I've read that earlier versions of OS X than Panther were a bit wonky, to varying extents. I've never seen any of them in action, but would like to try 'em, if only for fun. I've also read that certain updater CDs for earlier versions of OS X could, in fact, be used to install the updated version whole and entire (i.e. the updater CD was, absenting a few software tricks, an install CD for the higher version). Is this correct? If so, what's the Colonel's secret recipe? Academic interest, you know...
-
Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.
???s about early versions of OS X
- Thread starter fidel
- Start date
QuadSix50
Well-known member
As far as I know, the only major upgrade that was free was the one that allowed you to go from 10.0 to 10.1. Major upgrades after that were $129.
I got to use the Public Beta (which had the Apple logo in the middle of the menubar and was WAY weird) as well as 10.0 and 10.1. You can definitely see how much Mac OS X had progressed (and at times regressed) since then. Fonts had shadowing on them, which made them a bit harder to read (they don't have shadows anymore). Also, the Finder didn't have the spring-loaded folders when you opened them or when you dragged and held a file over a folder. Lots of the stuff that was standard in OS 9 wasn't included originally in OS X but was included with 10.2, I believe.
Also, anything older than 10.2 was a little sluggish since the code wasn't optimized as much for the hardware.
I got to use the Public Beta (which had the Apple logo in the middle of the menubar and was WAY weird) as well as 10.0 and 10.1. You can definitely see how much Mac OS X had progressed (and at times regressed) since then. Fonts had shadowing on them, which made them a bit harder to read (they don't have shadows anymore). Also, the Finder didn't have the spring-loaded folders when you opened them or when you dragged and held a file over a folder. Lots of the stuff that was standard in OS 9 wasn't included originally in OS X but was included with 10.2, I believe.
Also, anything older than 10.2 was a little sluggish since the code wasn't optimized as much for the hardware.
The Macster
Well-known member
The 10.0 to 10.1 upgrade was sort of free but sort of not - you could buy an upgrade pack for something like $20 or $30, or I think there was some way you could get Apple to give you a burned disc of the update for free, as opposed to the proper disc and pack that you got if you paid. The update was never available for download, I suppose because back then the large file size wouldn't have been a realistic download for most people. The upgrade disc can be used to install 10.1 without an existing 10.0 installation by removing the package CheckForOSX from the disc and re-burning it, I think (Google it for the full details). Though I think later revisions of the disc had this route blocked, as Apple were furious about the discovery of this workaround.
If you want to get genuine copies of 10.0 and 10.1, you can actually get them from eBay without spending any money - I have full retail (non-upgrade) boxes of both, just because I wanted to add them to my Apple collection, which I got by buying them and then selling the OS9 discs that were included with OSX in those days (for Classic) for more than I paid for the entire set, thereby actually making a profit and still having the OSX boxes!
I've never actually installed them though (I have the Public Beta set too) - I'd like to have the space for a second G3 tower for trying out all this kind of stuff! (the G3 I have is kept as a stable machine for 9.2.2 and Tiger - I don't want to risk screwing up the setup)
If you want to get genuine copies of 10.0 and 10.1, you can actually get them from eBay without spending any money - I have full retail (non-upgrade) boxes of both, just because I wanted to add them to my Apple collection, which I got by buying them and then selling the OS9 discs that were included with OSX in those days (for Classic) for more than I paid for the entire set, thereby actually making a profit and still having the OSX boxes!
I've never actually installed them though (I have the Public Beta set too) - I'd like to have the space for a second G3 tower for trying out all this kind of stuff! (the G3 I have is kept as a stable machine for 9.2.2 and Tiger - I don't want to risk screwing up the setup)
equill
Well-known member
I have no experience of 10.0 and 10.1, and others have already commented about them. I reserve an iMac Snow 500/1GB/40GB for use with a soundwave editor that is now out of production, and was never supported for higher than 10.3.2. Jaguar lacks some conveniences when compared with 10.3, but its stability and reliability have never been less than fine for me. It is sometimes an irritation that software for 10.3/10.4 may be explicitly stated as being unsuitable for 10.2, and ClamXav and SuperDuper! are two such programs, but Retrospect backs up entirely satisfactorily. The dedicated machine is fast in 10.2.8, and reliable for its solitary task. DW 3.0.2 and MacJanitor are supported, so I have little concern about housekeeping tasks.
