Slashdot Mirror
Apple To Prevent Booting Into Mac OS 9?
A user writes that eWeek reports "A tweak to new models in its Macintosh line of desktop and portable computers will prevent booting into Mac OS 9, sources said, leaving the Unix-based Mac OS X as the sole operating system." That's a great idea, if they want to prevent people from upgrading their hardware, and to future versions of Mac OS X. I hope it's merely a rumor; there's apparently no technical reason for it, so if true, I imagine it is just to force more people to adopt the Mac OS X.
WORST IDEA EVER. Except for maybe Palladium, or the DMCA, or the Patriot Act... OK, so maybe it's not the worst idea ever, but it's right up there.... >;)
Every new version of Mac hardware has traditionally shipped with a bumped version of MacOS, that includes device drivers specific to the new hardware.
They have EOLed MacOS 9, and are focusing development on X. They're not breaking compatibility deliberately. They're just not devoting resources to make a dead operating system run on the new hardware.
You'll still be able to use OS 9 from Classic mode. They're just not providing device drivers to boot it.
Chill.
First of all, this will accomplish something... namely it gets the message across to developers that when you're developing for Mac, you're developing for OS X, get on the ball.
Why is this bad? OS 9 development has stopped. New computers won't be able to boot into 9. If you are currently running OS 9 on your computer, who is taking that away from you? This isn't a retroactive declaration that Apple is coming in and removing OS 9 from your computers.
If you are running OS 9 and like it, then you're all set. If you want to run some OS 9 apps still, classic mode isn't going anywhere. And if your favorite software can't run in classic mode and doesn't have an OS X version, then this action might be just the nudge needed to get your OS X version.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to OS X.
My understanding is that applications have to be recompiled (and possibly modified) to run natively under OS X. Most major applications now have native OS X versions, but there are a lot of older programs that don't. To run those applications, you have to run OS 9, which is why OS 9 is included when you buy OS X. Now what I don't follow completely is whether you can somehow run OS 9 and OS X at the same time, or if you have to reboot to switch between native and legacy applications.
Can someone enlighten me?
...which lets you boot into whatever operating system you like?
Microsoft is proud of its earlier products and will gladly help users boot into them!!!
though I'm not sure that I agree with it. First, MacOS X adoption is essential for Apple. The adoption rate directly influences what software gets ported to MacOS X. Look at Microsoft's recent comments ahout OfficeX. From their point of view their lack of sales is attributable to poor adoption of MacOS X. This is probably false, more likely its due to Office X not being worth the money, but facts don't matter.
Second, it will in the long run cut down on their support costs. "Officially" supporting two operating systems is more expensive than supporting one. In the short term they will have to do this, but at some point they'll be able to cut back on MacOS Classic support.
Third, it may allow them more freedom in hardware design. MacOS Classic has often required enabler extensions to run on new hardware. MacOS X obviously needs some level of tweaking as well. If they can relegate Classic to running in a stable virtual Mac running under MacOS X its a win for Apple. They can concentrate on making MacOS X, their actual breadwinner, run better and halt development on MacOS Classic.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Mac OS 9 is no longer being actively developed by Apple, therefore there will be no drivers for new hardware, therefore it will not boot.
Just like Mac OS 7/8 will not boot on current Mac hardware. I know, I've tried. I use a much older Mac (Quadra 700) to play some really old games (Pax Imperia) that no longer work properly in Mac OS 9.
So, what's the big deal?
Gabriel Ricard
Poeple don't like to change their habits, so Apple helps them do it. Remember all the slack that Apple got for removing the Floppy Drive? Getting rid of legacy serial ports and going with USB only? People grumbled for a little while and realized, hey, Apple made the right move for me. In the end most people will be glad that they switch to OS X , or should I say, that Apple made them switch. You can always buy an older Mac on E-bay and run OS 1.0 - 9.0 until the end of time as you know it. I love change bring it on......
That doesn't make sense. Proof-read your comments, for goodness sake.
Okay, let's compare these comments with the ones about the end-of-life plans for Windows 2000 and Windows 95. Executive summary: It's the right business and technical decision for Apple, but it's heavy-handed tactics by Microsoft. Most OS 9 apps run under OS X using classic mode, and this is why Apple is justified in killing OS 9. Most Windows 95 apps run under Windows XP, either out of the box or using compatibilty mode, but it's part of Microsoft's plan to make us use the license-enforced XP scourge. This is not contradictory logic because Apple is an underdog and Microsoft is a monopoly.
