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.
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
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......
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.
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
You overlook a few of OS X's current security measures. If you want, you can lock the System Preferences for the startup disk, and then it can only be changed by an admin. This eliminates the ability of normal users to go into OS 9 to get into folders that they do not have the file permissions for under OS X. You may argue that people who admin abilites on a machine could just switch to OS 9 to view locked files, but this is pointless because anyone with admin powers can change file permissions in OS X if they know a few basic UNIX commands.
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.
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.
That article is the opinion of one carbon developer.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
No you don't have to switch back to PC's. You have a Mac that runs the software now right? Problem solved. They are not making any changes to YOUR current computer, they will simply not support OS 9 on NEW hardware. Just like my G4 doesn't support OS 8.5...it will only boot OS 9 for a classic OS. There is no difference here
...their entire business is based on upgrading older Macs to run today's OS. Do you think they are going to stop now? That Umax system originally shipped with a 604 processor at 180MHZ. Now it's got a G3 and OS X.
This is ridiculous FUD to me because most likely someone will create a hack to make the systems run OS 9. Hell, I have OS X running on a Umax S900 Mac clone using software created by OWC's Ryan Rumpel ( http://eshop.macsales.com/OSXCenter/ )
And as for the pricing of Jaguar...Since OS X's initial release it has had 10 upgrades (10.0-10.0.4 then 10.1-10.1.5) given to users for free or at a minimal cost of $20. Apple has charged for major upgrades since System 7. Jaguar is no different, quit whining. The only thing that has changed here is Apple's numbering scheme. Jaguar IS OS X 10.5 but they aren't calling it that. Why? because they want to keep the name OS X as long as possible. It's a cool name and it markets well, a hell of a lot better than OS XI. I imagine we'll see OS X 10.2.1-10.2.5 too...then we'll pay $20 for OS X 10.3...and 10.4 will be a full priced upgrade...get it now??? Just because a company changes it's numbering scheme doesn't mean that your getting ripped off here....look at what's included in the upgrade and then decide to yourself if this is a one point release or a major release....then....
Please people, chill out, sit back and see what happens...then get upset if you need to..worrying without the facts is silly.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."