Making a Faster Transition from OS 9 to OS X. . . [Archive]

Shrek

Mar 27, 2003, 09:08 PM

You know, Apple wants to move everyone that is still using OS 9 to OS X as quickly as possible. Apple has a user base of about 25 million and only little more than 20% of those (or over 5 million) are using OS X.

I think one way this could be done faster is by coming out with an upgrade version of Panther (OS X 10.3). This should allow a user to upgrade from OS 9, 10.0, 10.1, or 10.2 to 10.3 and should be sold for about half the price of the full version (I think that's fair enough ;)). The main goal of this product should be to help speed along the transistion from OS 9 to OS X.

I know that Apple may lose money by doing this, but it may be the only way to really speed up this critical part of their long-term strategy.

That's just my 2 cents. ;)

Kwyjibo

Mar 27, 2003, 09:22 PM

i thinnk the people who paid for jaguar and osx woudl be very very very mad. I mean its logical for apple to do this but i think its more liekly they will severe 9 as they have already done and eventually force people to upgrade to x. they need a better reason to (better hardware, 970) for ppl to buy new hardware and hence move to osx. I have a feeling the most important thing is new hardware sales.

shadowfax

Mar 27, 2003, 09:32 PM

I think apple is OK just letting OS 9 users bleed themselves. this happens to MS too, with XP. there are still a ton on the old junk. with any luck, 10.3 will be another major incentive for users to upgrade. i don't think that people should be able to get OS X from OS 9 without spilling $130 or so. it really wouldn't be fair otherwise, and Apple can't afford that IMO--that is, making a whole different release like MS does.

how long after OS 9's advent did it take for most of apple's useer base to adopt it?

Shrek

Mar 27, 2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Kwyjibo
i thinnk the people who paid for jaguar and osx woudl be very very very mad.

Why do you think that?

shadowfax

Mar 27, 2003, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Shrek
Why do you think that?

because we would have had to pay $130 + whatever they charge for panther to get to where they got with only $50-65?

Shrek

Mar 27, 2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Shadowfax
because we would have had to pay $130 + whatever they charge for panther to get to where they got with only $50-65?

Hey, look on the bright side. At least those who are already using OS X will only have to pay $50-$65 to upgrade again. :p

shadowfax

Mar 27, 2003, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Shrek
Hey, look on the bright side. At least those who are already using OS X will only have to pay $50-$65 to upgrade again. :p

lol. perhaps. i'd almost rather pay 129$ just so they do too though!

... just kidding :D ;)

Shrek

Mar 27, 2003, 10:28 PM

One thing I just thought of, though. If there were an upgrade version of OS X, what would be the point in anyone buying the full version? Hmmm.

AmbitiousLemon

Mar 27, 2003, 10:42 PM

I think this 'idea' shows a complete misunderstanding of why people have not moved to OSX.

The reason there are so many non-X machines out there is because there are lots and lots of computers still in use from before Apple started having machines boot into OSX.

Most people use whatever is on their machine.

Apple computers last a very long time. Look at all the SEs or Apple IIes out there.

For a true transition to occur you need to upgrade all the existing hardware. This is why the transition will be slow. People use their computers until they break down (like a car). Most people don't buy new computers every few years, and most institutions will continue using old computers simply because they work.

The fact that so many people haven't 'switched' to OSX isn't because there is anything holding them back. It is because they haven't bought a new computer in a few years. This isn't a bad thing. It simply shows that Apple computers are extremely reliable.

A cheaper update will do nothing to change the number of OSX users. Apple simply needs to wait until all those old reliables break down.

mymemory

Mar 27, 2003, 10:50 PM

Is it not easyer to borrow the instalation disc from a friend?

medea

Mar 27, 2003, 10:53 PM

Software has also played a big role in people not making the transition to X yet, and though now just about all software is available in X with the exception of Quark I don't think most users are aware of that yet. Apple did a fine job with the switch campaign but they didnt go far enough, where are all the ads (magazines and tv) that boasted everything OS X has to offer other than iApps, they are non-existant.
Apple's problem right now is not the price, if you make someone want something they will pay for it whether they need it or not, just look at all the people on here that are salivating over the 970's though 75% of them are probably not even in the market for a new powermac nor will they buy one, Apple needs to figure out why it can lure everyone into the new hardware but not the OS.