To stay in bisiness, we need to buy components to build our systems.
If we can't boot into OS 9, we can't get at the hardware. Sure, we can re-write our drivers for OS X, but it is going to be a pain to reverse engineer our card vendors' libraries.
ok, so here's the real question... if they're going to be rolling out the next version of os x (pinot) in january, are we all going to be expected to pay another $130? or have they started code naming point point releases now? another full point release so soon after the 10.2 pricing fiasco is just going to leave a very, VERY bitter taste in many people's mouths.
i'm the jedidiahmarkfoster your parents warned you about
It's called humour. You, I suspect, are quite often called an idiot.
The card vendors, that is. Sucks that they have such bad support.
It's still a typo, loser.
Apple has always done this. I have a beige G3 300 at home. It is from 1998. I tried to install System 7 on it for kicks, and it reported that my computer can't run that OS. Get a newer Mac and try to install OS 8 and it won't let you. If a computer is shipped with a certain OS, you cannot install the generation below it. Recent computers are shipped with both OS 9 and X.
This is not news. It is how it has always been.
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
This article has it bass akwards.
For the non-expert mac users, let me explain.
MacOS only boots motherbords it was designed to support. Mac Mobos aren't like PCs, they change (sometimes significantly) with each model. Virtually everytime a new mac comes out, Apple has to tweek the OS to run on it correctly. That's why new macs always ship with the brandspankingest new version of MacOS: because that's the only thing that will boot on it.
All this really means is that Apple isn't going to continue tweeking MacOS 9 for new hardware.
That's no surprise, they said they were stopping development on it months ago.
Since every Mac knows in it's ROMs what the lowest version of MacOS it can boot is, these new macs will refuse to boot MacOS 9. Just like how you can't run System 7.5.5 on a classic iMac, but you can run OS X.
So which word wasn't typed correctly, non-loser?
Yes, he didn't laugh and instead pointed out a miswording of the "joke", so obviously he is an idiot. Couldn't be that it wasn't very funny to begin with.
"Why don't you just get a REAL operating system... which lets you boot into whatever operating system you like?"
It should system "get REAL hardware" or "a real computer" or whatever. Get it?
I was so angry when my new dual G4 wouldn't boot under my OS of choice, System 4.1. Grudgingly, I upgraded to 6.0.8 (ugh, I just hate the inefficiency of MultiFinder!). If Apple tries to force me to use even later operating systems, I'm through with them. I'll just get a Pentium 4 and a copy of Windows 3.11.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
It should system "get REAL hardware" or "a real computer" or whatever. Get it?
No. Do you?
That doesn't make sense. Proof-read your comments, for goodness sake.
*cough*
Do you *really* not get it? Congratulations. Now I have to also tell you carefully read comments before posting. Look at what I wrote. Stare at it for a while. See if you notice something that doesn't make sense. If you are unfamiliar with how computers work, I'll explain it.
This looks like a shot at Yellow Dog Linux users as well.
Then I'm going to have to say that you're the idiot, not the other guy.
First off this story's premise flat out WRONG. Apple is not going tweak the hardware to prevent OS 9 from running. Apple doesn't work that way-- hell they went out of their way to make OS X work on machines that aren't officially supported (like my 9500) by providing drivers for hardware they haven't shipped yet.
OS 9-- and OS's 8 all the way back to the original Macintosh contain hardware specific code. Whenever Apple released a new version of the hardware, they'd release an extention to the OS to support it. So, it was very common to have hardware that couldn't run some versions of the OS without extensions.
All apple is doing is that going forward, they are not going to constrain their hardware by the design assumptions of OS 9. OS 9 is 1984 technology and assumes its in control of the hardware. Under OS X the hardware is far more abstracted.
So, Apple is going to design its hardware to run OS X and not *worry* about OS 9. Given the way Apple migrates its computers, if there's some controller chip for which 9 is not compatible, it will still take a year before the whole line is refreshed and os 9 will likely run on those new machines that don't yet have the controller chip, while it doesn't run on other new machines with the newer controller chip-- even though none of them are "officially supported"
The reason windows 95 runs on current hardware is that there has been no innovation in PC hardware. Clock rates have gone up, but nothing new has been done.
