part, and it's why replicating macOS is so hard.

Just like any other desktop OS since 16 bit home micros, with exception of MS-DOS.

BSDs and Linux distributions are the exception with their fragmentation, even other commercial UNIXes had a proper set of desktop frameworks.

Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)

#168

Post by pjmlp »

com2kid wrote: post #154
G3rn0ti wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Windows 7 could be called the pinnacle of the use of Frutiger Aero in UI design when Apple already started to move away and embrace material design. Windows Media Center was the origins of the Metro UI, Windows Phone 7 was the industries 21st century intro to a typography first flat design. Sadly the good design aspects of Windows Phone 7 mostly got forgotten about by the time Windows 8 came along, IMHO it is becau…

Plus Windows 8 with Sinofskys .NET hate, decided to go back to the original plan of improving COM, which could have been a good idea, if the execution hasn't been so tragically performed.

Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)

#169

Post by Clamchop »

freedomben wrote: post #65

> This screen shot shows the login screen. It displays a graphical list of users that can login on this system. (Interestingly Windows XP does something similar) > Being based on BSD Unix, MacOS X inherits many useful unix features such as real security and user accounts. > This means that, for example, you can create a special account for someone else to play games and don't have to worry about them deleting system…

What kind of interoperability are we talking about? Not between platforms, surely? Because I don't remember that being in good shape up until maybe 15 years ago.

Re: MacOS X 10.1 (2001)

#170

Post by Sakos »

icedchai wrote: post #143
LeanderK wrote: post #2

Wow, 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.

I still remember changing it to the classic Windows theme because I didn't like XP's theme.
Post reply on HN