[digitaldisaster]

Did any one here participate in the Developer Previes of Mac OS X with Rhapsody?

Does any one have a copy that I can have or borrow?

DD

[superlarry]

screenshots would be cool, if that's allowed

[diamondsw]

Strange that you mention it, I just installed DR1 on a Compaq I was going to erase. Amazing to see how wretched it was, and how far we've come. The login screen was cool, though...

[mitchell_pgh]

You don't want to know or try it. Think of a cross between OS 9, Nextstep, Windows 3.1 and the most basic parts of OS X. and then inbreed that with an Atari...

I had DP 3... and it was still nasty.

[digitaldisaster]

Had? Do you not have the disk any more? Because I would be very grateful if you could copy/give/lend it to me.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Ya DP3 was cool but a real mess. DP4 was da bomb!

[digitaldisaster]

How many of these things were ther, I knew there was a 2 and 3 but 4??? Any advacne on four any one?

[mitchell_pgh]

I think the "yellow box" is still alive. Some day, when all of the iApps and developer apps have been ported to Cocoa... Apple is going to release it ... for Windows, Linux, and every version of Unix (it's already built into OS X).

Build for OS X, deploy on every OS... Sell the Yellow Box for $100... Profit.

http://mac.excaliburworld.com/rhapso...w-windows.html

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by digitaldisaster:
How many of these things were ther, I knew there was a 2 and 3 but 4??? Any advacne on four any one?

DP4 at WWDC 2000, then PB at Apple Expo 2000.

[digitaldisaster]

Which was the last one to run on x86? I am writing an article about this and need to do some resaerch. Nay info and discs woudl be greatly appriciated

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
DP4 at WWDC 2000, then PB at Apple Expo 2000.

Those were for Mac OS X Client 10.0. The original question was for Rhapsody. I think there were only two DR (Developer Releases) of Rhapsody before it became Mac OS X Server 1.0 and they moved on to Mac OS X Client/Server 10.0 as we know it today.

[mk_schmidt]

There have been two Developer Releases for x86 as stated above.

You can find some screenshots on my site (download section):
http://www.geocities.com/next_infopage

Some more are posted on our still very active NeXT site:
http://next.z80.org

If you need more infos, please contact me.

[Morenix]

i would like to access some early and rare copland builds.

[diamondsw]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
You don't want to know or try it. Think of a cross between OS 9, Nextstep, Windows 3.1 and the most basic parts of OS X. and then inbreed that with an Atari...

I had DP 3... and it was still nasty.

Heh, and if you had DP3, that was Mac OS X DP3. The progression was:

OpenStep 4.2 (Intel only)
Rhapsody DR1 (Intel/PPC, Blue Box shipped later)
Rhapsody DR2 (Blue Box included)
Mac OS X DP1 (Carbon introduced)
Mac OS X DP2 (OS 9-ish Carbon Finder)
Mac OS X DP3 (Aqua)
Mac OS X DP4 (Refinement)
Mac OS X Public Beta (Duh)
Mac OS X 10.0

It's amazing the progress they made. I don't recall the huge lists of other changes, architectural shifts, Mach 2.5 to 3.0, IOKit, Display Postscript to PDF, etc. So if you used "DP3", there was a lot of muck you missed over the couple years previous. It was NOT pretty stuff.

[diamondsw]

Originally posted by Morenix:
i would like to access some early and rare copland builds.

I might still have a copy lying about somewhere. Never installed it or saw it boot (of course, few Apple engineers saw that, either ).

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by diamondsw:
Heh, and if you had DP3, that was Mac OS X DP3. The progression was:

OpenStep 4.2 (Intel only)
Rhapsody DR1 (Intel/PPC, Blue Box shipped later)
Rhapsody DR2 (Blue Box included)
Mac OS X DP1 (Carbon introduced)
Mac OS X DP2 (OS 9-ish Carbon Finder)
Mac OS X DP3 (Aqua)
Mac OS X DP4 (Refinement)
Mac OS X Public Beta (Duh)
Mac OS X 10.0

It's amazing the progress they made. I don't recall the huge lists of other changes, architectural shifts, Mach 2.5 to 3.0, IOKit, Display Postscript to PDF, etc. So if you used "DP3", there was a lot of muck you missed over the couple years previous. It was NOT pretty stuff.

You missed a step.

OpenStep 4.2 (Intel only)
Rhapsody DR1 (Intel/PPC, Blue Box shipped later)
Rhapsody DR2 (Blue Box included)
Mac OS X Server 1.x (Shipping version of Rhapsody)
Mac OS X DP1 (Carbon introduced)
Mac OS X DP2 (OS 9-ish Carbon Finder)
Mac OS X DP3 (Aqua)
Mac OS X DP4 (Refinement)
Mac OS X Public Beta (Duh)
Mac OS X 10.0

The Mac OS X DPs were when they switched to Mach 3.0, Quartz (PDF), and IOKit.

