Slashdot Mirror
Macs Won't Boot Into Mac OS in 2003
Magnus Olsson writes "Apple announced at Apple Expo in Paris, that they are dropping the ability to boot into Mac OS after January 2003. It will still be possible to access Mac OS via the Classic environment under Mac OS X." Apparently, eWeek was right, and the final nail is being driven. So, where's mol for Mac OS X?
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-09 -10-008-26-NW-SW
straight off my little bar on the side there. Even today.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
I live in OS X now - or linux. I only use a couple of "Classic" apps.
The only big problem I can see if that sometimes to fix a problem with OS X, it's easier to do it in classic - especially if you have files that never want to delete!
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
http://maconlinux.net/news.html
Can they really do this?
Is it legal?
We're happy to see Apple take this next step to drive adoption of Mac OS X,
And here I'd always that "adoption" was a matter of choice. Of course, if it's being driven, one can only guess.
I use OSX for most of the time - it's my OS of choice - but what about some games? Some games run pants within classic and some are ok - like Unreal Tournament - it runs way more smoothly in native 9. Is Apple gonna release patches for OS9 games? I don't see a problem goin full OS X except for playing my old games.
Fight Crime - Shoot Back!
I've been using OS X since 10.0.0 and never reboot into 9, but there are people in pre-press that won't be able to buy any of Apple's new machines until Quark updates its software.
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
I haven't logged into 9 in over a year, I think the only thing from making me take it off all my designers computers if *&*%$# Quark Dragging its feet again, once that happens no more OS 9 for any of my poeple. OS 9 while you will always hold a soft spot in my heart OS X KICKS @$$!!!
it's annoying for those who have thousansd in software that will only run in OS9, they get a bit of a cold shoulder from Apple is seems as of late.
this whole push towards OSX reminds me of one of those situations where everyone knows it has to be done, but no one is really dying to do it. Apple has a new OS that they're still trying to get the bugs worked out of, get it cleaned up and hopefully working to the point where it's a big enough incentive to move people over.
at the same time, OS9 users don't really want to move. they have a lot of time and money invested in both OS9 itself and their software. learning something different after you've gone 10+ years with the same thing isn't something most people look forward to. they also have a legitimate argument that a lot of smaller titles are making it over to OSX. i know in the research community that i work with there are key apps that haven't been ported because they were written by some researcher on their own time, for free years ago. that guy isn't going to take the time to learn how to port his program to OSX most likely. (and yes there is classic mode, but that rather ruins the point of OSX)
time will tell how this works out, but one way or another it had to happen. at least with 10.2 it's not a bad thing anymore.
Can they really do this?
Apple has required minimum versions of system software to boot a Macintosh computer since at least 7.0.1, when the Classic II, LC II, and Quadra series couldn't boot anything before 7.0.1. It lets Apple gradually get rid of legacy hardware in a computer, something the PC side can't seem to do for some reason.
Will I retire or break 10K?
So, where's mol for Mac OS X?
Help an uneducated brit here guys, what does "So, where's mol for Mac OS X? " mean? expression from across the pond or did I fall asleep in computer class again?... cheers ...
Apple's got a brand new gun and they're staring at their feet.
I use a somewhat high end desktop scanner - Lino 1400 that Heidleberg has no plans to make OS X compatable software for. So if I want to upgrade my Mac, I have to buy a new scanner as well.
Don't get me wrong, this makes me mad at Heidleberg, and not Apple.
If MS did this (I know, I know they dont produce their own hardware) people here would be flipping out, I just hope we can show a little consistancy here. This is a crappy decision, it would be like dell producing computers that will not run 95/98 or older linux kernels..
Yeah, mod me down for bashing apple, bitches...
This is a serious mistake. You don't gain market share by eliminating applications or users. Microsoft tried this, (By trying to leverage NT4 for the desktop) and watched it backfire horribly. Apple even watched it happen once before, when they switched from 68k architecture, to PowerPC. They ended up having to include an interperater/emulator for 68k apps in later versions of Mac0S.
Yeah, most users should stay up and keep the latest and greatest of apps, compiled directly for your platform. The *rest* of the world knows that this just doesn't happen. Not all of the apps we love or *have* to use are open source or will run properly on more than one OS. If you don't beleive me, just look at all the DOS games that didn't work under Windows 2000 that were 'fixed' under WinXP. I know people who dual-boot solely so they can play Tomb Raider 1.
If Apple does not include functionality to use OS7/8/9 apps in OSX, then it will hurt them.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Pehaps I am a missing something, but I can't boot into OS9 now from 10.2. My remaining system folder is greyed out and unselectable from the Startup disk control panel. I'm sure I could get around this booting from an OS9 CD, but thats just a pain in the ass. (But worth it considering how much better Warcraft III preforms under 9.) Apple should leave booting to 9 as an option. I understand not including it on new computers or including with a copy of Jaguar, It is the only way to drag some people along with resorting to draconian licensing practices. But for people that already run it let them run concurantly as long as they like.
Unlike WinOS/2 in the OS/2 world, OS X does not include an installation of the bits of OS 9 necessary for Classic mode.
You MUST install OS 9 before installing OS X, otherwise you have no Classic mode.
If they disable booting OS 9 (which is exactly how one starts an OS 9 install), I'm not sure how one would go about installing OS 9 before installing OS X.
I suppose it's possible that Apple could follow IBM's lead and include the necessary parts of OS 9 as part of the OS X install. That would most likely be the simplest solution.
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
Oh, and yeah, Steve Jobs will not personally go around to Mac users' homes, deleting all old copies of MacOS 10 so you can all relax ...
Alison
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein
Without QuarkXpress (The third part of the Illustrator/Photoshop trilogy) there will be little incentive for graphic designers to move.
Why boot launch the classic OS emulator just to delete a file just type "rm fileName"? at the terminal?
Of course OSX tries to prevent you from using root (arguably for good reasons) but if you need more permissions to delete a file that won't go away try "sudo rm fileName" the mac will prompt you for your administrator password and give you admin rights on the console for five minutes.
Now that we bought Photoshop 7 I hope to never launch classic again.
I use OS X most of the time on a two year old G4 Desktop, but am holding on to a 6100 DOS Compatible, Powerbook 520, and Classic II for compatibility for older applications. It keeps them out of the land fills and third world countries.
I'm looking forward to OS-X on x86 machines. If only to prevent management from spending a lot of money on slow proprietary hardward.
They could obsolete everything in 30 days if they wanted too.. ( hell, in 30 mins if they were in a bad mood )
:)
Though they would loose their customer base forever in the process..
You could all lobby for a 'support time' law.. umm just kidding
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Now we just need computers that will refuse to boot windows.
-S
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
I'm not so sure this is aimed at Mac users so much as developers. Antecdotal evidence suggests that Mac users have no problem migrating to OS X. It's companies like Quark and alot of the printer and scanner manufacturers that are dragging their feet in supporting OS X. It seems like its a way for Apple to say, 'Look, no one is going to be using OS 9 on any of our new machines, so if you want people to continue to purchase your products then you need to develop programs and drivers for OS X'. Seems reasonable enough to me.
You've got an easy breezy wind at your back...most of the time.
There should be continued support for older software for a reasonable period (No idea what this would be though), so I disagree on that, but It seems a better idea to just run native apps than kludge everything else to the detriment of the system as a whole.
As long as incompatibilities are well-documented, this can only improve the performance of the computer. It's like the difference between running generic binary files compared to optimised ones for your architecture (e.g. why Gentoo linux is much faster if you can get past the install). Those who this would prevent from running software simply don't upgrade. Admittedly this is a gross oversimplification but essentially this just means that everyone involved ha to support all their applications twice.
This idea was invented by Shampoo.
MOL for OS X is called the Classic Environment and is included in OS X... Does it say that they're not going to support Classic in 2003? I find that hard to believe. They're just going to not support BOOTING into OS 9.
Dude, you are so clueless. Mac OS X is a SOLID operating system based on BSD. OS 9 is an antiquated pile of shit with no pre-emptive multitasking and extremely poor memory management. Hell, running Mac OS 9 on ANY new hardware is like having a 3 cylinder Ford Festiva engine in a Ferrari.
I wish all the Mac users would stop being whiny bitches and realize that sometimes change is GOOD.
Ever hear of Macs? Or maybe any computer running on IBM's Power4 chip? Or maybe Amigas?
You *can* install OS9 afterwards (for Classic access).