Finally this article is full of errors large and small (the coffin was not rolled onto stage-- why include a detail like that to make us think you were there and not making it up, and then get it WRONG?)
That a newspaper publisher in florida is stuck on 9 is NOT news. Check out "Crazy Apple Rumors Site" for a great parody of this kind of reporting.
It will take time for all the applications to migrate, but OS X is clearly moving in the right direction.
To characterize this as apple "tweaking" teh software so it won't run on hardware is to flat out lie about what's going on, and is unfair as well.
This is the kind of bullshit reporting that mac users have to deal with-- if its not claiming that apple is bankrupt when they have $5 billion in the bank, its claiming that apple or steve jobs go out of their way to annoy people, when in fact there's a much more plausible business decision behind it. This is a great example of the idiots at eWeek not understanging anything about how OS 9 works and how hardware is designed and integrated with the OS.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Gee, it's so nice that someone has a hobby. Of posting the same message header in every Mac themed thread on Slashdot. It's getting old enough to be cliche, give it a rest.
Besides, if OS X isn't a real OS, what is?
"Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
I've stared at it, and I really don't get it. Leaving aside your somewhat hazy grasp of grammar, this is not a correctly formed sentence:
It should system "get REAL hardware" or "a real computer" or whatever.
You have just slagged someone because you claim that they didn't proof-read a comment, and then you post a comment that you, quite obviously, haven't proof-read.
I might have missed something here but I don't see where anybody is being forced to do anything.
I.e. if you have to be able to boot to OS9 then don't buy a new machine! (Or if you do then keep your old one around as well).
QED
YHBT. STFU & HAND.
oh my gid! it's the flamewar of the idiots =)
instead of replying to obvious cheapass flamebait?
My guess is that they have no plans to limit booting into OS X so soon. As the eweak article pointed out, too many of Apple's core market-base RELY on OS 9 only products. Encouraging people to switch to OS X is one thing, eliminating half your customer base is another. But if a "rumor" gets out implying that they just might do such a thing, how many developers do you think just might make the extra push to get their products compatible with OS X that much sooner? Another rumor recently surfaced that Apple may start requiring unique serial numbers for OS X due to piracy (although of course Apple makes no official comment). Then Amazon offers a $50 rebate on OS X and it quickly becomes their best-selling product.. no doubt a few of those users being people concerned that they wouldn't be able to just "bum" a copy from one of their friends come August 24th. Amazon has since discontinued the rebate due to "overwhelming response" (as if we're supposed to believe they were losing money on that deal?), but during that time Apple picked up quite a few users who probably had no original intention of buying OS X (but every intention of getting a copy). Although Apple claims to despise the rumor mill, I think they know its power quite well, and use it effectively more often than people realize. Only time will tell, of course.
That was funny.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
This makes perfect sense, as booting into 9 allows access to just all of the personal user folders and the like. If you can't boot into 9 you get rid of a whopping security hole.
-an
Complaining that you can't run System 6 on your new Dual GHz PowerMac G4?
The biggest problem with not being able to boot into OS 9 is for diagnosing problems. If the hard drive is hosed (can't be booted from) and I want to run tools on it, I'll boot from an OS 9 CD. If I can't do that, what the hell am I going to do? Boot from an OS X CD that has carbon/cocoa utilities on it? Yeah right, OS X takes up most of the 650MB all by itself. (BTW, Drive X sucks)
For this reason, I don't think Apple will *keep* new machines from booting into OS 9. They may de-bundle OS 9, so it doesn't come with the machine. But sure as hell hope they let it boot into OS 9.
Of course, I could just pull the hard drive out and pop it into an older machine to run utilites... =P
Mr. Spleen
oh what a bunch of crap.
apple isn't going to tweak the hardware just to prevent people from booting into classic. it's not that kind of company.
silly pudge, I'll bet he just wanted to make use of that OS 9 category he made for this article =P
That would be soooooo cooooool!
Did any of you stop and think it might be because the new Apple computers will feature hardware that OS9 does not support, and would waste many man hours to add? I personally don't want the company that makes my Hardware and OS to waste time and money bringing OS9 up to a point that it can support DDR ram and other such hardware. Also, perhaps OS9 instructions in the OFW are causing problems.
Could the real reason be that booting up in OS X necessitates password entry and systel level protection of files under BSD whereas booting up in System 9 allows any user to trash ANY part of the hard drive without any permissions checking at all?