[OpenStep]

Was there such thing as Mac OS X DP1?

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by OpenStep:
Was there such thing as Mac OS X DP1?

Yep.

[ReggieX]

It even came with a handy disk eraser!

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Morenix:
i would like to access some early and rare copland builds.

If I remember correctly, it looked just like OS 9... Copland needed two computers connected by a serial port to run properly. One computer would run the OS and the other would be used to debug it (or something like that)

It would only stay stable for a few minutes...

Kernel panic was the norm...

[mk_schmidt]

>OpenStep 4.2 (Intel only)

OPENSTEP 4.2 runs on Intel/Sparc and NeXT.

>Rhapsody DR1 (Intel/PPC, Blue Box shipped >later)
>Rhapsody DR2 (Blue Box included)

The BlueBox was only shipped for the PPC version and AFAIK it isn�t running on Intel.

[stew]

Screenshots:
http://www.pegasus3d.com/rhapsody/rhapsody_screens.html

[nickm]

I think the "yellow box" is still alive. Some day, when all of the iApps and developer apps have been ported to Cocoa... Apple is going to release it ... for Windows, Linux, and every version of Unix (it's already built into OS X).

Advantages of Yellow box: You can write a program for OS X and run it on Windows.

Disadvantage of Yellow box: You can write a program for OS X and run it on Windows.

At this point, Mac OS X seems to have a pretty strong software development community, so I don't see where yellow box fits in. It primarily benefits other platforms by providing them with a way to run software that can only be run on OS X now. Apple would be better off implementing a "classic" environment that could run Windows programs in emulation, for the people who have 'just one' program that they need to run.

[Arkham_c]

Originally posted by nickm:
At this point, Mac OS X seems to have a pretty strong software development community, so I don't see where yellow box fits in. It primarily benefits other platforms by providing them with a way to run software that can only be run on OS X now. Apple would be better off implementing a "classic" environment that could run Windows programs in emulation, for the people who have 'just one' program that they need to run.

Think of it the other way around. If Windows developers could use yellow box to write their apps for Windows, and get Mac deployment "for free" they would be more likely to support the Mac.

[diamondsw]

Originally posted by mk_schmidt:
>OpenStep 4.2 (Intel only)

OPENSTEP 4.2 runs on Intel/Sparc and NeXT.

>Rhapsody DR1 (Intel/PPC, Blue Box shipped >later)
>Rhapsody DR2 (Blue Box included)

The BlueBox was only shipped for the PPC version and AFAIK it isn�t running on Intel.

Yes, all true. Art, good catch on Server 1.x - I had completely forgotten about that. As I'm sure many of its users would like to...

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by diamondsw:
Yes, all true. Art, good catch on Server 1.x - I had completely forgotten about that. As I'm sure many of its users would like to...

I used it for a year and a half with absolutely no problems. It was a great server OS. We installed it, put it on the rack, and left it there until OS X Server 10.x came out. We had almost 1.5 years of uptime on it. We used it for NetBooting 30 Mac OS 9 clients.

[mk_schmidt]

Well, really cool is that OS-X Server 1.x still uses Display Postscript which means that one can NXHost NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP legacy apps to a OS-X Server box (nice How-to can be found on Andrew Stone�s page: http://www.stone.com).
Works with Rhapsody DR2 as well, but somehow very slow.

YellowBox DR2 for Intel runs very well on XP, W2K. Use it on my XP Box at work for PS viewing and to access my mailboxes.

[Partisan01]

Here's more screenshots. Taken off a gui gallery site, if you navigate up a level there are some really funny screenshots of VERY old systems, always good for burning a half hour.

http://toastytech.com/guis/rhap.html

[Sarc]

copland ... I'd like to see that too ... I remember reading that Photoshop 5.5 was ported to run on it in a week or something as funny as that.

are there any screenshots of copland out there ?

hmmm cooperative multitasking, un-protected memory ... they where right to kill that mofo OS.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Sarc:
copland ... I'd like to see that too ... I remember reading that Photoshop 5.5 was ported to run on it in a week or something as funny as that.

Not quite; 5.5 was ported to Carbon in a week, not Copland.

That's the funny thing that a lot of the Copland-zealots don't get. Copland had no notion of anything like Carbon. Their plan was to use a totally new API called Taligent for native apps, with a "compatibility box" similar to what we call Classic, for running legacy apps. Copland was not, as the zealots tend to claim, OS9 with a bunch of updates. Like OSX, it was a complete rewrite.

are there any screenshots of copland out there ?