shadowfax

Mar 27, 2003, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
A cheaper update will do nothing to change the number of OSX users. Apple simply needs to wait until all those old reliables break down.
HAHAHAHA
oh lord,
following a bit of logic, i think maybe apple needs to make WORSE computers that will break in about 4-5 years so that they have kess trouble trying to force users to upgrade. man, that would be classic if they really did that. :eek: :eek: :eek: :D

shadowfax

Mar 27, 2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by medea
Software has also played a big role in people not making the transition to X yet, and though now just about all software is available in X with the exception of Quark I don't think most users are aware of that yet. Apple did a fine job with the switch campaign but they didnt go far enough, where are all the ads (magazines and tv) that boasted everything OS X has to offer other than iApps, they are non-existant.
Apple's problem right now is not the price, if you make someone want something they will pay for it whether they need it or not, just look at all the people on here that are salivating over the 970's though 75% of them are probably not even in the market for a new powermac nor will they buy one, Apple needs to figure out why it can lure everyone into the new hardware but not the OS.

so apple needs to hype cool stuff so people will just like buy into apple on principle?

by the way, what's the new 'tar?

NavyIntel007

Mar 27, 2003, 11:32 PM

You have to admit, 20% of Mac users using OS X is alot better than the amount of Windows users using XP (which I think is somewhere around 5%).

medea

Mar 28, 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Shadowfax
so apple needs to hype cool stuff so people will just like buy into apple on principle?

by the way, what's the new 'tar?
Sure, why not.........no thats not what I'm saying.

And what do you mean what's with the new tar? What's wrong with it?

AmbitiousLemon

Mar 28, 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by medea
And what do you mean what's with the new tar? What's wrong with it?

its kinda hard to see what is going on. took me awhile to realize the first part. fly. mouth. mouth eats fly. then the part after that i cant tell what it is.

MacBandit

Mar 28, 2003, 10:44 AM

I wonder how much of the stated 25 million mac computer out there can even run OSX. I would be surprised if it was much more then 5 million.

Shrek

Mar 28, 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by mymemory
Is it not easyer to borrow the instalation disc from a friend?

Piracy. Piracy. Piracy. Support Apple as much as possible. :)

AmbitiousLemon

Mar 28, 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
I wonder how much of the stated 25 million mac computer out there can even run OSX. I would be surprised if it was much more then 5 million.

probably true from what i have seen. id say 5million osx machines is a huge success. just the fact that anyone would go out and pay for an os is pretty amazing when you think about it. most people just use whatever is on their computer when they buy it. the fact that boxed versions of osx sell so well it pretty impressive.

how many people do you know who run out and buy the new windows when ms releases a new version?

MacBandit

Mar 28, 2003, 10:56 AM

Not only do I think that most OSX capable machines are using OSX already I also believe there are a large portion of non compatible machines that have been hacked to run it.

I personally know of a lot of people who have upgraded old beige 040 macs to G3s or G4s and installed OSX on them.

MorganX

Mar 28, 2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Shrek
I think one way this could be done faster is by coming out with an upgrade version of Panther (OS X 10.3). This should allow a user to upgrade from OS 9, 10.0, 10.1, or 10.2 to 10.3 and should be sold for about half the price of the full version (I think that's fair enough ). The main goal of this product should be to help speed along the transistion from OS 9 to OS X.

You mean this isn't the way it's done now as a matter of practice? As far as I can remember there's always been an "upgrade" version of OS for Windows. Clear back to DOS.

MorganX

Mar 28, 2003, 11:11 AM

The reason there are so many non-X machines out there is because there are lots and lots of computers still in use from before Apple started having machines boot into OSX.

Most people use whatever is on their machine.

OS X is slow on an iMac with 1GB of RAM. I don't think many of the older machines that can even run OS X could run it well.

I also believe many Mac users stay with their machines because it costs too much to replace them.

I'll have my iMac for a long time no matter how slow it gets because I paid $2300 for it. Oh what I'd give to be able to swap the motherboard with a 970. It's the price you pay for style over substance.

I think OS X's future, is with new machines and new sales. I think Apple will have to drop OS 9 support soon, regardless of how many existing users have not upgraded.

MorganX

Mar 28, 2003, 11:14 AM

xxx

MacBandit

Mar 28, 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by MorganX
OS X is slow on an iMac with 1GB of RAM. I don't think many of the older machines that can even run OS X could run it well.

I also believe many Mac users stay with their machines because it costs too much to replace them.

