-
Hello MLAers! We've re-enabled auto-approval for accounts. If you are still waiting on account approval, please check this thread for more information.
Anyone have BeOS Developer Releases?
- Thread starter protocol7
- Start date
I use the BeOS 5 i386 demo. If you take the demo, install it on a PC it creates a single file containing the BeOS file system. Take that file and burn it to a CD-ROM, boot from that CD-ROM and it acts as a complete BeOS installer. There are a couple of updates available and you do end up with a BeOS system you can program, eg has gcc etc.
I have a few full BeOS releases, I'm specifically looking for these early developer ones. Just to play with. They're one of the few classic MacOS alternatives I can run on my 5400 (no Rhapsody for me on this puppy).
The Developer releases had a nice NeXT-ish dock which was dropped at the Preview Release stage.
The Developer releases had a nice NeXT-ish dock which was dropped at the Preview Release stage.
Overestimating their value when trying to hardball Apple didn't help either. I sometimes wonder what OS X would be like if Apple had chosen BeOS over OpenStep. It felt more Mac-like but suffered from poor printing support amongst other things. Too revolutionary for it's own good maybe 
OS X had quite bad printing support too, so I think they could perhaps have lived with it if they'd wanted.
Reading books on the subject makes it sound like Be was never considered as seriously as NeXT was. Not sure if that's just a bit of revisionism but it's a little disappointing.
Reading books on the subject makes it sound like Be was never considered as seriously as NeXT was. Not sure if that's just a bit of revisionism but it's a little disappointing.
What's ironic is that Apple offered $100M for Be, but Gassé tried to hold them up for $200M instead. They told him to get lost because that was way too much money. But then they went ahead and bought NeXT for $400M right afterwards.Overestimating their value when trying to hardball Apple didn't help either. I sometimes wonder what OS X would be like if Apple had chosen BeOS over OpenStep. It felt more Mac-like but suffered from poor printing support amongst other things. Too revolutionary for it's own good maybe
Indeed. History has shown that 1 Jobs is definitely worth more than even 4 Gassées. Apple were in a mess by this time and it's hard to imagine them getting this far without Jobs steering the ship.
It's a pity BeOS died off after Palm bought the IP. It had huge potential if only it had been pushed right and woo-ed some of the big names like Macromedia and Adobe. I remember reading a feature on it in a Computer Arts magazine back around 97 or so and being totally blown away.
As well as the Developer Releases, I'd also love a copy of R3. PPC or Intel (or both }
)
It's a pity BeOS died off after Palm bought the IP. It had huge potential if only it had been pushed right and woo-ed some of the big names like Macromedia and Adobe. I remember reading a feature on it in a Computer Arts magazine back around 97 or so and being totally blown away.
As well as the Developer Releases, I'd also love a copy of R3. PPC or Intel (or both }
)
I have all the releases from 1.1d6 to R5. I believe the first public developer release was 1.1d5 but I can only find one or two indirect references to it on the 'net, from the very earliest days of the developer program. 1.1d6 seems to have come along only a month or so after they started seeding developers. I don't know of anybody who has 1.1d5 media.
http://www.typewritten.org/Software/index.html#Be
I also have a working Hobbit BeBox, but there were not really any formal release numbers for the Hobbit OS. Mine has some of the early software work on the PowerPC port still on it.
http://www.typewritten.org/Software/index.html#Be
I also have a working Hobbit BeBox, but there were not really any formal release numbers for the Hobbit OS. Mine has some of the early software work on the PowerPC port still on it.
I don't think that we can say that Jobs is worth more than Gassee.
Keep in mind that NeXT's acquisition of Apple included a lot of fringe benefits. Things like Apple's intellectual property, which allowed for the incorporation of a software compatability layer with an established operating system (Mac OS) and the use of an established line of hardware (the Macintosh); access to suppliers for hardware manufacturing; access to distribution channels for hardware and software; access to an existing customer base; and probably a heck of a lot more.
Let's also remember that Apple (under Jobs) made some mistakes. Copland had only been under development for 2 or 3 years before it was abandoned. It took much longer to whip NeXT into shape: 3 years to release Mac OS X server, and 5 years to push a consumer version of to the market. Even then, Mac OS X was considered incomplete and Apple alienated a lot of users. Things did not quiet down until Mac OS X 10.2 was released (6 years after acquisition). Mac OS X 10.3 was still introducing features that were lost in the transition (7 years after acquisition). NeXT was definitely was not a quick fix. Gassee may have been able to move BeOS into Mac OS's territory even more quickly, seeming as he already had an OS that would work on some of the PowerPCs that Apple marketed at the time.
Also keep in mind that Jobs had a stroke of luck. While the current revisionist histories point to the iPod/iTunes and halo effect as being the product of a visionary mind, it was originally created to satiate a gap in the Apple eco-system. Windows users did not gain access to iTunes for nearly 4 years, and they didn't have access to the iPod for roughly 3 years. Like I said, an Apple product for Apple customers. Even then, the desire to release iTunes for Windows (thus make the halo-effect a reality rather than a theory) was probably the result of negotiating the rights with music publishers (necessary for the iTMS).