Currently, dual boot OS X and 9 systems can be trashed by booting up in 9. Single boot OS X systems can be "rooted" instead by booting up with a CD that boots up on System 9 with the right key sequence at powerup. I don't deny that not having to support older software on newer hardware may play a role, but the security issue may also be a big part for Admins who want to lock down publicly accesible systems.
I've been reading that the forthcoming OSX 10.2 that we have to pay $129 for despite having 10.1 doesn't even include OS9 disks. Is that true? If so then jobs has really lost it. 90% of my stuff doesn't even have OSX versions yet.
I work at a newspaper where all of the layout and printing is done from systems running OS 9. It's not because we don't want to run OS X, but because a lot of our software just isn't available for it. If we buy a new system without OS 9 support we'll suddenly lose the ability to natively run QuarkXPress with its numerous 3rd-party XTensions, all of our custom Associated Press applications break, we can no longer connect to our all-important Tandem server (not to mention the Exchange system too), and there's no telling what havoc will be wrought upon our OPI, RIPs, and imagesetters with the new OS X printing services...those things aren't exactly free to replace!
"Leave the strategizing to those of us with planet-sized brains." -Tycho
... Remember all the slack that Apple got for removing the Floppy Drive? ... People grumbled for a little while and realized, hey, Apple made the right move for me ...
Not quite. The flack Apple received was not really over the floppy itslef, it was over the complete lack of writable removable media in the early iMacs. People did not eventually agree with Apple, Apple reversed itself and eventually equipped some iMacs with removable writable media, CD-R, and later CD-RW. The original Apple line that all people need is ethernet was a cover story for the fact that rev A iMacs with CD-R would have been too expensive.
I was going to buy a Mac when the time was right. Wether of not the storie`s true this has effected my decision to do so. I don't trust Apple. I always was worried about buying into a company with hardware and software influences since I had to leave Microsoft. This is just one demonstration of M$ style tactics. Wether the storie's true or not I may stay well clear.
A blog I run for the wealth
...instead of stealing mine?
Ok I'll admit, not even the power and flexibility of Windows can prevent you from stealing my posting style, so I will refrain from taking this opportunity to sing its praises.
As much as this has been debated to *death* in various Apple forums (including /.) -- and as much as I still think that it is unlikely to happen -- this move doesn't look so dumb if Andrew Neff (no, I'd never head of him either) is to be believed. The more Apple can force users and ISVs over to OSX the less technical problems they might/will have if they port Classic over to x86 to retain some sort of backwards compatibility (a'la 68k to PPC).
Man, this latest "Apple will use x86 chips eventually" sure has some legs.
Run OS 9 forever. There's no law saying you can't. If that's exactly what you want then why are you wetting yourself over the idea that I like OS X? Go be happy with 9.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Forgive me if this is a tad off the topic, but this is the closest thread i could find to the topic i wanted to address.
I'm not quite sure how many people have gone to the apple.com sight or seen the many apple commercials advertising the SWITCH program. These are designed to get PC users to start using MACs. Actually they are trying to get (stupid) PC users to convert to MAC. Personally I have no objection to MACs for what they are or should I say, what they are useful for. MACs are good for Graphics Design and massive rendering programs. The OS is stable because it is based off of UNIX.
But you probably already know all of this, so I'll get to my real issue. In most of these apple movies the people keep talking about how their computers documents get lost and their (WINDOWS OS) fails or locks up or whatever. They make a direct assosiation between PCs and Windows. People can't be that narrow minded, (well maybe they can), but there are other OS's besided WINDOWS. Thats the beauty of Personal Computers. Sun, UNIX, Linux etc...... Most programs including game programs are written to run on PCs mostly for windows. Windows 3.1.1 wasn't that bad, but then again it was just a suped up DOS. I'm not even getting into Win95. Windows 98 wasn't that bad although it goes corrupt after a while and it need constant rebooting because of the STACK overflows.
