OS 9 and OS X Incremental Updaters

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by AmestrisXServe, Mar 2, 2014.

  1. AmestrisXServe macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    #1
    Does anyone have any (or all of the incremental updater packages?

    Apple used to have all of these on their servers, but stripped away the incremental updates, and only has the latest 'combo update' for each major release.

    What I do not want: Combo updates, such as 10.1.5 Combo.

    What I do want:
    Incremental Updaters, such as 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.,1.3, etc.

    Updates for OS8, OS9, and OS X are what I need. I should have all of the System-7 updaters, including the normally unreleased items, and most of System 6 and earlier.

    I am trying to generate a new mirror for these, as some builds are better than others for various hardware, and all have historic value, that is being neglected.

    I don't have most of the OSX updaters now, so I would appreciate those, as Apple have removed them from their support site, as well as rearranging it many times, so that almost all old links to articles are now broken. (Many thanks, Apple, for breaking every support knowledge-base link from 1994-through-2010 on countless websites.)

    For other content: Once I have completed the archive arrangement, I will post all the versions in the packages, and if anyone has anything that I am missing, please let me know, so that I can archive it too.

    Any beta/unreleased items missing from the archive, when finished, would also be most welcome.
     
  2. eyoungren macrumors P6

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    Phoenix • 85037
    #2
    Since you asked for OS9 first, take a look here. If you browse up through the parent directorys you'll also find a lot of other stuff.

    This is an FTP site maintained by a university in Australia. It's the only place I know of where you can get a copy of iTunes 4.0, which is the ONLY version of iTunes EVER made that allows you to stream your library directly over the internet. All other versions limit you to home sharing as of 4.0.1.

    Anyway, they've got a LOT of older stuff in there, including your OS X updates.
     
  3. AmestrisXServe thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    #3
    Howzat? If the OSX Updaters are there, could you please point me to the correct path?

    The files there are essentially the same as those present on the Apple sites, and there is seemingly no OSX Updater section. The Mac OS X directory has two files:

    MacOS_X_SCSICard_Updater.smi.bin
    and
    System_Disk_Utility.smi.bin

    It is also lacking one of the incremental updates for OS9.

    These are the released versions of OS9.x:
    9.0 (Sonata)
    9.0.2 (Powerbook Firewire Model Disc)
    9.0.3 (iMac/iMac DV Disc)
    9.0.4 (Minuet)
    9.1 (Fortissimo)
    9.2 (Moonlight)
    9.2.1 (Limelight)
    9.2.2 (LU1)

    While 9.0.2, and 9.0.3 are only available as full installs, 9.2 should be an updater in and of itself, yet it is absent, so that is still required; although I may have that living somewhere.

    I will further, need to find OS 9.0.2 and 9.0.3 somewhere, and probably 9.0.1, which is likely a beta release.

    The MacOS 8.x updates are all there, but none of the OSX Updates are, and those are the files that I am critically missing, that Apple have removed from their servers.

    Here is the full list of OSX Incremental Updates:
    ---------
    10.0.1
    10.0.2
    10.0.3
    10.0.4
    10.1.1
    10.1.2
    10.1.3
    10.1.4
    10.1.5
    10.2.1
    10.2.2
    10.2.3
    10.2.4
    10.2.5
    10.2.6
    10.2.7
    10.2.8
    10.3.1
    10.3.2
    10.3.3
    10.3.4
    10.3.5
    10.3.6
    10.3.7
    10.3.8
    10.3.9
    10.4.1
    10.4.2
    10.4.3
    10.4.4
    10.4.5
    10.4.6
    10.4.7
    10.4.8
    10.4.9
    10.4.10
    10.4.11
    10.5.1
    10.5.2
    10.5.3
    10.5.4
    10.5.5
    10.5.6
    10.5.7
    10.5.8
    10.6.1
    10.6.2
    10.6.3
    10.6.4
    10.6.5
    10.6.6
    10.6.7
    10.6.8
    ----------

    As I find any of these, I will mark them in bold.

