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?

Comments

Not really aimed at users...

[4minus0]

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.

Re:Mistake...

[Spyky]

If Apple does not include functionality to use OS7/8/9 apps in OSX, then it will hurt them.

This doesn't sound like the usual troll, so I'm assuming you just really don't know what you are talking about. Apple's Classic environment (mentioned in the article) is provides exactly the functionality you seem to think is lacking in Mac OS X. It gives you the ability to run almost all OS 7/8/9 apps.

The reason Apple is dropping Mac OS 9 is no different from what Microsoft and other OS makers have done for years. Try installing Windows 3.1 on your latest snazzy desktop. Probably not going to find native drivers for that Gf4 Ti, or that DVD burner, etc... Apple doesn't care to write drivers to support their new hardware in an old operating system.

This isn't new, this isn't suprising, and this isn't going to hurt Apple.

Spyky

Well there's a lot they need to fix first!

[47Ronin]

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.

Re:had to happen at some point

[lamz]

<p><i>All I can say is welcome to the world of microsoft in 1995-1996.</i></p>

<p>Hey! I don't even want into the world of Microsoft in 2002!</p>

<p>Seriously, though. This is no big deal. The only people making a big deal about it are flame baiters. Apple has always done exactly this with their operating systems and hardware. Every new Mac released ships with and runs the current version of the OS, and nothing earlier.</p>

<p>The only difference now is that Apple institued a multi-year phase-in to OS X, in recognition of the fact that it was a far more dramatic change than from 6 to 7, 7 to 8, 8 to 9, etc.</p>

<p>Slashdotters are not giving Apple a lot of grief over this precisely because it is not a big deal.</p>

<p><i>It's just that Mac users got the shove alot later in the game. :-) welcome to the fun that is the Intel world!</i></p>

<p>Actually, there have been two momentous changes in Macintosh history. On the OS side, moving from OS 6 to OS 7 added all kinds of under-the-hood changes, such as multi-tasking. On the hardware side, moving from 68K to PPC was a change to a completely re-designed processor. The fact that Apple made those transitions so smoothly and gracefully is the reason that many people don't realize just how dramatic the changes were.</p>

<p>Welcome to the world of Apple.</p>