BeachHead 2020 Mac OS

1. Of and in ' a to was is ) ( for as on by he with 's that at from his it an were are which this also be has or: had first one their its new after but who not they have –; her she ' two been other when there all% during into school time may years more most only over city some world would where later up such used many can state about national out known university united then made.
2. Beach Head 2000 is a first-person shooter game developed by Digital Fusion. It was originally released by WizardWorks for Microsoft Windows and MacSoft for Mac OS as a 'value-priced' release. A loose remake of the 1983 computer game Beach Head, it shared a similar premise, as players defend a beach against attack by utilizing a variety of weapons.A version of the game was also produced for.

• Beachhead 2020 Download
• Beachhead 2020 Mac Os Catalina
• Beachhead 2020 Mac Os Download
• Beachhead 2020 Mac Os X

In the 1980s, using a computer was all about sitting at a desk. Mobility in computing meant putting your files on a disk and taking the disk to a different (but compatible) computer. When I was in college, I bought a big padded case that was designed to fit any classic Mac, so I could carry my computer home with me for holidays. The luxury! It made my 17-pound Mac SE a “portable” computer.

About This Game BEACH HEAD 2000 is a hard-core, non-stop, adrenaline pumping first-person action shooter for your PC or Mac. As a lone gunner you are the last line of defense against an overwhelming onslaught of enemy fire. Only you can win the war by firing your high-caliber twin-barrel machine guns and volleying missiles from your canons at incoming air-crafts and armored vehicles.

There were early portable computers available that ran all sorts of operating systems, but for the Mac, the padded carrying case was as portable as things got until the fall of 1989, when Apple introduced a Mac that was slightly more amenable to be moved from place to place than my Mac SE—the Macintosh Portable.

Enter the ‘luggable’

The Macintosh Portable was groundbreaking, while also being a colossal misfire. In many ways, it illustrated all the decisions that a company like Apple had to make in those days when it came to building a portable computer—and many of those decisions were simply the wrong ones.

If this seems like criticism that comes from the privileged position of being an observer three decades in the future, I’ll point out that in the Mac Portable’s launch cover story in Macworld, writer Bruce F. Webster summoned up the courage to write that the Mac Portable “certainly isn’t a failure.” Damned with the faintest of praise.

From an engineering standpoint, the Mac Portable is fascinating. Apple essentially jammed an entire Mac SE, including pretty much every port—yes, even the enormous floppy and SCSI ports—into a polycarbonate enclosure. There was also a lead-acid battery, a full-sized keyboard, a trackball, and a 640×400 active-matrix LCD screen.

As a result, the thing was enormous—15 inches by 15 inches, and four inches thick (tapering to two inches at the narrow end), and weighed 16 pounds. At the press launch event for the product, Apple was careful to refer to it as a portable, not as a laptop—because (truth in advertising) this thing was not going to sit on anyone’s lap. It was immediately dubbed a “luggable” in the press. It was more portable than my SE in its carrying case, but not by much. (It also cost $7,300, or more than $15,000 in today’s dollars!)

That lead-acid battery weighed a ton, but thanks to it and the power-management techniques Apple built into the Mac Portable—including the Mac’s first sleep mode—it got somewhere between six and twelve hours of battery life. (If you could load everything into RAM and keep the hard drive from spinning up, you could hit the high side of this total. Years later, when I used an early PowerBook, this trick was still the name of the game. Hard drives were battery killers.)

The screen was really quite good. Active-matrix LCDs were crisp and readable, basically the E Ink of their day. Most importantly, they refreshed the screen immediately, eliminating an unfortunate effect called “ghosting” that was found on cheaper passive-matrix LCDs. The ghosting effect created a little ghost image of your cursor that would follow the real cursor around the screen as you moved it. There was none of that on the Mac Portable.

Yes, the Portable’s display was black-and-white, but that was par for the course back then. Unfortunately, it didn’t have a backlight, so while you could travel with the Mac Portable, you could only use it in a well-lit room. (Later Apple offered a variant with a backlight, and a kit to add a backlight to older models, but it really ate into the computer’s battery life.)

The Mac Portable’s keyboard was also really good. It was modeled on the standard Mac keyboards of the period, and was truly desktop class, with clacky ALPS keyswitches offering a lot of key travel.

The keyboard configuration was remarkably open to the needs of its potential users, too. By default, the keyboard was placed to the left, with a trackball (used as the pointing device) to the right. But you could optionally flip the orientation, so a left-handed user could (after popping open a bunch of plastic latches, something you were advised to let your local Apple reseller do for you) place the trackball to the left and the keyboard to the right. Apple even sold a numeric keypad, designed to go in the space taken up by the trackball—so if you preferred a numpad and were willing to use an external mouse, you could set up your Mac Portable that way.