Did a fresh install of Jaguar on my TiBook. Didn't even think of OS9 since all my apps are OS X approved. Wait, except for that damned Toast CD which is only OS9 (for the install). Popped out my OS9 CD that came with OS X 10.1.2, 'c' during startup, and installed a fresh copy of OS9.
Reboot back into Jaguar and launched Classic mode. It did its upgrade thang, and all was well.
(after installing Toast Titanium I was then able to apply the patch to make it an OS X app).
OS X DOEs include the ability to run the older apps via Classic which is basically a virtual machine that runs OS 9. There are many apps from the 7.x era that won't run in this environment but 7.x has been deprecated for over four years. I've seen cheesy educational titles from the early nineties that didn't like 8.x or 9.x much but I don't think that will hurt much.
Other apps made with Apple's Carbon API will execute natively under either OS 9 or OS X. AppleWorks is one such and it looks the same in either OS.
Apple IS thinking of their longstanding user base and have decent answers to the issues you mention.
Apple is not explicitly doing anything to the hardware to prevent OS 9 booting that could otherwise occur. They are simply not bothering to update OS 9 to boot on the new hardware, since it is legacy code.
there are lots of people here saying things like "what about quark?" or some other app. "we won't be able to run quark! Mac's will become less usefull." the reasoning seems to go. but the whole point of Apple droping System 9 is to encourage (okay, strongly encourage) the software vendors to get their act together, and start producing software for the modern system - or at least that works under Classic. by getting the software makers to stop dragging their feet, Apple is making OS X much more useful (and usable), and doing a service to their users.
of course, there's the seperate problem of support for old peripherials like scanner drivers, but that's a different issue.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
You can boot into Classic from Jag if you have Classic all up to date and all. Jag requires the absolute newest version. OS 9 does not ship with Jag but it's available for an additional $20 or $30 from Apple, and yes, you can boot to it. Try updating if you want to.
---- My Design, Code, Ruby on Rails blog: http://www.slash7.com/
its funny, how when microsoft discontinues support for legacy apps/OS's, eveyrone gets pissed. yet when its precious Apple, everyone applauds. im not a fan of microsoft, but i dont like any of the 4 linux distros i've tried, and mac's are too expensive. so i use windows. zealots of any kind make so sense.
OS-X is absolutely great.
Apple really have got it right this time.
Apple really wants to ditch OS 9. They have made this abundantly clear and they have dead-ended it. Right now Apple has to get people off Mac OS 9 so that developers will start targeting OS X. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Apple is in a position now where most of their major third party application providers (Photoshop, et al) are running on X. But these companies still support OS 9 and this is what has to be stopped. How do you stop it? Force users to jump to OS X. Now there's no reason to develop for OS 9 and Apple can declare it truly dead.
But as another poster pointed out, forcing people to ditch their current OS doesn't make you many friends. So would Apple intentionally cripple their hardware to make sure it won't boot OS 9? I doubt it. But if you read between the lines on this one it may be implying something bigger - I'm thinking a processor change here.
OS X affords Apple the opportunity to run on many platforms and ditching PPC is not an option if you have to support OS 9. So you have to ditch 9 to move forward.
We all know that OS 9 runs emulated under OS X and Apple will keep this support. This most likely doesn't require platform support. I don't know for sure, but Apple is most likely emulating for OS 9 - and if it's not it will in future releases when they ditch Motorola.
All the signs are pointing this way. Motorola's PPC development has stagnated. Apple needs more horsepower to make OS X shine. Apple needs to find a new processor and OS 9 simply doesn't fit into the picture. I'm willing to bet that this move is being made to clear the way for a new chip, maybe even to introduce it at Mac World 2003.
I think saying that they are dropping the ability to boot into Mac OS [9] seems a bit misleading. It kind-of-if-you-look-at-it-differently implies that Apple is removing the feature from the firmware, however no mention of that is made in the announcement. All that they'll be doing (in my view, if I'm not missing something here) is removing OS 9 as a stand-alone OS from their new machines. It'll still live as part of OS X; Classic still needs OS 9 in order to run OS 9 apps. That said, there's no need for something like MOL, since Classic does the the same thing.
So what's the big fuss about, anyway?
In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
Many computers with Windows installed refuse to boot........
Which is carbonized and, I should say, very nice. The fact that it's integrated into Illy/PS and has the same user interface is a tremendous boon.
Quark sucks ass. If you believe otherwise, you're on crack. They laugh at you if you call them for support and say things like "But we know you won't switch." If they're insistent on darwinizing themselves, let them. OS X has been out for over a year. There's no excuse.
---- My Design, Code, Ruby on Rails blog: http://www.slash7.com/
Classic runs much better (and boots way faster) under Jaguar anyway, reducing the need for OS 9 booting. If Apple makes more improvments before they ship new hw (a given), there will be even fewer reasons to need to boot into OS 9.
Press Release
The quote: "all new Mac® models will only boot into Mac® OS X as the start-up operating system"
From the engineering point of view, you have to drop some legacy from time to time, or either your progress will slow down, or you need more horsepower to keep your speed, like the Microsoft IE development with more than 1000 people, or like the Windows XP dev team beeing 10-30 times larger than the Windows NT team.
And it is perfectly in the tradition of Apple, in contrast with the Microsoft/Intel tradition of keeping A20 gates and VGA modes more than ten years after nobody really uses them any more.
Apple would either require a new OS 9 release for every new Mac, or had to keep the current system design, unable to benefit from new processor or bus technologies.
I have been a long time Mac User and developer between '85 and '99, but Apple lost me to Windows and Linux when fucked up their new OS development (Rhapsody etc.). I would give them a try when the gcc compiler on their top-of-the-line laptops would be at least 50% as fast as on a current Dell top-of-the-line system under Linux. (It was five times slower the last time I tried.)
p.
p.
Without order, nothing can exist. Without chaos, nothing can be created.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Ok, really, how much time have you spent with X? It f***ing rocks. OSX kicks the hell out of OS9. And with Jaguar alot of my favorite features are back (eg. Spring loaded folders, a working zoom feature). You can even get X to function much like 9 with HDD's on the desktop and all that. Though I find the Home directory model to be very useful.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I think that people are missing some of this. Yes they are removing the ability from Mac OS X to boot into 9.
When a PC user buys an upgrade to their OS they now only have the ability to boot into that OS.
So this isn't anything really new in the computer world. A PC user circumvents this by installing a desired older OS on a seperate partition.
Apple's approach is just one of foward thinking. Why go back? Not really a bad or terrible thing to do. In all honesty Microsoft is guilty of the same thinking.
You could argue that even most linux distro's do the same as you are encouraged to upgrade your kernal after a new release.
To strive, to seek, but not to yield
Correct. The problem being that Apple is going to turn off the ability to boot OS 9. The question becomes, are they disabling OS 9 booting altogether (which means your installation CD will NOT work), or are they simply removing the option to select which system folder boots. If the latter, then we're OK. If the former, then we're out of luck.
The strange thing is that in the Apple releases, they keep talking about the bundled Classic environment. I hardly call it bundled if you have to install the underlying OS 9 to make it work.
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
Hell yeah! I could never give up having every file I download get its name truncated to a mere 31 characters, assuming I can get to it before my web browser leaks memory and crashes the machine. And who needs 'nix compatibility? That just makes it easy and profitable for people to port or develop their software for an additional 3-4% of the market.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
it's annoying for those who have thousansd in software that will only run in OS9, they get a bit of a cold shoulder from Apple is seems as of late.
This is not relevant for two reasons:
One, the Mac that your thousand dollar software on will not cease to boot OS 9 on Jan 1, 2003. This is only for new Apples. I still have a copy of OS 9 and X, I can still dual boot without a problem.
Two, there are two types of people affected with the thousand dollar problem. The first are corporations looking to buy new Apple equipment and run legacy software for which they have licenses left. The performance of the new Apples will compensate for booting up Classic, and then some. The other group is home users (whom you're presumably talking about): who paid thousands of dollars for single licenses. Unless you bought licenses for computers you didn't have, or bought unlimited licenses for yourself...chances are good you're not legally allowed to put it on another computer, your old one (booting OS 9 now) will do just fine.
