Theory Behind Older Apple Software Support

[Mac128]

So it seems that Apple offers free downloads to 6.0.3 and other software from that era but nothing earlier.

Since the earliest Mac that will run it is the Plus, they have effectively dis-owned the 128K/512K. Because 6.0.3 debuted in late 1988, it seems like Apple is basically acknowledging only the SuperDrive Macs, despite the fact the disks are distributed on 800K images, meaning they are basically saying forget about the IWM-based Mac II & SE, Plus and particularly the 400K disk predecessors: you really should only be using HD floppy disks anyway. Interestingly, the Mac II is the only one with a 1:1 SCSI interleave as well, the others are slower (was this true with third party SCSI adapters on the 512Kes as well?)

It really is a shame they don't officially offer at a minimum System 3.2/Finder 5.3, which is a nice stable system, and though the maximum the 128K will run, will support 400K drives and MFS 64K ROM environments.

 

[tomlee59]

I'm not sure I followed your argument fully. My Plus shipped with 6.0.3 (maybe 6.0.2); it ran fine on that non-superdrive-equipped compact. That Apple still provides 800K images says a lot. It seems too harsh to say that they have abandoned IWM-based Macs.

I do agree that not supporting the 128K is unfortunate. Not only do they not offer a compatible system for download, they shut down the few sites that did. Understandable, perhaps, from a legal perspective, but we're hobbyists. That said, Apple is to be commended for generously offering any of these downloads (and for free). I can't quite bring myself to criticize them for not being still more generous.

 

[porter]

My MacPlus is now running 6.0.8 courtesy of Apple.

 

[Scott Baret]

The 512Ke is still supportable. It will run 6.0.x without a hitch.

While it is unfortunate that Apple does not offer System 3.2 or a similar version for the 128K and 512K (and Mac XL) I am willing to bet that there are enough original system disks to go around. There's only 900 or so of us on this forum and I'd imagine there aren't too many more beyond us who use and collect vintage Macs. If there are still 3500 original disks left it should meet demand. The trouble is finding them!

 

[Unknown_K]

I don't know about you, but I don't have anything original pre 6.07. Then again all my compacts are SE and above.

 

[Bunsen]

A more plausible theory is that other versions contain code that Apple can't be bothered chasing down the licenses for.

 

[Charlieman]

An even more plausible theory, I trust.

Ten years plus ago, Apple sent somebody to clean up the downloads site. Convert it from a couple of IIci running A/UX with downloads over FTP (yes, this is what Apple offered circa 1993) to an HTML site capable of serving more concurrent users. That clean out removed System 5 (which was available from the old FTP site) but most content remained. I used the old FTP site and I can't recall seeing anything older than System 5.

A few years later, Apple performed a clean-up of the HTML downloads and created a legacy site. I noticed that a few System 6 sub-releases were removed, but all of the interesting stuff remained. Some stuff was also removed from the FTP developer site.

I doubt, however, that Apple removed system software for the 128K and 512K for the simple reason that it was never there. Lisa, Mac XL, 128K and 512K software was available on developer and service CDs for many years. Perhaps somebody with a MacLink account can remember what was available there?

The theory that Apple don't release some OS versions (esp. 7.1) for licensing reasons has been floating around for years. I don't follow it. System 7.5 is a superset of 7.1, and there are no features in vanilla 7.1 that are not present in vanilla 7.5.x.

 

[Bunsen]

Sure, the features may be the same, but the implementation could very well be proprietary and someone else's IP. That's the case ISTR being laid out in some detail with names and dates, regarding code that Apple bought to include in various releases, but on limited license. Later, a different license applied.

Of course, I can't be arsed chasing down the reference, so we'll all just have to assume that my glorious and infallible memory is 100% correct, mkay?

Still, I assume that something very like what you describe above happened too.

I have another theory: that Apple's forgotten this page even exists, and we should all just keep vewwy vewwy quiet about it.

 

[Charlieman]

I follow your argument, Bunsen. I had hoped to cheat by pointing to a Wikipedia page that listed the differences between 7.0.x and vanilla 7.1, but the Wikipedia page sucks a bit. Here is what I remember was new in System 7.1:

Loads of bug fixes: Apple proprietary.

Fonts folder: all functionality would have been covered by cross-licensing with Adobe and Microsoft.

System Enablers: Apple proprietary.

Better Control Panels for regionalisation: Apple proprietary.

Better QuickTime: QT was not a core component but probably used licensed technology. However, it was delivered on separate installer disks and could easily be removed from any distribution.

New PostScript drivers: Again covered by Adobe cross-licensing.

WorldScript: Apple had problems delivering international language support with System 7.0.x and may well have licensed some technology in order to deliver 7.1. However the same technology appears to have been used in 7.5.x. International language/font support is non-trivial so it would be plain crazy to rewrite third party code. Thus there is the possibility that Apple bought a restricted licence for System 7.1, and then a more liberal one for System 7.5 onwards.

Please note that I am talking about the vanilla 7.1 distribution. System 7.1 Pro and the System 7.1.2 variants included extras such as AppleScript and PC Exchange. PC Exchange was a licensed product (from Insignia Solutions); AppleScript itself was Apple proprietary but they included a few licensed utilities with early distributions.

 

[II2II]

I was under the impression that 7.5.5 was released gratis due to the big Y2k fuss. Rather than testing or reviewing every product, they selected one then encouraged people to upgrade.

 

[Charlieman]

Being picky, System 7.5.3 was the one that they released. 7.5.5 requires a small upgrade.

However Apple were very smug during the Y2K fuss. Apple's Y2K support was a single page (rightly) telling us not to worry about their products. They told us that System 6 onwards was Y2K safe, as was GS/OS 6.0.x. Date patches were required for 8 bit date cards for the Apple II, but that is a periodic requirement anyway.

Are any versions of Mac OS non-Y2K compliant?

 

[Bunsen]

No, I think the multi-byte clock was implemented right at the start.

 

[porter]

No, I think the multi-byte clock was implemented right at the start.

A multi-byte clock, eh?

Quote from Inside Macintosh Volume II.

The date and time setting is stored as an unsigned number of seconds since midnight, January 1, 1904

Which is worse than the UNIX time datum of 1970.

Similarly the date in the Macintosh file system was still 32 bits.

 

[II2II]

Still, an unsigned 32 bit integer storing the number of seconds since 1904 will offer a calendar that will run until 2039 or so. Which is a pretty good run. They may have also used 1904 so that dates from the past could be expressed. January 1, 1904 is about 80 years prior to the introduction of the Macintosh. Or about a human lifetime.

 

[Bunsen]

I think I meant it wasn't restricted to 8 bits, or two character fields for the year. IIRC, the Unix time datum was Y2K proof as well (?)

Good point about the human lifetime thing, II2II.

But onoes! What are we going to do about the Y2K39 problem? Get cracking people!!

 

[porter]

But onoes! What are we going to do about the Y2K39 problem? Get cracking people!!

It's solved for 64 bit Posix systems where

typedef unsigned long time_t;

;

 

[Scott Baret]

But onoes! What are we going to do about the Y2K39 problem? Get cracking people!!

Hmmm...could this be the subject of a future Retro Challenge? Perhaps someone can write an INIT that would override the Mac's clock?

 

[Dog Cow]

What is interesting to note is that some Macs reset to Jan 1 1904 (such as the SE/30), while some others (such as the Mac LC) reset to some date in the 1950's-- 1956, IIRC.

 

[Scott Baret]

August 27, 1956 is the date used by many of the newer Macs.

Bonus points if you know why it resets to that particular date!!!