sooooo, uhhhhh, when is Apple gonna make Mac OS 8 & 9 free to download?

[Bobdude161]

This question has been lingering in my head for years. I think now would be the appropriate time to ask Apple this question. Do you think they should? :confused:

[pknz]

Why would they want to do this?

[Bobdude161]

Why would they want to do this?

Did they want to release Mac OS 7.5.3 and lower versions? They didn't have to, but it was a nice service for us Apple collectors. :cool:

[zephead]

Apple has posted System 7.5 and some lower "Systems" on their own website as free to download a few years ago, and I've been curious as to when they'll release the higher "Mac OS" systems as free to download.

[pknz]

Did they want to release Mac OS 7.5.3 and lower versions? They didn't have to, but it was a nice service for us Apple collectors. :cool:

Oh, I didn't even know that. Thanks for the info.

[dpaanlka]

Mac OS 7.6 (the first "modern" classic Mac OS) is still not available either.

[Objectivist-C]

7.6 and above aren't likely to be released anytime soon, as they (apparently) contain code licensed from other companies.

[Counterfit]

That and 8 & 9 are much larger, and would use more bandwidth.

[synth3tik]

companies can do what they want with obsolete-ware. It would be nice, but then again I have my system 7.6, 8.5 and 9.2 discs at home so I am not worried. A lot of computer stores sell the old systems for dirt cheap. I got system 7.6 boxed retail at half price books for $1.25, I got the 8.5 free from Que's here in Minneapolis and I think I paid $5+ shipping for 9.2 off ebay.

[FF_productions]

I think in about 5 years we'll see OS 8/9 available as a free download.

7.6 isn't free yet and there is still people using OS 9 (not many but there is still a few).

[shu82]

I am sure everyone has another mac friend with a copy of all of these. Anyone thinking it isn't ok to share these is way too paranoid. It was nice to download the os 9 updates for free from the apple site. I still an kinda annoyed that I have to pay for every .1 upgrade they make. Didn't this used to be free? I know someone else feels the same way.

With a mac we shouldn't worry about the OS. That is why we bought a mac. I love the full control over the product, and that is why it works with so little flaws. If the software gets too thick for the hardware they just cut it off...Understood. But why should we have to pay for every upgrade our current premium paid hardware supports? Windows didn't make me pay for SP2 and that was a better upgrade than from Panther to Tiger!!!

Come on apple quit acting like a spoiled little girl!!!!

[JNB]

Gather 'round, chil'len, lemme tell you a story...

Used to be (back in the System 6 days), when you wanted the latest OS, you just walked into your local Apple reseller - and there were quite a few in San Diego - with four blank floppies and walked out with 6.0.3, 6.0.5, 6.0.7, whatever was fresh out of the oven.

Apple never charged for the OS (the attitude in Cupertino was, "What's the use of the computer without a means to operate the thing?") The didn't start charging until some mercernary jerks in Redmond charged $99 for their POS excuse of an OS. Some hokey shell riding on the command line and balling the whole thing up in the process.

Then it was , "Oh, people will actually PAY for this?" If memory serves, System 7 was the first official paid upgrade.

But $129 for OS X (NO product activation, BTW!) is an absolute bargain. I gladly fork it over. Unless I can time the Macbook purchase to post-Leopard release...

If'n your good, I may tell you all about the Osborne and the Kaypro. 50 pounds of laptop in two computers...

[harveypooka]

I think in about 5 years we'll see OS 8/9 available as a free download.

7.6 isn't free yet and there is still people using OS 9 (not many but there is still a few).

Just when it's utterly pointless to run it! I've lost all my old OS9 discs. I still want to try and make Deus Ex and Carmaggedon 2 run!

[shu82]

That and 8 & 9 are much larger, and would use more bandwidth.

OS 9 is less than 500 MB! That is a sorry excuse! If you don't sell it retail, you have no rights to it anymore, as to the consumer. A commercial venture when one makes money on said software, is different.

Of course the law is different, but what is right is right.

If they have shared ownership with some of the components of the software, they should just turn a blind eye to its open sharing. Which, I believe they currently are doing, and rightly so.

[RacerX]

It strictly comes down to licensed technology. Period.

There are things in the Mac OS that aren't Apple's to give away for free. If Apple makes them available, they would have to pay the owner of that technology whatever they originally agreed to pay in royalties each time someone downloaded a copy.

These agreements have loop holes (for example, there are licensed parts of 7.5.5, but the 7.5.5 update wasn't covered, so Apple can provide the full 7.5.3 install and the 7.5.5 update, but not the full 7.5.5 install), but not many.