--- What
I am really looking forward to my work upgrading my system to OS X next year and getting rid of 9. OS 9 and previous mac OS's although haveing some nice features SUCK ON THE WEB - sorry it's true. There are so many sites that ie 6 for mac (and yes I tried opera and netscape) can't run properly. I don't have a problem with them using konqueror on nix or with ie on my xp box. And just in case anyone asks - they really are all work related sites - mostly online ordering/print shop sites. Although you can try and tell me its because of the coding of the site - get over it - on OS X with ie (whihc we got to sample on one machine in the office) the sites all work fine and the OS seems a lot more effecient feeling all around so i'm more inclined to blame my mac.
Ave Molech Setting
Here at work, I was trying to install 98 first edition on a Dell PIII 750. Not all the hardware will run on it correctly, despite the sticker on the front which clearly reads "designed for 95/98/2000". One important thing to remember is that even if the OS could run on it, would Jimmy User have tons of trouble getting their drivers etc. running on it, causing them endless frustration? It doesnt mean that their decision is 100% correct, but it doesnt mean that it doesnt have good reasons, either. When you modify a hardware architecture, there are gains and sacrifices that have to be weighed.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
It's time to move on and forget about OS 9. OS X is the future. There's not time to waste.
:)
Of course, I also want to point out the fact that if MS did something similar, people would be going crazy. Hell, people went crazy when MS decided to stop supporting NT4 so imagine if they did something like that
If you are using Free Software and/or Open Source software, you get more freedom from this sort of thing happening to you.
J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent. -- Alexandre Dumas
I have been looking on the net and can't find a transcript of Job's keynote. I was interested to see whether they were going to announce an update to the TiBook where they were going to include the new Mobility Radeon 9000 sometime in the near future.
Microsoft said yesterday that PCs won't boot DOS or Win9x based OSes by 2003.... come on how can Apple deny yo to boot into OS9paid OS9 copy Legally?
------- The last Sig. got fired.
I know all that - but there are still the odd file, perhaps corrupt, that I can't prod OS X into deleting. No matter how I set permissions on that file it won't go away.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
Apple just announced their not going to update an old OS with hardware drivers for their new machines. They want to spend their development effort on the new OS. They are not going back and disabling features that already worked.
This will NOT take away your ability to boot OS 9 on existing hardware.
This will NOT take away your ability to run OS 7/8/9 apps on any hardware (including the new stuff) through classic.
So does this have anything to do with Apple's uber-secret (except when it's posted on /.) project that has OS X simultaneously running on Intel boxes?
By forcing the migration away from OS 9, Apple moves closer to a processor-independent world where they could drop Motorola in 2-3 years.
The only thing that I have a worry with not being able to reboot into OS 9 are the older games - Myth, Myth II, Rune (granted, not a *good* game, but still...).
If they had good 3D accelleration[sic] support under classic, this wouldn't be a worry at all.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
To correct a few facts that you have wrong.
Apple did not later include the 68k emulator w/ the PowerPC macs, it shipped day one. It was needed as part of the OS still had 68k code in it. The transition from 68k to PPC was smooth.
And, Apple already provides a way for users to run their OS 7/8/9 apps in OS X. That's what Classic is. It allows older mac apps to run unchanged in OS X.
This announcement simply stated that NEW (as in models not currently for sale) won't boot in OS 9. In January, any model currently for sale will still boot OS 9. It's only when apple releases the next model iMac/PowerMac/iBook/PowerBook G4 after January that the machine will only boot into OS X. It will still be able to run old apps under Classic in OS X.
Of course, at MacWorld SF in January 2003, Jobs will announce that Apple was just kidding; that the real date OS 9 will be discontinued is January 2004. Right? Right? Guys? He's kidding, right? (runs out to buy a new Mac).
In all seriousness, I can understand why Apple is making this apparently "stupid" move:
Apple wants to force the abandonment of OS 9. The entire Macintosh user base combined is already not large enough to entice a lot of software/hardware developers to support Macs. The challenge Apple currently faces is that if it fragments its user base further, it may lose some of the developers who do support Macs but can't afford to spend the time/money coding for both OS X and OS 9.
That would lead to fewer programs available for the Mac, which would lead to fewer incentives for the masses to use Macs, which would shrink the already-tiny user base (by Microsoft standards, it's tiny) further, which gives developers less incentive to support Macs, etc. It kicks off a vicious cycle that would ultimately kill the Macintosh. As Macintosh users, you and I bear the weight of this decision in the short term, but in the long term it ensures that the Macintosh will still be alive and kicking five years from now.
So Apple starts shipping new systems in January 2003 that only boot from OS X. Previously introduced systems that Apple continues to sell will still boot OS 9. At a minimum it will take six months to a year before Apple no longer sells a system that boots OS 9.
I would not be surprised if Apple keeps an older model that can boot OS 9 in the line up until 2004.
Lee Joramo
iToilet will be bootable in 2003..
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
MoL lets you run Mac on Linux. MoL for OS X lets you run OS 9 on OS X. That's Classic.
Kevin Fox
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
face it: you are wrong
I know IE truncates the files, I think because it's carbon rather than native. Crimera is Cocoa native and I assume it supports long file names.
> Who needs 'nix compatibilty?
Anyone who wants to run 'nix apps? Are you a troll?
Sheesh. They should have dropped Mac OS in 1997.
They bought NeXT in 1996. They were ready to go with Rhapsody in 1997, but developers were unwilling to make the switch wholesale... so we've spent the last 5 years with Apple creating carbon, supporting both OSes, updating classic Mac OS, creating the classic environment, and doing everything they could to support the legacy Macintosh market.
Its been 5 frigging years. Its about time we moved over to Unix and dropped total support for the legacy software.
Its not like nobody had warning, and its not like classic won't still run fine.
I think they've been more than generous enough. Remember copeland was supposed to ship in 1997... they had reason to ship next as the new OS in 1997, as it would have moved them to a modern platform way back then.
They have spent, essentially, the entirety of the last 5 years software wise supporting legacy Macintosh.
Anyone still using OS 9 day to day is free to keep doing so, but don't expect new hardware to be hobbled to maintain that support.
You want a modern machine, use the modern OS.
Excuse me while I say "Sheesh!"
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Don't quote me but with something like 3.5% of the desktop market I don't feel that Apple had their user base in mind when making this decision. Maybe Steve is losing touch with who his user base really is.
For the most part Mac users are neither programmers nor systems people. They are an almost eccentric group of artistic and talented individuals who long ago chose to use a Macintosh because of it's simplicity, rock solid hardware design, and it's sophisticated array of available software designed to accomodate their creativity. Musicians, artists, authors, designers, engineers, etc..
Software was available on both the PC platform as well as the Apple platform from day one. But I submit to you that IMHO it is within all likelyhood a fact that the software written for the Apple platforms was signifigantly more user-centric than was any DOS or Windows implementation of the same package. I.E. You wouldn't, and in in many instances still won't, find a keyboard player using a PC running Windows as his midi platform of choice. Nor would you have found an independent recording artist using a freekin soundblaster to record his gig.
I'm not wandering off course here, I'm pointing out the fact that the typical Mac user is not a geek and has become accustomed to his or her pre OSX box and could really care less about OSX. Who has time to spend learning it and who has time to wait for software/hardware vendors to catch up? How many shareware and free apps are being used which will never be ported over? Thousands I would guess.
My point is that Apple has made an error here by forcing one to boot into OSX. I don't want to do that. Why should I have to do that? Why will I have to change my bootloader and dump OSX off my machine? Why don't I have a choice if I am technically challanged? Shades of Microsoft.....
I have a friend who specified: "data to be delivered in MS access '97 format", assuming that a Windows-98 CD and Access'97 CD would be bootable when the data is due (in 3 years from now). He'd be in trouble if MS decided to pull a trick like this on him.
I maintain a machine (Linux) which by contract has to run until at least 2008. If my OS vendor would pull something like this on me I'd be pissed.
Roger.
I would use only OS X if I could, but here are some things that don't work in Classic that work fine in OS 9.2 (I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones that keep me in OS 9 most of the time):
1. Microsoft Word 98. It does everything I want. Why do I have to spend $500 to upgrade to Office X? In OS 9, it's peachy. Under Classic, it crashes when Document->Format is chosen. Great. Can't change the format of a document in Classic.
2. Endnote 4. Also does everything I want. Why pay $200 for an upgrade? Does not work with Word 98 under Classic.
3. USB writer for RCA Lyra2 MP3 player. So, I gotta buy an iPod now for $400? RAM card doesn't appear on desktop.
4. LaCie DD3 tape drive. Doesn't work under X with the Grappler 906F PCI SCSI card. I guess I'm supposed to buy the Firewire version ($800)?