    I will also check my system discs, and see if I actually have the base version of each OS. My goal is to create a full set of every Apple OS, from the Apple II (DOS 3.2), through to OSX 10.6, including the //gs, the ///, and the Lisa, as a sort of archive, for historic value, and interest.

    The simple fact that Apple have removed the individual, incremental OSX updates from the Internet is reason enough to make a full, proper mirror of everything possible.

    I do know that iTunes 4 has Internet streaming, but it is version-incompatible with iTunes 6 and later, which, while it can present a stream, means that most clients can't read it.

    Apple removed that feature, to protect their DRM0centric iTunes store, which is a real farce, in my opinion, and is a feature that should have, or could have been restored, but Apple will never do it, and they made their later iTunes versions incapable of using streams from iTunes 4, to defeat anyone using the older software to escape their new rules.

    In fact, Apple have made iTunes 6 & iTunes 7 sharing incompatible with each-other, and iTunes 7 & iTunes 8 unable to properly communicate. All of this for the sake of the Holy DRM. I can't even properly share libraries on my LAN, due to their nonsense, and I am forced to run iTunes 7 on my newest systems, just to access my central media repository. That's a load of rubbish, and if I could use iTunes 4 for all of this, it would be nice, but that would make my streams incompatible with anyone else.

    What shocks me is that no iTunes Server software has ever surfaced, that is capable of launching streams, with a client-end programme, capable of negotiating the stream to iTunes. To me, that would be extremely logical, and profitable, and yet, nothing of the sort exists to date.

    I have versions of iTunes, between iTunes v1, through v7 in my archive, in addition to SoundJam, that I should have one one system or another. If Apple had never bought SoundJam, the world may be a much more interesting place.
     
  4. harrymatic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2013
    Location:
    United Kingdom
  5. AmestrisXServe thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    #5
    Oh, brill! Thank you, indeed. I was in a very wrong part of the directory structure, and misled my the MacOS X path.
     
  6. chrfr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    #6
    You can find them with Google too. Searching for OS X 10.1.1 update found this:
    http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1132
     
  7. AmestrisXServe thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    #7
    Aye, but when you follow those links, you will find that Apple have changed their entire website, and that many of those links are now broken, resolving to a generic search page. This one does work, but others do not. I discovered this, by attepting to use their websites to locate the files.
     
  8. YanniDepp macrumors 6502

    YanniDepp

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    #8
    You know there are copyright issues to what you're doing? At best, it's a grey area.

    Apple have been known to go after people who host old versions of their software. Especially iTunes. Sites like OldVersion had to pull all their old iTunes downloads at Apple's request.
     
  9. AmestrisXServe thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    #9
    I honestly, couldn't care less. To me, once a company publicly announces that they have stopped supporting, and stopped selling something, they leave it open to distribution by others; particularly when it is a base requirement for using their hardware, and even more so, when it was offered for direct download at no cost by the creator.

    I didn't say anything about mirroring all the base OS installs, for the record, although I do plan to archive them, in some format, for future preservation. I said I am mirroring updaters, which are something that Apple themselves had in an FTP archive. They discontinued that FTP service, and stripped the archive, because they no longer support their own products. The devil to their lawyers.

    However.. For the record, IP value, in a court of law, is highly dependant on its worth in revenue loss. When a business refuses to sell something, its net value in revenue loss is ZERO. If Apple sold digital downloads of every version of any of their products for $1, then they would have a case; but then, no-one would need to create mirrors of old versions of their products.

    The reason Apple don't want iTunes 3 and iTunes 4 on-line, is because they (1) de-contented them, (2) added averts tot hem, and (3) want people to use the iTunes store. Anyone using iTunes 3 isn't interested in using the iTunes store, and probably requires that iTunes version for their OS and hardware.

    I'm not listing anything in this mirror, above 10.6.8, if you notice; and 10.6.x and earlier are all discontinued, both in regard to sales, and to support.
     
  10. 128keaton macrumors 68020

    128keaton

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    #10
    Am. Could I post these update (once they are found) on the PPCArchive website?
     
