Looking for OS X Server 1.0 or 1.2 (Rhapsody)

Discussion in 'Apple Collectors' started by corbin_a2, Apr 9, 2006.

  1. corbin_a2 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    #1
    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!
     
  2. grapes911 Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #2
    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:
    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.
     
  3. 5300cs macrumors 68000

    5300cs

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    japan
    #3
    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.
     
  4. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #4
    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.
     
  5. corbin_a2 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    #5

    Correct. Thank you for clearing that up. :)
     
  6. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #6
    I don't know if anyone is still looking for these, but if so... two just came up for auction on ebay today.



    * 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). 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).

    ** 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.
     
  7. SC68Cal macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    #7
    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.
     
  8. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #8
    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.
     
  9. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #9
    If anyone is still looking for these, one is up for auction on ebay currently.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). The seller wouldn't know this, but Apple has the technical article explaining this in their support section (here).
     
  10. FullmetalZ26 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    #10
    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.
     
  11. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #11
    No, that system wasn't supported by any version of Rhapsody... I have a page (here) 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.
     
  12. FullmetalZ26 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    #12
    ^ I guess I'll give NetBSD a try on it then. Thanks for your help!
     
  13. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #13
    Thanks for the link 'X. I've been wanting to run it on my 9600/350 for a while, and now I can! :)
     
  14. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #14
    A 9600/350 is a great system to run it on... should be pretty fast (it runs great on my 8600/300).

    Congrats!:D
     
  15. jhu macrumors 6502a

    jhu

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    #15
    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.
     
  16. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #16
    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.

    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. ;)
     
  17. jhu macrumors 6502a

    jhu

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    #17
    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.
     
  18. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #18
    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'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.
     
  19. Intelligent macrumors 6502a

    Intelligent

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    #19
    I know this thread is waaaaaaaay old, But does anyone know where to download OS X Server 1.0 released in 1999? I'm collecting apple systems and i have legal copies from mac os 9 to mavericks, the other ones are free and not illegal to download. I don't have all .4 10.4.4 etc. But all major. Cant find it on macintosh garden or anything, its like very very rare.
     
  20. Anonymous Freak macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #20
    No, and no one will provide it on here - providing download links to commercial software is forbidden by forum rules (as is asking, for that matter.)
     
  21. Intelligent macrumors 6502a

    Intelligent

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    #21
    But thats the thing - it is not commercial software, its abandon ware.
     
  22. tdiaz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    #22
    I would hardly call something that was put out by Apple Computer, an entity that for all intents is still operating, "abandonware".

    ..and that term has no legal standing. Lack of enforcement ≠ permission granted to distribute.

    It just mean that there is no one left standing that cares to enforce it.
     
  23. Anonymous Freak, Apr 7, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2014

    Anonymous Freak macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #23
    There is no such thing as "abandonware". It carries no legal definition at all.

    Mac OS X Server 1.x was commercially-sold software. Apple has never released it as "free", therefore it is a violation of the license to distribute copies of it. You can transfer a license to someone else, but that means a legally-licensed user getting rid of it - such as sending the CD to someone else, usually for money.

    Conversely, Apple has released Mac OS 7.5 for free, even though it was originally paid software. Even so, they don't grant everyone the right to distribute it - you can't just host a download of it. It has to come directly from Apple.

    Per the MacRumors forum rules, it is against forum policy to offer, or even solicit, software in violation of the license.


    Some common terms for types of software - although none of them have any "legal" definition, they are merely nicknames. Note that nearly all software isn't "bought", it is "licensed". You only acquire the right to use it in certain ways:
    • Free / Open software: Software for which the source code is available to all, to modify and re-share. Some licenses require you to re-share your changes (GPL,) some don't (BSD.) Linux, Apache, and Firefox are a few examples.
    • Freeware: Software that does not have its source code made available, but is free of charge. AOL Instant Messenger, iTunes, and Adobe Reader are some examples. Some of these grant anyone the permission to distribute, most don't.
    • Shareware: Software that is free to acquire, but which is expected that you will pay a fee if you want to continue using it. Much more popular in the early days of personal computers, very few "big" shareware packages remain. Some are pure "honor system" - working perfectly even if you don't pay. Some grant you either a certain period of time they'll work, then stop working completely. Some have certain features disabled until you pay. "Trial version" of software are similar in intent. WinZip is one of the main examples left. The "Free trial" version of many iPhone apps that have more full paid versions (like Angry Birds,) are another example.
    • Commercial Software: The standard "pay money to get the software" type. Microsoft Office, Final Cut Pro, Adobe Creative Suite. But even includes cheaper software like Minecraft Pocket Edition. Just because it's old doesn't make it drop in to another category automatically.

    Some software developers, when their software gets old, will release it under one of the free types. Again, Apple has done so with very old versions of the Mac OS (7.5 and earlier.) id Software has done it with most of their games after a certain point (Doom, Wolfenstein,) making even the source code available. But unless they explicitly release it this way, it's still covered by copyright, and can't be shared for free.
     

Share This Page