(edit: tl;dr I know. Sorry for the semi-rant + facts & folklore, perhaps a bit of myth and reality)
It was somewhat ironic, that the rather simple and primitive kernel wise Mac OS lead to a GUI revolution. Perhaps it was its simple nature of the OS combined with very competent GUI rendering and font handling that allowed for the DTP revolution to occur on Mac OS.
Just look at the Win286/3.0 kludge. Then look at x windows on UNIX at the time. Then look at Mac OS 5.x or 6.x (whatever was current) The Macintosh system seemed to be eons ahead of the existing kludges.
Whats ironic is....that the Mac OS (then called System x.x I know) was not too far behind, compared to the MS product, it was ahead. Its simple nature was a positive in that time, imho. Low resource usage left CPU cycles and memory free for what was important: the applications. It also had best in class plug-and-play. You can argue its one of the best plug-and-play systems ever created.
Had Apple been able to redo the Mac OS monolithic kernel to have active memory protection and some sort of built-in true user permissions for security, there would had never been an OS crisis for Apple. They would have had a very lean OS, without need for a replacement for some time even past the early 2000's. This should had been done with the launch of the Mac II. One of the early project goals of "BigMac" was to get a new OS done....their solution was the cobbled, expensive A/UX, and a Mac OS System patched together with extensions by nearly the dozen.
(I know, Copland was to do this, but it FAILED. The programmers never kept to any deadline. If anything, the Spindler management is to be blamed.)
Radius built some
COOL stuff. (Rocket) Its a shame they were sunk by Apple's mismanagement of the Mac. Spindler chasing the low end market was stupid. The x86 clones by then had that market, it was too late. Should had gunned for the middle+ like Apple is doing now.
Steve is overvalued in my personal opinion. He was a decent leader for Apple in the late 90s. He had a very futuristic, and idealistic vision that was good to brainstorm with. However, putting him in absolute power let his narrow view, his view of the tech world, make all the decisions. They are profit laden ones for sure, but had he inherited Apple straight after Spindler, Apple would had sunk. Steve pulled off amazing stuff in the late 2000s with the consumer product line...while letting their "pro" image disappear slowly.
Without Gil Amelio coming in and cleaning house, Steve would not have the bone dry but living skeleton to execute his dreams. People dont give him enough credit, but he is the one who saved Apple from going bust in 1996. The company was a disaster. Someone like Steve would just had shocked it and it would had imploded. Gil served as a janitor. Reduced inventory, eliminated useless products, rearranged the staff, cleaned up manufacturing and engineering, killed Copland the useless project it was, prevented bankruptcy successfully, sold back shares of Apple to the investors to get emergency cash.
It worked.
Had none of the above happened, there would be no independent Apple. Makes me somewhat mad that the board wanted immediate mega-sales results from Gil's Apple. Recovery is slow after you just nearly avoided closing the Company and had your first green quarter. (If by a small margin)
The way Steve was hired back is interesting, if a bit unethical, done through non-traditional channels. Firing your CEO over the phone will he is on vacation? Thats a bit...cheap.
Ironic thing. Steve fires most of the board that hires him back.
Har, har. Backstab someone, you get backstabbed back. Jean Louis was right, Steve was a maniac who would fire anyone he saw as in his way, even if they were not. Apple had PURGES in 1997. YOU, you were an ally of Scully in 1984! YOUR FIRED.
Well you know what....
Scully was right for the time. The Mac could NOT remain a toaster appliance (however cute that is
) and manage to hold its own vs the x86 clones.
Apple today is no longer warm and fuzzy like it was in the 80s, 90s. Its now cold, robotic, and ruthless. Thats not what I thought Apple was. Thats more of a vision of a company Micro and soft. Its a company that likes Walled Gardens, disposable appliance hardware, and fashion over essential features. (Funny isn't it, that walled gardens are a success now!)
Feel free to flame me for this, but the Apple of today is not the same. Its totally different. The day they killed Happy Mac, is the day the fun died in Cupertino.
] ]'>
) 
