Welcome to MacTalk Australia

the largest Australian community for Apple discussions and topics

Join the discussions, Register Now!
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    866

    Default Intel Rhapsody....OS X 10.0

    From my understanding, is it true that Apple has compiled versions of OS X for Intel CPU machines since Rhapsody?
    * iPhone 5 16GB Black & Slate * MacBook Pro 15" Mid 10 2.67GHz Core i7 8GB RAM Mountain Lion 10.8.2 * Samsung 1TB External *
    I am Andrew759 on MacRumors.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    6,413

    Default

    Yes..

    (Those extra dots are because it's a 5 character minimum length.)

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sydney Metropolitan
    Posts
    2,079

    Default

    But the chances of you getting your hands on one are next to or even below nil.
    Should/Could/Would

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Paddington, NSW
    Posts
    1,390

    Default

    Would there ever be a time when Apple would release it? (Not in the close future though)
    Support MacTalk by shopping at the Apple Online store via this link!
    MacBook Pro 15" UniBody: i7 2.2GHz|16GB|1TB HDD + 128GB SSD

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickH View Post
    Would there ever be a time when Apple would release it? (Not in the close future though)
    Never. Why the heck would they? They would have kept Mac OS X maintained on Intel but it would never have been written for release. It would have been with the Intel transition was confirmed, Tiger on Intel would have been completely polished up for mainstream use.
    MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo 15" | iMac Core 2 Duo 20"
    iPod 5G 30GB | iPod nano 4GB | Apple TV 40GB | iPhone 3G 8GB

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Melbourne Metro
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    im reckoning only a few engineers and steve himself had access to that build.

    I doubt there more the 40 people that knew about them
    Successful Trades With: Slimey, ryano, vivid2, Byrd

    2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo, 500Gb, 4Gb RAM 24" iMac (Aluminium)

    2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, 500Gb, 4Gb RAM 13" MacBook (Aluminium)

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Australia, Sydney
    Posts
    3,621

    Default

    I have several versions of rhapsody stored somewhere along with other version of mac os's like veronica. However thats the only intel ones i have rest are all PPC betas.
    My Macs: MacBook Pro 17", Powerbook Ti 867Mhz, Powermac 5500 Black, iBook G3 900Mhz, Powermac MDD, Powermac 8600 250Mhz, Intel Core Duo 1.66Ghz Mac Mini, iMac G4 17" 1Ghz, eMac 1Ghz, eMac 800Mhz,
    AppleCollector Sales Service/Sales/Support/Trade In's

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Inside your head
    Posts
    6,557

    Default

    The reason why NeXT was bought in the first place was to get their OS, after the new CEO of Apple at the time, Gil Amelio, decided that Apple's own efforts to create a next generation OS had floundered for too long. Funnily enough, the only other contender Amelio considered was Be, founded by another Apple alumni, Jean-Luis Gassee.

    When Steve came back to Apple, work quickly began on transforming NeXTStep into what was to become Mac OS X. Avi Tevanian, Steve's head of development at NeXT, had a team that was already familiar with x86, and thanks to a bit of advice from John Carnack (he of Doom fame) they decided to do cross platform development because it made it easier to locate errors in code. The first public appearance of the re-clothed NeXT software was Mac OS X Server 10.0, which looked and behaved more like Apple's old A/UX than what we're familiar with today, in that it had a real kernel but still sported the OS 9 GUI.

    Look up 'Project Marklar'.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    1,234

    Default

    I still have an older Rhapsody 5.1 Intel kit around here. It was designed to run completely on standard Intel PC's with a serious stability penalty- much in the way OSx86'ers do things today you had to build the PC with specific hardware if you wanted Rhapsody to run correctly.

    I imagine OS X Intel, the internal releases that is, would have been the same. Designed to run on strict hardware but otherwise standard PC's (BIOS and all).

    In a nutshell, it's an interesting beast.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    866

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by applecollector View Post
    I have several versions of rhapsody stored somewhere along with other version of mac os's like veronica. However thats the only intel ones i have rest are all PPC betas.
    Wait...there was a Mac Os called Veronica?

    Quote Originally Posted by iPirate View Post
    But the chances of you getting your hands on one are next to or even below nil.
    Im not actually trying to get a copy.....just curious.

    So basically Apple was originally intending to release Mac OS for PCs or just to entice them to switch?
    * iPhone 5 16GB Black & Slate * MacBook Pro 15" Mid 10 2.67GHz Core i7 8GB RAM Mountain Lion 10.8.2 * Samsung 1TB External *
    I am Andrew759 on MacRumors.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacRobbo View Post
    So basically Apple was originally intending to release Mac OS for PCs or just to entice them to switch?
    Apple was just hedging their bets. It paid off when IBM & Motorola lost interest in making laptop CPUs and Steve had enough of waiting around.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Inside your head
    Posts
    6,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacRobbo View Post
    So basically Apple was originally intending to release Mac OS for PCs or just to entice them to switch?
    In 1993, the board of Apple gathered to see and discuss 'Project Star Trek' -- System 7 had been ported to run on a Compaq DeskPro as a proof-of-concept that MacOS could be developed to run on bog-standard PC hardware. Could Apple do a Microsoft and focus more on the software side of things, rather than its own hardware? The vote went to the wire, and Star Trek lost by two votes. Woz later said, "If we had decided to go ahead with this, we would be where Microsoft are today."