5. LaCie 4x4x16 CD-RW. Same as (4) above.
It seems to me that eliminating booting into OS 9 is Apple's way of ending compatibility with a lot of legacy software and hardware. I don't necessarily think that's a terrible thing, but to imply you can do everything in Classic that you can do under OS 9 is just flat wrong.
From the press release:
:^)
All new Macs sold since January 2002 have had Mac OS X factory-set as the default operating system. Over 75 percent of customers using these Macs have elected to keep Mac OS X as their default operating system...
Is nobody at Apple paying attention to this number? When Jobs acted like this was a good thing at the last MacWorld Expo in NY, my jaw hit the floor. In spite of the fact that Mac OS X is the default boot OS on new Macs, Mac users were going out of their way to switch to OS 9 as their boot-up OS.
This means a lot, if you think about it.
* Obviously one-fourth of new Mac users are not using any OS X specific applications. There's no "Futuristic box" in OS 9 to parallel Classic in OS X.
* This quarter of new Mac buyers aren't happy with the "Classic from within X" compromise, for whatever reason.
* This number doesn't count the people who simply don't know how to switch to OS 9 as their default boot disk. That might sound crazy, but in one usability test for our software, we had a user insert the CD upside-down, and not by accident but by ignorance. You can, unfortunately, never underestimate your spectrum of users. Think of how many new Mac users, if they knew of OS 9, might prefer it.
* This also means that the number of OS 9-only users is still pretty solid. Take the users of all the Macs out there now that are still running that won't run OS X -- even if all the people buying new Macs are old Mac users you're only reducing their numbers by 75% the number of new Macs sold. That's pretty slow. Heaven forbid some of that nearly 25% are new Mac users are choosing to boot into OS 9 from the start! It's a hard sale for Apple. The most users in the Mac market, believe it or not, are still on OS 9 or below.
Regardless, and in a complete Jekell/Hyde move, I think Apple's doing the right thing, at least from the point of view of Apple's continued financial success. People must be forced to move to the new OS for a couple of reasons. First, if the users move, the pushers (software developers) will follow. Second, if Apple wants to move to x86, they aren't going to be bringing Classic along with them.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
IIRC, there's about 2MB of OS9 in ROM on the Macs. Don't include the ROM on new machines
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.
LOL LOL LOL!
whoever moderated this comment as a troll is a troll. if anything this MIGHT be considered flamebait but you obviously didn't even read it. why does everyone get so defensive whenever someone criticizes OS X? X as in 10 times slower, 10 times less apps, 10 times the number of hacks apple has gone through to make a unix like OS to run mac things. this is fucking bullshit! you people think that anything commercial that takes unix serioulsy must be god sent, becuase you run your silly linux dist and talk to a bunch of other losers who run their stupid linux shit and you're too blind to realize that apple is being tyrannical to its users!
It's not like Macs running OS 9 are going to stop booting on January 1, 2003. The headline should be changed to reflect the fact Apple is simply (smartly!) dropping support for it.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
If they're going to kill the ability to boot into OS 9, they better find a way to:
(1) Give Mac OS X the ability to upgrade firmware, whether it be the computer itself or hardware components. Currently you can only flash firmware or ROM updates from Mac OS 9
(2) Get bootable Mac OS X rescue disks for things like Norton Utilities or Diskwarrior, because sometimes fsck -y doesn't solve everything
(3) Update all Mac OS X software components so that they are as complete as the OS 9 equivalents. For example, Apple System Profiler. So far the Jaguar version still doesn't tell you everything like the OS 9 one does, like the Uni-North CPU version, which tells you if an older Mac can accept a dual-cpu upgrade.
The great thing about having OS 9 bootable is that you could use it for troubleshooting.
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
OS9 is gay anyway.
Here's the important part: Apps that don't currently work under Classic are very unlikely to ever work under MOL for OS X. If it doesn't work under Classic it's probably trying to talk directly to the hardware, so an emulation layer within OS X will still not afford this access.
What if Apple is doing this to boost sales of Macs in the 4th Quarter/Christmas Season ("Quick, buy as many TiBooks as we can NOW, because starting next week they won't boot MacOS 9!"). It would be one way to increase the bottom line and make the company appear more profitable without having to resort to Enron type accounting illegalities.
Not saying I think this is true, but you have to wonder.
Microsoft already did this. They forced Win9x codebase users to upgrade to the NT-based WinXP.
And it wasn't the end of the world. At least, not that I recall...
Could this be a sign of huge hardware changes that OS 9 won't support, and that they don't want to spend the resources on making 9 support them?
:)
G5? At last?
Apple announced at Apple Expo in Paris, that they are dropping the ability to boot into Mac OS after January 2003.
Really? What's the Mac going to boot to then? Windows? Have another drink, I think what you meant was MacOS 9. I'm pretty certain that the "Macintosh" will still be able to boot into "Macintosh Operating System". Just might have to be the something newer than MacOS 9. As an aside, this was news weeks ago.
Damn traffic does wonders for the mood....
Clearly, you are not familiar with the concept of "sarcasm."
IE for OS X does have difficulty with long file names, as do most carbon programs, for some reason. The easy workaround is to use other programs that *can* handle long file names, which is not an option on OS 9.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
He said "BSD and Alan Thicke", not "anything with a cock".
Well, that's because MS dropped NT/2000, a really good OS, in favor of XP... primarily so that they could ram Passport down everyone's throats and start shifting to their .NET business model ("Oh, you don't OWN that copy of Office, you simply rent it from us. Now, start paying by the minute.")
Apple, on the other hand, dropped the ability to boot into an obsolete OS, but included an emulator in the system to run older apps. Tell me, can your P4 run Win 3.1? or Win 95 even? And do you have drivers for your DVD burner and graphics cards available?
This is no different.
-T
I go to apple.com and almost all the machines come with OS9 and OSX 10.2 preinstalled.
However, I'd seriously think about getting a machine (iBook) if it came with Jaguar preinstalled. I don't want to have to purchase the hardware and then purchase an OS upgrade...
"Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
Na, bashing Apple is passe. It no longer really phases anyone anymore. You'll get modded down for just being a fucking idiot.
Cool how you turn this into an anti-american or anti-bush campaign. :) I just think it's sad that Bush won't read this and say: "Oh, I didn't look at it that way."
I'm going to perform a clean install of 10.2 this weekend (for kicks and grins) and I don't even going to bother with 9. Unfortunately, Some of my production software is an upgrade from an OS 9 only version - So I have to install 9 to install this specific app.
Not to say 9 won't still have it's use. The small company I work for is actually using OS 9 on a UMAX Clone to server web pages of a FMPro CRM database. Works like a charm. Sits on the side of my desk and doubles as my personal music machine for streaming MP3s. MMmmmmm..... JazzRadio Berlin.
"oohhh... I didn't know Schopenhauer was a philosopher!"
I meant OS9 and OSX 10.1 preinstalled in my first sentence (even after previewing...geesh).
"Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
to join the OPEN SOURCE LINUX MOVEMENT and get that baby ported to the XBOX!!!!!!
It's certainly not a savior of the world, as some would have you believe.
:)
:))
That said, from a purely commercial point of view, this makes perfect sense. Apple wants ShinyFooApp on OS X, not on OS 9. Force users to use OS X, and ShinyFooCorp either develops on OS X or dies.
Commercial operating systems die because no one can/wants to spend the time writing drivers for new hardware on 'obsolete' systems.
As opposed to Linux, where everyone seems to want to take the time writing drivers for obsolete hardware.
Which is better? For the end user, I'd probably say the former. End users might like to not have to download/install drivers all the time. But do end users want to, say, recompile a kernel to leave out three gajillion drivers they'll never use, and at least a few bazillion they've never even heard of?
Oh, and about old software compatability. Ever try running a Windows 3.1 (Or sometimes even a Win 95 or 98) program/game on modern hardware?
Ever wonder how you can become 'The One' so you can keep up with the speed of your little guy moving across the screen while he's "walking"?
Software compatability problems happen more from the raw speed of new processors/etc. than from plain old incompatability. Blame not the hardware or operating system vendors - blame the lazy ass programmers who don't think ahead and allow for adjustments to run speeds and other things like suddenly having more memory than you can shake a stick at.
(Hehehe. I still like seeing old programs insist I have -238 mb of ram.