The Mac Portable is one of the most notable Macs ever because it was Apple’s first attempt to make a portable Mac, because it looks like no other Mac ever made, and because it was a complete failure.

Reading the coverage of the release of the first PowerBooks in 1991 makes it clear that after the smoke had cleared, nobody who took the Mac seriously thought the Mac Portable was anything but a flop. “If you weren’t around for the Mac Portable fiasco two years ago, Apple couldn’t afford to make the same half-baked mistake twice,” wrote MacUser editor in chief Jon Zilber.

Speaking of MacUser, I need to mention the cover of its November 1989 issue, which introduced the Mac Portable. By the time I arrived at MacUser as an intern in the summer of 1993, this cover had become legendary—or to be more accurate, infamous. It features a woman in a red swimsuit and sunglasses, sitting on a floating pool chair, with a cordless phone to one ear, a drink and some documents on one arm of the chair, and a Mac Portable on the other.

Beachhead 2020 Download

The idea that you’d tenuously place an expensive laptop on a pool chair is no more hilariously wrong today than it was back then, though it certainly illustrated the point. But I am led to believe that many of the editors at MacUser, then led by publisher and editorial director Paul Somerson, felt that Somerson pushed sexist imagery on the cover of a computer magazine a bit too often. A brief survey of early-90s MacUser covers reveals at least two others that show the bodies (or body parts) of women in alluring poses. The Mac Portable cover is the least sexy of the lot, mostly because that poor woman looks like she may be about to tip over into the pool, taking her enormous laptop and its lead-acid battery with her.

(Macworld’s cover, in contrast, features two Mac Portables on a black table with a nondescript background. This contrast, while extreme, is not a bad example of the difference between the two U.S. Mac magazines in the early ’90s—one a fun group of rebels who sometimes made questionable decisions, the other a more restrained group of professionals. Whether you considered MacUser sophomoric or Macworld boring was a matter of taste. I was a MacUser subscriber and employee years before I worked at Macworld, so you know where I stood.)

Let’s try this again

Two years after the release of the Mac Portable, Apple finally got the laptop right with the introduction of the first PowerBooks. But while two of those first PowerBook models were the wave of the future, the third was a retread of the past.

In the early 1990s, everyone—including Apple—stood in awe of the electronics miniaturization prowess of Sony. Sony cameras packed shocking amounts of tech into tiny places. This was an era where Japanese dominance of electronics manufacturing was unquestioned, and so Apple had the idea of solving the Mac Portable problem by more or less handing the guts of the Mac Portable over to Sony and asking them to shrink it down to a more acceptable size.

The truth, as someone who worked at Apple during this period told me, is that the geniuses at Sony who built those cameras weren’t the ones assigned by the massive Sony bureaucracy to build a laptop for Apple. The PowerBook 100 was smaller and lighter than the other PowerBooks, but it was sadly underpowered. It used a clocked-up version of the same Motorola 68000 processor found in the Mac SE and Mac Portable at a time when Apple was introducing super-fast desktop Macs with processors a couple of generations ahead.

The PowerBook 100 also omitted the floppy disk drive completely, which made sense from a space- and weight-saving perspective. And the PowerBook 100’s size and weight did make it a cult machine for those who desired the ultimate in Mac portability. But as I wrote regarding the PowerBook Duo, this was an era when getting your files from point A to point B generally required a floppy disk. Having to tote an external floppy drive around with your laptop negated the point of having a thin and light laptop.

Product reviews called out the 100 as basically “a slimmed-down Mac Portable.” That wasn’t a compliment. Those other PowerBooks were notable in so many ways. The PowerBook 100 picked up their styling, but it was the goose among ducks: Based on a failure, redesigned in error, and doomed to always be found wanting.

That’s half my list! I’ll be back in a couple of weeks to start the top ten.

Beachhead 2020 Mac Os Catalina

If you appreciate articles like this one, support us by becoming a Six Colors subscriber. Subscribers get access to an exclusive podcast, members-only stories, and a special community.

On May 6, 2002, Steve Jobs opened WWDC with a funeral for Classic Mac OS:

Yesterday, 18 years later, OS X finally reached its own end of the road: the next version of macOS is not 10.16, but 11.0.

There was no funeral.

The OS X Family Tree

OS X has one of the most fascinating family trees in technology; to understand its significance requires understanding each of its forebearers.

Unix: Unix does refer to a specific operating system that originated in AT&T’s Bell Labs (the copyrights of which are owned by Novell), but thanks to a settlement with the U.S. government (that was widely criticized for going easy on the telecoms giant), Unix was widely-licensed to universities in particular. One of the most popular variants that resulted was the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD), developed at the University of California, Berkeley.

