With the beginning of 1996, Apple realized that with the next generation PC’s running Windows NT to be released within the decade, they would need a new, modern operating system to run on their machines. Most in the industry were certain that Apple would choose Be, whose operating
system, BeOS, already ran on Apple’s newest computers. Read the (updated) article here.
From NeXT to X
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Can anyone tell me the last version of BeOS that ran on a Mac, and what Mac hardware supported BeOS?
– Andrew
BeOS 5 Anything under G3 (PCI only, no NuBus/5200)
BeOS has always been PPC it was ported from PPC to x86, the BeOS founders were ex-apple employees.
It’s a nice story, but there are problems. First, Mac OS X didn’t have an OpenGL accelerated interface at the public beta. In fact, it was Mac OS 10.2 that introduced QuartzExtreme – the hardware accelerated Quartz. Mac OS X didn’t have a ton of applications at launch, but a ton of people didn’t like it because of its speed. It was really slow. This happens whenever companies introduce a radically new system. I remember how incredibly slow Windows 95 was when it came out. When you are moving to a new system that requires vastly greater resources, it slows adoption (although, one hopes that it is a benefit in the long run). The article also doesn’t talk about how the FSF rejected the first APSL (Apple Public Source License) as a free software license. The second version (which came way after the first) was approved, but they still had some reservations. Eh.
I think the last BeOS for PPC version was 4.5.. And it ran only on pre-G3 Macs. I’m sure there’s a list of supported systems somewhere.
No powerbooks were supported.
“I remember how incredibly slow Windows 95 was when it came out.”
I recall Win95 being quite fast. In fact, I chose it for running some Windows apps on my iBook using VirtualPC for that reason alone.
“I think the last BeOS for PPC version was 4.5.”
Actually, there was a 5.0 PPC version.
well windows95 was really slow when you tried it on a 486class machine with litle ram. and that was the point when big things happens on the osmarket it will often be slower. after a yer or so the hardware is better and everything will run fast and nice.
The author never said anything about openGL powering quartz. OpenGL was still part of the OS pre 10.0 final. It just didn’t power the window manager.
People didn’t like it cause of the speed, the lack of app support, and well, 10.0 didn’t even burn cds, lol and could barely do anything at all.
The ones that were there know that 10.2 was really 10.0
But we used them anyways, cause they were still a ton better than anything else out there….
anyone know if its still kicking around anywhere on the net? would love to get my hands on a copy, i remember reading about it in macaddicts when i was younger
I have a mac thats running beos r5 .. so yes, the latest version of beos is atleast r5.0.3 …
anyone know if its still kicking around anywhere on the net? would love to get my hands on a copy, i remember reading about it in macaddicts when i was younger
Yes it is.
>Yes it is.
I have a copy of it around in some stack. There is nothing much you can do it. Lack of driver support. All of it was quite buggy and broken. Also, sports that ugly pre-quartz look. Blah!
I might of got it instead of SuSE 2 years ago, I remember seeing it on tv it looked awesome & user-friendly. What evr happened to BeOS anyway?
Be Inc folded is what happened. Be had a ‘focus shift’ and started messing more with BeIA and embedded stuff than the desktop OS which they left out to dry for the most part. If they hadn’t been so stubborn on the price, apple might have bought them and used beOS as a basis for what is now os x .. Would have been doubtful but they stll may have..
> Be Inc folded is what happened.
Well,.. they went public, started worrying only about shareholders, then focus-shifted, then folded. 😐
Nice article, not long enough though.
😉
The Place for NeXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, Rhapsody and A/UX Information
http://www.openstep.se/
… used to be z80
The Forum: (ask questions here)
http://www.openstep.se/forum2/index.php
What were doing with Rhapsody (DR2):
http://www.openstep.se/forum2/viewtopic.php?t=486
Rhapsody Resource Page:
http://www.shawcomputing.net/rhapsody/home.html
A/UX
http://www.floodgap.com/retrotech/os/aux/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/aux-faq/
Come on by, get an account, we’d love to have you. If you like these OSs, this is the place.
Black Hardware:
http://www.blackholeinc.com/
hylas
Heh, yup I remember NextStep. Easy for a newbie, and looked great in a Win95 era. Might still have my Next catalog around here somewere.