I'll have my iMac for a long time no matter how slow it gets because I paid $2300 for it. Oh what I'd give to be able to swap the motherboard with a 970. It's the price you pay for style over substance.

I think OS X's future, is with new machines and new sales. I think Apple will have to drop OS 9 support soon, regardless of how many existing users have not upgraded.

OSX might be slow in comparrison to OS9 on your iMac but when it comes to actual horsepower of games and watching movies your iMac has more spunk then most need, part of the iMac power and ability comes from OSX. Look to 10.3 and other system updates to show a significant system speed increase on machines such as yours. They're is still a lot of fat to be cut off of OSX and now that they have OSX to a stable form that is what they are concentrating on.

MorganX

Mar 28, 2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
OSX might be slow in comparrison to OS9 on your iMac but when it comes to actual horsepower of games and watching movies your iMac has more spunk then most need, part of the iMac power and ability comes from OSX. Look to 10.3 and other system updates to show a significant system speed increase on machines such as yours. They're is still a lot of fat to be cut off of OSX and now that they have OSX to a stable form that is what they are concentrating on.

Off Topic: Nice Avatar

Shrek

Mar 28, 2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by MorganX
You mean this isn't the way it's done now as a matter of practice? As far as I can remember there's always been an "upgrade" version of OS for Windows. Clear back to DOS.

No, there is only the full version of OS X and it sells for $129. :mad:

mymemory

Mar 28, 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Shrek
Piracy. Piracy. Piracy. Support Apple as much as possible. :)

On this side of the world we call it friendship, friends share things, you should remeber that from the kindergarden:)

deryk

Mar 28, 2003, 03:24 PM

My iMac DV is stable as it is and performs at a fairly decent pace. I would have to significantly increase my RAM (I currently have 384MB) to be able to use OSX.

I think OSX is great, just not on my machine. OS9 provides me a stable operating system and speed for all of my computing needs.

MacBandit

Mar 29, 2003, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by deryk
My iMac DV is stable as it is and performs at a fairly decent pace. I would have to significantly increase my RAM (I currently have 384MB) to be able to use OSX.

I think OSX is great, just not on my machine. OS9 provides me a stable operating system and speed for all of my computing needs.

In all reality I don't believe you machine is even considered OSX compatible though you can install it without a hack I believe. Really you can run OSX fine on your iMac just the system will be slow the rest of the apps will run fine with a much increased stability. If you think your machine only crashes once in a great while, after running OSX it will feel like it was crashing all the time.

irmongoose

Mar 29, 2003, 01:13 AM

It's going to be impossible for any Macs older than some pre-G3 PowerMacs to have OS X, so what's the point counting them? ANd I'm sure there are still LOTS of those around since Macs last so long (my school's lab has 80% Performas). So what we really need to know is how many percent of the people with OS X-compatible machines are still running 9, not the percentage of all Macs as to those with OS X.

irmongoose

MacBandit

Mar 29, 2003, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by irmongoose
It's going to be impossible for any Macs older than some pre-G3 PowerMacs to have OS X, so what's the point counting them? ANd I'm sure there are still LOTS of those around since Macs last so long (my school's lab has 80% Performas). So what we really need to know is how many percent of the people with OS X-compatible machines are still running 9, not the percentage of all Macs as to those with OS X.

irmongoose

My point exactly. Also it would be interesting to know what % of non OSX compatible macs are running OSX through a hack.

benixau

Mar 29, 2003, 08:07 AM

actually if MS/pc world and apple did that we would kick some serious butt!

i thinks about 80% of OX copmatible machines are running it.

i can tell you that a pc from four years ago (Celeron 333A) can, with 512MB PC66 SDRAM, run windows XP Pro, i know - i did it on my old pc (god bless my MDD).

imagine the numbers of pcs they would have to count. all of those corporate machines aswell. they all run win2k or NT4. ouch!

we win 1mill to 1. yay!

but really - those running os9 are mac users. therefore they count too. just cause they dont run the latest and greatest doesnt mean we should cut them off. apple - yes. why? economically hard to support two completely different OS's. MS has never had to do that. It's most popular OS's have been for as long as i have been alive (im 17) DOS based. only now with XP do they have to really support DOS based OS's (winME) and NT based OS's (win2k/winXP) on a mass scale.

now ive had a rant at the expense of my fingers (all ten of them) i think i shall round up and say - no matter how you try we have a better OS adoption rate than any other company except ....

amnesiac1984

Mar 29, 2003, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
In all reality I don't believe you machine is even considered OSX compatible though you can install it without a hack I believe. Really you can run OSX fine on your iMac just the system will be slow the rest of the apps will run fine with a much increased stability. If you think your machine only crashes once in a great while, after running OSX it will feel like it was crashing all the time.