  11. AmestrisXServe thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    #11
    If you want them, certainly. I've been rather busy this week, so I had to put a few things on hold. I have most of the files that I need, at present, but not all of them. It isn't as if I am claiming ownership: That would be absurd.

    I could also package up some other shareware/freeware/beerware/abandonware programmes for your archive at some point.
     
  12. mojolicious macrumors 68000

    mojolicious

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Location:
    Sarf London
    #12
    Sorry AmestrisXServe, I'm not sure what you're still after.

    I've got the following to hand, if anything tickles your fancy...

    [​IMG]
     
  13. mojolicious macrumors 68000

    mojolicious

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Location:
    Sarf London
    #13
    ...plus ancient SCSI/graphics card drivers, Suitcase / ATM / AdobePS stuff, which I'd guess goes back to OS 7.5 or 7.6.
     
  14. jeremysteele macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    #14
    For the record: Revenue is a factor... if they go for a monetary judgement... but it has absolutely no bearing if they are simply trying to do a cease and desist which all they would most likely do.

    I agree they should keep software available - since it would be safer. However, they own the software... we merely license it. As such - it is their choice.
     
  15. AmestrisXServe, Mar 22, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2014

    AmestrisXServe thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    #15


    Point of Fact: The FTP server that Apple ran did not have an EULA for downloading binary code. The EULA applies, only to software that you install, and then, only to that copy that you install, per the inclusive statements of the EULA; if you run it via the installer that forces an EULA in your face (which is not legal in many countries). Apple has already published the software in a format that permits it to be downloaded, and transmitted, without agreeing to any license. Only once you execute the binaries, must you agree to anything, and then only if you use the default installer.

    If you use a package manager, and create a custom installer, sans-EULA, Apple has nothing. Downloading the .dmg or .smi files never required you to a agree to anything; and as such, making a custom installer for the .pkg files is not in violation of any agreement.

    For the record, if Apple didn't toss any letters on this topic into their own, larger, circular file, along with any letters regarding PowerPC software, then I would happily ask permission to mirror their software. No human being would ever read such a request at this time. The ONLY support for versions of OSX prior to 10.7-ish now, is their Enterprise Support Service; and those reps are essentially Ok with everything. They cleared serials for me, on OSX versions that I bought used, and re-registered them, with no more than one phone conversation; and didn;t even ask me to submit evidence of purchase.

    They pretty much don't care if someone is pirating 10.4, or 10.5, or 10.6 Server now, because it is officially unsupported, but were nice enough to register my new serials anyway.

    When you consider that I have the decency to buy additional, legit copies of OSX Server 10.3 through 10.6, instead of using pirated copies, complaining about distributing updater files is absurd.

    Apple could request a cease of distribution, but a motion to put aside such an action would be very applicable, and most likely approved for this kind of situation. You need grounds to receive a Cease and Desist order, and in this particular scenario, such grounds do not exist. I did not obtain the software under any licensing agreement, nor am I offering commercial products to anyone, either for profit, or for amusement. The files are strictly update packages, and are of no commercial value, for they were never sold to anyone, for any price; they were given away. Period, end of story.

    It's also one of those situations that would make for horrible PR for Apple. 'Apple Orders Takedown for OS Updater Packages and Security Patches, Forces Users to Buy New Macs'. That would be the headline they would see, at places like The Register, and is the last thing Apple want.

    I would file any generic notices in the circular file, following a suitably generic response regarding legal distribution, to entitled users, and let them open an International case on the matter, if that is what they want to waste money and time doing; and take ll the heat, and bad press, they want.


    If you would be able to make a ZIP archive of whatever you have, I can give you FTP or SFTP access to one of my servers, to easily transmit the archive. that way, I can sort out the files, and weed away duplicates on my time, rather than on yours.

    The drivers would be very useful to many people.
     
  16. jeremysteele macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    #16
    So.... you write a ridiculously long post to rebuff a user who agrees with you?

    That makes sense.
     

Share This Page