Thread
Low Density 6.0.x? 7.0.x?
I won't ask where to find it for obvious reasons but from what I have seen so far, versions of 7.0.1 and 6.0.8 are only available in high density 1.44mb disk image formats which I find rather odd. Were they really only available in that format or was the low density releases just that uncommon?
As far as i know, those where available in 800 k as well for abvious reasons, the SE was available at first with a 800 k floppy drive(s)
The 800 k disks where 4 instead of 2 for the 1.44 size.
The 800 k disks where 4 instead of 2 for the 1.44 size.
Are we talking physical media, or downloadable disk images?
The low-density images are fairly common, aren't they? I know Apple had 800k images of 6.0.8 available for years.
Physical media, I have no idea, but if an 800k SE were released in the late System 6/early System 7 era, wouldn't it have come with the appropriate physical SSW6 media?
c
The low-density images are fairly common, aren't they? I know Apple had 800k images of 6.0.8 available for years.
Physical media, I have no idea, but if an 800k SE were released in the late System 6/early System 7 era, wouldn't it have come with the appropriate physical SSW6 media?
c
The Apple archive had 6 and 7 in 800k images.
It seems Apple started selling System software with 7.1, so I'm going to be so bold:
ftp://ftp.cs.tu-berlin.de/pub/mac/sys/os/us-english/[for System 6]
http://macintoshgarden.org/sites/macintoshgarden.org/files/apps/System_7_0.smi__0.sit[for 7.0]
These presumably still fall under the original license agreement.
ftp://ftp.cs.tu-berlin.de/pub/mac/sys/os/us-english/[for System 6]
http://macintoshgarden.org/sites/macintoshgarden.org/files/apps/System_7_0.smi__0.sit[for 7.0]
These presumably still fall under the original license agreement.
Yeah, I think you're safe with those. System 7.1 and up (as well as System 5 and below for some odd reason) are the ones you shouldn't ever post here, as my understanding is that doing so would be considered an act of piracy per the forum rules.
c
c
I was under the impression the same was true of everything before 6 also. What's the difference? (That's not facetious, what is the actual difference if you know?)
I think the difference is that Apple didn't post Systems 5 and below on their FTP servers, hence people couldn't redistribute them online because the license agreement doesn't have provisions for it. I think??
c
c
It's my understanding, that based on the distribution agreement, anything from the first system/finder release until System 7.0.1 is fair game to post, anything beyond that is a no-no, unless it was posed by Apple for free on their FTP server, then it's OK.
Also, 800k is Double Density, not low density. Low Density is 400k disks.
The hierarchy is low density, double density, high density.
Also, 800k is Double Density, not low density. Low Density is 400k disks.
The hierarchy is low density, double density, high density.
I have a feeling they didn't post anything before 6.0, because that FTP was up when dial-up was the standard, and 6.0 will run on every older mac till you start getting into the 68020s iirc. and then 7.0 will get you until the ppcs. So they had most bases covered without having 100 more sit files.
^ They posted systems going all the way back. Its where I made my first archive from back in the 90s. I think the directory was even called "older system". They also stored all the Newton releases there. In fact, there is still stuff there.
To expand on Paralel's post, anything from 7 Pro up is a no-no to post technically. Excluding updates which are not full systems. But I am not sure if that is true anymore since Apple themselves has 7.5.3 as a complete download right not. And I am not sure what else is out there since I have not poked around the server yet, but there is more. So Apple may have abandoned System 7. Maybe even 8 (which I doubt).
A link to 7.0, I guess smaller disk images are inside this single download. But I have not checked.
http://download.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Apple_Software_Updates/English -North_American/Macintosh/System/Older_System/System_7.0.x/System_7.0.smi.bin
To expand on Paralel's post, anything from 7 Pro up is a no-no to post technically. Excluding updates which are not full systems. But I am not sure if that is true anymore since Apple themselves has 7.5.3 as a complete download right not. And I am not sure what else is out there since I have not poked around the server yet, but there is more. So Apple may have abandoned System 7. Maybe even 8 (which I doubt).
A link to 7.0, I guess smaller disk images are inside this single download. But I have not checked.
http://download.info.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Apple_Software_Updates/English -North_American/Macintosh/System/Older_System/System_7.0.x/System_7.0.smi.bin
Apple's policy has always been that if you can show proof of ownership of either Apple original floppy disks or a physical machine, they'd give you a copy of either the OS that was on those floppies or the OS that came with the physical machine. Many years ago I first got a copy of System 6 for use with A-MAX (Macintosh emulation on Amiga) because someone had given me System 6 disks which had been overwritten but still had the original Apple stickers.