This same question has been asked about other Apple operating systems like A/UX, NEXTSTEP, OPENSTEP and Rhapsody. In all these cases, they have licensed technologies which Apple doesn't have the rights to give away for free.

Infact, in the case of Rhapsody, Apple went through and removed everything that was encumbered and made what was leftover available to the public for free... it was Darwin 0.1 (and the end result was nothing like Rhapsody).

I got the 8.5 free from Que's here in MinneapolisQue shouldn't be giving away anything like that for free.

The closest they can do (legally) is provide 8.5 for a system that shipped with 8.1 or 8.5 originally. In those cases, your license for that software is your hardware. I provide free copies of operating systems for my clients... but only the versions that came with the original hardware they own (or the very next version if the system required a hardware specific version of the original OS).

Que provides operating systems with their used hardware, but you aren't given the latest and greatest. If you buy a Beige G3 from over there, I'll bet you get either 8.1 or 8.5 preinstalled.

We can put it to the test... I'll be grabbing an All-in-One from over there later this week for a client.

[harveypooka]

It would be great if Apple could offer a download version for a small fee. That way it could cover the license costs and Apple could make a small sum.

[Old Mac Geezer]

Gather 'round, chil'len, lemme tell you a story...

Used to be (back in the System 6 days), when you wanted the latest OS, you just walked into your local Apple reseller - and there were quite a few in San Diego - with four blank floppies and walked out with 6.0.3, 6.0.5, 6.0.7, whatever was fresh out of the oven.

Apple never charged for the OS (the attitude in Cupertino was, "What's the use of the computer without a means to operate the thing?") The didn't start charging until some mercernary jerks in Redmond charged $99 for their POS excuse of an OS. Some hokey shell riding on the command line and balling the whole thing up in the process.

Then it was , "Oh, people will actually PAY for this?" If memory serves, System 7 was the first official paid upgrade.

But $129 for OS X (NO product activation, BTW!) is an absolute bargain. I gladly fork it over. Unless I can time the Macbook purchase to post-Leopard release...

If'n your good, I may tell you all about the Osborne and the Kaypro. 50 pounds of laptop in two computers...


For that matter, the family pack is an absolute steal and still costs less than a single user license of Windows.

[Old Mac Geezer]

OS 9 is less than 500 MB! That is a sorry excuse! If you don't sell it retail, you have no rights to it anymore, as to the consumer. A commercial venture when one makes money on said software, is different.

Of course the law is different, but what is right is right.

If they have shared ownership with some of the components of the software, they should just turn a blind eye to its open sharing. Which, I believe they currently are doing, and rightly so.

Where did you ever get the idea that just because someone isn't marketing a piece of software anymore that it automatically makes it right to steal it?? All you abandonware people better wake up and realize that unless the holder of the copyright officially releases his rights to the public domain, then he still owns his own work. Whether you think it is right for him to retain his rights is irrelevant. The law protects the copyright holder, not you.

[mkrishnan]

That and 8 & 9 are much larger, and would use more bandwidth.

Is that really a concern for a company that provides hi-def trailers, 180 MB combo updaters, and even let you use to download XCode? I somehow think the bandwidth cost, especially when you consider how many (i.e. few) people actually want these files, is not so bad....

[Bobdude161]

It would be great if Apple could offer a download version for a small fee. That way it could cover the license costs and Apple could make a small sum.

I like this idea. If not free, maybe a small cost? But I have no idea how they would charge you per download the way the support site is built.

[jane doe]

when the support liability is gone. Thats 7 years from the date of its end of life.

[Kashchei]

What a timely post, for me at least. I helped a friend whose office machine running OS 9 crashed. I hadn't used OS 9 since I retired Classic from my machines. What a wonderful day that was, although I must admit that it was nice to use the old girl one more time.

[madmax_2069]

i have never got a answer to what software was in OS 7.6 - 9.2.2 that was from another company making releasing those OSes unable to be free.

[RacerX]

i have never got a answer to what software was in OS 7.6 - 9.2.2 that was from another company making releasing those OSes unable to be free.The Adobe software would be enough... it is the Postscript licenses for NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody that are the most encumbering. And that was part of the reason Apple replaced Display Postscript with a rendering engine based on PDF.

The built-in Postscript elements of the older Mac OS alone would make them costly to provide for free. Apple was forced at one point to eat these types of cost when they ended the clone era and purchase Power Computing (that is why 7.5.3 is available).

