from something long ago....rhapsody on intel

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Hi there



I found this on -> http://toastytech.com/guis/rhappic1.png



very interesting, very cool . .



«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Rhapsody. Half baked GUI on a half baked code base running on a half baked platform.
  • Reply 2 of 46
    zenarcadezenarcade Posts: 126member
    heh

    something like that. But it is interesting to see how far apple has been ( and maybe still is, who knows...., on implementing OSX on the intel platform
  • Reply 3 of 46
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zenarcade

    heh

    something like that. But it is interesting to see how far apple has been ( and maybe still is, who knows...., on implementing OSX on the intel platform




    Uh. Rhapsody *came* from the Intel platform.
  • Reply 4 of 46
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Er, yes, but Rhapsody != MacOS X.



    Trust me.



    I was testing Rhapsody months before DR1 hit the streets.
  • Reply 5 of 46
    fahlmanfahlman Posts: 694member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Er, yes, but Rhapsody != MacOS X.



    Trust me.



    I was testing Rhapsody months before DR1 hit the streets.




    This c|net artical echos what Kickaha said.
  • Reply 6 of 46
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fahlman

    This c|net artical echos what Kickaha said.



    It's not like they weren't unrelated though. Mac OS X Server 1.x was pretty much "Rhapsody" and even OS X Public Beta could easily run old Rhapsody PPC builds of OmniWeb with no trouble at all.



    I'm a bit puzzled by Barto's issues with the GUI and codebase...whatever he means by that.
  • Reply 7 of 46
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Rhapsody was the predecessor to Cocoa, a port of OpenStep with the Platinum appearance (most elements were still OpenStep elements: shelves, etc., just with the Classic Mac menubar). Rhapsody had little if anything to do with Copeland or Gershwin, except it was announced after those two things crashed and burned. Rhapsody's main failure was with the developers because it only ran OpenStep/Cocoa apps, no Carbon.
  • Reply 8 of 46
    zenarcadezenarcade Posts: 126member
    excellent postings.

    I run NextStep/OpenStep today and I am pretty sure that if you take away Aqua and the newer techs, we will pretty much have rhapsody.



    anyone of you have yellox box for win95/winNT ?



    that would be cool
  • Reply 9 of 46
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    Rhapsody had little if anything to do with Copeland or Gershwin,



    Copland, not Copeland. It was named after Aaron Copland.
  • Reply 10 of 46
    1991/1992:

    NeXTSTEP 2.1: m68k, Mach/BSD/DPS/NeXTSTEP API:s



    1994:

    NeXTSTEP 3.3: NeXTSTEP 2.1 + x86, HPPA, SPARC support

    Support for Multi-architecture-binaries, compile your source once, deploy on all four hardware platforms without any hassle at all. It just worked.



    1997:

    OpenStep 4.2: NeXTSTEP 3.3 + OpenStep API:s (predecessor of cocoa), only decent support for x86 (newer HPPA/SPARC chips not supported)



    OpenStep 4.2 was shipped at 1997 WWDC as "prelude to Rhapsody".



    Rhapsody DR1 ("for PC compatibles" as well as for PPC) was to all intents and purposes a port of OpenStep 4.2 with Platinum GUI. Even the old style NeXTSTEP API:s existed lurking beneath the surface - you could see it by looking at a few key applications that still looked NeXTSTEP-style...



    Mac OS X was really just a renaming of Rhapsody, with the addition of Carbon and replacing DPS with Quartz (ie a refined OS strategy, they got their stuff together...). Nothing else. The rest of the layered architecture is basically the same with some natural enhancements throwed in.



    The newer kernel/bsd/display layers etc that have been added is essentially just evolvement of the original technology.



    Oh, and the standard Font/Color/Spelling panels have been around for ten years or so, just some refinements have been made.



    If they want to, they could definitely have kept up x86 support (apart from Blue and perhaps parts of Carbon which are the new stuff) - in fact, I would be surprised if they had chosen not to - it would be a worthwhile hedge for such a large company and such an important product.
  • Reply 11 of 46
    zenarcadezenarcade Posts: 126member
    hi bishop !



    great posting.



    you´ve got the software still ?
  • Reply 12 of 46
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    Copland, not Copeland. It was named after Aaron Copland.