I recall unity being correct about earlier systems being up there; but maybe I'm misremembering. I suspect Apple (probably expressly in the license itself) can modify the terms of the agreement unilaterally. However, I see no reason to suspect they've done that. I suspect 'what's on their ftp' was just an easy standard to gauge Apple's disposition toward potential litigation - and also toward that potential modification (of the concerned licenses). That works both ways; as Paralel basically notes, anything posted on their ftp server they've presumably released publicly - though that may or may not affect the license (I don't have time to find and read all these licenses now, and I don't think there's any litigation directly concerning them). I think CelGen said Apple had been sending out various cease and desist orders to other hosts. But most or all of the Older Software List files are still on Apple's servers. They've just removed the index page.
Sorry; this stuff really does fascinate me for a variety of reasons.
John that corporate policy is related to licensing - because the machine would entitle you to a license; and then giving out the software establishes that the license entitles you to use of the software. (Or did back in the day
But that policy I suspect doesn't exist (anymore). I emailed them a few months ago asking how one would legally acquire System 7.6. I don't expect a response. Because my understanding is buying a used copy doesn't entitle one, at least automatically, to a license - and thus buying a used copy and using it on a legit Mac might still be theoretically tortious.
Sorry; this stuff really does fascinate me for a variety of reasons.
John that corporate policy is related to licensing - because the machine would entitle you to a license; and then giving out the software establishes that the license entitles you to use of the software. (Or did back in the day
But that policy I suspect doesn't exist (anymore). I emailed them a few months ago asking how one would legally acquire System 7.6. I don't expect a response. Because my understanding is buying a used copy doesn't entitle one, at least automatically, to a license - and thus buying a used copy and using it on a legit Mac might still be theoretically tortious.If the original owner has erased any drive of which that copy of the OS was installed, the used copy should still be legitimate.
But - again without reference to specific licensing text or case law - the license passes from Apple to the buyer. The buyer cannot simply resell it as only Apple possesses that right. If the license is solely activated with use it becomes more complicated.
But it's not worth Apple's money to litigate any of this - up to and including Yosemite. Psystar is a very unusual exception.
But it's not worth Apple's money to litigate any of this - up to and including Yosemite. Psystar is a very unusual exception.
System 6.0.x has been available for donkey's years from Apple via FTP/HTTP. At release time, it was available via boards and disk swaps, for the price of a disk.
System 7.0.x -- ditto.
System 7.1 changed the rules. You had to buy disks from a dealer, but multi-packs were available. System 7 Pro was a clever bundle, worth nowt because you could assemble the components for free. But System 7.1.x was never released on an Apple FTP/HTTP site.
System 7.5.x onwards -- ditto on 7.1 rules.
USA or USA state consumer rights law changed a few years later, and Apple treated this in two ways. For most old customers (anywhere in the world), System 7.5.3 was made available as a free download. Those who could not download or required a later OS version could phone an interview centre to establish their credentials for an appropriate OS CD in the post.
System 6 and System 7 have not been abandoned by Apple. All rights reserved
It actually predates System 7 Pro, Apple charged for 7.1 upgrade disks. 7.0.1 was the very last "free" version, which works out pretty well, since it was also the very last "full" system that was omnicompatible with all current macs that existed as of its creation (I don't consider the 7.5 NAD to count since its not a full system file, it has limitations). Don't forget to run System Tune-Up 1.1.1 for 7.0.1.
So, you can go up to 7.0.1, then skip up to 7.5.3, and I'm not too sure after that, since I never stray beyond 7.1.2
And, after posting, I can see Charlieman Ninja'd me to the explanation for System 7.1
For System 7.1.2, don't forget to run System Update 3.
Fascinating
There've been plenty of attempts of companies to claim ownership of software that is only licensed and therefore cannot be transferred. There have also been plenty of decisions showing that this isn't possible except in specific cases. To make hardware incapable of running by somehow revoking a software license has never worked, nor is it anything that Apple has ever done. Microsoft has tried this time and time again with Windows licenses and has been shot down in pretty much every case that has actually gone to court.
My point is that the idea of software being non-tranferrable is not anything any reasonable company still tries to practice, nor is it something that Apple has ever attempted.
My point is that the idea of software being non-tranferrable is not anything any reasonable company still tries to practice, nor is it something that Apple has ever attempted.