1. BeOS runs on G3 systems, in many cases, if the firmware is compatible. I have a Hackintosh with a 233 Mhz G3 upgrade card in it, that’s a 7600 according to the case, something else according to Apple System Profile, and was sold as something else completely when I bought it on eBay
for testing and development of Project X for BeOS 5.03, which runs on both Intel and PPC hardware.
2. BeOS is still available for sale at http://www.purplus.com for $22.95 (I think it is) and there are patched variations of the Personal Edition available for download to experiment with. Then there’s YellowTab’s Zeta, for those interested in a significant change from 5.03, the last officially Be-released version. How good is it? I don’t know, personally.
3. The writer of this article messed up horribly on his background checks regarding NT. He stated that NT was waiting to come out in 96, when in reality version 3.1 (the first NT version, named that way partially to show correspondence to the 16 bit version available at that time, as well as trying to shake off the 1.0 blues
came out in 1993, and while it wasn’t snappy, it did work well enough for a lot of things, and was technically superior to the Mac OS available until at least OS X for the Mac. How the author could have written such an article without checking such easily checked things is beyond me.
I was addressing the version of NT for RISC based machines, which I think was not released for some time after 4.
Are you sure BeOS is not just ignoring the upgrade card and using the stock CPU? Try opening Pulser, and it might tell you.
I did check, and yes, the upgrade CPU IS being used. It isn’t the processor that causes BeOS a potential problem: it’s the rest of the system, if you have incompatible hardware/firmware on a Mac. The CPU is on a Sonnet card. It isn’t horribly fast compared to the PC hardware I have in comparison (then again, the PC hardware I own isn’t that fast by today’s standards, either!) but it’s sufficiently responsive.
Oh, never mind then. I did not know that. BeOS on my PII was the fastest OS I’ve used on any computer, including Intellistations, etc.
Anyone have a disc of Coupland?
Now that would be something to see.
My mistake, its spelled “Copland”
(without the ‘u’)
It’s when windows and linux and yes, even macs, go do their swap thing or talk on the network and the gui slows down that my life is pain. If you can’t guarentee basic responsiveness, regardless of what the rest of the system is doing, just go home. BeOS, QNX, and other operating systems with a real time schedular are a necessity. They keep the user in a state of bliss by maintaining the illusion of complete control. This app is using up too much cpu? Fine, I’ll just kill it. The disk is thrashing cause I’m using up too much memory? No worries, I’ll just close this large document I’m done working on. Not making me pull my hair out is a selling point.
Heh, yup I remember NextStep. Easy for a newbie, and looked great in a Win95 era.
The similarities between the look of NEXTSTEP and Windows 95 is not coincidental. The NeXT Computer (and NeXT operating system) was introduced in 1985 and finally released in 1988 or 1989. Microsoft Windows 95 in 1996 I believe. The math isn’t that hard.
Of course, naturally enough, even though MS took 5 years to copy NeXT…they still managed only a pale imitation.
Oh well…mediocrity sells.
I had a CD of it long ago, and playing around with it was fun, though pointless with almost no apps written or ported. I really miss the tear-off menus though. I asked a friend about it, and it seems modern OS X gui parts like menus arent based around the same code as they were in DR2, so its not like the functionality can simply be re-enabled, its not there at all anymore *cry*
ask and ye shall receive
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/23208
While OpenStep and NeXTStep adopted Mach 2.5, MkLinux already was based on Mach 3.0. It should be mentioned that, for transitioning Rhapsody to Mach 3.0, Apple seemes to have leveraged the work of the MkLinux’s team. So, even if only in the sources of Darwin, MkLinux still survives under the cover of Mac OS X.
“Microsoft Windows 95 in 1996 I believe. “
Actually, Win95 was released worldwide on 24th August 1995. It was hyped and marketed so hard that even people without computers were lining up to buy it….with no clue as to why. They just knew they had to have it…whatever it was…
No mention of FreeBSD in this article, FBSD is also part of OS X.
I thought the BSD layer on top of march was modeled after FreeBSD, not literally FreeBSD.
NeoWolf: it is FreeBSD.
semi-ot: There’s a lot of useful things to be read in Leo McGarry’s posts on slashdot about the Quartz technology. Anyway, if anyone is interested, below are the links.