    Damn, I keep mixing that up. :
  • Reply 13 of 46
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    Damn, I keep mixing that up. :



    Apple was into music at that time: Copland, Gershwin, Sonata, Tempo, Harmony and so on.



    And since Gershwin was supposed to be the Mac OS for the future, I don't think it's a coincidence that the project name for Mac OS X was Rhapsody since Gershwin composed Rhapsody in Blue.
  • Reply 14 of 46
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    I'm a bit puzzled by Barto's issues with the GUI and codebase...whatever he means by that.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    Rhapsody was the predecessor to Cocoa, a port of OpenStep with the Platinum appearance (most elements were still OpenStep elements: shelves, etc., just with the Classic Mac menubar)...Rhapsody's main failure was with the developers because it only ran OpenStep/Cocoa apps, no Carbon.



    Barto
  • Reply 15 of 46
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Yes. It was a sad, confused little GUI:















    *sigh*
  • Reply 16 of 46
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Er? Couldn't come up with your own words? BuonRotto's quote is a bit erroneous anyway. Rhapsody wasn't the predecessor to Cocoa. Yellow Box was Cocoa without a flashy name, just as Blue Box was Classic without a flashy name. If you're going to claim the codebase is half-baked because of the lack of an intermediary API like Carbon, then your argument is shallow. And if you cite Brad's example images as part of the half-baked GUI, I'll point out that OS X DP3, DP4, and Public Beta weren't great either.



    To me, OS X wouldn't exist without its Rhapsody legacy...It *is* Rhapsody, only refined. Steve-O basically made a fruit-colored lickable layer-cake diagram with a few minor alterations and Rhapsody became Mac OS X.
  • Reply 17 of 46
    Personally I prefered the old Postscript/OpenStep interface, however, someone thought it wan't trendy enough so now we have Aqua/Quartz for better or worse.



    If you used the first version of MacOS X server that was released, it was exactly like that screenshot. It was very much a port of NeXtStep with a Mac GUI and still retained the postscript engine.
  • Reply 18 of 46
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Eugene, Rhapsody had a half-baked UI and a half-baked codebase. Jesus, it really is that simple.



    Rhapsody combined the Mac OS Platinum interface with the OpenStep code base. As it turned out, Mac OS X has a lot of differences from OpenStep, and has a very, very different GUI from Platinum. It was a waste of time. If Rhapsody didn't exist, we would have got Mac OS X SOONER, not never.



    The code based lacked a lot of things. I'm not enough of a programmer to go into it properly, but a lack of a Carbon-like API is a very good argument. Application developers wern't going to rewrite everything just so their apps could run on Rhapsody, therefore the codebase was "half-baked" - the thinking that produced it wasn't complete.



    If someone said, "look at this, it's DP2 running on Intel", I'd say "so what?" to that too. Who cares if Apple has a half-finished OS for another platform. Only a finished OS would matter to me.



    Barto
  • Reply 19 of 46
    zenarcadezenarcade Posts: 126member
    did any of you got to play with copland ?



    it would be cool to hear some-ones experiences with it.
  • Reply 20 of 46
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    An API doesn't make up a codebase. It's just one tiny bit closer to the top than you think.



    kernel: Mach 2.5 / Mach 3.0

    subsystem: BSD layer / BSD layer

    core frameworks: Display Postscript, OpenGL, etc. / Display PDF, OpenGL, etc.

    app programming frameworks and runtimes: Yellow Box, Blue Box / Cocoa, Classic, Carbon

    gui: Platinum / Aqua



    Very little is actually different. There are nitty gritty evolutional changes, but nothing revolutionary.



    Aqua's not so different from Platinum. The Menubar's still there. In fact the current OS X Menubar more closely resembles the Rhapsody menubar than anything. The Dock, Column view, etc? All are in Rhapsody. Otherwise, it still looks a lot like OS 9 does, only with white and pinstripes instead of platinum/gray.



    Mach 2.5 vs Mach 3.0? That's nitty gritty. That's almost like comparing the 2.2 and 2.5 Linux kernel branches. The BSD layer? It's pretty much tit for tat the same. The core frameworks? The same...Quartz is merely and evolution of Display Postscript. The software APIs? They added Carbon. They very well could have snuck Carbon into Rhapsody without the fake "We dropped everything for OS X" hype.
Sign In or Register to comment.