Yeah, I sort of remember all the hoopla surrounding Windows Genuine Advantage back in the XP middle ages. And the whole deal regarding the concept of activation (again, during the XP era).
I'm glad Apple doesn't do any of that.
c
I'm glad Apple doesn't do any of that.
c
Apple doesn't need to, they rely on hardware restrictions to try and stop people from using their software on non-Mac systems, so, in many ways, their method is worse than Microsoft, who doesn't care what you install your Windows on (you could install it on a toaster or a homegrown hand-wrapped system you made yourself from the ground up), as long as your license is in order
Taking it one step further, Linux/Unix derivatives obviously hold the top spot in this argument, nearly none of them have license validations and could care less what you run it on.
I think Apple's modern fascist hardware control of their OS is bull {(which is why I generally stick to System 7.0.1 or lower when it comes to using Apple operating systems [although I do own versions of System 7 Pro & System 7.1.2 to use on certain systems that are special to me]) although I understand why they do it, they're a hardware company after all, the OS is just the carrot on the stick they hit people with}.
Taking it one step further, Linux/Unix derivatives obviously hold the top spot in this argument, nearly none of them have license validations and could care less what you run it on.
I think Apple's modern fascist hardware control of their OS is bull {(which is why I generally stick to System 7.0.1 or lower when it comes to using Apple operating systems [although I do own versions of System 7 Pro & System 7.1.2 to use on certain systems that are special to me]) although I understand why they do it, they're a hardware company after all, the OS is just the carrot on the stick they hit people with}.
To get back to the original point...for low density disks...
Everything up to 6.0.6 was on low density disks of some variety (either 400K or 800K). When the Classic, LC, and IIsi came out, Apple started using high density disks for the System Software.
There were also low density versions of the newer System 6 versions, but I haven't seen physical copies of them. Soft copies do exist--Apple has 6.0.8 on their server as four 800K disks and the 6.0.7 images are available on the System 7.0 CD-ROM.
System 7.0 was available on low density disks, as was 7.0.1 and, believe it or not, 7.1. I actually own a set of low density 7.1 disks, which even got the new labels with the black Apple logo (on lighter colored disks).
System 7.5 was high density only, but I seem to remember there was some way to get it on low density--maybe a coupon you could send in to Apple? Don't quote me on that though (my copy of 7.5 is a CD-ROM).
Nothing newer than 7.5 would be on high density disks, of course, since the Plus, SE, and II were all dropped in 7.6, and no machine made after them sold with 800K drives.
Everything up to 6.0.6 was on low density disks of some variety (either 400K or 800K). When the Classic, LC, and IIsi came out, Apple started using high density disks for the System Software.
There were also low density versions of the newer System 6 versions, but I haven't seen physical copies of them. Soft copies do exist--Apple has 6.0.8 on their server as four 800K disks and the 6.0.7 images are available on the System 7.0 CD-ROM.
System 7.0 was available on low density disks, as was 7.0.1 and, believe it or not, 7.1. I actually own a set of low density 7.1 disks, which even got the new labels with the black Apple logo (on lighter colored disks).
System 7.5 was high density only, but I seem to remember there was some way to get it on low density--maybe a coupon you could send in to Apple? Don't quote me on that though (my copy of 7.5 is a CD-ROM).
Nothing newer than 7.5 would be on high density disks, of course, since the Plus, SE, and II were all dropped in 7.6, and no machine made after them sold with 800K drives.
System 7.6 CD has folder with 20 HD floppy images for optional floppy installation
Just to clarify, System 6 gets you part-way into the 68030s (though if you have an '030, you'll probably be better off with 7.1.x/7.0.1/7.5.x). I have run 7.5.4 (yes, I have a copy) on a Mac IIci, though it's quite slow to boot and sometimes takes ages to do simple things like close a window or click a button. (I have loads of software installed though.)
Also, System 7.0(.1) does not run on anything higher than a 68040. (PPC support was added in 7.1.2.) For universal-ness, I suggest System 7.5.3. It runs on almost everything (albeit sometimes slowly) from a Mac Plus (with maxed RAM and a hard drive) to a PowerBook 1400c(s)/117. Some PowerPCs (the PowerBook 1400 and systems with the "Tanzania" motherboard) won't run 7.5.5, but will run 7.5.3.