I'm not meaning to suggest that Apple would have done as well, nevermind better, under Gassee. But I do believe that it is an awfully hard call to make because history only plays itself out one way. We can never know what would have happened in that alternative history.
Keep in mind that NeXT's acquisition of Apple included a lot of fringe benefits. Things like Apple's intellectual property, which allowed for the incorporation of a software compatability layer with an established operating system (Mac OS) and the use of an established line of hardware (the Macintosh); access to suppliers for hardware manufacturing; access to distribution channels for hardware and software; access to an existing customer base; and probably a heck of a lot more.
Let's also remember that Apple (under Jobs) made some mistakes. Copland had only been under development for 2 or 3 years before it was abandoned. It took much longer to whip NeXT into shape: 3 years to release Mac OS X server, and 5 years to push a consumer version of to the market. Even then, Mac OS X was considered incomplete and Apple alienated a lot of users. Things did not quiet down until Mac OS X 10.2 was released (6 years after acquisition). Mac OS X 10.3 was still introducing features that were lost in the transition (7 years after acquisition). NeXT was definitely was not a quick fix. Gassee may have been able to move BeOS into Mac OS's territory even more quickly, seeming as he already had an OS that would work on some of the PowerPCs that Apple marketed at the time.
Also keep in mind that Jobs had a stroke of luck. While the current revisionist histories point to the iPod/iTunes and halo effect as being the product of a visionary mind, it was originally created to satiate a gap in the Apple eco-system. Windows users did not gain access to iTunes for nearly 4 years, and they didn't have access to the iPod for roughly 3 years. Like I said, an Apple product for Apple customers. Even then, the desire to release iTunes for Windows (thus make the halo-effect a reality rather than a theory) was probably the result of negotiating the rights with music publishers (necessary for the iTMS).
I'm not meaning to suggest that Apple would have done as well, nevermind better, under Gassee. But I do believe that it is an awfully hard call to make because history only plays itself out one way. We can never know what would have happened in that alternative history.
You raise some good points there. I have to admit it's easy to downplay Gassée. BeOS was a revolutionary idea at the time and Apple were obviously worried enough to ensure that Be didn't get the necessary tech data on the G3 processors to add support for them. BeOS was pushed as a multimedia OS and like every sector it has it's leaders. Without Adobe and Macromedia on board I think it was an uphill struggle. They were probably afraid of crossing Apple, who had been a big part of their success. I think this probably prompted the failed "internet appliance" shift that ultimately led to the end of Be.
From what I can remember about Copland, Apple sunk a lot of money and resources into it during it's development cycle. The eventual realisation that it was going nowhere set off alarm bells that it would be a blow Apple couldn't really sustain. So the hunt began for something that would work as a replacement. Operating system aside, I think it was the iMac that turned Apple around and I'm not sure it would have happened under Gassée. While Jobs at NeXT was targeting educational and scientific facilities, Gassée was targeting the multimedia industry. Neither had the home user in mind. The iMac was the right machine at the right time and I can't say with any degree of certainty that Gassée could have conjured up the concept. Then the iPod saw Apple transform into a successful consumer electronics company. To be honest, I'm not mad about this 21st century Apple. I think the focus is drifting away from computing. Still, the iMac and iPod show that Jobs does have a certain knack at calling the future.
From what I can remember about Copland, Apple sunk a lot of money and resources into it during it's development cycle. The eventual realisation that it was going nowhere set off alarm bells that it would be a blow Apple couldn't really sustain. So the hunt began for something that would work as a replacement. Operating system aside, I think it was the iMac that turned Apple around and I'm not sure it would have happened under Gassée. While Jobs at NeXT was targeting educational and scientific facilities, Gassée was targeting the multimedia industry. Neither had the home user in mind. The iMac was the right machine at the right time and I can't say with any degree of certainty that Gassée could have conjured up the concept. Then the iPod saw Apple transform into a successful consumer electronics company. To be honest, I'm not mad about this 21st century Apple. I think the focus is drifting away from computing. Still, the iMac and iPod show that Jobs does have a certain knack at calling the future.
I would recommend against it to avoid spending your time in court rather than infront of a debugger.
Surely there is enough knowledge in the public domain of how these machines work, eg Linux on PPC, NetBSD on PCC, etc?
So if the purpose of Haiku is binary compatbility with BeOS R5, why the need for a compatibility layer between different versions on Haiku, surely both should use/support the BeOS R5 API?
I haven't looked at Haiku much, but I imagine they don't support PPC because of the smaller userbase (even Ubuntu no longer officially ship for PPC). Also, Be didn't have the intel on the G3s to support them, whereas PPC linux does.
Unlike Zeta, I don't think they're based off Dano, so their code is probably "clean" enough to not require any of the original Be code anyway.
I would love to see them support PPC though
Unlike Zeta, I don't think they're based off Dano, so their code is probably "clean" enough to not require any of the original Be code anyway.
I would love to see them support PPC though
So if the purpose of Haiku is binary compatbility with BeOS R5, why the need for a compatibility layer between different versions on Haiku, surely both should use/support the BeOS R5 API?
Perhaps it's like how Windows NT can run DOS/Win3.x/Win9x programs? Haiku doesn't use the BeOS API, it just aims for compatibility with it. As far as I know, at the moment you still have to recompile the BeOS apps before they'll run.
