this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
158 points (81.3% liked)

Technology

74586 readers
3832 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Genuine question.

I know they were the scrappy startup doing different cool things. But, what are the most major innovative things that they introduced, improved or just implemented that either revolutionized, improved or spurred change?

I am aware of the possibility of both fanboys and haters just duking it out below. But there's always that one guy who has a fkn well-formatted paragraph of gold. I await that guy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fubo@lemmy.world 64 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

The document-centric model of desktop applications largely originates from the early Mac. How do you open a document in a desktop OS? You double-click on the document, and the OS finds the correct application to open it with. That was a Mac thing. On most other systems of the mid-1980s, you run your application program (from the command line) and then tell the program to load a file.

Applications as "bundles" of code and data was a Mac thing too, starting with the resource/code division in the classic Mac System. Rather than an application coming with a mess of directories of libraries and data files, it's all bundled up into a single application file that can contain structured data ("resources") for the GUI elements. On a classic Mac, you could load an application program up in ResEdit and modify the menus, add keyboard shortcuts, and so on, without recompiling anything.

The Apple Newton had data persistence of a sort that we now expect on cloud applications like Google Docs. Rather than "saving" and "loading" files, every change was automatically committed to storage. If you turn the device off (or it runs out of battery power), you don't lose your work.

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Other systems did have double-click, and app bundles (which I still think are just fantastic) were a NeXT thing. (which of course became Apple, but they weren't at the time). But yeah, Apple way refined and brought those to a mass market.

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

app bundles (which I still think are just fantastic) were a NeXT thing.

App bundles were just a better implementation of resource forks, which were invented by Apple and pre-dated NeXT.

(which of course became Apple, but they weren’t at the time)

NeXT was founded by people who worked at Apple (not just Steve) and they were largely put in charge when they came back to Apple. I wouldn't call them separate companies. Just a weird moment in the history of the company. A lot like what just happened at OpenAI.

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

App bundles have virtually no relationship with resource forks. I guess you could say that App Bundles COULD include SOME metadata that you could have included in Forks, including the idea that something was an application or not. But that's about it.

On the NeXT always being Apple thing - I mean, some of it maybe was spiritually Apple, and eventually it was 100% Apple. But we're splitting hairs.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Eh, the difference between app bundles and resource forks isn't the functionality itself, but rather how the filesystem interface cuts through the functionality.

An OSX bundle is a Unix directory, whereas a classic Mac application is a file in a filesystem that supports multiple forks within a single file. Either way, you have typed objects (files or resources) that get carried around with a master object (the application).

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

The first Mac came out in 1984; NeXT didn't have a product until 1988.

NeXT was later bought by Apple and their tech became the foundation of Mac OS X in 2001.

But I was referring to the original '80s Macintosh System, not OS X. :)

[–] DJDarren@thelemmy.club 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

On most other systems of the mid-1980s, you run your application program (from the command line) and then tell the program to load a file.

Kinda funny that iPad/iOS has sort of gone in reverse on this, by virtue of not really having an open file system. You now open the app, then open the document within it.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

There’s also the Files app too that Apple added that does give you a filesystem view, where you can tap files to have them opened in their associated application.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

The document-centric model of desktop applications largely originates from the early Mac.

Originates from Xerox PARC. I see you discuss this below, it was Xerox BOD that couldn't see beyond their nose and sold it to Apple. From Jobs own description of being blown away by Xerox, it sounds like he would have never thought of it.