But for actual use, 7.0.1 is far better than 7.5.3 on 68000s, 68020s, and slower 68030s (though it runs OK on these if you don't have too many extensions) and 7.6 is better than 7.5.x on PowerPC as it has more native PPC code.
Just my two cents on OS advice. (NOTE: I haven't used 7.1.x or 7.6.x.)
Also, System 7.0(.1) does not run on anything higher than a 68040. (PPC support was added in 7.1.2.) For universal-ness, I suggest System 7.5.3. It runs on almost everything (albeit sometimes slowly) from a Mac Plus (with maxed RAM and a hard drive) to a PowerBook 1400c(s)/117. Some PowerPCs (the PowerBook 1400 and systems with the "Tanzania" motherboard) won't run 7.5.5, but will run 7.5.3.
But for actual use, 7.0.1 is far better than 7.5.3 on 68000s, 68020s, and slower 68030s (though it runs OK on these if you don't have too many extensions) and 7.6 is better than 7.5.x on PowerPC as it has more native PPC code.
Just my two cents on OS advice. (NOTE: I haven't used 7.1.x or 7.6.x.)
7.5 is that bad on '030's? I've only run it on my Quadra, my 30 machines have either 7.0.1 or 7.1.
I've run 7.5.x on several 68030-based machines, and I've found the performance to be tolerable. Systems 7.1.x, 7.0.x, and 6.0.x run better, of course.
c
c
If you are going to run 7.5-7.6 on a 68030, make sure you have quite a bit of RAM. It makes a big difference in running stuff. Even System 7.1 feels snug on 8MB machines.
The problem is this - if you want anything greater than System 7.1.2 to run fast on your 68K machine, you need to remove the PowerPC Fat from the file's coding. It's simple math - if your system is 10MB (like on an LC-Like system) and your System 7.X.Y uses 7.5MB of that, how much is left for programs and data files? It is simply put - with your system and apps running on Virtual memory on the hard drive, if your system allows it, it's going to run slow!
But removing PowerPC Code from the 68K Machine's system will shrink it some 45% - 55%. Now your System 7.X.Y is 3.8MB instead of 7.5MB. On a 10MB LC-Like system, this gives you more room to play with. The same applies to your Apps. Now that they can it in RAM, they can run faster. A lot faster.
And this is true for all systems. In the past I done it for my Plus, IIcx, IIci, LCs and Duo, 190 and 5300 laptops. With the PPC Machines, I stripped out the 68K code. The machines all run fast. And there is room for apps and large files.
But removing PowerPC Code from the 68K Machine's system will shrink it some 45% - 55%. Now your System 7.X.Y is 3.8MB instead of 7.5MB. On a 10MB LC-Like system, this gives you more room to play with. The same applies to your Apps. Now that they can it in RAM, they can run faster. A lot faster.
And this is true for all systems. In the past I done it for my Plus, IIcx, IIci, LCs and Duo, 190 and 5300 laptops. With the PPC Machines, I stripped out the 68K code. The machines all run fast. And there is room for apps and large files.
This sounds like a great idea in theory, but I'm a tad unclear on one detail: How can you strip out ALL the 68k code from a 7.x system and still have it work? I was under the impression that there was still emulated 680x0 code scattered throughout until well into the OS 8.x days. Or do you only strip out the parts for which a native implementation is present?
A utility that could perform such stripping in an automated way, maybe via drag-and-drop, would be useful. Does anyone know if such a thing was ever made?
First off, yes. There are a few:
- "I Love Native"
- StripPPC (strips only PPC)
- Strip68K (counter-app to StripPPC, it strips 68K)
There might be a few others but I can't remember their names immediately.
It is worth noting that 68K Macs load programs in segments, unlike PowerPC Macs which load programs in large chunks. Usually only the code needed to perform a particular task is loaded into memory at any one time. That is why PowerPC Macs consume so much more RAM than 68K Macs. They always have more code in memory (you can turn on Virtual Memory and reduce memory pressure a bit, however). So stripping PowerPC code from FAT binaries will save you disk space but I am not sure you will see a huge amount of performance increase since I can't imagine that any PowerPC segment code would ever be loaded on a 68K Mac, FAT binary or not. (This is not true of PowerPC Macs and 68K code.)
As for running 7.5.x on a '030 … eh. It's not very pleasant. I've found that for me personally I get more enjoyment out of my vintage Macs if I stick as close as possible to the "shipping OS" as I can. That way the machine always performs like it did when it was brand new. Pushing an old Mac to the latest supported OS often just makes the machine feel slow and clumsy.