    Since then, Apple -- and especially under Steve Jobs -- have vowed repeatedly they will never release Mac OS for non-Apple hardware.

    As I said above, the main reason why Project Marklar existed was that most of the engineers working on the new kernel were from NeXT and Walnut Creek (the FreeBSD company) and they were already familiar with x86 architecture. Creating code that ran on more than one architecture would help highlight coding errors and speed development -- this is the same story Blizzard and idsoftware tell when asked to explain why they support Macs when hardly any other gaming company does.

    Of course, Steve always leaves a few eggs lying in other baskets, and Marklar was a "hedge bet". He didn't care about what processor type was used in the heart of his computers, he just wanted the fastest, the coolest, the cheapest. Apple's chip design people had presented some very intriguing additions to the POWER spec to IBM that would have meant a leapfrogging in computing power over anything Intel currently had, but before IBM would agree to make Apple's "G6" chips, they wanted a contractual assurance that Apple would commit to a large number of units over several years at a fixed price. Jobs told them to get knotted because he wanted to continue his ad-hoc on-demand purchasing. IBM refused to budge, and his other fallback (PA Semi) were suffering delays, so Jobs called Rosanne Ho of Intel and the rest is history.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brains View Post
    In 1993, the board of Apple gathered to see and discuss 'Project Star Trek' -- System 7 had been ported to run on a Compaq DeskPro as a proof-of-concept that MacOS could be developed to run on bog-standard PC hardware. Could Apple do a Microsoft and focus more on the software side of things, rather than its own hardware? The vote went to the wire, and Star Trek lost by two votes. Woz later said, "If we had decided to go ahead with this, we would be where Microsoft are today."

    Since then, Apple -- and especially under Steve Jobs -- have vowed repeatedly they will never release Mac OS for non-Apple hardware.

    As I said above, the main reason why Project Marklar existed was that most of the engineers working on the new kernel were from NeXT and Walnut Creek (the FreeBSD company) and they were already familiar with x86 architecture. Creating code that ran on more than one architecture would help highlight coding errors and speed development -- this is the same story Blizzard and idsoftware tell when asked to explain why they support Macs when hardly any other gaming company does.

    Of course, Steve always leaves a few eggs lying in other baskets, and Marklar was a "hedge bet". He didn't care about what processor type was used in the heart of his computers, he just wanted the fastest, the coolest, the cheapest. Apple's chip design people had presented some very intriguing additions to the POWER spec to IBM that would have meant a leapfrogging in computing power over anything Intel currently had, but before IBM would agree to make Apple's "G6" chips, they wanted a contractual assurance that Apple would commit to a large number of units over several years at a fixed price. Jobs told them to get knotted because he wanted to continue his ad-hoc on-demand purchasing. IBM refused to budge, and his other fallback (PA Semi) were suffering delays, so Jobs called Rosanne Ho of Intel and the rest is history.
    I found it to be very interesting and exciting...but....i still don't know what is going on. Where do you get info like this?! SPY!!!!!!!!!!!

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Reno & Melbourne
    Posts
    880

    Default

    ----------------

  15. #15

    Default

    Just to add a little extra salt to this conversation - there was eveidence that Mr Jobs was also working with AMD at one point when there chips were top of the heap.... I
    Successful trades witn ilostmypassword

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Reno & Melbourne
    Posts
    880

    Default

    ----------------

  17. #17

    Default

    Be very interesting to see if this yellow box is still alive somewhere deep in the bowels of apple! - For a while there Steve was talking about secrete features of os X that never seemed to materialize - Also they probably don't want to kill off the Java thing .....

    Oh yes found this

    Apple Rhapsody Yellow Box for Windows
    Successful trades witn ilostmypassword

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Australia, Sydney
    Posts
    3,621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacRobbo View Post
    Wait...there was a Mac Os called Veronica?



    Im not actually trying to get a copy.....just curious.

    So basically Apple was originally intending to release Mac OS for PCs or just to entice them to switch?

    Yep and Mozart They had an official name as well such as System 7.1.1 Pro
    My Macs: MacBook Pro 17", Powerbook Ti 867Mhz, Powermac 5500 Black, iBook G3 900Mhz, Powermac MDD, Powermac 8600 250Mhz, Intel Core Duo 1.66Ghz Mac Mini, iMac G4 17" 1Ghz, eMac 1Ghz, eMac 800Mhz,
    AppleCollector Sales Service/Sales/Support/Trade In's

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •