System 1.0 (NOT 1.1) [solved, it's 0.97]

[dav7]

I've found a number of sites on the 'Net that seem to reference possible links to System 1.0 (and not the overly common (in a relative sense) "System 1.1 Finder 1.1g" image that has popped up here and there) but none of them work anymore.

The best I was able to find was a torrent to a DVD image (google "s97f10") which mostly contained a huge amount of stuff I'd never use, such as winfailure versions of emulators, and I have a feeling that the few names I see there (s11f11g.bin, s20f41.bin, s30f51.bin, s31f52.bin, s33f54.bin, s40f54.bin, s41f55.bin, s42f60.bin, s43f60.bin, s97f10.bin) don't seem to be all that unique, although if you manage to score a seed or two you'll get a few rather interesting-looking ROMs (23 in all) - I can see "Mac Plus v3 Loud Harmonicas.rom", "Mac LC III.rom", "Mac LC-Quadra-Performa 630.rom", "Mac Performa 450-550.rom", "Mac Quadra 605 or LC-Performa 475-575.rom", "Mac Quadra 650.rom", "Mac Quadra 700-900.rom", "Mac Classic.rom", "Mac IIcx.rom", "Mac SE.rom", "Mac Classic II.rom", "Mac IIci.rom", "Mac IIsi.rom", "Mac LC II.rom", "Mac LC.rom", "Mac 128 or Mac 512 (28BA4E50).rom", "Mac 128 or Mac 512 (28BA61CE).rom", "Mac ROM 1.2.0 Mac OS 8.5.1.rom", "Mac ROM 1.2.1 iMac Update 1.1.rom", "Mac ROM 1.4 Mac OS 8.6.rom", "Mac ROM 1.6 Mac OS ROM Update 1.0.rom", "Power Mac 7300 7500 8500 9500.rom", and "Power Mac 7300.rom". And yes, that listing was managed by some bash scripting. Linux FTW. [|)] ]'> [8D]

But back to the topic in question... is it possible to find this at...all? :/

-dav7

 

[RaidenII]

i do have the Mac128k rom (rom size 64k)and a maybe corrupted 128k guided tour.

the 128k rom runs pretty fine, but i met crash when i run the 128k guided tour image.

 

[Mac128]

the 128k rom runs pretty fine, but i met crash when i run the 128k guided tour image.

The 128K Guided Tour does not run properly on the 128K ROM. You need the 64K ROM and compatible Mini vMac app.

 

[Mac128]

I've found a number of sites on the 'Net that seem to reference possible links to System 1.0 (and not the overly common (in a relative sense) "System 1.1 Finder 1.1g" image that has popped up here and there) but none of them work anymore.
The best I was able to find was a torrent to a DVD image (google "s97f10") which mostly contained a huge amount of stuff I'd never use, such as winfailure versions of emulators, and I have a feeling that the few names I see there (s11f11g.bin, s20f41.bin, s30f51.bin, s31f52.bin, s33f54.bin, s40f54.bin, s41f55.bin, s42f60.bin, s43f60.bin, s97f10.bin) don't seem to be all that unique ...

But back to the topic in question... is it possible to find this at...all? :/

Actually, what is your question? Are you looking for System 1.0 or System 1.1, or are you looking for System Installation 1.0? There is NO official release of a System file called 1.0. System .97 is considered System 1.0 by Apple. Whereas Apple's "System Software 1.0" designation actually contains System 3.1. And System Installation 1.0 contains 3.2. According to your post, all the versions you might be referencing are there on the DVD image anyway.

 

[Dog Cow]

The best I was able to find was a torrent to a DVD image (google "s97f10") which mostly contained a huge amount of stuff I'd never use, such as winfailur

I feel bad for you. All that stuff came from some other sites which are much easier to access than some stupid torrent.

In any case, a lot of those early System versions are subject to imagination and interpretation since there was no clear designation in those days.

 

[dav7]

I see.

I was guessing that there was a 0.1 or a 1.0 or whatever ever since I read http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/earlymacs/cd.html.

But I already have .97 tucked away somewhere I think, so all's good.

Thanks.

-dav7

 

[Mac128]

I was guessing that there was a 0.1 or a 1.0 or whatever ever since I read http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/earlymacs/cd.html.'>http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/earlymacs/cd.html.

Yes, that is the problem created by Apple's attempt to reconcile their previously released system software with their new system software.

If you didn't read this already, http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/earlymacs/ clarifies the relationship between the official Apple numbering ( http://support.apple.com/kb/TA31885?viewlocale=en_US ) and the actual system files version numbers. Unfortunately, there is almost no official documentation which clarifies the System .97 is actually System 1.0. The chinesemac site mentions this in the narrative timeline. So yes you have 0.1, .97, 1.0 all referring to the same System file, further confused by "System Software" and "System Installation" designations of 1.0 which to completely different system files.

 

[dav7]

...wow. 'Tis incredible.

As an aside, it's ironic: Windows 1.00 had some kind of major issue so had to be revoked almost as soon as it was released, and what is effectively System 1.0 had an issue where it would keep a new "Empty Folder" on the disk whenever you renamed it, so had to be revoked too.

So both versions had issues at release. Now, this isn't, to be honest, a fair comparison, but I haven't read anything about Linux 0.01 ever having major issues at first release... [|)] ]'>

-dav7

 

[Mac128]

what is effectively System 1.0 had an issue where it would keep a new "Empty Folder" on the disk whenever you renamed it, so had to be revoked too.

I would not say that System 1.0 (.97) had any major operational bugs or issues, that caused significant problems. Despite the 11th hour finalization of the software before it shipped, system 1.0 was pretty stable. The "Empty Folder" routine was a "feature" of the software. It persisted until early 1985 when the "New Folder" feature was added to System 2.0. The actual changes made between 1.0 & 1.1, released in April 1984, which comprise bug fixes include the nasty bug that caused the Mac to go into an endless disk swap during a disk copy routine if the files being dragged to the new disk were dropped for a fraction of a second, something a novice user might do. There's a list of 'em somewhere. But Apple, unlike Microsoft has never ben plagued by the same kinds of disabling system bugs in their initial releases that MS has. I suspect mainly because A) Apple got lucky and B) MS tries to rush developments to market to beat anyone else. Windows 1.0 is a case in point. Gates literally stole the Mac OS and technically introduced Windows before the Macintosh. This article on Wikipedia seems to take exception that there was ever a buggy withdrawn version though.

 

[Dog Cow]

Gates literally stole the Mac OS and technically introduced Windows before the Macintosh.

And thus went on to become a billionaire. The computing world's biggest tragedy.

 

[Charlieman]

Repeating much of what Mac128 has previously written:

Early Mac system software is best described by the System/Finder combination. There are hundreds of combinations, although the supported combinations amount to a dozen or so. Eric Rasmussen is the best source of info on supported combinations.

Ignore completely the retro-fit numbering applied by Apple to old Mac systems. Just use S/F.