I might be able to go back and find out what elements of other companies' technology are in the older Mac OS, but I don't think that there are any publicly available sources for the exact terms of Apple's licenses with those companies. Some things in A/UX and NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody are easy to point out (System V in A/UX and 4.3BSD and 4.4BSD in the Mach based operating systems... NeXT/Apple used the encumbered version of BSD until the work on Darwin started which used elements of 4.4BSD Lite and FreeBSD).

As it stands today, Apple is getting burned by the codecs in QuickTime. They have to pay a number of companies each time someone downloads a copy from their servers. It is only justifiable to the bottom line if (in someway) it added to the sales of hardware (where they make there money).


:rolleyes:

More importantly (and most often overlooked), license agreements don't scale with time. If Apple was paying around $30 per copy for the Mac OS for licensed software when it was new in the stores, they would still have to pay $30 per copy that they distribute via download today (no matter how old that software is). And in the cases of A/UX and NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody, you are actually talking about a few hundred dollars per copy... which again, they would be responsible for if they made that software available for download.

[chasemac]

Why? Just why?

[Allotriophagy]

Why? Just why?

Because for those people who enjoy using/repairing/restoring older Apple hardware, the cost of purchasing the required operating system software can be far in excess of the original hardware. If you can find it in the first place, that is.

I couldn't use OS7.6 on my PowerBook 3400c because it did not have the original install disc, they were rarely on eBay and cost a fortune when they were, none of the free versions were compatible.

[dpaanlka]

Why? Just why?

Uh, because a lot of people like to use it for fun?

[zephead]

Why? Just why?

Because I said so. :D

[Swarmlord]

Because for those people who enjoy using/repairing/restoring older Apple hardware, the cost of purchasing the required operating system software can be far in excess of the original hardware. If you can find it in the first place, that is.

I couldn't use OS7.6 on my PowerBook 3400c because it did not have the original install disc, they were rarely on eBay and cost a fortune when they were, none of the free versions were compatible.

In the interest of keeping older hardware live whether for nostalgia or something else, I'd have to agree. Not like having an old Mac running OS9 is going to cut into sales of new Macs.

[madmax_2069]

the old Mac OS still has allot of life left in it, allot of People think they have to have the latest and greatest to be able to do anything and anything under that they think is not useable. i can tell you that system 7.6 even on a 68k can still produce like a new system can. yea you cant do as much in some areas but that is not the point.

i still use OS 9.2.2 on my Mac for a few reasons, for one it has stuff for it that OS X wont or cant run. and 2 it 100% fully works with almost all the hardware on my system. don't get me wrong OS X is a great OS and i am by no means shooting it down (cause i use 10.4.9 on my Beige G3) i can say that OS X can do things that cant be done in OS 9 . both OS'es are great, its just one is a bit out of date in a few areas but by no means is it a bad OS.

i dont know why people think just cause its old that it's not useable anymore. i guess you can say they are closed minded about things. or just want to be a troll about stuff like this and trying to get people that use the older OSes fired up. i use OS 9.2.2 on my Beige G3 and 7.6.1 on my Performa 475. why, cause i can

[dpaanlka]

Honestly I'm amazed that people insist that they don't "get" why so many of us like to do this. Maybe it's not for you, but you can't say you don't understand it.

Like OMG it's so old why would ANYBODY want to even TOUCH one of those!?!?!?

[psychofreak]

My grandad has to use parallels for his scanner as the only mac driver is for OS9, it would be cool to have it....

[RacerX]

i dont know why people think just cause its old that it's not useable anymore. i guess you can say they are closed minded about things. or just want to be a troll about stuff like this and trying to get people that use the older OSes fired up.I know I'm all fired up about this! :mad:

:rolleyes:

Okay, maybe not, but it was a great segway into this... the latest stuff I produced with some of my old software. These were generally made using Mac OS 8.6, but could have been made using 7, 8 or 9 on 68030 systems or better (though, obviously, the slower the processor, the longer it would take to produce the same results).

http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/constellation/1017_03292007.jpg
Click to play clip (http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/constellation/1017_03292007s.mov)

http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/constellation/1017_03292007_set.jpg

http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/constellation/1017_closeups.jpg

I think that the minimum software I would need for this would be System 7 (free up to 7.5.5), Strata Vision 3D 4.0 (free... though I'm now using Strata StudioPro 1.5 which I got on ebay for $40), Strata VideoShop 3.0 (free) and Photoshop LE 4.0 (free) or LE 5.0 (free), or Elements 1.0 ($8). And with $10 for hardware for a 604 at 150 MHz or faster (or $25 for a Beige G3 All-in-One), I don't see where the barrier to entry for this type of stuff is all that steep anymore. :eek:

Even if the OS is not free, the small amount that you pay for it unlocks a massive amount of free or inexpensive software that can still produce great results.

