The Logic Off Topic list

Is a Mac system UNIX based the same way the old Windows systems were 
DOS based?

On 02/05/2005, at 7:52 AM, gswerner2002 wrote:

> Is a Mac system UNIX based the same way the old Windows systems were
> DOS based?

Yes if you are referring to OS X.

Hey there gswerner2002,

Sorry to disagree with Kurt (although he's not wrong), your question should
probably be a bit more pointed.

If you're referring to the user's experience with the interface, the answer
to your question is no.  Rather, the gorgeous user interface we have come to
know and love as Mac OS X appears to be an integral part of the UNIX variant
that runs it. The user is very insulated from UNIX.  Even after a kernel
panic (a serious low-level system crash), control is passed to a routine
that politely dims the screen, and displays a window (in multiple languages,
BTW) indicating a reboot is in order.

I remember working with early versions of Windows that, after a crash, would
throw me back into DOS (I would be staring at a DOS command prompt).  Duh!

Early beta versions of Mac OS X would crash and sometimes throw some UNIX
junk on the screen.  At that point, the Mac would only accept UNIX commands,
but that was early versions of OS X.  The refinements to the OS have kept
the user away from UNIX.

What you will not see with Mac OS X, is UNIX stuff coming up early on in the
boot stages (as early Windows OS's would do with text-based DOS stuff,
giving you the feeling you were working in some graphic user interface that
was simply a stand alone program running in the DOS environment).  Rather,
OS X will yield just the opposite feeling: to get a UNIX command prompt, you
must run a program (Terminal) that would give you access to a UNIX command
line prompt.

To answer your question with any further degree of detail, would require an
extremely intimate knowledge of Mac OS X (at the component level), which few
people have.

Is it that you're just curious about Mac OS X, or do you have some deeper
need for this info?


Stephen Laianca

- Just up the road from the Bada Bing -
  Fugedaboudit! ...

--

Kurt Otto wrote:
>On 02/05/2005, at 7:52 AM, gswerner2002 wrote:
>
>> Is a Mac system UNIX based the same way the old Windows systems were
>> DOS based?
>
>Yes if you are referring to OS X.

It always used to amuse me the way some Mac types I encountered over the
years thought the fact that DOS underpinned Windows was some sort of dirty
little secret. It was as if they thought Mac OS8 or 9 was nifty vector
graphics all the way down to the silicon or something.

Anyone who has the slightest understanding of computation will be aware
that a CPU does not natively understand "drag and drop" and other graphical
interface operations. At the machine level it can only deal with really
basic things - reading or writing data to or from memory locations or to
disk, adding and multiplying - nuts and bolts stuff. 

Everything going on at the user level needs to be translated by the lower
levels of the OS into instructions the CPU can actually perform. 

In a graphical system with no command line interface available to the user
(pre OSX Mac), anything that has not been set up as a GUI controlled
operation cannot be done AT ALL. Now that the Mac OS has a CLI this obvious
benefit (from a computer savvy user/programmer point of view) is now
perceived as a selling point rather than a detriment. 

Regards,
M

Murray,

Your point is well taken.  But remember, Apple's marketing line years ago
was that the Mac was a 'computer for the rest of us'.  Most people aren't
programmers, so when they see a command line, they freak out.

Apple's success with the Mac has been built largely on keeping the user away
from the under-the-hood stuff.  This can be seen both ways.  If the software
is good, the user never needs to go near low-level stuff.  If the software
is bad, low-level access is a plus.  Mac software for the most part, has
been outstanding.  The need for low level access is a mute point for all but
programmers.

My frustrations with Windows bouncing back to DOS was more for the folks
that were helpless with the DOS command line.  Programmers and savvy
computer folk were ok, but the average person is left scratching his head
with the DOS command line.

All this points to the average user's experience with the machine.  Most
people don't want a machine with more than one 'personality'.  DOS command
line prompts are fairly hostile for newbies and the masses in general (it's
the reason Microsoft did 'Windows').

I've been in both worlds and prefer a platform that yields an experience
that doesn't require low-level tinkering.


Stephen Laianca

- Just up the road from the Bada Bing -
  Fugedaboudit! ...

--

At 03:20 AM 5/2/05 -0400, you wrote:
>Murray,
>
>Your point is well taken.  But remember, Apple's marketing line years ago
>was that the Mac was a 'computer for the rest of us'.  Most people aren't
>programmers, so when they see a command line, they freak out.

They must have really hated the Apple II then :-)

>Apple's success with the Mac has been built largely on keeping the user away
>from the under-the-hood stuff.  This can be seen both ways.  If the software
>is good, the user never needs to go near low-level stuff.  If the software
>is bad, low-level access is a plus.  Mac software for the most part, has
>been outstanding.  
<cough> 
>The need for low level access is a mute point for all but
>programmers.
>
>My frustrations with Windows bouncing back to DOS was more for the folks
>that were helpless with the DOS command line.  Programmers and savvy
>computer folk were ok, but the average person is left scratching his head
>with the DOS command line.

I was really talking about Win95 and onward here - the 3 years or so
(shudder) of Win 3.x involved lauching (largely)16 bit Windows from the
command prompt on your 16 bit DOS machine. GPFs were the order of the day. 

