The Quest for a New Operating System
by Randall Whitted
(17 February 1997)
In the quest for a new Operating System, backward compatibility can't be an issue. Windows95 made no qualms about virtually eliminating 386's and hobbling 486's. Why should Apple have to keep LC owners happy at the cost of Apple's future? Sure, keeping customers satisfied is important, but there is a breaking point. Anyone who is still using an '0X0 knows that many programs come in "fat binary" form, allowing '0x0 and PowerPC performance. What's remarkable is how much slower these programs run on the '0x0 machines. As hardware improves, the programs take advantage of the available power to build in new features. Bryce2 from Metatools is a good example. In the manual it is stated that certain program features are not available on non-PowerPC machines. There is simply a large gap between the capabilities of older Macs and new PowerPC machines.
It would seem that anyone who has not yet upgraded to a PowerPC does not need the latest software or the speed of the Powermac. Why then would they care if the new OS works on their machine or not?
I recently had the chance to spend a few hours with a Quadra 800 running System 7.1. It reminded me of what was good about the Macintosh, and what is needed in the new OS. This beautiful Quadra booted up in about 20 seconds. Everything it did was fast - opening programs and windows, copying files, and running old versions of some great graphics programs. It would be a shame to bog down such a pure system with some fat OS that had to trim itself down just to run, and would probably still not run new programs nearly as fast as they should be.
I don't know when it happened, but somewhere along the line it was decided that the MacOS was slow. The ever-challenged Macintosh has always received pressure from all sides. Now that the hardware is vastly superior to Wintel machines and the price of a Mac is on par with these bastards of DOS, the OS seems to be the next best thing to assault.
Since the whole Windows95 thing happened, there has been increased pressure to evolve the MacOS into something once again revolutionary. Multi-tasking has become an issue, as has the desire to run a PowerPC native OS on PowerMacs. It's true that the potential of the PowerMac is not being tapped. It's also true, however, that Powermacs are still faster than Wintel machines (Windows and Intel combos), even with all of that emulation going on. Still the challenge stands. Apple must develop a new OS that is powerful, innovative, customizeable, and yet retains the superior "look and feel" that the MacOS has always had. If that's not enough, it also must work on non-PowerPC Macs.
Images and reports of what Copland was supposed to be were exciting enough. It seems reasonable to think that Apple has enough class and taste to not release anything horrendously bad, and has enough sense to not change the feel of the Mac too much. As for power, anything that is PowerPC native will be fast.
Reportedly, the one thing that killed Copland development was the added weight of backward compatibility. If the new OS only works on PowerPC's, the typically overly-sensitive Mac users still using older machines will whine and complain and swear they will never buy another Mac again.
In some ways, I can sympathize with them. Apple was still selling '040 Macs through most of 1996, though for the last several years they have been plastered with "Ready for PowerPC" stickers in bright red. Does Apple then owe it's customers a certain number of years of support? Are the warning labels enough to justify a PowerPC-only future?
Whatever the next MacOS becomes will determine what users feel about the Mac, and about Apple. Users of older systems will have to decide if they're better served by a Powermac, an '0x0 Mac, or something else. Potential users will also be evaluating the benefits of the software/hardware combo. There will always be the faithful. I could never use a Wintel machine out of principle. If the BeOS turns out to be great and uses PowerPC equipment, and the next MacOS sucks, I would seriously consider switching. Until then, all we can do is hope that Apple produces yet again. The industry gives Apple little room for mistakes, and will no doubt criticize whatever they end up producing. I'll give it every chance it needs.
Responses Mark Shewmaker - has a thought about backwards compatability Bruce Meyer - discusses the role of the Diehard Mac Devotee Mike Miller - A New OS... Compatibility in one System Patrick Taylor - has some thoughts about bringing older machines up to date Mark Johnson - talks briefly about what is needed