I haven't seen any screenshots of Copland in years. But if you can find screenshots of OS8.6 or so, you've pretty much got it as far as looks go. The Platinum interface was originally developed for Copland, which would have been Mac OS 8.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by Partisan01:
Here's more screenshots. Taken off a gui gallery site, if you navigate up a level there are some really funny screenshots of VERY old systems, always good for burning a half hour.

http://toastytech.com/guis/rhap.html

That guy hates despises, etc. IE 4. Woah. I visit that site regularly, you know.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Not quite; 5.5 was ported to Carbon in a week, not Copland.

That's the funny thing that a lot of the Copland-zealots don't get. Copland had no notion of anything like Carbon. Their plan was to use a totally new API called Taligent for native apps, with a "compatibility box" similar to what we call Classic, for running legacy apps. Copland was not, as the zealots tend to claim, OS9 with a bunch of updates. Like OSX, it was a complete rewrite.

I haven't seen any screenshots of Copland in years. But if you can find screenshots of OS8.6 or so, you've pretty much got it as far as looks go. The Platinum interface was originally developed for Copland, which would have been Mac OS 8.

Not quite, AFAIK. Copland was originally intended to be completely compatible, AFAIK. It was just too hard to make that work. And Taligent was YANGOSABA (Yet Another next-gen OS attempt by Apple,) as shown on this page. If you're keeping count, it's:
1. Pink
2. A/UX was an Apple UNIX, but not intended to be their next-gen mainstream OS AFAIK.
2. Taligent
3. Copland
4. Rhapsody, or Mac OS 'ex' (as it was originally called, AFAIK) Server 1.x
5. Mac OS 'ten' X, vBeta and v10.x (i.e. nor v1.x,) the real OS X, added Carbon, non-fullscreen Classic, Aqua in later DPs, Quartz, boot and root from HFS+, and almost we think of when we think OS X. No wonder the version number jumped ahead by 9.
BTW, iThink you might be confusing Copland with Rhapsody. When Apple dumped Copland, they decided to release a completely incompatible OS. (except for a fullscreen Classic)

[barbarian]

Some links on Copland for the interested:

http://www.byte.com/art/9506/sec8/art1.htm

http://www.mactech.com/articles/deve...2/copland.html

for french speakers:

http://www.aventure-apple.com/flops/copland.html

Screenshots & downloadable copland tour:

http://www.squizzle.net/copland/

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by ryaxnb:
Not quite, AFAIK. Copland was originally intended to be completely compatible, AFAIK. It was just too hard to make that work. And Taligent was YANGOSABA (Yet Another next-gen OS attempt by Apple,) as shown on this page. If you're keeping count, it's:
1. Pink
2. A/UX was an Apple UNIX, but not intended to be their next-gen mainstream OS AFAIK.
2. Taligent
3. Copland
4. Rhapsody, or Mac OS 'ex' (as it was originally called, AFAIK) Server 1.x
5. Mac OS 'ten' X, vBeta and v10.x (i.e. nor v1.x,) the real OS X, added Carbon, non-fullscreen Classic, Aqua in later DPs, Quartz, boot and root from HFS+, and almost we think of when we think OS X. No wonder the version number jumped ahead by 9.
BTW, iThink you might be confusing Copland with Rhapsody. When Apple dumped Copland, they decided to release a completely incompatible OS. (except for a fullscreen Classic)

At least Apple knew when to quit.

Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98se
Windows Me

I also think you are confused as to what a failure is and what A/UX was. Apple killed it because it was expensive to maintain, complex and unique. At the time, A/UX was amazing (think early 80's). Many places were using it, but ultimately, they switched over to an OS that was more cost effective, but the OS wasn't a failure. Also 4 and 5 on your list weren't failures. They were the beginning of OS X.

Apple had two real OS failures. Pink and Copland and technically, Pink was a joint venture with IBM.

[barbarian]

Apple had two real OS failures. Pink and Copland and technically, Pink was a joint venture with IBM.

Well there was also whatever OS the Apple /// was running...which went nowhere. I remember it ran Apple // stuff in emulation... shudder.

Try it out with this emulator:
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/software/sara.html

[mitchell_pgh]

Well, again, the OS wasn't a failure... Apple just killed off the "Apple" line of computers.

I don't see OS/2 as a failure... It just didn't catch on...

Pink and Copland didn't work... they were failures...

[miro7]

Not quite, AFAIK. Copland was originally intended to be completely compatible, AFAIK. It was just too hard to make that work. And Taligent was YANGOSABA (Yet Another next-gen OS attempt by Apple,) as shown on this page. If you're keeping count, it's:
1. Pink
2. A/UX was an Apple UNIX, but not intended to be their next-gen mainstream OS AFAIK.
2. Taligent
3. Copland
4. Rhapsody, or Mac OS 'ex' (as it was originally called, AFAIK) Server 1.x
5. Mac OS 'ten' X, vBeta and v10.x (i.e. nor v1.x,) the real OS X, added Carbon, non-fullscreen Classic, Aqua in later DPs, Quartz, boot and root from HFS+, and almost we think of when we think OS X. No wonder the version number jumped ahead by 9.
BTW, iThink you might be confusing Copland with Rhapsody. When Apple dumped Copland, they decided to release a completely incompatible OS. (except for a fullscreen Classic)

You forgot Gershwin--the successor to Copland that would finally bring Macusers into the modern age of operating systems (Copland was amended to include limited mutli-tasking and protected memory--Gershwin would remedy all that).