After that,  PCs had a (largely) 32 bit OS with memory protection and
proper multi-tasking. Mac didn't get this stuff till OSX. It was during
this period,  when Win95 based PCs were reducing the Mac market share down
to single figures,  that the sort of "it's still DOS underneath" campaign
was running. How fondly I remember those bits of bombast like "Win95 = Mac 88".

Underneath the GUI of OS 7 - 9 was a massive kludge that Apple spent the
better part of a billion dollars trying to replace with their own new
generation of code and then they gave up and bought Next for 400 large. M$
did a similar thing but sooner - they brought the author of Digital's VMS
operating system over for  a serious chunk of change and got him to create
the WinNT which is the progenitor of M$s consumer OS versions post Win2k.

>All this points to the average user's experience with the machine.  Most
>people don't want a machine with more than one 'personality'.  DOS command
>line prompts are fairly hostile for newbies and the masses in general (it's
>the reason Microsoft did 'Windows').
>
>I've been in both worlds and prefer a platform that yields an experience
>that doesn't require low-level tinkering.

You must get a real kick out of repairing your permissions then ;-)

> Is it that you're just curious about Mac OS X, or do you have some 
deeper
> need for this info?
> 
> 
> Stephen Laianca
> 
My non specific questioning about the subject comes from the fact that 
I've always been a Windows and have never been in contact with a Mac. 
Without being a programmer, I'm very knowledgeable about that 
environment and have a nice studio environment built around it. I'm 
wanting to expand my studio in the near future and would like to 
incorporate the latest facilities available when I assemble it all. 

Presently I have Logic 5 because of the Windows environment and I like 
that since I use outboard recording and mixing, but there's no new 
version for Windows and I'd really like to remove myself from the Bill 
Gates snare if possible. I've not been impressed with anything by 
Microsoft since 98SE. Thanks for the info.
Gary

Gary,

Gotcha on the 'Gates snare' sentiment.  I've done a lot of tech support and
training (corporate & private) over the years and in all my experience, I
can't say I know of anyone who willingly left the Mac platform for a Windows
solution.  The one that comes to mind was a media attorney with 5 machines
in her office.  It cost her a small bundle to move to Windows, but she did
so, largely because she got tired of converting documents for the
Windows-centric legal profession.  When I asked about her plans as she nears
retirement, she looked at me stone cold and said, "On that day, I will dump
all these PCs and get a Macintosh."  Hmmm...

Let's make some general observations about human nature:

  1. Switching platforms is always awkward, regardless of platform.
     (You felt empowered via your familiarity with your existing platform.)

  2. Any new platform will remove that comfort level... you will feel
     un-empowered ...until you learn your way around the new system.

  3. People resent change, especially as they get older.

  4. The learning process is a humbling one that requires effort.  Humans
     don't like to exert effort.

  5. The Sopranos is the greatest work for television, to date.
     (er, a, um.. sorry about that, I lose focus sometimes).


The platform wars will always be there. There will always be people who are
entrenched in their world and can't understand the attraction to anything
else.

Apple has always been focused on the user experience.  This vital aspect
seems to have been relegated to 2nd priority on other platforms.  What is
magical about Mac OS X is that user's don't even have to know how to spell
UNIX and yet they can be served by its power and capabilities.  To be able
to interface with UNIX via a plush, sophisticated interface makes one feel
like they've put one over on the natural laws of the universe.  I guess it's
time to bow to Steve Jobs and his technology people on this one. They truly
have pulled off something no less than pure magic.

You will not be disappointed by a Mac, unless you get a low end unit that is
not appropriate for Logic, etc.  (Even the low-end G5 tower would do the
trick).  However, I always tell folks (especially in the music biz) to buy
as much hardware muscle as their budget will allow, and they'll be happy for
a longer time).

The difference between Logic 5 and Logic 7 is enormous.  The new features
alone will make you happy you put bucks down for a new system.  The world of
Mac OS X will be a relief to have gotten away from the 'Gates snare'.

A few caveats:

The OS X version of Logic only supports AU plug-ins.  If you're heavily
invested in other plug-in formats (VST, etc.) you'll need to update those.
Although, you'd be updating those anyway, if you're switching platforms.

You'll need to get the Mac version of the drivers that support any external
equipment you have (audio, MIDI interfaces, other equipment, etc.).

Give the group some feedback after you make the switch.


Stephen Laianca

- Just up the road from the Bada Bing -
  Fugedaboudit! ...

--

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Laianca <slaianca@e...> wrote:
> Gary,
> 
> Gotcha on the 'Gates snare' sentiment. 

Thanks for the feedback, I'm fully expecting to have my hands full 
learning the new OS and as of yet I haven't reached the point where I'm 
feeling to old to enjoy a new adventure. I just wanna take full 
advantage of the Logic environment when I upgrade my studio and I'd 
surely like nothing more than to leave Bill Gates in the dust!!
Gary

That's OK Stephen, I disagree with myself often, and whenever I can. ;-)

On 02/05/2005, at 4:37 PM, Stephen Laianca wrote:

> Sorry to disagree with Kurt (although he's not wrong), your question 
> should
> probably be a bit more pointed.