WINNT is probably the most stable of them all. Then there was Windows 2000 (DON"T ASK they made it for the heck of it) They said it was based of of NT technology.........it was just a nicer looking or newer looking NT, also fairly stable. Then they came out with the USER FRIEDNLY windows XP and XP pro. AHHHHHH....... how sad. First of all its eye candy which of course you can disable....WOW.....second of all it has its own built in trojans the windows trojan weren't they proud of their remote desktop......again sad. Overall XP was the eisiest OS ofthem all to Network and set up shares etc....well besides NT that was pretty good (for a windows os). But overall windows xp is buggy and that stupid error reporting thing gets annoying as hell.....(but ah yes you can disable that too!!!!!!!!) The CTRL-ALT-DEL brings up the NT screen with a task manager (nice) but what the heck are all of those processes running for? Windows 98 had to run one process to work (basically) explorer.exe and a few
network commands if you had a network, rundll32 and kernel but not a huge list. Overall XP sucks your processing power.
But OSs aren't the best part of PCs.....the nice thing about PCs is that they are upgradeable to and almost unlimited extent....you can put in a new motherboard a new everthing from the power box on up (easily). After you buy your system you can keep sticking stuff into it to make it better more
RAM more HD space more drives better or two MONITORS.....
Tell my if I'm wrong but its not that easy to take apart a MAC and add stuff upgraded etc....or at least not as easy as it is on a PC.
And I just have to throw this in there............
WHAT IS WITH THE ONE BUTTON excuse for a MOUSE that MACs have?
As PC users we have our options....Trackball, lasermouse, ball mice....but the least amount of buttons present is two, (unless your little brother rips one off). I saw a mouse with like 12 buttons on it plus the scroll bar. Personally if I didn't have my scroll bar I would be in a constant
state of strife. (YES I DID OPERATE COMPUTERS BEFORE THE SCROLL BAR WAS INVENTED, IN THIS CASE I SIMPLY USED THE KEYBOARD ARROWS OR PAGE BUTTONS)
Anyhow the point of these past two posts was just to point out how technally stupid the people are that make the apple swith commercials.
I am a PC user I love PCs for what they can do.
MACs, well I'd get one if I was doing graphic design. (I'd have to make a new mouse for them though)
If you read all of this, I thank you for your patience and I hope that I made my point very clear.
Now that I've told the world my issues with apple.com I'm going to browse the web using MOZILLA (IE is bad it is the devil). Thank you Slashdot for this great service to the tech/geek community.
Uh, you do know you can buy a USB two button mouse for a mac right? And last time I checked powermac's can be upgraded with ram, hard drives, and.....two monitors!!!!!!..... That crazy apple, hopefully they'll get their act together and finally release an OS that competes with Windows...
I wonder if he will prevent booting to Debian while he's there.
As long as you buy the hardware, why would he care? If you buy a Mac, you're paying for the hardware and the software already. If you don't want to run the software, well, hey, it's your cash. I mean Apple's. (Mine certainly is. Too much of it. Ugh.)
As for the idea of "Mac users seem to enjoy being told what to do," how about: "Dude, you're getting a Dell!" Dell, Gateway, Sony and an increasing number of PC (not Mac) manufacturers are discovering people do like to have the technical thinking done for them and are marketing to these people. Software is no different; one-click CD copying is deeply indicative of this, not to mention intelligent design in most cases.
I think the number of testimonals from people who are still running ancient macintoshes with ancient operating systems that do what they want.
And, hey, jumping off a sinking ship? Who knew! (And who knew it was really that sinking; I still know plenty of people who swear by 9.2.) Unsupported sure doesn't mean useless. Anyone out there still have a reason to use MSDOS? If not, why are people still creating MSDOS clones that run off floppy drives?
This concludes your broadcast day.
This now concludes our broadcast day.
You forgot the part where Apple doesn't bend you over to the wall after 30 days unless you go online with your new box, and let it "phone home" and provide all sorts of hardware inventory and other valuable marketing information *for free* in the process.
Worse, the damn thing, if it's not your primary PC, either won't work on your internet connection because the new machine's MAC address isn't the same as the old machine's MAC address ("Hello, Mr. Cable Modem"), or it wil offer several times to sign you up for MSN. When you refuse it enough times, then it wants to call an 800 number to rat you out about the hardware you have in your machine.
Even if one of the things in your machine isn't a network card or modem ("Go fricking buy one, a**hole" says Microsoft to it's users).
I swear I *hate* Windows XP for that.
It's all a blantant attempt to obtain hardware inventory and other valuable marketing information that no one else is going to have access to, unless they pay Microsoft, and probably not even then.