[rosalindavenue]

RacerX-- that is beautiful work. Really wonderful. Is that Deep Space Station K7?

[thecreativ1]

Here's Apple's page for old downloads:

http://www.info.apple.com/support/oldersoftwarelist.html

I didn't read through all of it, but someone here might get some use out of it. The first section is for the Apple IIGS....MAN that brings back memories! That was my first computer!

[RacerX]

Is that Deep Space Station K7?Well, I call it the K9 (just in case anyone thinks that my model is a dog :p ). While there are plenty of references for the K7, when it came to doing the windows on it, I wanted the feel of the station as I recall seeing it originally in the early 70's rather than a perfectly accurate recreation.

Here are some more shots of the station...

http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/K9-1017_03112007.jpg

http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/K9-1017_03142007.jpg

In the end what I've found so surprising is that if I (a complete naivest) can produce this type of stuff with circa 1995 technology, why is it that people weren't actually producing models of the Enterprise to this level back then? For example this image (http://www.stguardian.to/fed/constitution/constwall01.jpg) was featured in a July of 1999 Star Trek Magazine. Before I started this stuff in December of last year, I figured that (using 1994 software on a 1997 PowerBook) that I would be lucky to get anywhere close to that. Now I sorta wonder how that was passable for use in a 1999 official Paramount Trek magazine. :eek:

I mean, really, I'm completely new at this and using software that was available 12 to 14 years ago, yet I don't seem to find really nice starship models popping up until 2000-2001. The only thing that I can think of is no one was motivated enough to put the time into it. But the tools were absolutely there... my images can attest to that fact. Anything I've done could have been done by someone with the same tools in 1995.

Even today I'm amazed that people have spent hundreds (or thousands) to do this type of modeling based on the assumption that only the newest hardware and software is up to the task.

Honestly I'm amazed that people insist that they don't "get" why so many of us like to do this. Maybe it's not for you, but you can't say you don't understand it.Yeah, I've always been one to point out that people were doing quality work on old systems with old software back when they were high priced new systems running high priced new software. There shouldn't be any surprise when people are able to produce at least equal quality work with those exact same tools today.

Beyond the need for native versions of Adobe software for Intel Macs, is there really anything so incredible in the Creative Suite 3 that justifies Adobe's new monopolistic prices?

At some point people have to snap out of the consumer mindset that has them buying new stuff simply because it is new and what they have is now old. Wake up people! Upgrade when you have a real need. Stop buying stuff just because a corporation as basically told you to! :eek:

[madmax_2069]

yea i remember you posting those in another thread, and man those are awesome looking, you defiantly have talent and a eye for detail. you rock. i bet there is allot more you could have added on top of that to make them even more lifelike.

so you say a 68k could do the same thing as above (altho more time consuming cause the slower cpu speed). man i got to get that software you are using and give it a go. i love doing stuff like that it gives you a good feeling once you are done making something out of nothing. even to someone with no 3d or 2d modeling experience it would be fun for some people to learn to do.

[RacerX]

so you say a 68k could do the same thing as above (altho more time consuming cause the slower cpu speed).I'd be willing to bet that I could do the same stuff on my Quadra 950 (maybe not the animation, as it would take too long) without the PowerPC 601 upgrade that is in it. Considering the amount of memory I have (136 MB) and the fact that I have Photoshop 4.0 (which was universal), making single frame images like this wouldn't be any harder than using my PowerPC systems now. Infact, my Quadra 950 might even be better than my PowerBook 3400c as the PowerBook only has 80 MB of memory.

The only thing that stops me for doing this on that system is that the three 21" displays are all grayscale.

[madmax_2069]

the reason i asked is cause i have a Performa 475 with a full 040 40mhz CPU (curently running at the stock 25mhz) 132mb ram. 1.2gb HDD, 1mb vram, running Os 7.6.1, and a LaCie External SCSI CDRW drive. soon i will be setting it to 33mhz , and even try 40mhz when i get the proper parts. and would love to take a stab at it with the P 475.

if that fails i could use my AIO in my sig lol.

[dpaanlka]

I would like to see stuff done in 7.6.1. If I knew how to do it, I would do it for the sake of screenshots.

[Lord Blackadder]

I doubt Apple will release the OSs to free-ness any time soon. I don't see why they can't but I have a feeling they won't...