Not so anecdotal evidence would suggest that users are not taking up OS X in droves. How anyone could use OS 9 at all is beyond me but that's the reality. Apple has already told developers to only do OS X development. The sad fact is that for the market share apple has, doing (what in the case of the drivers at least) is a total re-write is not a super high priority for alot of companies.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
It's a two edge sword for Apple (piss off the cash strap mac consumer), but IMHO it works out better for the Apple consumer in the long run.
Try to QA any application for Windows and you have Win95, Win98SE, WinME, WinNT, Win2k, WinXP to contend with. It's impractical to test all the OS so most of the testing boils down to Win98SE & WinXP, other OS's are given smoke test.
Without having to test amongst a stew of OS flavors is a good thing, all QA resources can be focused on one platform. Bring localization into the mix and the testing matrix grows exponentially.
Most developers work on Win2k/XP and forget such things as Win98SE, WinME & Win95 (code worked on their machine). The Win98SE still has a huge user base.
So you wonder why there are so many buggy apps for Windows.. here are some more ammunition.
Get pissed off at Apple, but I think in retiring an older OS they're really doing you a favor.
Apple has always done this. They always ship and support only the latest version of Mac OS on their computers, and Mac OS 9 is no longer the latest version. I'm one Mac user who could not care less about this descission. I've been running X for ages and have no problems with the classic enviornment. I just wish it would run its system out of a disk image rather than having a "System Folder."
You mention Netscape -- which version? My graphics workstation is a three-year old G4/400 and my development box is a Pentium III at 1.1 GHz. I just got around to downloading Mozilla 1.1 for Mac OS 9.x last week and I've found that our Web-based content management system (which crawls on IE for the Mac) actually works better in Mozilla.
for being fucking hilarious.
Good work.
I totally agree with the file moving/deleting/using problem. Apple needs to include some sort of "sudo" or "su" - like functionality option in the finder for powerusers like me.
And while I'm at it, they should reconcile some key differences between the finder and darwin, namely: slashes vs. colons to indicate directories; hard links, symbolic links, and finder alias intercompatibility and flexibility (ideally, a configurable super alias that incorporates the functionality of all three for both finder and darwin); file type/creator management and file exchange; integration of bundle/.app functionality into darwin; preconfiguring the shell config files for new users such that "rm" moves files to the trash rather than deleting them permanently or something along those lines (maybe just a "trash"/"emptytrash" command); running command line apps from the finder (and manipulating their outputs between them - graphical interface?); running X windows apps from the finder (built in X windows functionality) despite the difference in gui principles; etc.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I bought a Power Macintosh 8600/250 in 1997...
...AND IT WOULDN'T EVEN BOOT INTO System 4!!!!!!
WTF. How is anyone supposed to get anything done? I can't even play StuntCopter or Cairo Shootout in the right resolution/screen depth! MacPaint becomes garbled and unstable under the "Finder", really just the damn MultiFinder in disguise! What a marketing ploy! Thanks ALOT, Apple!!!!!
</FUNNY>
<INSIGHTFUL LIKELY="maybe">
Seriously, if tons of people are worried about paying thousands to replace old shareware programs on the Mac with new commercial software, why not just write to your favorate Mac OS X shareware developer and request they create a replacement product? Be sure to elaborate on exactly what it would replace, and why such a thing would be popular with whoever needs that particular product. Panic and Ambrosia are probably two good places to start, and I'm sure there are hundreds more.
Trust me, the Mac shareware scene WANTS your feedback.
</INSIGHTFUL>
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
They are NOT removing classic (ie Mac OS X running Mac OS 9 within it).
You won't be able to boot DIRECTLY into OS 9 on machines released after Jan 1st. That's all.
. . .I think Apple should provide OSes for free. . .
//e and Apple //c, but that's another story.) I wanted one from time to time but never got one because I always got more bang for the buck upgrading my x86 hardware. But OS X has me excited and I recently started playing with Basilisk II Mac emulator and am playing around with the older MacOSes. I like them so far and would like to try MacOS 8.x. But I understand about 8.6 and higher are only usuable on PPC's and there are no PPC Mac emulators. I guess I'll have to go to the store to play with Jaguar. (I tought somebody spelled it "Jagwyre" but apparently it wasn't Apple since their site spells it "Jaguar".)
You're probably talking about current OSes, but you can download MacOS versions up to 7.5.3 from their site. (Apple ][ ProDOS, too.) The links I got (from 68k emulator sites) said they were free, but I never read any licensing terms so I don't know what kind of free they are. I suppose Apple provides them so users of old Macs can effect some self support. It wasn't clear to me if Apple cared or not if they were used on Apple hardware (i.e. not in emulators) or if you bought MacOS 6.x and downloaded 7.5.3 to upgrade.
When seeing this story I immeiately wondered if the older (than OS X, newer than MacOS 7.5.3) versions would be made downloadable soon, too. (You may see 8.x downloads now, but they are upgrades. AFAICT 7.5.3 is the highest version you can get to by downloading from their site if you don't already have MacOS.)
I never had a Mac. (Had an Apple ][+, Apple
Many major engineering apps, like AutoCAD, were never ported to PPC. I had a number of expensive Mac engineering applications, including board design packages and a dynamics simulator. None were ported to PPC by their vendors. Supporting two sizes of floats was too much trouble for the tiny Mac market.
No one is forcing you to buy a new mac, and if your machine is good enough for you to do what you are doing now (which I assume to be digital music based on the amount of audio stuff you put in your post) then why should that change. Assuming you are making music, then what is wrong with your system now that you can't keep using it the same way you have been until everything you need is there for OS X and you feel like buying a new machine?
Remember...all Apple is doing here is updating their hardware and not updating their legacy software to support it. Should they have to? Should Microsoft have to update Win95 to run on the latest hardware (which is meant for WinXP)? IMHO, no.
So, my advice to you is to stick with what is working perfectly for you right now, let Apple build their future, and when everything you need is in place, you can join them in that future (or stay where you are, or switch to a different platform)...see? You have a lot of choices. ;-)
Cheers. :-)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
well I remember SJ two expos ago said that all applications going forward have to carbonize themselves looks like they have to
Everyone is complaing about their old legacy shareware MIDI program or MS Word 98 not working under Classic and how this upgrade will devistate them, but no one has actually posted yet (until the parent) on the physical limitations of not having OS 9. It will actually cripple the OS, and the parent poster makes very good points.
IANAM (I Am Not A Moderator, obviously)
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Thank you for pointing this out. Same applies at the college I attend.
a lot of the Quadras can run OS 8, my 950 does...
though it is a matter of 020 030 and 040 processors. 020 won't, 030 can be tricked into it very easily, kinda like running OSX on legacy machines. 040 definately can.
Does this simply mean that new Macs won't ship with both installed? Or will the new hardware just not support Mac OS 9 booting at all? Could you reinstall both OSs and set up your own dual-boot system?
Or are they actually saying the equivalent of "New PCs will no longer have the capacity to boot into Windows 98"?
OS X sucks
Prove it.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Phase 1. Find as many ways to piss off Apple customers as possible.
Phase 2. ???
Phase 3. Profit.
Apple sure has been doing a lot of things lately to get under my skin. Booting OS9 is harmless.
(-1 Troll)
X as in 10 times slower
10.1 ran nicely on my 300Mhz blueberry iBook. Not as fast as OS 9, but certainly not 10 times slower. Haven't toyed with Jaguar yet since my HDD died on me (Long story involving water, beer and electricity) but if the reports of it's speed improvements are anything to consider, it sure as hell isn't 10 times slower.
10 times less apps
I have never been at a loss for aplications. Perhaps you could elighten me as to which apps you can not get (or replace) under X.
10 times the number of hacks apple has gone through to make a unix like OS to run mac things
As opposed to how many hacks the linux community has instituted to get Windows things to run under linux?
you people think that anything commercial that takes unix serioulsy must be god sent
Usualy it is. Commecrial support for *NIX is a good thing. It provides a sense of seriousness that give *NIX the immage it needs to be taken seriously in other places.
you run your silly linux dist and talk to a bunch of other losers who run their stupid linux shit
Now I know that Linux is challenging to get up and running, but it's not nice to call names just because other people are smarter than you and have had more success. Go back to running your Windows 95 box and finish your homework. Recess is starting soon.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
It took Apple introducing USB-only iMacs to jump-start the USB peripheral market.
Very true, and in the long-term it really all worked out. There was some "unpleasantness" in the short-term, though.
