[SCC_Active_Members] History of Apple OSs

[Larry Masinter]

I don't think you can afford to make collection decisions
on a piece by piece basis. I'd suggest deciding on your
collection policy. I can think of two possibilities:

(a) accept all contributions
(b) point contributors to some other forum which
   already collects entries, and just use those
   sites as a reference.

For example, Wikipedia contains a number of related entries,
starting with:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_os
and   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_history


and it would seem like they're doing a pretty good job
of 'collecting' this kind of anecdotal information.
I don't see an advantage in CHM duplicating this
service piecemeal.

Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: scc_active-bounces at computerhistory.org 
> [mailto:scc_active-bounces at computerhistory.org] On Behalf Of 
> Bernard L. Peuto
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:49 PM
> To: 'Ike Nassi'; 'Al Kossow'; 'Randall Neff'; 
> SCC_active at computerhistory.org
> Subject: RE: [SCC_Active_Members] History of Apple OSs
> 
> SCC friends
> 
> Despite some misgivings about it, should we preserve a  copy 
> of this history (with proper authorization) or should we pass on it?
> 
> Bernard
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: scc_active-bounces at computerhistory.org 
> > [mailto:scc_active-bounces at computerhistory.org] On Behalf 
> Of Ike Nassi
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:49 PM
> > To: Al Kossow; Randall Neff; SCC_active at computerhistory.org
> > Subject: Re: [SCC_Active_Members] History of Apple OSs
> > 
> > The MacMach project demonstrated feasibility on 68K around 
> > 1991.   The full 
> > Macintosh environment was running on it.  I demonstrated this 
> > to Ed Birss and Roger Heinen (separately) and showed Excel 
> > and MacMissle Command running on what appeared to be the 
> > MacOS but were in fact Mach.  It was only when I launched the 
> > c-shell that it became obvious what was happening.
> > 
> > The MkLinux project produced a working prototype of a Mach 
> > 3.0 kernel running on PowerPC.  CD's were distributed with 
> > all the sources at the Developers conference in 1996. Mac OSX 
> > of course runs on the Mach kernel. 
> > This was a necessary step in enabling the transition to x86.  
> > Apple wasn't ready for it with Star Trek, and they still 
> > weren't ready for it in 1996, but in 1997 after Avie came on 
> > board, Mach was adopted.  Avie was one of the authors of Mach 
> > as a CMU grad student.  My team worked with him on the 
> > multiprocessor version back in the mid to late 80's while I 
> > was at Encore.
> > ---
> > Ike
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Al Kossow" <aek at bitsavers.org>
> > To: "Randall Neff" <randall.neff at gmail.com>; 
> > <SCC_active at computerhistory.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, Jul 25, 2006 12:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: [SCC_Active_Members] History of Apple OSs
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> The original 140 page history is available as a free pdf from a link 
> > >> at the bottom of:
> > >>
> > >> http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter1/
> > >>
> > >
> > > I don't think I ever had any direct contact with the author, though I 
> > > think he arrived at Apple in the late 90's. First thing I noticed is 
> > > the picture of the Apple I board and the screen shot of Neptune 
> > > running on an Alto are images I created. One sentence on NuKernel, 
> > > which was a project I had some peripheral involvement with for about 
> > > 10 years is disappointing.
> > >
> > > While the techies at Apple knew the OS had to be replaced since the 
> > > mid 80's, it was impossible to build momentum and get the right 
> > > resources to do it until well into the PowerPC era, when Microsoft's 
> > > products and the erosion of the Mac market put upper management into 
> > > panic mode.
> > >
> > > His comment that Apple's switch to x86 as a vindication of the "Star
Trek"
> > > project is revisionist history. The need to switch was the fault of 
> > > Moto and IBM being unwilling to develop anything Apple could sell in 
> > > the portable space, and IBM's disinterest in Apple in the high end 
> > > desktop space.