Check the OS X compatibility page at apple.com

You will see that any macintosh with a G3 or G4 chip will run Mac OS X and is supported and considered compatible. My old Beige G3 233 is running 10.2.4 flawlessly as we speak. It came with os 8.0 installed, and it is nearly 6 years old, and is the oldest computer to officially be supported by OS X (although i don't think the floppy drive works, anyway i haven't used that in years).

Even if you have an old 7xxx, 8xxx or 9xxx series powermac you can upgrade it to a 500mhz g4 and hack os x to run on it. You may even be able to do it wiith the 4xxx 5xxx and 6xxx although don't quote me on that.

Anyone got OS X running on a Mac Classic? :p

MacBandit

Mar 29, 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by amnesiac1984
Even if you have an old 7xxx, 8xxx or 9xxx series powermac you can upgrade it to a 500mhz g4 and hack os x to run on it. You may even be able to do it wiith the 4xxx 5xxx and 6xxx although don't quote me on that.

I have a few friends that hav done just that. That is why I said previously that it would be interesting to know the % of non OSX compatible machines that are running OSX through a hack.

voicegy

Mar 29, 2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
The reason there are so many non-X machines out there is because there are lots and lots of computers still in use from before Apple started having machines boot into OSX.

Apple computers last a very long time. Look at all the SEs or Apple IIes out there.

The fact that so many people haven't 'switched' to OSX isn't because there is anything holding them back. It is because they haven't bought a new computer in a few years. This isn't a bad thing. It simply shows that Apple computers are extremely reliable.

Exactly. Speaking from the Education market standpoint, that's exactly the case. The dang computers just last too long! There's a LOT of older machines out there that are incapable of supporting Jaguar...despite the "freebie" incentive for teachers getting a copy of Jaguar, our Apple representative expressed surprise that the response to that offer didn't go through the roof. Thing is, they don't have the machines to handle OS X. It'll take some time, folks...perhaps 2-3 more years...at least in education, where money right now ain't exactly growin' on trees...

...and from an IT support and service standpoint, we ain't ABOUT to begin expensive memory upgrades, hacks, or what-have-you to make 6 year old machines perform in OS X. I can't think of a worse way to show off a new operating system, especially one as massive as Jaguar. (keep in mind that this scenario speaks to hundreds and hundreds of machines...not just one or two I've got at home that I want to "play" with)

daniel77

Mar 30, 2003, 12:16 AM

MacBandit

Mar 30, 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by daniel77
my school is running 10.2.4 on 600mhz imacs. they feel fine to me :p

My statement for some reason has been pointed back at me a couple times though neither of the cases has prooved it wrong. According to the current hardware requirements put forth by Apple basically all non-beige G3s are OSX compatible.

Yes your iMacs are OSX compatible and should run it just fine though a bit slower then modern hardware. From what I remember the first OSX machine that Apple stated was going to be OSX compatible when the machine was released was the B/W G3. I think every hardware update of every other machine iMacs and otherwise after that were also OSX compatible. Basically the very first iMacs are the only non beige boxes that Apple didn't state as OSX compatible back then. I think the controversy comes in on my statement because I forgot the iMac DV is 400MHz+ and came out after the B/W G3 thus making it OSX compatible.

daniel77

Mar 30, 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
My statement for some reason has been pointed back at me a couple times though neither of the cases has prooved it wrong. According to the current hardware requirements put forth by Apple basically all non-beige G3s are OSX compatible.

Yes your iMacs are OSX compatible and should run it just fine though a bit slower then modern hardware. From what I remember the first OSX machine that Apple stated was going to be OSX compatible when the machine was released was the B/W G3. I think every hardware update of every other machine iMacs and otherwise after that were also OSX compatible. Basically the very first iMacs are the only non beige boxes that Apple didn't state as OSX compatible back then. I think the controversy comes in on my statement because I forgot the iMac DV is 400MHz+ and came out after the B/W G3 thus making it OSX compatible.

they do run fine :P