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=139690&cid=11694611
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=139690&cid=11693667
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=139690&cid=11692747
GNUstep implements the powerful Foundation Kit and Application Kit shipped with OPENSTEP. Have a try…
http://livecd.gnustep.org“>GNUSTEP
I am also very interested in getting the Copland CD. Is it avaliable online in torrent form (or otherwise)?
Incidentally, moving slightly off topic, which language are the classic Mac OS and Copland written in? Smalltalk?
Also related to my above post, does anyone know of an online resource which explains how the copland OS actually works? For example, does it use a microkernel, does it use the classic Mac OS extensions etc?
I beleive this was Windows NT V3.52. I was involved in porting my company’s multimedia software to NT Alpha, NT PPC, and NT MIPS at the time. Byte Magazine used our special effects code for the first ever NT “Bake-off” benchmarks. Ah Byte. Ah MIPS.
also win nt 4 was for ppc, i had a copy
Actually, I think it was NT4 (or at least a beta of NT4), and it ran on Digital Equipment Alphas. We have a couple of AlphaStation300 around that even have the “Built for Microsoft Windows NT” sticker on (*shivers*)…
Actually, BeOS was not originally written for PowerPC chips. The earliest BeOS ran on ATT Hobbit processors.
IMHO, Be started to face challenges as soon as it dropped its hardware line, and its original theme of cheap but powerful multiprocessing. Their slogan used to be, “one processor per person is not enough.” Because their OS could handle MP well, they could put 4 cheap CPUs into a box and beat the crap out of other PCs of the time.
The fact is, Be got huge amounts of press just because they were selling a new kind of computer, in the spirit of the Amiga, which made an impressive demo. There were zillions of alternative operating systems, but here was a new platform. It was a much smaller pond. And the back panel of a BeBox could make your heart skip a beat. For all those ports it was called a “poor-man’s SGI.”
In short, the hardware was a PR phenomenon. Once they became an OS vendor, their visibility dipped big-time, as they competed for mindshare with dozens of alternative OS companies. Industry analysts kept mistaking it for another Linux.
Caj
“Also related to my above post, does anyone know of an online resource which explains how the copland OS actually works? For example, does it use a microkernel, does it use the classic Mac OS extensions etc?”
Copland is extremely unstable, I saw it once.
NuKernal, it was completely rewritten (PPC), traditional extensions won’t work.
MacOS 8 Revealed:
(with CD tour) is about Copland before they pulled it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0201479559/002-97…
Cube of Movies has a really cool historical collection of stuff on all MacOSs:
You really should check it out
http://www.cubeofmovies.com/
Copland screenshots
http://osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&si…
hylas
“While OpenStep and NeXTStep adopted Mach 2.5, MkLinux already was based on Mach 3.0. It should be mentioned that, for transitioning Rhapsody to Mach 3.0, Apple seemes to have leveraged the work of the MkLinux’s team. So, even if only in the sources of Darwin, MkLinux still survives under the cover of Mac OS X.”
Darwin is Mach/FreeBSD based, not Mach/Linux.
MkLinux was an experiment and it was largely different form Darwin architecture.
Cube of Movies has a really cool historical collection of stuff on all MacOSs:
You really should check it out
http://www.cubeofmovies.com/
Are there any mirrors of that site that doesnt’ get hosted on a modem? 🙂
Part of the phenomenal success of OSX has been its unix underpinnings – enabling many popular linux apps to be swiftly ported over, and alowing Apple to build-in popular web tools rather than having to either write their own or buy them
re NT on non-x86 platforms, I have an original NT4 disk which includes installers for RISC and PPC as well as Win32 and I think one other.. there are install notes for many unusual machines on the disk.
BeOS R5.0.x ran on PPC and was issued free of charge whenever R5 Pro for x86 was bought, enabling BeOS to target two markets with one product
http://www.rhapsody-project.tk/
Thank you for the links
> Darwin is Mach/FreeBSD based, not Mach/Linux.
> MkLinux was an experiment and it was largely different form Darwin
> architecture.
“Other parts of the system software, such as Mach, are based on technology
previously used in Apple’s MkLinux project, in Mac OS X Server, and in
technology acquired from NeXT”
(http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelPr…)
The classic Mac OS was written in Pascal I believe.