• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

When did programs become apps?

But if someone called Photoshop an app, then I'd be annoyed, because at no point in the past have I ever heard a computer program called an app, so therefore it is a buzzword to me, whether the word has existed in some form prior to this point or not.
Okay... so you are upset because you were late (after the average person it would seem) to hearing the term in use. Fair enough.

But FYI... I was calling Photoshop an app before you even knew Photoshop existed. :techman:

I was well aware of the term at the same time as any other average Joe. Why would I care about that? Do you want a medal for using a term before it became the in thing to do? The point is that now people use it interchangeably with computer programs because of Apple. Whether or not it was used before that isn't being questioned at all, as I can guarantee that the majority of people who use it today use it only because of Apple's iPhone/iTouch. There would not be many people who associate it with anything other than that like you, because obviously not many people would have your specific background.
To me a program always has an .exe (or .com) extension. But I don't expect that many people call programs EXEs. How about us Windows users call programs a Prog? No, now I'm imagining 20 minute songs and hippies. Scrap that one. :lol:

Clearly your usage of the term has nothing at all to do with iPhones. But if I went up to someone on the street and asked them where they got the term "app", I'm betting it won't have anything to do with folder names or file extensions.

I understand why you don't mind, but the popularity of this term unfortunately has nothing to do with people like you using it in the badass computing era. It's the result of the era of people becoming more distant from computing and applying their limited technowledge and terminology to something else. Again, this doesn't apply to you. You can come to my house and call Photoshop an app any time you like. Not sure how you'd have any idea when I found out about Photoshop's existence though. :hugegrin:
 
I don't know if Apple was the first to use GEM but it was used by the 16-bit computers by Atari beginning in 1985. Those computers also had ".app" executable program files.
Actually, Apple sued DRI and Atari because of GEM. Not surprising though... Apple sued a lot of companies (including NeXT) over this type of stuff back then.

Apple also sued Microsoft over Windows... but the license agreement that Apple had made with Microsoft to get Excel developed for the Mac gave Microsoft a lot of coverage. :eek:

I thought Atari was using Motorola 68K processors in their systems and they were 32-bit. Motorola's processors were being used in many high end workstations back then (including those by Sun and SGI).

But yeah, I hadn't realized that Atari had the .app extension as well.
 
Not sure how you'd have any idea when I found out about Photoshop's existence though. :hugegrin:
You aren't a Mac user, and when I started using it it was a Mac only app.

Simple deduction. :techman:

That proves you knew about it before I did, but that still only narrows it down to about a 15 year window. Actually, the Mac I own sitting behind me says you couldn't even narrow it down that far. :p
 
I thought Atari was using Motorola 68K processors in their systems and they were 32-bit.

The 68000 is a 16-bit processor. The 68030 is a 32-bit processor.

The 68000 had some 32-bit parts... It might have been some internal bus, I can't remember now.


Motorola's processors were being used in many high end workstations back then (including those by Sun and SGI).

The 68k processor was inspired by the architecture of the PDP-11, which was the same machine that the C programming language was based upon.

The common heritage of C and 68k may have meant that C compiled well for that processor, and may be why it was considered high performance. :shrug:
 
Actually, the Mac I own sitting behind me says you couldn't even narrow it down that far. :p
Well, owning a Mac and being a Mac user are not the same thing. I own a violin, but you sure wouldn't see me claiming to know how to use it. :rolleyes:

The 68000 is a 16-bit processor. The 68030 is a 32-bit processor.
I seem to recall that both the 68000 and 68010 could address 32-bit word length if done correctly... and most Mac apps were 24-bit before the introduction of the 68020 in the Macintosh II (the 68020 was the first fully 32-bit processor Apple used, though the part of Apple's OS that resided in ROM on many of the early 68020/68030 Macs weren't 32-bit clean and couldn't address more than 8 MB of memory without a software patch).

Motorola also started to build elements into the processors with each new version after the 68020. The 68030 included a PMMU on chip and the 68040 included an FPU on chip (before that systems required a 68881/68882 FPU co-processor).

But I recall Atari using many of the 68k processors (68000, 68020 and 68030 at least).
 
Actually, the Mac I own sitting behind me says you couldn't even narrow it down that far. :p
Well, owning a Mac and being a Mac user are not the same thing. I own a violin, but you sure wouldn't see me claiming to know how to use it. :rolleyes:

Of course. Clearly I must only own it to be one of the cool kids! Never mind the fact I (ironically) develop apps on it. Clearly I'm just a Mac "owner" and not a Mac "user". I never even realized it could be turned on and used. :rolleyes:
 
The 68000 is a 16-bit processor. The 68030 is a 32-bit processor.

The 68000 had some 32-bit parts... It might have been some internal bus, I can't remember now.

IIRC the 68000 was a 32 bit processor in every important fashion except for the external bus. That was only 16 bits.

The 68000 definitely operated on a 32 bit instruction set.
 
