Page 1 of 1

Names of macOS versions and newline styles

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:32 am
by tepples
Phil Karlton's two hard things in computer science are "cache invalidation and naming things". So I'm taking a digression in a topic about emulators on macOS to a new topic. I seem to remember these being the official names:
  • 1.0-7.1: System
  • 7.5-9.x: Mac OS
  • 10.0-10.6: Mac OS X
  • 10.7-10.11: OS X
  • 10.12-10.13: macOS
And as I understand it, versions prior to 10.0 ended up retroactively called "classic Mac OS" after Classic, Apple's virtualizer to run Mac OS 9 inside Mac OS X 10.0 through 10.4.

Would "Designed for OS X 10.9 through macOS 10.13" sound too pedantic?

I also have a pet peeve about certain text editors' name for "Macintosh" newlines (CR, 0x0D) to contrast them with "Windows" (CR LF, 0x0D 0x0A) and "UNIX" (LF, 0x0A) newlines. "Macintosh" newlines are used on classic Mac OS, not Mac OS X 10.0 and later. The sequence appears to have been inherited from ProDOS on the Apple II. (What did Lisa use?) I guess text editor developers could rationalize it in that Apple transitioned from "Macintosh" to "Mac" branding sometime around 10.0, when it adopted UNIX newlines. If I had my way, they'd be called "ProDOS", "CP/M", and "UNIX" newlines. (VMS text files, on the other hand, appear to be sequences of Pascal strings: preceded by a 2-byte little-endian byte count up to 32767, followed by 0x00 if the line length was odd, with length -1 meaning end of file.)

What newlines did Mac's predecessor Lisa use?

Re: Names of macOS versions and newline styles

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:38 am
by koitsu
Apple marketing can rebrand and resperglord the name all they want. The fact of the matter is, just like in that thread as is in this one, we all know what's being referred to no matter if you say Mac OS, OS X, or macOS. This is pure name/word pedantry.

When Apple decided to call their 10th major revision of operating system "Oh Ess Ten" (or "Oh Ess Exx", which would sometimes get you socially reprimanded), I don't remember any Mac pundits asking "why are they doing that" -- probably because it seemed obvious: marketing-driven silliness compounded with the general overall essence of importance/ego as a brand. I'd occasionally run into individuals who would chastise me for spelling it "OSX", by the way -- in the middle of a discussion about how to get something to work, or functionality, there'd be this "and it's OSX, you're calling it the wrong thing" non-sequitur thrown in; Stockholm syndrome is a strange thing. Again: you know what product/thing I'm talking about, it's not relevant to the subject at hand, so why are we discussing it?

Thus, it seemed funny that as of late 2016 when Apple decided to start calling it "macOS" -- almost identical to the original syntax -- again, nobody asked the question of why the change, or better yet, what that meant about the decision to call it "OS X" in the first place. Both have the same answer as the previous time. :-)

There is some irony in this: the operating system still as of this writing is still major version 10 (10.13.6), so semantically, "OS X" is still true. It won't be true when they release version 11, so calling it "macOS" or whatever, makes the most sense.

Lisa almost certainly used the same line endings all Apple products of that time frame (doesn't matter if Mac or Apple II): byte 0x0d / carriage return.