[wadesworld]

Some links on Copland for the interested:

Whew....thank God that failed. We're about 10,000 times better off today.

Wade

[mk_schmidt]

Nice collection of screenshots (OS-X DP2, Rhapsody..):
http://www.shawcomputing.net/resourc...res/index.html

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by miro7:
You forgot Gershwin--the successor to Copland that would finally bring Macusers into the modern age of operating systems (Copland was amended to include limited mutli-tasking and protected memory--Gershwin would remedy all that).

Once again, Gershwin was not a failed OS. If they had started it, and couldn't finish it or couldn't get it to work, then it would be a failure.

From a marketing standpoint, there are a number of failed OSs out there.

From a technological standpoint, there are very few. I'm not saying some weren't lacking in foundation technologies, but most of them were functional.

[mitchell_pgh]

check out the copyrite information on this image.

http://www.shawcomputing.net/resourc...t-rhap51-b.jpg

[miro7]

Once again, Gershwin was not a failed OS. If they had started it, and couldn't finish it or couldn't get it to work, then it would be a failure.

You're right, I misread the initial post. Seems Gershwin likely never even made it to any real form at all considering that Copland couldn't boot from less than two computers.

I guess I was merely excited to mention Gershwin as it wasn't on the list

[Maflynn]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:

I don't see OS/2 as a failure... It just didn't catch on...

Oh I see it as a failure of epic proportions. They contract out to Microsoft to write the new OS, which they would not license to them and set up the contract to pay microsft per 1,000 lines of code just so they right tight compact code that will result in a speedy responsive system.

If that doesn't spell disaster I don't know what does. Who in their right mind would say to MS we want to replace you as a supplier of the os but by the way could you right that replacement for us right...

They also failed on the marketing side to, but thats story for another time.

Mike

[ReggieX]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
check out the copyrite information on this image

That's a bug in the "About QuickTime" info panel. I just booted my DR2 install and set it to 1997, and got "Copyright 1997" in that panel.

And I certainly would not say OS/2 was a failure. It's running 80% or more of the world's ATMs, it just wasn't successful as a consumer OS. As an Enterprise OS, it's all over the damn place.

[wadesworld]

As an Enterprise OS, it's all over the damn place.

No, it's not. It may be in ATM's, but that doesn't make it an "enterprise OS that's all over place." OS/2 may have a few niches, but as an enterprise OS it's dead.

Wade

[mitchell_pgh]

OS/2 would have put Windows out of business if they would have marketed it better and have cleaned up the install. They should have been giving the OS away, but they didn't. They charged out the a$$ for it.

Again, great OS, a technological success, but a marketing failure.

[SupahCoolX]

Originally posted by barbarian:
Screenshots & downloadable copland tour:
http://www.squizzle.net/copland/

I have all that on a "Mac OS 8 Tour" CD that I got for free at an Apple reseller years ago. IIRC, Copland had been cancelled before I got the CD, but it was a cool look at what could have been. I just popped it in, but I can't run it (no Classic installed on my Mac). Hmm, I wonder what I could snag on eBay for this?

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by SupahCoolX:
I have all that on a "Mac OS 8 Tour" CD that I got for free at an Apple reseller years ago. IIRC, Copland had been cancelled before I got the CD, but it was a cool look at what could have been. I just popped it in, but I can't run it (no Classic installed on my Mac). Hmm, I wonder what I could snag on eBay for this?

Are you sure you don't just have the regular Mac OS 8 tour instead of the Copland OS 8 tour? Apple gave away Mac OS 8 tour CDs when OS 8 was released as part of its publicity.

[SupahCoolX]

Nope, it's the Copland tour. Advanced find, Themes, etc. All the stuff that didn't make the "real" OS8 release.

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
<snip>

I also think you are confused as to what a failure is and what A/UX was. Apple killed it because it was expensive to maintain, complex and unique. <snip>

Yes, but mostly it was the fact that it ran on 68k hardware, and would have been extremely hard to port to the PowerPC architecture. So, Apple pulled the plug on it. Which is a shame, because it was a pretty good OS for its time. When I get my extra bedroom cleaned up, I'm getting a cheap desk to set up my "Flashback Workstation", aka my IIfx 32/250 running A/UX 3.01.

Obligitory screenshot:



This thread is fun!

--Josh