Looking for OS X Server 1.0 or 1.2 (Rhapsody)

[corbin_a2]

If anyone has a copy or has an idea of where to get a copy it would be much appreciated! I would love to run it on my old G3!

[grapes911]

I have a copy of OS X Server 10.3. I know it's not what you asked for, but I figured I put it out there anyway.

The requirements are:
Xserve, Power Mac G5, G4, or G3, iMac or eMac computer; 128 MB of RAM; built-in USB; 4GB of available disk space.

I have the box (which is only in OK condition) and everything that came with it. It is the unlimited client version. The disks are CDs. PM me if interested.

[5300cs]

I ran Panther Server, and now Tiger Server, on a B&W G3.

400Mhz G3 (over clocked), 768 ram and a 32mb video card and they both ran just fine.

[RacerX]

It should most likely be noted that corbin is looking for Rhapsody, and not just a server.

Like the later versions of Mac OS X Server (which are basically Mac OS X with a suite of server software installed), Mac OS X Server 1.x is basically Rhapsody workstation with additional software for using it as a server.

The two key things about Mac OS X Server 1.x is that it is (1) the only publicly released version of Rhapsody and (2) the most stable release and most compatible with both software and hardware (the 1.2 release can be run on Macs using PowerPC 604 processors up to the early PowerMac G4 series systems).

So While Mac OS X Server 1.x can be used as a very nice server, corbin isn't looking for a server solution here.

[corbin_a2]

It should most likely be noted that corbin is looking for Rhapsody, and not just a server.

Like the later versions of Mac OS X Server (which are basically Mac OS X with a suite of server software installed), Mac OS X Server 1.x is basically Rhapsody workstation with additional software for using it as a server.

The two key things about Mac OS X Server 1.x is that it is (1) the only publicly released version of Rhapsody and (2) the most stable release and most compatible with both software and hardware (the 1.2 release can be run on Macs using PowerPC 604 processors up to the early PowerMac G4 series systems).

So While Mac OS X Server 1.x can be used as a very nice server, corbin isn't looking for a server solution here.


Correct. Thank you for clearing that up. :)

[RacerX]

I don't know if anyone is still looking for these, but if so... two just came up for auction on ebay today.Mac OS X Server 1.1 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-Mac-OS-X-Server-version-1-1_W0QQitemZ9722312514QQcategoryZ80258QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)*
Mac OS X Server 1.2v3 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-Mac-OS-X-Server-version-1-2-v3_W0QQitemZ9722313922QQcategoryZ80258QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)**




* Media labeled 1.1 is a misprint, what is actually on the CD is 1.0 (Rhapsody 5.3) which can be updated to 1.0.2 (Rhapsody 5.5) via a free download from Apple (here (http://download.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Apple_Software_Updates/MultiCountry/Mac_OS_X_Server/Mac_OS_X_Server_OS/)). The seller wouldn't know this and Apple no longer has the technical article explaining this in their support section (though I do have the content of that article here (http://www.rhapsodyos.org/system/rhapsody_media/rhap_ver_1.html)).

** Version 1.2v3 is the same as 1.2 (both of which are Rhapsody 5.6), except that 1.2v3 adds support for both the Gigabit Ethernet edition of the G4 and the first eMacs. Version 1.2/1.2v3 (Rhapsody 5.6) differs from version 1.0.x (Rhapsody 5.3-5.5) in the addition of support for early G4 systems.

[SC68Cal]

We have a copy of Rhapsody at work. I'm going to install it on a machine at some point and give it a try. The server box it was under kept kernel panicking.

[RacerX]

The server box it was under kept kernel panicking.It was with Rhapsody that Apple started realizing that Mac OS X was going to be very picky about the quality of memory. It was shortly after noticing problems with Rhapsody that Apple did that firmware update that made some memory not work anymore (back in 1999 or 2000 as I recall).

I had a 32 MB DIMM in my 7500 that was causing problems... that was a hard one to find as I had eight DIMMs in that system and had to find it by trial and error.

But once pulled that system has been perfect ever since.

[RacerX]

If anyone is still looking for these, one is up for auction on ebay currently.Mac OS X Server 1.1 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Mac-OS-X-Server-restoration-CD_W0QQitemZ270046152069QQihZ017QQcategoryZ80258QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)*
No one has bid yet... currently at $9.98. :eek:




* Media labeled 1.1 is a misprint, what is actually on the CD is 1.0 (Rhapsody 5.3) which can be updated to 1.0.2 (Rhapsody 5.5) via a free download from Apple (here (http://download.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Apple_Software_Updates/MultiCountry/Mac_OS_X_Server/Mac_OS_X_Server_OS/)). The seller wouldn't know this, but Apple has the technical article explaining this in their support section (here (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=24884)).

[FullmetalZ26]

RacerX-- that copy of OS X Server 1.0 you linked to wouldn't by chance support a Power Mac 6500, would it? I have an old 225MHz model in the closet I've been wanting to do something with, and this seems like the perfect opportunity.

[RacerX]

RacerX-- that copy of OS X Server 1.0 you linked to wouldn't by chance support a Power Mac 6500, would it?No, that system wasn't supported by any version of Rhapsody... I have a page (here (http://www.rhapsodyos.org/hardware/system_requirements/system_requirements_1.html#5.3P)) that covers what systems will work with which versions. This version should run nicely on the following systems:Power Macintosh 7300
Power Macintosh 7500 (with a 604/604e daughter card)
Power Macintosh 7600
Power Macintosh 8500
Power Macintosh 8600
Power Macintosh 9500
Power Macintosh 9600
Power Macintosh G3 (Beige Desktop, Mini Tower and All-in-One)
Power Macintosh G3 (Blue & White)
PowerBook 3400c (Blue Box doesn't function on this model)
PowerBook G3 (Kanga)
PowerBook G3 Series (Wallstreet)I've personally run this exact version (same serial number as the one in the auction) on the systems in italics.