The Mac OS has had an "Applications" folder by default (as opposed to Windows' "Program Files") Since at least System 7. I think System 6 might have had that too, but I barely remember it.

DING DING! Winner :)

Most people have had MS, so they see "Program". Apple has always used "applications", so when the iPhone started getting popular, Apple just kept on using the word they'd been using for years.

It changed when people started getting into Apple productions more.
 
I couldn't care less what Apple did or when they did it. The term application (meaning a bunch of programs that combine to perform a specific function), has been around at least since the 1960's in the mainframe world. Likely Apple copied the term.
 
I couldn't care less what Apple did or when they did it. The term application (meaning a bunch of programs that combine to perform a specific function), has been around at least since the 1960's in the mainframe world. Likely Apple copied the term.

And in fact for that reason as far as I've ever heard it's actually more correct to refer to software as an application (unless, of course, you use the term "software" ;) ) since outside of a computer science class you rarely encounter single programs anymore, not really.

I do get annoyed a bit with the abbreviation "app" because it sounds sloppy. But that said I've always been under the impression that "app" was specific to applications created for iPhones, etc (which I've always considered "mini-applications" anyway). I've never really heard the term "app" applied to applications/programs/software for regular computers.

Put another way, Office for Mac 2008, which includes Word on which I'm working on a document that just passed the 1000-page mark? That's an application (or, better, software). That little iPhone thing that lets you pretend to be playing a guitar? That's an app. Apps can do cool things, but I still look at them the same way someone might compare a Smart Car to a Monster Truck.

They'd probably have used the term "applet" if it hadn't been taken for something else.

Alex
 
^Make sure you save your document regularly where Word can't get to it! I have seen MS Word eating up anything from novels to small size sedans :)

What we really should be talking about is the 30% apple tax! Isn't that usury?
 
I've always held to the old explanation where an application is an executable file such as Notepad.exe whereas a program can contain more than one application along with numerous other files such as DLL files.
 
I've always held to the old explanation where an application is an executable file such as Notepad.exe whereas a program can contain more than one application along with numerous other files such as DLL files.

The prevailing wisdom in this thread so far seems to indicate the opposite, actually.
 
I've always held to the old explanation where an application is an executable file such as Notepad.exe whereas a program can contain more than one application along with numerous other files such as DLL files.

The prevailing wisdom in this thread so far seems to indicate the opposite, actually.

I seem to be in sync with whomever wrote the Wikipedia article on Application though -whatever that means :)

And Webopedia has this to say about applications:

A program or group of programs designed for end users. Application software can be divided into two general classes: systems software and applications software. Systems software consists of low-level programs that interact with the computer at a very basic level. This includes operating systems, compilers, and utilities for managing computer resources.

In contrast, applications software (also called end-user programs) includes database programs, word processors, and spreadsheets. Figuratively speaking, applications software sits on top of systems software because it is unable to run without the operating system and system utilities.
(My emphasis)

So, programs are anything that runs in a computer, but if a user interacts with it it's called an application.

This also explains why Apple likes the word application; they don't want users to access any software they're not supposed to...
 
^Make sure you save your document regularly where Word can't get to it! I have seen MS Word eating up anything from novels to small size sedans :)

What we really should be talking about is the 30% apple tax! Isn't that usury?

What? Usury is about charging interest. The "Apple tax" is a commission on a sale. Not even remotely related. I hope you were kidding but in the absence of a ;) I can't tell.
 
This also explains why Apple likes the word application; they don't want users to access any software they're not supposed to...
Verses companies like Microsoft?

Maybe you could elaborate on this for us... as someone who was not employed by Apple but was part of the developer program throughout the transition from OPENSTEP to Rhapsody to Mac OS X, I wasn't aware that there was parts of the system I didn't have access to (other than source code for some elements). In fact, after the removal of some proprietary elements from the foundations of Rhapsody, Apple released the source code to developers as Darwin. Before that, NeXT (pushed by Sun) had released all of the application runtime environment elements in the form of the OpenStep Specifications (which is the basis of GNUstep).

So I would like to know what you think you are seeing, because it sure doesn't square with history.

Please, elaborate.
 
The whole 'let us worry about how it works and you just click on the pretty little images'-attitude surrounding apple products just irks me -as a user I need to be not only allowed to fiddle around with weird settings and such, but to be encouraged in doing so.

It's a philosophical thing, not a technical.
 
The whole 'let us worry about how it works and you just click on the pretty little images'-attitude surrounding apple products just irks me -as a user I need to be not only allowed to fiddle around with weird settings and such, but to be encouraged in doing so.

It's a philosophical thing, not a technical.
Not seeing it... could you be more specific. I assume you have more than innuendo.

As a user, I've never not been allowed or encouraged. In fact, by Apple providing developer tools (for free) with every copy of Mac OS X when it was released back in 2001, they were very much encouraging people to get their hands dirty and play with the stuff.

Users don't have to, but Apple has provided the tools needed if one wants to.

So put forward some specifics here. Because you don't seem to have a case on either philosophical or technical grounds. :wtf:
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top