I had fun with hypercard on MacOS 9. At work, even. The boss was into rapid prototyping, and I cooked up some damn productive stacks in a hurry.
It runs on the Cube and under OS 9 emulation on the new stuff.
Hypercard scripters did cool things that most users don't do today. And without those monster data centers.
I was the Program Manager, and as usual we were very tightly constrained for time, and in the era of golden master DVDs that had to be ready to distribute at JavaOne in the Moscone Centre... Hard decisions had to be made. The team decided to work on more important features, and drop the configuration wizard from 2.0. Then I did what everyone knows is a no good, very bad, terrible thing. And although I got away with it that time, it's still a no good very bad, terrible thing:
I took my work computer home for the weekend and fired up a HyperCard "compiler" called Runtime Revolution that could make executables for Windows and Unix. Come Monday morning, we had a shippable configuration wizard. Leadership blew its top, because one of their values was, "We're a Java shop, which means we use Java to write Java tools." And after I left the company, they rewrote the configuration wizard in Java Swing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiveCode_(company)
To this day I consider firing up Electron and a complete React framework for simple tools to be a "Turing Tarpit," a place where absolutely anything you imagine is possible, but nothing of interest (in the domain of simple tools) is easy.
There absolutely were animations e.g. when closing a Finder window, but they were much lighter weight. As far as I'm concerned System 7 was probably the zenith.
To be clear, Win98 was a garbage fire of an OS (when it came to stability); which makes it so much worse that Mac OS 8-9 were so bad.
Maybe not on a Pentium, but once you hit 192MB of RAM and some 500 MHz P3/AMD k7, NT based OSes were tons better.
You only realized that upon opening a dozen of IE windows. W98, even SE, will sweat. 2k will fly.
On single tasks, such as near realtime multimedia ones, w98 would be better, such as emulators/games or video players with single thread decoders. On multiprocessing/threading, w98 crawled against W2K even under p4's and 256MB of RAM.
Either way, you're welcome to believe what you like.
So yeah Apple had tacked on vestigial multi-user support, an automatic system update mechanism, USB support, etc., etc. but underneath it was still the same old single user, cooperative multitasked, no memory protection OS as its predecessors. Unlike OSX, MacOS 9 (like 7 and 8 before it) still relied on the Toolbox which was a mishmash of m68k and ppc code.
Why is eveything so slow on new MacOS?
People used to make YouTube videos of their Mac opening 15 different programs in 4/5 seconds
Now, my Apple Silicon MacBook Air is very, very fast but at times it takes like 8-9 seconds to open a browser again.
It still works fine today, though I had install Linux on it to keep it up to date.
In any case, Chrome opens quickly on my Mac Mini, under a second when I launch it from clicking its icon in my task bar or from spotlight (which is my normal way of starting apps). When Chrome is idle with no windows, opening chrome seems even faster, almost instant.
This made me curious so I tried opening some Apple apps, and they appear to open about the same speed as Chrome.
Gui applications like Chrome or Keynote can be opened from a terminal command line using the open command so I tried timing this:
$ time open /Applications/Google\ Chrome.app
Our work laptops have antivirus and other verification turned on which impose a 4-16x penalty on IO.
The cpu, memory, and ssd are blazing fast. Unfortunately they are hamstrung by bad software configuration.
I have seen people suggesting that it's because of app signature checks choking on Internet slowness, but 1. those are cached, so the second run should be faster, and in non-networked instances the speed is unchanged, and 2. I don't believe those were even implemented back in 2002 when I got my iMac G4, and it was likewise far quicker in Linux than in OS X.
At the time (2002), I joked that it was because the computer was running two operating systems at once: NeXTSTEP and FreeBSD.
Most Mac software I use (I don’t use Chrome) starts quickly because the dependencies (shared libraries) are already loaded. Chrome seems to have its own little universe of dependencies which aren’t shared and so have to be loaded on startup. This is the same reason Office 365 apps are so slow.
My M4 MacBook Pro loads a wide range of apps - including many that have no Chromium code at all in them - noticeably slower than exactly the same app on a 4 year old Ryzen laptop running Linux, despite being approximately twice as fast at running single-threaded code, having a faster SSD, and maybe 5x the memory bandwidth.
Once they're loaded they're fine, so it's not a big deal for the day to day, but if you swap between systems regularly it does give macOS the impression of being slow and lumbering.
Disabling Gatekeeper helps but even then it's still slower. Is it APFS, the macOS I/O system, the dynamic linker, the virtual memory system, or something else? I dunno. One of these days it'll bother me enough to run some tests.
Yeah, when a coworker and I showed my wife the first OS X preview, she was alarmed at how long it took to shut down (I mean System 7 shut down like you just kicked the cord out). "You'll have to find something else to like about it," was my coworker's response.
And to be sure, there was/is a lot to like about OS X.
But, probably because of the lack of a kernel, etc., System 7 sits somewhere in that nether/middle region on our personal computer journey. It's rich library of functions (the Toolbox) set it apart from machines before it that might have instead had a handful of ASSM routines you could "CALL" in BASIC to switch display modes, clear the screen, etc. But, as Amiga owners often reminded the Mac community in the day, no "true" preemptive multitasking…
I should say too, regarding programming, these days your ability to write safe, threaded code is probably the highest virtue to strive for, hardest to perfect — at least for me (so hard to wrap my head around). It seems to separate the hacks (in the negative sense) from the programming gods. I think wistfully of those simpler times when managing memory well, handling error returned from the system API gracefully were the only hurdles.
"You can’t simply add a lock here, because this function can be called while the lock is already held. Taking the same lock again would cause a deadlock…"
"The way you've implemented semaphores can still allow a potential race condition. No, I have no idea how we can test that scenario, with the unit tests it may still only happen once in a million runs—or only on certain hardware…"
(Since I have retired I confess my memory of those hair-pulling days are getting fuzzier—thankfully.)
Thank you for many fond memories of playing Glider and Pararena.
If you had no X11 acceleration (xvesa for instance), that mode was magnitudes faster than watching your whole browser window repaint on a resize lasting more than 3 seconds on a Pentium.
On the other hand on my mobile Firefox I wait seemingly a half second each time I long press a link, because there is an animation that zooms a context menu. It does not zoom from the link, which could be justified maybe, but always in the same place in the center of the screen. This animation is meaningless and thus wasteful.
It still irritates me that command + N does a new window, not a new folder. I wouldn’t even have used that shortcut much, as I was a kid and it’s been 25 years.
2. Add an arbitrary keyboard shortcut (perhaps ⌥⌘N) for the "New Finder Window" Finder menu command.
3. Add your desired keyboard shortcut (⌘N) for the "New Folder" Finder menu command.
4. Restart Finder.