"Oh, we're introducing this new hardware doohicky because we *think* people *might* buy it, not because we have any inside information or anything; after all, we would *never* wield our monopolistic power in OSs to try and dominate the game controller/wheel mouse/ market! We're innovative good guys!".
So in closing... NO, IT'S NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD TO ACCEPT END-OF-LIFE ON MacOS-9, BUT NOT ON Windows 2000.
Thanks.
You fell for my troll. Ha ha.
OSX has already won.
Software developers are forced to make the OSX transition because the competition is doing the same in most software categories.
Most Mac users are learning to appreciate the features and look of OSX, and use OS9 because they need to for hardware, software compatibility. As an OS9 user i don't expect new drivers for an OS which will eventually be abandoned, nor i demand support from Apple for issues with old OS9 software. If i needed to change machine and the new ones couldn't boot OS9 i'd settle for an used mac, would it be healthy for Apple sales?
If letting OS9 boot on newer machines has a big cost for Apple, please open the project up as it has been done for darwin (and Mac on Linux, in a different way) and let the community do the work, but please don't limit the possibilities for new Macs.
As long as the points are salient, who cares if it's a troll? If the point of a troll is to spur informational discussion, then by all means, troll away.
The easiest computer I've ever upgraded (internally) was a PowerMac G4 tower. The second easiest was a G4 Cube.
Memory upgrades couldn't be any easier than the slot-loading iMacs. Also, their internals are about as accessible as your typical PC. Just rip off the lower cover, take out a screw or two, a pair of cables, and the hard drive and CD/DVD come right off.
I've upgraded both the hard drive and CD drive of a slot-loading iMac, and it took less time then trying to get my hand worked around in that small space behind the drive bays in any PC I've been inside.
I do agree about XP, though. I recently got an XP machine at work to replace a much slower (in MHz) Windows 2000 one. I swear that W2K was far more responsive than XP, and definitely operates more predictably.
I'm currently working at a University as part of the technology procurement department. We are officially a PC platform University, but we have no choice but to support the Mac platform as it is essential to many different fields of study. Since OS X has come out, I've become a true believer in Mac Products. A majority of our Science and Education departments must use Mac. There is equipment, software, and processes, that just don't let you get around this fact. However, our campus has found that at this time there is no pressing need to upgrade our campus to OS X from OS 9. A majority of the software that is used requires OS 9, and will not run under X in classic mode. Our Graphics design and marketing people have upgraded to OS X, but they are using programs that have been write as OS resident. The bulk users of our client base are still needing to be in 9 for their day to day uses. The reality of the situation is that Apple needs to make a choice; a choice that every solution provider of any kind must make. Should they continue to foster and encourage the development of the old way of doing business, in an effort to make their old school clients feel more comfortable? Or should they push they focus on the new way of doing business so not to be left in the dust as others are being innovative? I really think the core issue that everyone has been dancing around, will still be an issue weather this rumor turns out true or not. Apple has always done things their own way. In a world where companies are merging, and people don't believe in the integrity of Corporate America, Apple has one thing going for them. They have a cult following that is more dedicated than any following Bill Gates and Microsoft ever had. They realize this, and like an earlier post mentioned, they make decision that their customer base may not like. Getting rid of legacy support brought a lot of flak from main stream computer users, however it has only strengthen Apple and the communities that Apple has been loyal to all these years. Scientists are still using Mac for a lot of their lab work, and their instruments are becoming more and more Firewire and USB compatible. Why? Not because it's a more efficant was of transmitting data, but because Apple has forced this area of study to move forward into a new age of computer uses. Here is the crux of whole thing. We Americans are very proud of our freedom. The western world psychology is built on a believe that I as a human being have a free will, and the ability to choose my own destiny. This is something engaged in our psyche. What is freaking people out is that Apple has in the past, and could possibly in the future, decided for it's users what their next computer platform will look like. In the PC industry I find that the push is to make what we currently have work faster and better because the users want to get home to their life away from work faster. Such people are critics of the Apple culture and try to make Apple users look like brainless automatons who have to have their computer decisions made for them by Apple. This is a warped image. Apple has consistently pushed their hardware into the new age of computing, and at time even admitting that they had gone the wrong way and needed to find a new direction (apple serial ports). But Apple has always looked out for it's customers and done what's best for them in Apple's eyes. So if this sounds like I've brain washed by Big Brother Apple, I don't know how to come back at that. But I will say this: Just because I don't like get an infinite choice of computers abilities to work with, doesn't mean that I don't the worlds most kick but computer (G4 Power Book). Yes Apple can make mistakes, but I would rather be a part of an innovative mistake, then sit back and miss out on the opportunity of being part of something that is cutting edge and exciting. I'm a geek who likes to see the possibility of computer expand, and I see apple as being on the for front of that frontier. So if Apple does decide to stop shipping OS 9 with OS X and new systems, what will it hurt. Yes there will be people inconvenienced, and yes people will be upset. But technology will go forward. That's progress, a sometimes misunderstood term. The very idea of progress is that a group of people change a way of life for all people in a particular setting for the better. We western thinkers don't like this because it's a change that we can't control, and that means we are no longer deciding our own destiny. So suck it up, the fact of life is you don't have control over you life, so deal with it. What will come will come, and good or bad we will deal with it.