What all of the variations of Unix had in common was the Unix Philosophy; the Bell System Technical Journal explained in 1978:

A number of maxims have gained currency among the builders and users of the Unix system to explain and promote its characteristic style:

1. Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new “features”.
2. Expect the output of every program to become the input to another, as yet unknown, program. Don’t clutter output with extraneous information. Avoid stringently columnar or binary input formats. Don’t insist on interactive input.
3. Design and build software, even operating systems, to be tried early, ideally within weeks. Don’t hesitate to throw away the clumsy parts and rebuild them.
4. Use tools in preference to unskilled help to lighten a programming task, even if you have to detour to build the tools and expect to throw some of them out after you’ve finished using them.

[…]

The Unix operating system, the C programming language, and the many tools and techniques developed in this environment are finding extensive use within the Bell System and at universities, government laboratories, and other commercial installations. The style of computing encouraged by this environment is influencing a new generation of programmers and system designers. This, perhaps, is the most exciting part of the Unix story, for the increased productivity fostered by a friendly environment and quality tools is essential to meet every-increasing demands for software.

Today you can still run nearly any Unix program on macOS, but particularly with some of the security changes made in Catalina, you are liable to run into permissions issues, particularly when it comes to seamlessly linking programs together.

Mach: Mach was a microkernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University; the concept of a microkernel is to run the smallest amount of software necessary for the core functionality of an operating system in the most privileged mode, and put all other functionality into less privileged modes. OS X doesn’t have a true microkernel — the BSD subsystem runs in the same privileged mode, for performance reasons — but the modular structure of a microkernel-type design makes it easier to port to different processor architectures, or remove operating system functionality that is not needed for different types of devices (there is, of course, lots of other work that goes into a porting a modern operating system; this is a dramatic simplification).

More generally, the spirit of a microkernel — a small centralized piece of software passing messages between different components — is how modern computers, particularly mobile devices, are architected: multiple specialized chips doing discrete tasks under the direction of an operating system organizing it all.

Xerox: The story of Steve Jobs’ visiting Xerox is as mistaken as it is well-known; the Xerox Alto and its groundbreaking mouse-driven graphical user interface was well-known around Silicon Valley, thanks to the thousands of demos the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) did and the papers it had published. PARC’s problem is that Xerox cared more about making money from copy machines than in figuring out how to bring the Alto to market.

That doesn’t change just how much of an inspiration the Alto was to Jobs in particular: after the visit he pushed the Lisa computer to have a graphical user interface, and it was why he took over the Macintosh project, determined to make an inexpensive computer that was far easier to use than anything that had come before it.

Apple: The Macintosh was not the first Apple computer: that was the Apple I, and then the iconic Apple II. What made the Apple II unique was its explicit focus on consumers, not businesses; interestingly, what made the Apple II successful was VisiCalc, the first spreadsheet application, which is to say that the Apple II sold primarily to businesses. Still, the truth is that Apple has been a consumer company from the very beginning.

This is why the Mac is best thought of as the child of Apple and Xerox: Apple understood consumers and wanted to sell products to them, and Xerox provided the inspiration for what those products should look like.

It was NeXTSTEP, meanwhile, that was the child of Unix and Mach: an extremely modular design, from its own architecture to its focus on object-oriented programming and its inclusion of different “kits” that were easy to fit together to create new programs.

Beachhead 2020 Mac Os Download

And so we arrive at OS X, the child of the classic Macintosh OS and NeXTSTEP. The best way to think about OS X is that it took the consumer focus and interface paradigms of the Macintosh and layered them on top of NeXTSTEP’s technology. In other words, the Unix side of the family was the defining feature of OS X.

Return of the Mac

In 2005 Paul Graham wrote an essay entitled Return of the Mac explaining why it was that developers were returning to Apple for the first time since the 1980s:

All the best hackers I know are gradually switching to Macs. My friend Robert said his whole research group at MIT recently bought themselves Powerbooks. These guys are not the graphic designers and grandmas who were buying Macs at Apple’s low point in the mid 1990s. They’re about as hardcore OS hackers as you can get.

The reason, of course, is OS X. Powerbooks are beautifully designed and run FreeBSD. What more do you need to know?

Graham argued that hackers were a leading indicator, which is why he advised his dad to buy Apple stock:

If you want to know what ordinary people will be doing with computers in ten years, just walk around the CS department at a good university. Whatever they’re doing, you’ll be doing.

In the matter of “platforms” this tendency is even more pronounced, because novel software originates with great hackers, and they tend to write it first for whatever computer they personally use. And software sells hardware. Many if not most of the initial sales of the Apple II came from people who bought one to run VisiCalc. And why did Bricklin and Frankston write VisiCalc for the Apple II? Because they personally liked it. They could have chosen any machine to make into a star.

If you want to attract hackers to write software that will sell your hardware, you have to make it something that they themselves use. It’s not enough to make it “open.” It has to be open and good. And open and good is what Macs are again, finally.

