Editing Mac OS X Public Beta (section)

==Native software==
The Public Beta included many of the standard programs bundled with macOS for decades to come, such as [[TextEdit]], [[Preview.app|Preview]], [[Mail.app|Mail]], [[QuickTime Player]] and  [[Terminal.app|Terminal]]. Also included with the Public Beta, but not in any subsequent versions of Mac OS X, were a simple MP3 player ([[iTunes]] had not yet been introduced), Sketch, a basic vector drawing program demonstrating features of [[Quartz (graphics layer)|Quartz]], and HTMLEdit, a [[WYSIWYG]] HTML editor inherited from [[WebObjects]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.macworld.com/article/1154037/osxbeta_whatschanged.html|title=OS X then and now: What's changed since the beta|first=Benj|last=Edwards|work=Macworld|date=September 13, 2010|access-date=September 19, 2012|archive-date=November 1, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121101021344/http://www.macworld.com/article/1154037/osxbeta_whatschanged.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Native [[shrinkware]] applications were few and far between.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/ancient/whatismacosx/software.html|title=What is Mac OS X?|first=Amit|last=Singh|date=December 2003|quote=One relatively common notion about Mac OS X seems to be that there's not a lot of software for it. While it is true that the quantity of software available for Mac OS X is not as large as, say, that on Windows or Linux...|access-date=September 26, 2012|archive-date=May 14, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120514133000/http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/ancient/whatismacosx/software.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://lowendmac.com/deals/best-mac-os-x-prices.html|title=Best Mac OS X 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 Prices|access-date=September 26, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121015201044/http://lowendmac.com/deals/best-mac-os-x-prices.html|archive-date=October 15, 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/macos-x-17.html|title=Mac OS X 10.0|page=17|first=John|last=Siracusa|date=April 2001|work=[[Ars Technica]]|access-date=September 26, 2012|archive-date=August 17, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160817083727/http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/macos-x-17.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/Macs-new-OS-Seven-years-in-the-making/2009-1040_3-254470.html |title=Mac's new OS: Seven years in the making |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101108093106/http://news.cnet.com/Macs-new-OS-Seven-years-in-the-making/2009-1040_3-254470.html |archive-date=November 8, 2010 |date=March 21, 2001 |publisher=[[CNET]] |quote=The first applications will appear this spring; many more are targeted for later months. |url-status=dead }}</ref> [[Early adopters]] had to turn to [[open-source software|open source]] or [[shareware]] alternatives, giving rise to an active homebrew software community around the new operating system. Many programs in use on early Mac OS X systems were inherited from [[OPENSTEP]] or [[Rhapsody (operating system)|Rhapsody]] developer releases (e.g. [[OmniWeb]] or Fire), or were simple [[wrapper library|wrapper]] apps that provided a graphical interface to a command-line Unix program.

The poor state of the [[Carbon (API)|Carbon]] API contrasted with the relative maturity of [[Cocoa (API)|Cocoa]] gave rise to an anti-Carbon bias among Mac OS X users.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cocoabuilder.com/archive/cocoa/52219-carbon-vs-cocoa-arguments.html|title=Carbon vs Cocoa arguments|access-date=September 21, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130511223012/http://www.cocoabuilder.com/archive/cocoa/52219-carbon-vs-cocoa-arguments.html|archive-date=May 11, 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/macos-x-16.html|title=Mac OS X 10.0|page=16|first=John|last=Siracusa|date=April 2001|work=Ars Technica|quote=The general consensus is that Cocoa applications are superior to Carbon applications in terms of support for OS X features, multitasking ability, and interface responsiveness. Whether this is due to any inherent superiority of the technologies in Cocoa or is merely a byproduct of the immaturity of the Carbon implementation (as compared to Cocoa/OpenStep, which has been around for years) is still open for debate|access-date=September 26, 2012|archive-date=January 7, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130107001634/http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/macos-x-16.html|url-status=live}}</ref>