"Only the extremely technically inclined should attempt it."
McOS Re FAQ
Q: McOS Re?.. Why? Why "extremely buggy and underpowered" Mac OS (a.k.a. "Mock OS")?
A: Well, it is my ticket to world domination ;). But seriously, to keep
the Traditional (a.k.a. "Classic") Mac OS survive. It is probably the nicest
operating system ever made.
And why not? While you may hate it, other people may like it. And there are good
reasons for that, because different people measure Operating Systems in different ways:
I think Mac OS X is "just another UNIX", it doesn't offer the simplicity and
easy maintainance of the Traditional Mac OS. As I heard, many Mac users were bitter about
transition to OS X, and still can find many flaws with it.
P.S. Some information about Apple's Mac OS 9.2 and Mac OS 9.3.
Q: Do you mean porting Classic Mac OS to the IA-32 (i386) / x86 / Z80 / ...?
A: No, no, and no. The target platform is PowerPC (a.k.a. PPC: Power Macs & Co.) only.
Q: What is about Apple's "switch" to Intel architecture?
A: "One Will, One Resolve, One Course." :) It is sad that Apple is moving away
from the PowerPC. I am afraid that everything Steve Jobs would have said would have
been welcomed with applause. The days when a Mac was a Mac were over a decade ago.
At one time, Macs had a different display connectors, their own busses (NuBus, ADB),
their "own" CPUs and motherboards, high-end SCSI drives, etc. And now it's time to
wear a T-shirt with something like "Honoring the life and death
of a legend. We will miss you Mac." on it.
"Others note that Apple has slowly been switching to standard
parts since the introduction of the PCI Power Mac in 1995, and
say that using a non-Apple chipset in itself would not harm
the Mac's image."
Q: One more vote for Copland! Why not Copland?
A: Well, McOS Re is not Apple's "next Classic OS Release". And McOS Re is nor
an attempt to "clone" Copland, Startrek nor A/UX.
Q: So what is McOS Re?
A: It is just retro fun and celebration of the past years :). But seriously,
I still want to have that look-and-feel, that API (Mac Toolbox) and to run all
(okay, as much as possible) native PowerPC code written for Traditional Mac OS --
this includes applications, INITs, cdevs, etc. -- and to support all PowerPC-based
hardware (certainly, all Apple Power Macs). I also want to remove thousands of
these "mixed mode switches" and extra unnecessary layers between different parts
of "spaghetti" OS: without them, your applications will run much faster and stable.
And more, I need single user system and cooperative multitasking...
Or even better -- a freedom of choice: monotasking / cooperative multitasking
<--> preemptive multitasking, like in System Software 6.0.x (Finder / MultiFinder).
All of this, combined with traditional ease-of-use of the Mac OS interface --
this is my vision of McOS Re. McOS Re will also support more PowerPC-based
boxes than the original Mac OS 9.x did.
Q: Do you intend to continue this project?
A: Of course. Due to the fact I am (and always was) the only one developer,
coding is still in progress, but this progress is incredibly slow. I saw no
interest in McOS Re by anyone except about ten non-programming peoples. Also
maybe, the lack of interest is due to my decision to support only the PowerPC
family of microprocessors.
"The six steps in a project:
1) unbounded enthusiasm,
2) total disillusionment,
4) frantic search for the guilty,
5) punishment of the innocent,
6) promotion of the uninvolved."
Q: Can I join McOS Re team?
A: Yes!!! I would be very glad to take your help! Just e-mail me
() and we will see what we can arrange.
Q: Assembly language? C/C++ or something "portable" I can understand...
A: Uh... "Portablity" isn't McOS Re's goal. PowerPC assembly
is powerful, clear, fast and easy-to-code-in. But AFAIK, an assembly language is not widely
known among the programming community these days, and PowerPC assembly is even more exotic.
So if you prefer C/C++/Pascal/Forth/Modula-2/BASIC/FORTRAN/etc., please include a compiled
("binary") form along with your sources. Also, the more comments are in your source code,
"I wasn't aware Mac programmers still hand crafted everything in assembly.
This is obviously the REAL reason why the platform is dead now, will be
dead after the switch, and in fact was always dead.
Every other platform makes use of "high level lanaguages" like C. If Mac
developers have been forced to use assembly all this time, no wonder no
one ports decent software to Mac OS!"