What is interesting is that Graham’s stock call could not have been more prescient: Apple’s stock closed at $5.15 on March 31, 2005, and $358.87 yesterday;1 the primary driver of that increase, though, was not the Mac, but rather the iPhone.

The iOS Sibling

If one were to add iOS to the family tree I illustrated above, most would put it under Mac OS X; I think, though, iOS is best understood as another child of Classic Mac and NeXT, but this time the resemblance is to the Apple side of the family. Or to put it another way, while the Mac was the perfect machine for “hackers”, to use Graham’s term, the iPhone was one of the purest expressions of Apple’s focus on consumers.

The iPhone, as Steve Jobs declared at its unveiling in 2007, runs OS X, but it was certainly not Mac OS X: it ran the same XNU kernel, and most of the same subsystem (with some new additions to support things like cellular capability), but it had a completely new interface. That interface, notably, did not include a terminal; you could not run arbitrary Unix programs.2 That new interface, though, was far more accessible to regular users.

What is more notable is that the iPhone gave up parts of the Unix Philosophy as well: applications all ran in individual sandboxes, which meant that they could not access the data of other applications or of the operating system. This was great for security, and is the primary reason why iOS doesn’t suffer from malware and apps that drag the entire system into a morass, but one certainly couldn’t “expect the output of every program to become the input to another”; until sharing extensions were added in iOS 8 programs couldn’t share data with each other at all, and even now it is tightly regulated.

At the same time, the App Store made principle one — “make each program do one thing well” — accessible to normal consumers. Whatever possible use case you could imagine for a computer that was always with you, well, “There’s an App for That”:

Consumers didn’t care that these apps couldn’t talk to each other: they were simply happy they existed, and that they could download as many as they wanted without worrying about bad things happening to their phone — or to them. While sandboxing protected the operating system, the fact that every app was reviewed by Apple weeded out apps that didn’t work, or worse, tried to scam end users.

This ended up being good for developers, at least from a business point-of-view: sure, the degree to which the iPhone was locked down grated on many, but Apple’s approach created millions of new customers that never existed for the Mac; the fact it was closed and good was a benefit for everyone.

macOS 11.0

Beachhead 2020 Mac Os X

What is striking about macOS 11.0 is the degree to which is feels more like a son of iOS than the sibling that Mac OS X was:

• macOS 11.0 runs on ARM, just like iOS; in fact the Developer Transition Kit that Apple is making available to developers has the same A12Z chip as the iPad Pro.
• macOS 11.0 has a user interface overhaul that not only appears to be heavily inspired by iOS, but also seems geared for touch.
• macOS 11.0 attempts to acquire developers not primarily by being open and good, but by being easy and good enough.

The seeds for this last point were planted last year with Catalyst, which made it easier to port iPad apps to the Mac; with macOS 11.0, at least the version which will run on ARM, Apple isn’t even requiring a recompile: iOS apps will simply run on macOS 11.0, and they will be in the Mac App Store by default (developers can opt-out).

In this way Apple is using their most powerful point of leverage — all of those iPhone consumers, which compel developers to build apps for the iPhone, Apple’s rules notwithstanding — to address what the company perceives as a weakness: the paucity of apps in the Mac App Store.

Is the lack of Mac App Store apps really a weakness, though? When I consider the apps that I use regularly on the Mac, a huge number of them are not available in the Mac App Store, not because the developers are protesting Apple’s 30% cut of sales, but simply because they would not work given the limitations Apple puts on apps in the Mac App Store.

The primary limitation, notably, is the same sandboxing technology that made iOS so trustworthy; that trustworthiness has always come with a cost, which is the ability to build tools that do things that “lighten a task”, to use the words from the Unix Philosophy, even if the means to do so opens the door to more nefarious ends.

Fortunately macOS 11.0 preserves its NeXTSTEP heritage: non-Mac App Store apps are still allowed, for better (new use cases constrained only by imagination and permissions dialogs) and worse (access to other apps and your files). What is notable is that this was even a concern: Apple’s recent moves on iOS, particularly around requiring in-app purchase for SaaS apps, feel like a drift towards Xerox, a company that was so obsessed with making money it ignored that it was giving demos of the future to its competitors; one wondered if the obsession would filter down to the Mac.

For now the answer is no, and that is a reason for optimism: an open platform on top of the tremendous hardware innovation being driven by the iPhone sounds amazing. Moreover, one can argue (hope?) it is a more reliable driver of future growth than squeezing every last penny out of the greenfield created by the iPhone. At a minimum, leaving open the possibility of entirely new things leaves far more future optionality than drawing the strings every more tightly as on iOS. OS X’s legacy lives, for now.

I wrote a follow-up to this article in this Daily Update.

1. Yes, this incorporates Apple’s 7:1 stock split [↩]
2. Unless you jailbroke your phone [↩]

BeachHead 2020 Mac OS