I was selling the original iMacs from the online Apple Store when they first came out. A few months earlier Apple stopped the sale of their All-In-One models (which were sold exclusively to education customers).
So anyone wanting a computer & monitor combined had to get the iMac. Fine. The problem was that there were zero USB printers for the Mac. We were selling Imagewriters (or Scriptwriters, it's been a few years
Oh my, what fun calls we had trying to (a) sell a computer that had no available printer capabilites, (b) answer complaints from people who thought or were told the printers would work with the USB ports (the adapter did come out many months later from a third-party), and (c) not rip our ears off after hearing "I've been a loyal Apple customer for over a year/decade/eon and this is how you treat us?!"
At least this time around they've given people forewarning about the change before we reach the no-turning-back point.
Indesign has all the feautures that made Pagemaker 6 the success that it is today, such as lack of fine control and an interface that should be sent to the showers. I really wanted something that would be a useful alternative to Quark. InDesign ain't it.
Also to note that unless Apple gets Heisenberg and the other high-end pre-press equipment makers to update their stuff to OS X, and make a vast improvement in OS X network printing, they stand a very good chance of kissing the DTP market goodbye, the last professional sector in which they still have dominance.
Also hardware interface software like LinoColor for the high-end Heisenberg scanners, who've only just acknoweledged System 8 this year.
What...so does this mean I can't run my 68K app's?? Damn islamic liberals...
Regardless, and in a complete Jekell/Hyde move, I think Apple's doing the right thing, at least from the point of view of Apple's continued financial success. People must be forced to move to the new OS for a couple of reasons. First, if the users move, the pushers (software developers) will follow.
// line to promote Mac, but it was the right move. (But I still held a grudge for several years; for some reason Apple instills a machine loyalty that I don't see many other places. I definitely see it in Mac users.) But my Apple // continued to run for several more years, anyway. So will the existing Macs with MacOS 9. Apple isn't forcing the users to change so much as their forcing vendors to support OS X. Vendors will still support MacOS 9 as long as there is enough of a user base willing to pay for support.
I agree that it's a good thing. I was pissed at Apple for killing the Apple
The only "forcing" Apple is doing to users is apparently not providing for MacOS 9 to work on new Macs in 2003. But it's not clear to me if they're actively blocking it or just not including it. Example: Neither Microsoft or my PC vendor will support my installing MSDOS 5 and Windows 3.1 on my Athlon XP 1800+, but it will still work if I do it myself. I suspect MacOS 9 will continue to work on the Motorola PPC platform, but new video cards and other new hardware improvments won't get drivers. If they go to IBM PPC then who knows if it will work or not?
Then again, on x86 almost everthing boots off of BIOS int13 calls, even LILO & GRUB & SYSLINUX. If Apple changed the firmware from MacOS * to OS X it might be a different story. I know MacOS * machines display a GUI-like screen with a picture of a floppy disk and a flashing question mark if there are no bootable drives available, and I presume Darwin starts booting in some console-ish mode like other *nix'es. I'm not familiar enough with Macs to know, but I'm sure MacOS * and Darwin are radically different software architectures. If the firmware bootstrap process isn't compatible then MacOS 9 lovers are probably unable to buy a new Mac for it after 2002.
Second, if Apple wants to move to x86, they aren't going to be bringing Classic along with them.
I would love to have OS X on my x86'es. That leads me to believe it won't happen, though. It seems like whatever I want the most isn't offered since I want it because it benefits me way too much. Example: I could have OS X now but I'd have to buy a Mac, and I wouldn't be happy with the cheapest Mac (not enouch expandablility) so I'd buy one of the higher priced ones if I wanted to part with the money. If they made it available for x86 I'd buy a copy at $125 and probably not give Apple any more money for several years.
Check out Quark's homepage. You can dl a Carbonized demo of Quark 5.
People sticking with OS 9 need to stop their foot dragging and join the rest of us in the 21st Century with Mac OS X. If you have critical software that needs 9, run it on an older Mac until it is ported. If the company is being slow, either petition them to make an OS X version, or switch to a competitor who is clueful enough to have ported to OS X by now.
After a few months of using Mac OS X, you will never want to go back to OS 9 (Jaguar fixes all but a few speed complaints) again. I am still on 10.1.5 till I get my new Dual 1.25 GHZ box but once (no point upgrading my 5 year old Beige to 10.2) yet even with 10.1.5, I still find it more productive than 9 even though 9 runs 10 times faster in a single app on this old box. On a new box, the speed difference will be negligable. However what keeps me on X is the pre-emptive multitasking and power of UNIX underneath it all. I can do stuff in OS X I only dreamed about with OS 9. So those who have not yet, make the switch either now or with a new machine when you get it. Don't keep the rest of us back by being stubborn and demanding Apple waste resources helping you to use an outdated OS.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
"So, where's mol for Mac OS X?" That doesn't make sense to me... Why in the world would you want mol when you still have the classic environment in Mac OS X? It was a nice try to connect Apple stuff to Slashdot's Linux Cult (SLC). Silly Pudge.
I just went all through both install CD's and no where is OS9 to be found. You are confusing the classic environment and OS9, they are seperate things.
Steve Jobs even said in his keynote you would need to buy OS9 if you wanted to run it in classic with OSX.2
Check your facts next time.
They pay 2 much for hardware.
With their expensive hardware they only get 1 mouse button.
They have to pay for servicepacks (10.2).
and Now they cant install what they want on their machines
But I guess they do look good.
-huper
definitionally, which is what Classic is. It happens to run some servers to make its integration with the host operating system very nice to use (shared clipboards, etc.). Incidentally, that's what the VM in VMWare stands for.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I wish this were true because I was recently assigned the task of writing a driver for Win95.
Some sectors of the market don't plan to move off of Win98 for at least 5 years. So we have to keep supporting them.
The strange thing is that in the Apple releases, they keep talking about the bundled Classic environment. I hardly call it bundled if you have to install the underlying OS 9 to make it work.
Also remember that the OS 9 CD was unbundled from Jagwyre; you now have to buy a separate copy of OS 9 if your machine came with 10.2. And last I checked, the OS 9 installer app isn't carbonized, so as you said you're screwed after January unless they change something.
we are building a religion
a limited edition
we are now accepting callers
for these pendant key chains
I installed Jaguar on a freshly formatted Powerbook. I didn't install OS9. I have a 9.2 Classic environment.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Agreed. Being a [re]new Mac user (past 6 months), I try to stay away from OS 9 solutions whenever possible. However, I can see why users with existing applications (or just like OS 9) would want the ability to at least boot their machine.
The only instance of "bundled" I can think of is the restore disc set that came with my system. Use those CD's and you did end up with an OS X system with OS 9 installed, and iPhoto, etc. too.
Jaguar was my first experience installing from scratch.
Remember the game 3 in Three? Where you were a number 3 in some computer file that got zapped during a power surge and you had to get yourself out using brain teasers, etc? That game ruled...
It is apparent you have no clue how to use a CLI, change permissions, or more then likley do anything usefull. Keep using your Agua interface and leave the real computing ot those of us who bother to learn how to do things right.
Even though DOS 6.0 was released like 10 years ago, it will still boot and run on the Pentium 4 computer I bought last month.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the hardware makers changed the specs such that new machines only ran Windows XP, and Microsoft simply claimed that they weren't doing this purposefully... they were just not going to update DOS and Windows 95 to boot on the new hardware because it is legacy code.
I must say Mac people have their head stuck in the sand far more deeply than any other advocacy group.
Colour Management
So could you explain to us all again, what your position is all.....*about*?
...'cause I sure as hell won't be upgrading now. At least, not until there's a new Mac that can run my large and expensive collection of OS9 apps at least as fast as my current computer through the dog-slow (and not even 100% OS9 compatible anyway) Classic. I expect to buy a new Mac every few years. I *don't* expect to have to buy all my software again at the same time!
You must think in Russian.
The ROM hasn't been in new machines for at least two or three years now. The so-called "New World" architecture only has OpenBoot in ROM. The ROM image that MacOS 9 uses is in a file in the System Folder.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
There are two possible explanations:
- It is a feature you do not understand.
- It is a bug.
Of course some people will claim those are the same. In case of a bug, my next comment has to be: fsck. (I don't even know if you can do that on Mac OS X, but it should be possible.)Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
As a *nix/Windows SA who uses OS9 as my primary OS at home (I never had to switch...), I will be very very very happy when I finally get to use OSX everyday.