[FullmetalZ26]

^ I guess I'll give NetBSD a try on it then. Thanks for your help!

[aquajet]

Thanks for the link 'X. I've been wanting to run it on my 9600/350 for a while, and now I can! :)

[RacerX]

A 9600/350 is a great system to run it on... should be pretty fast (it runs great on my 8600/300).

Congrats!:D

[jhu]

It was with Rhapsody that Apple started realizing that Mac OS X was going to be very picky about the quality of memory. It was shortly after noticing problems with Rhapsody that Apple did that firmware update that made some memory not work anymore (back in 1999 or 2000 as I recall).

I had a 32 MB DIMM in my 7500 that was causing problems... that was a hard one to find as I had eight DIMMs in that system and had to find it by trial and error.

But once pulled that system has been perfect ever since.

interesting. so it's only mac os x that has issues with memory quality? how about linux and other unix-like oses? i would guess no since cheap memory seems to work on my non-mac machine.

[RacerX]

interesting. so it's only mac os x that has issues with memory quality? Memory quality is important on any computer... but Apple started forcing quality standards before Mac OS X because most of the crashing issues of Mac OS 7/8/9 could be linked to poor memory quality (which, in turn, reflects poorly on Apple). It was a firmware update while in Mac OS 9 that made some Macs stop recognizing poor quality memory.

While Mac OS 7/8/9 might crash, the problems that came from bad memory on Unix systems could be even worse.

And we are talking about any of the systems from NeXTSTEP 0.8 up to Mac OS X 10.4.x. In the case of NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody, we are talking about Mach plus 4.3/4.4BSD. Darwin was Apple's first steps into using 4.4BSD Lite (via elements from FreeBSD).

But by no means is this restricted to Mac OS X systems. I had a client last week with a 7300 that was crashing constantly. It turned out to be one 64 MB DIMM that was causing all the issues. And pulling it made the system solid again.

how about linux and other unix-like oses? i would guess no since cheap memory seems to work on my non-mac machine.I have no idea about Linux... I don't use it. But are we talking about a pre-2000 non-Mac system? You quoted me discussing Macs from 1995 to 1999... are you running Linux on a 1995-99 era PC with cheap memory from that period? :eek:

For Unix systems memory quality has always been (historically) very important. Suns, SGIs and NeXT systems usually required a higher grade of memory than your average PC would use.

But then again, when you pay $800+ for an operating system (which was the average price for a Unix OS through the late 90's), you weren't going to risk your system on questionable memory quality (specially considering the thousands you most likely spent on the hardware to begin with).

I've seen plenty of Unix systems be brought to their knees because of memory issues... and that would usually be the first thing to check too. When a rock solid Unix system starts acting flaky, one of the first places to look is hardware.

Besides, memory quality (on the whole) these days doesn't vary as widely as it did in the 90's. And all memory today is cheap compared to the prices we once had to pay.

But yes, Unix venders who's reputations were made or broken on the quality of their hardware were very picky about what memory would go into their systems. Reputations aren't made or broken for Open Source Unix-like systems on PCs in the same way. I doubt that Linux or BSD are going to lose revenue if they don't perform to the same standards on todays cheap PCs as Unix venders had to back in the 90's.

I don't think you can compare your 21st century systems with pre turn of the century hardware. Slower systems, poorer manufacturing quality across everything, and dramatically higher prices for anything computer related meant that you hunted for quality if you wanted stability... today everything is faster than people should need and it is all a bargain.

But I didn't see Linux in the early to mid 90's as being that much better than, say, Windows NT on the same hardware. On great hardware both were very solid, on cheap hardware... you got what you paid for. ;)

[jhu]

I have no idea about Linux... I don't use it. But are we talking about a pre-2000 non-Mac system? You quoted me discussing Macs from 1995 to 1999... are you running Linux on a 1995-99 era PC with cheap memory from that period? :eek:



i had an old ibm netvista made in that time frame running linux. never had a problem. then i migrated some of the memory over to a blue and white g3 running os x, and the g3 started crashing more often than usual. perhaps that particular g3 was crash prone to begin with, but removing the memory made it crash a lot less often.

[RacerX]

then i migrated some of the memory over to a blue and white g3 running os x, and the g3 started crashing more often than usual. perhaps that particular g3 was crash prone to begin with...Well, besides the fact that the right memory for one system isn't always the right memory for other systems, you are talking about a Blue & White.

I don't own a Blue & White for one reason... I can't stand unstable systems. And you've confirmed it with the statement "started crashing more often than usual". My Mac OS X systems don't crash, so I surely won't want hardware that crashes enough to have a term like "usual" associated with it.

I've been offered 4 Blue & Whites since 2003 and refused to accept any of them. Having serviced them since they were released by Apple, the last thing I would ever do is let any of them into my home.

The only way I'd let a Blue & White into my collection is if it was using a 661-2253 logic board.


__________________

addition
i had an old ibm netvista made in that time frame running linux. never had a problem. then i migrated some of the memory over to a blue and white g3...I'd point out that I have a Silicon Graphics Indy running with 128 MB of memory (which can support 256 MB). The Indy, Indigo (R4000 series) and Indigo 2 all used the 72 pin SIMM form factor for their memory.

I have tons of 72 pin SIMMs from PowerMac 6100/7100/8100s... but I sure wouldn't migrate any of that memory into a Silicon Graphics system. Just because two parts may physically fit doesn't make them the right parts to go together.

Silicon Graphics are UNIX systems and they are very picky about memory.

Like I said, historically Unix venders were picky to protect their reputations. That was just the way it was.