This allowed them to have a pretty tight product line using similar OSs with different user spaces and those needs. It isn't revolutionary on a technical front, that is what all that work was working towards at the colleges that developed them. But it was in fact forward thinking from a product and pricing perspective that a company would make a bold move and incorporate that when we had a lot of PC companies sticking to one arch ride or die style at the time.
If I were on the team I’d imagine my motivation would be ensuring huge platform transitions are successful.
- They’ve happened often enough it’s a valuable effort for people (like me) who feel comfortable/at home in a maintainer role.
- All of the ISA changes have been widely praised as smooth transitions.
- The Intel transition was part of what saved Apple.
- All of the software transitions that have been followed through on (i.e. not the several failed “modern OS projects” before OS X) have been similarly successful, if a bit less smooth.
- All of those things together have been a huge factor in Apple’s overall success in the last two decades.
Doing obscure work that may never see the light of day is probably as motivating as your interest in the work itself and how much you value whatever else it (might) support.