The problem here:
I make music with my Mac.
While I do have the ability to run my sequencer app (Logic audio) in OSX now, I don't have drivers for my audio hardware to listen to the sound.
Not to mention the VST plug-ins I have been using for years are now useless under OSX, not just because they are not carbonized, but because Emagic (developer of Logic Audio, recently purchased by Apple) has stopped using VST plugs in OSX. They are going to use the OSX core audio format Audio Units.
So now I have to wait for all of my plugs to be ported to AU also.
Yes, Apple is taking steps to get this stuff done ASAP, but until it is.............
Glad I just bought a new 933mhz box.
I will be using OS9 for the forseeable future.
This Sig doesn't like The Force, The Matrix or Middle Earth. It also gets laid.
I'm all tore up inside about this.
This is somewhat similar to when Macintoshes went to a USB-only configuration. Causing a lot of rumblings early-on, but it came out stronger later-on.
I was selling the original iMacs from the online Apple Store when they first came out. A few months earlier Apple stopped the sale of their All-In-One models (which were sold exclusively to education customers).
So anyone wanting a computer & monitor combined had to get the iMac. Fine. The problem was that there were zero USB printers for the Mac. We were selling HP serial printers. And we were told to tell the customer that an adapter to allow those printers should be available "in about a month".
Oh my, what fun calls we had trying to (a) sell a computer that had no available printer capabilites, (b) answer complaints from people who thought or were told the printers would work with the USB ports (the adapter did come out many months later from a third-party), and (c) not rip our ears off after hearing "I've been a loyal Apple customer for over a year/decade/eon and this is how you treat us?!"
At least this time around they've given people forewarning about the change before we reach the no-turning-back point.
Then again, why should he? They already work the way he wants them to with OS 9.
-r
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
I'm a poor unlucky server admin... Virtually all my maintenance and server administration has to be done from the terminial. It's all good but can be tedious at times.
Hmmm... Pie...
With a very few exceptions, these problems are due to a locked file on a HFS(+) volume. The simplest way of correcting this is to "get info" in the finder and uncheck the locked box. There is also a way of doing this from the command line, but if you really need that you can find that yourself.
In this case it is almost definately a misunderstood feature.
If you have no OS9 install previous or newly done, from an OS9 CD classic does not work. I don't know what crack you are smoking that makes you think there is a "hidden" OS9 install in Jaguar but you need to put the pipe down because it doesn't exist. Classic is a wrapper, an emulation program, not a freakin OS. Get over it and quit spreading missinformation.
If you don't mind giving up a gig or two, install yellow dog linux, put os9 on it's own partition, and you can triple boot into whichever one you want.
But you are right about classic mode; it's only the ability to clean boot into MacOS 9 that's being blocked.
"Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
So according to Apple, 25% of their customers don't use OS X as the default OS on new systems. By removing the ability to boot into OS 9 they've just cut unit sales by 25%.
Time to short AAPL...
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
How would aps run faster when you have the os as a unix process. Are you saying when the hardware is upgraded it will run faster?
Hmmm... Pie...
Macs haven't used "enablers" for a long time, never in OS 9, and not since OS 7 if i remember correctly.
i don't read slashdot anymore.
I just noticed that this thread has the /. logo, the "post comment" bar, the "preview comment" bar, and the "post comment" bar in the same style as Mac OS X aqua, except in the /. green. Is there a way to get the rest of the /. stories to appear this way?
Quark isn't the problem, since it doesn't hit the hardware much (except for the dongle), and could easily be made to run perfectly in Classic, especially with Apple's help (notice how Jaguar improved the Classic environment considerably). Why does everyone bring up Quark as a roadblock to OS X adoption?
The *REAL* problem is programs like Pro Tools for sound designers. Those actually do need to access hardware and refuse to run at all in Classic. This is probably part of the reason Apple bought Emagic.
I mean, really, who cares? what difference does it make if some tiny number of people (classic users are what, 25% of a 3% minority?) can't boot on a new machine?
Considering Apple's horrible hardware compared to x86, are you really loosing anything? I mean, in the last two years they went from 500 mhz to 1 ghz, big whoopie - word is there won't be any more speed boosts for a long time anyway.
Find something interesting to talk about/post - mac life just sort of sucks period.
It seems that no matter what tech issue is in contention it is argued the same way.
1.If you are for something new you are the future and everyone better follow your lead since you are obviously a computing genius. ANY consideration other than newness is irrelevant.
2.If you are against something new you are a Luddite idiot who probably never knew anything about computing in the first place and probably still bitch that your 78s won't play on your DVD player.
It makes for some very boring reading with a few nuggets from people (both pro and con) that try and bring relevant material to bear on the discussion.
I get tired of trying to defend a viewpoint to people that are not interested in constructing a rational argument. They violate pretty much every rule of logic ever conceived in their quest to be first/loudest/rightest.
Yep, Falcon is slow and the graphics are a problem in Classic. What about all the people with old style software with demanding requirements or old hardware not supported in X? Not just games :-)
Maybe the Fink project at sourceforge will help in respect to MOL.
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
You know, I've been on OS X since day one and I love it. it "kicks a$$" as /. 'ers like to say.
I'm a Linux lover and OS X feels much better, esp. the GUI.
In any event, Mac users are serious sticks in the mud. The vast majority of users are design people who are not tech savvy and like things the way they are. Once they get into a groove they stay there.
Apple is a business and have invested a ton of money and R & D into getting us into the 21st century so it makes sense for them to push the user base into OS X ASAP. Developers "Have Been Told(TM)" to get their act in gear. Stagglers have only themselves to blame for not coming up the to the plate *cough* *Quark* *cough*.
I've been telling my clients for 3 years to plan for this and not very many have heeded my words. Now the truth is out and I see panic in the streets. Relying on Quark? So, what, move to InDesign like I have. Quark is dead just like Keith Richards, just no one has told them yet.
I'm very happy to see the old os go away. I've been using my mac exclusively since I sold my pc 5 years ago. Back then I was a Graphic Designer, now I'm a Programmer and OS X has everything Linux offers, including OpenGL and java built in to the desktop, gcc, the shell w/perl and all the tools I could ever want, etc.
... 8 ... 7 ...
Every valid complaint I've heard about OS 9 from programmers was fixed with OS X. Good riddence OS 9
Gene Davis
Software Engineer
www.genedavis.com
Well, if new Macs can't run OS 9 in the future I've got my one and only Mac I'll ever have. I bought an ibook in August of 2001 and hate OS 10, slow as a dog, even with 320m of RAM. I don't want to hear "get more RAM" either, that's nonsense. I have Suse 8 running on a almost 6 year old Dell D300 with 192m of RAM and it screams. Stevie strikes again.He'll never learn. I'll use the ibook until it dies and that'll be my last Mac. Oh well, I'm using Suse 8 more and more every day anyway. I LOVE it.
My PowerMac 7100 seems to boot into OS 8 just fine. And I expect it'll be able to do so even after 2003... Not that I'd want it to though. :)
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Is this a preparatory move to changing processors? What if Classic becomes a true emulation layer and is no longer dependent on PPC?
I also wonder if future versions of OS X 10.x will boot on the machines that still do boot OS 9 or will there be a new cut off similar to the "OS 10 only on G3 or later" cut off?
"Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
One thing people seem to forget is that there is a viable market of reasonably priced CPU upgrades for Macs, and always has been. If booting into OS 9 is required for you, AND you want to have the fastest machine out there, you can always go buy a first-generation G4 on eBay or from a reseller for not much money and stick a dual 1GHZ CPU in it, or whatever is current then. Then you can be nice and fast, and run OS 9 all you want to. What is the big deal here?
... it turns out that Macs aren't year-2003 compliant.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
If Apple wants -- and can get -- the rumoured Power4 desktop version, there's no need to "ditch the PPC option" ;-)
Single-die dual-core dual-FMAC-per-core at 1+ GHz (1.3 GHz out already), w00t w00t!
Now wash your hands.
I love 'fsck'. It lets you come up with setences like that...
Anyway, yeah OS X included fsck. Whenever I happen to reboto (it's not all that often) I'll drop into single user mode and run it, just to be sure everything's ok.
I think it's aiming at the printing, design and artistic industries at large. A lot of companies are still running Quark 3.3/4, Photoshop 5.5/6 and Illustrator 9, none of which will run under OS X.
.mac and will be paying for Jaguar, but my dollar can't stretch much further...