Thank you Sir, may I have another!
-1 (Troll)
An AC wrote:
;)
> Isn't the Apple motto:
>
> "Just let us do the thinking"
Nope. It's "Think Different" and "Easier on a Mac".
> Mac users seem to enjoy being told what to do.
I don't. If I did, I'd sign up on the good ship Millenium captained by Bill Gates. (Which is due to be sunk by Godzilla any day now.
> When Steve Jobs says Jump, they ask how high
> shall I jump. In this case its off the sinking
> ship known as Mac OS 9.x
Nope. Steve has just wisely decided to keep Apple afloat by supporting only newer OS's for newer hardware. OS 9 will continue to happily run on your existing hardware (which you don't have to pay a dime to Apple to keep and keep running) until your existing hardware stops running.
If OS 9 is what you need or prefer, I wish you joy of it, and I'll try not to get too much dust in your eye as I race past in my new Jaguar. If you plan on keeping OS 9 for much longer, I'd suggest the purchase of some driving goggles, though.
> I wonder if he will prevent booting to Debian
> while he's there.
I have a suspicion that Debian will run on Macs longer than it will run on PCs. You might want to check with Microsoft on the details of Palladium's boot sequence.
"What I'm thinking is different from what you are."
Belabera, "Mothra 3" 1998
Did I imagine I would find myself laughing at Multifinder joke. It makes me sad I threw out that old Mac Plus....
I've been warning my customers for 3 years that this day would come they would have to start migrating.
Now its finnally going to happen and I get to say "I told you so!". I feel bad however for the folks that resits OS X because it really is wicked operating system. Coming from a UNIX lover from way-back I think its the "Holy Grail". Unfortunatly most of my customers are in the printing business and they are not technical and are highly resistant to changes. They like it when they finally figure things out and like to leave them as such.
Besides their biggest complaint is that Quark is not native (even though it runs just fine under Classic, actually a bit faster in my experience) but I always tell them there is an alternative [InDesign 2.0] and I've made the switch and would never go back....
...that you're my first fan?
I'm glad you like my work and I'd like to dedicate this post to the reliability of Windows.
P.S. Microsoft (unlike Apple) not only allows me to boot into Windows 98, 2000, XP, etc., but it encourages it!!! (Provided that a person has the appropriate licenses.)
Until I can get my hands on a native ProTools, I have to still boot into OS9 to use it. I can understand their POV, but I don't like it.
Some of the core app vendors have been slow in migrating. Apple needs to get on them.
tinfoilmedia
If you don't want to run the software you're screwed. With a PC you DO have a choice of OS. You could run Winders or Linux or whatever. With the new Macs you'll either run 10 or you are screwed. Nice job Steve! Alienate your users! GREAT marketing idea! I hope the rumor is false otherwise my ibook will be the last Mac I ever buy. I'll stick with real Linux.
There are some things that you just cannot do without OS 9 ... we recently had a logic board fried from an electrical storm, and sure enough our AppleCare associate had us rebooting into OS 9 to perform diagnostics and access certain levels of the system. (Don't ask me what the hell it was though.)
How official do you need?
http://www.macintouch.com/newsrecent.shtml
"William Frank forwarded a note from Steve Jobs about the purported demise of Mac OS 9 support in Apple's next hardware releases:
I wrote Steve Jobs my concern about the story on Eweek about not being able to boot into OS 9 with New Macs. I got a response back:
This rumor is simply not true. Steve"