de
de
The Macster
Well-known member
Does such software ever work if you remove the Installer restriction in the Distribution.dist file, or are there actual incompatibilities as well as artificial restrictions?
equill
Well-known member
A fair question, but not a point that I have been irked enough to test. I use 10.2.8 solely because of the Spark 1.8.2 soundwave editor, even if tc|werke (now tc-electronics in North America) claimed that 10.3.2 would also support it. Nothing but commercial CDs or sound recordings that I have made (PCM/beta, CD, or direct) is ever loaded, so it is a near-as-dammit closed system that is at little risk.
de
alk
Well-known member
It's probably because the developers are using XCode to build their apps. XCode requires a framework installed with the operating systems to run the software. This is similar to the way many ".Net" Windows programs work. Interestingly, REALbasic also requires a framework, but RB installs the framework with the application when it is built, so the app is transportable.
New versions of XCode allow one to compile for OS X 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 or for 10.3.9 and 10.4 as groups. If the developer compiles for 10.3.x & 10.4 as a group, the required framework calls implemented in 10.3/10.4 don't exist in the framework for 10.2, so the app won't run there even if you remove the .dist file. You can thank Apple for this problem.
It's essentially forced obsolescence, and I think it's dirty.
Peace,
Drew
New versions of XCode allow one to compile for OS X 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 or for 10.3.9 and 10.4 as groups. If the developer compiles for 10.3.x & 10.4 as a group, the required framework calls implemented in 10.3/10.4 don't exist in the framework for 10.2, so the app won't run there even if you remove the .dist file. You can thank Apple for this problem.
It's essentially forced obsolescence, and I think it's dirty.
Peace,
Drew
equill
Well-known member
To be fair, since we are not party to Apple's strategic discussions, the above may be seen as an effect of Apple's later developments of OS X, but it cannot be assumed to have been one of their primary motivations. It is not unreasonable to suspect that the inevitably doomed impulse to try to include infinite backward compatibility in software is part of what makes Windows the software to know and love. There is a signature of someone amongst the enlisted of this Army that sums up the result of that attempt, quite succinctly. Nor could infinite forward compatibility have been designed into older versions of either platform.
de
madmax_2069
Well-known member
i wonder if you was to take the files required for a said app to run in 10.3.9 or 10.4 and put them into 10.2 if it would run.
say like the framework files that are missing in jag and take them from panther or tiger
i know you could do that with driver files for the most part , that was always the good part of Mac OS and or OS X.
l
say like the framework files that are missing in jag and take them from panther or tiger
i know you could do that with driver files for the most part , that was always the good part of Mac OS and or OS X.
l
OS X tends to link every last little component into each other. In some cases you can fit new code into the older version, but it's quite rarely the case. Basically you could drop in CoreVideo.framework into OS X 10.3 or 10.2, but chances are it'll crash before it even loads.
Unless you fundamentally disagree with having paid updates for OS X (which is fair enough if a little at odds with Apple's business model), then, well, it naturally follows that Apple are going to add new features to OS X now and then which they won't (can't) backport to earlier versions - and not just stuff that makes an obvious difference to end users, but also stuff that makes programmes easier to write. If they take advantage of those features then the apps won't run on earlier versions of the OS. It's really quite simple, and I think it's unfair to call it 'forced obsolescence'. The software wouldn't be written without the frameworks, and if the frameworks aren't updated, well, then nothing new would be added to them...
The Macster
Well-known member
But what about making the older OS obsolete in this way, and then blocking you from upgrading the OS by deliberately building the OS in such a way that you can only run it if you also buy a very new Mac? (cough cough Leopard) Now that surely is planned/forced obsolescence, both of software and hardware? Upgrading your OS is one thing, but having to fork out for a brand new Mac when there's nothing wrong with your old one, it's not even too slow to run the new OS if Apple allowed it.
By the way, MS backported a lot of Vista's new beneath-the-skin technologies back to XP.
Quadraman
Well-known member
10.0 and 10.1 aren't worth buying, really. It wasn't until 10.2 was released that OS X started being taken seriously. Earlier versions were considered feature poor or buggy and there really isn't any support for them these days. You need a minimum of either 10.2.8 or 10.3.9 now for most things and Tiger is starting to push them out as the minimum.
Similar threads