The costs involved in migrating are considerable - you'll either have to buy new software that runs under OS X, or more RAM to compensate for the fact that your older software is running in Classic mode. (Quark upgrades in particular are notorious for their cost, explaining why a significant group of newspapers and publishers are still on 3.3.) This doesn't even take into account the man hours you lose in migrating to the new OS/software and training your staff to maintain productivity levels.
I bought an iBook last year and have been booting into OS9 from day two... despite it being the top of the line at the time, it simply didn't have enough RAM to handle running Photoshop in Classic mode. I am planning to upgrade to Jaguar soonish, but not without buying a 512mb chunk of RAM so I can run my three most important apps (Photoshop, Painter and Illustrator). I already paid for
Being a asian language native user , Sorry , OS X sucks , it stinks , even its basic interface is not language-friendly , input method is not as well as in 9 , it runs slower , wastes time , why X ? Don't just make it fancy ! Make IT Good !!!
I'd personally love to see Linux-On-Mac!
How hard would it be to port MOL to OSX?
I was a die-hard Windows fanatic who was hired by my college to support 400+ Macs. I absolutely hated OS9, it locked up more than Windows 3.1 did.
I could not understand the devotion Mac users had to apple. Yes, it's user friendly, but the damn things crash all the time. My WinDoze box never locks up, why do you insist on using Apple's crap?
But OSX rocks, it's stable, fast (under 10.2, not 10.1), and I've now given my PC to my son and only use my G4 powerbook.
My opinion is that those of you trashing OSX likely have used 10.1, not 10.2 10.2 is fast baby and the experience is beyond belief. As the saying goes, "Don't knock it until you tried it."
Comparing 10.1 to 10.2 is like comparing Win95 to Win2K. Those of you out there that this applies to should be ashamed at your faulty application of systems analysis and design (and general problem solving analysis methods.)
Regards,
Dave (Alma College)
"I don't do Windows"
"We've been promised an update but are still waiting several months after OSX has been out."
Yeah, several months. 18 months. That is a year and a half!
The company providing that software for you is simply lazy.
I guess this means that by the time I was planning to upgrade to a new Mac (Jan 03, my birthday) I'll have to ALSO keep my G3 to use all the apps i have grown to love in 9. This may seem a little convaluted but if my new mac could boot into 9 I could copy everything over and sell the G3. Glad I found this out before I decided to sell my G3 to help pay for a new Mac.
a locked file on a HFS(+) volume.
Forgive my ignorance, but is that feature similar to 'chattr +i' on an ext2 filesystem?
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
I don't about the rest of this stuff but I've been helping my wife with Endnote.
First off two editorial comments:
1) Important data should not be stored in proprietary formats. If you were using something like LyX and BibTeX (both free BTW since cost seems to be an issue for you) instead of Word and Procite you wouldn't be locked into to these products and could use anything you wanted on any platform.
2) ISI research soft is quite possibly the least competent major software vendor I have ever seen. They make Microsoft look like a bastion of reliability and stability. Only very limited combinations of their products work. Have these guys ever heard of a relational database, I can't believe some of the limitations on this product in terms of number of fields, ways of organizing bibliography lists, size limitations of fields....
In any case Endnote 6 works perfectly from Carbon with OSX 10.0-10.1.5; and works perfectly from Classic with OSX 10.2. The upgrade for academic use (and who else uses this product) is something like $99 and includes Endnote 5 for free. Its really not a bad deal assuming you want to use the aweful product.
Bugger, I hope this doesn't mean I won't be able to boot 64bit OpenBSD on some nice new 64bit Mac hardware!?
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
first off go to the command prompt.
1) go to the directory right above the file.
2) Do an "ls -l" and find out who owns the directory
3) type "mount" amd make sure the file system is writable
There is no such thing as a magic file and everything is deletable.
OS 9 does not run "emulated" under OS X. It runs absolutely natively on the PPC hardware.
Only a fairly small number of system/hardware calls are shimmed into the new networking/hardware abstraction layers of OS X.
The building-in of these shims into the applications themselves, rather than the separate runtime environment, is basically what "Carbonizing" is.
Ditch the PowerPC, and you lose *all* Classic compatibility, AND Carbon compatibility - or force them into actual emulation, with the massive speed hit that entails (AFAIK, there is still no usable PPC emulation available for any platform).
This is not an option for a *long* time.
Much more likely: No longer requiring boot-capability of OS 9 on new hardware frees up the resources for Apple to totally strip down Classic to a pure and sleek runtime environment, reducing bulk and probably heavily speeding it up at the same time.
-spheric*
...Carbon were moved entirely into emulation as well. And that's a hefty speed hit for nearly all available OS X apps for a long time to come.
-spheric*
Jaguar gave me the most hassle dealing with Macs. Though it is fast and has addressed shortcomings of its predecessors, it has a few stability problems, namely waking from sleep and freaking out making airport connections, battery life oddities, lack of proper ISO CD burning capabilities. Add to that a few unexplained kernel panics to spice up the experience. To be fair, 10.1.3 (or was it .4?) also dorked up things worse than they fixed other problems.
I attribute this to the fact that lots of the OS was re-engineered for 10.2, and I hope most of these oddities get fixed in the upcoming 10.2.1 release.
In regards to performance vs. Windows, MS might be a monopoly, and they might even write crappy software, but they did get Win2k right. I find Win2k and OS X to be very stable, and I have run both for weeks and months on end without problems. OS X has been running for 10 months for me with a total of 4 kernel panics. Win2k managed 6 months before it finally greeted me with my first BSOD. The only machines in my household with greater uptimes/reliability is my NeXT box that managed 6 months, and the RedHat Linux box (mail and web server) installed in 1999 which rarely gets rebooted and has never had a kernel panic.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
The ONLY reason I bought a mac was for OSX. I maintain ~100 at my job. I have to work with OS9. Believe me, it sucks compared to every other OS. I have been a PC user since i picked up a keyboard. With the release of OSX, I fell in love.... it's UNIX with an awsome GUI, who wouldnt love it. This is something Linux will never be able to offer.
Apple laptops are effectively unusable for unix users.
I am a long-time Unix user. That means I need to have the Ctrl key to the left of the A key. This is a genuine need , not merely a want; it is based upon ergonomics. The Ctrl key is heavily used in unix, and it must be easily accessable. It cannot be off in the lower left corner of the keyboard where it is difficult to get at, and where it distorts the position of your left hand such that you can't easily type other keys while holding the Ctrl key down.
Apple desktop keyboards are now all USB. They are all OK. The CapsLock key can be re-mapped into a Ctrl key.
Unfortunately, even in this modern age, all Apple laptops have built-in ADB keyboards. The ADB keyboard is broken-by-design. It is, in general, not possible to remap the CapsLock key into a Ctrl key.
There are some exceptions, but they are horrible kludges. They are horrible kludges because the original design of the ADB keyboard was a horrible kludge. The correct solution would be for Apple to re-design their laptop motherboards to use built-in USB keyboards. This hasn't happened yet. If you run Linux, use Debian's solution. For Mac OS X users, uControl works. There are no solutions (that I know of) for either NetBSD or OpenBSD. Please note once again that the "solutions" above are in fact kludges, because of the original bad design of the ADB keyboard.
Apple is (currently) ignoring Unix users! This is not merely speculation on my part. In an on-going email exchange I am having with an Apple employee (whom I won't name) in their marketing department, the Apple marketing person directly stated to me that Apple was catering to their historic Mac customers, and is purposely ignoring the Unix market. He also claimed that Apple would soon start paying more attention to the Unix market. I won't hold my breath. Apple has been ignoring Unix users for more than 10 years. I expect that trend to continue. (Also note that my Apple contact indicated that Macs would never ship with a 3-button mouse, even though Apple intended to port almost all X-window software and deliver it either on a CD/DVD or installed directly on each Mac's hard drive. How Unix friendly is a 1-button mouse with X programs that often require 3 buttons?)
Apple has now lost two opportunities to sell me hardware. I really wanted an Apple laptop for their superior battery life, and for the PowerPC with Altivec CPU. (The Altivec is vastly superior to the x86 line for DSP.) Because I can't live with the broken-by-design built-in ADB keyboard in all Apple laptops, Sony and IBM sold me laptops instead. If Apple fixes this problem, they will sell me a PowerBook next year; if they don't, I'll still be running OpenBSD on x86 hardware, and wishing I could use a Mac.