Mac OS X Only Macs as of Jan 2003 [Archive]

barkmonster

Sep 10, 2002, 06:48 AM

I only use the LE version and I hope digidesign do a simulataneous release of both LE and TDM versions, in the past they've neglected LE users in favour of the TDM guys when it comes to latest version releases.

Even now, the windows XP version of Protools LE has extra plug-ins that the mac LE users can't get yet but as far as I know they're in the TDM version on the mac. I'm guessing an OS X port of protools is going to be out soon, It'd be sick if digidesign were beaten to it by steinberg.

Cubase also comes with way more plug-ins and software synths than protools does so when cubase comes out for OS X, it will be a complete, usable system like logic X appears to be (except the crappy interface steinberg love to make).

Right now if I protools was to come out on OS X tommorow the only OS X and protools compatable software synths would be Unity Session, Unity DS-1 & Unity AS-1.

Anything other than the digirack plug-ins and maybe a few of the digidesign plug-ins like D-Fi, Maxim and D-FX would be useless under OS X and I'd have to stay with just the Digirack plug-ins like I've done so far because I was afraid of being stung with costly OS X updates for any plug-ins that look worth buying.

Some kind of "classic wrapper" that works transparently to link hardware to Classic without OS X interfering would solve a whole heap of problems. If they'd give classic low level access to the hardware, no bootable OS 9 wouldn't be a problem.

beno

Sep 10, 2002, 06:48 AM

Guess that means Quark X at the same time?

iGav

Sep 10, 2002, 06:49 AM

It's a good thing........ Apple making such a bold move will force those software companies that aren't pulling their weight to either start to do so and get developing or get left behind.

Now I just wish Macromedia would sort out Director....... they really are crap they are.... :eek: :p :p

rEd Eye

Sep 10, 2002, 07:04 AM

Apple is really starting to pi$$ me off!! I have my first powerbook planned for the next upgrade release,but if it don't boot into OS 9,I have absolutely no use for it.It would be easier for me to switch to windoze right now rather than OS X.
Apple is really making a mistake pushing some people,especially those in the audio industry, where they are not ready to go.
What?I'm supposed to happily move to Appllogic osX,drop 90% of my plugins that I can't afford to upgrade,aren't ready for osX yet,or never will be ready for osX, and move happily on?Screw that!This move is going to take some time.I don't forsee being able to drop into pure osX land for at the very least another year,but I would like very much to continue using the latest gear. The PC world is looking friendlier and friendlier these days!And Mhz myth?PC's are faster right now!Lot's faster!!!Macs are slugs in comparison to the latest PC technologies,and you can even use most windoze 98 apps in XP.
Who knows,I could even end up a"switcher",because the company that I presently support,appears to have no real interest in MY needs!
I'm starting to get the feeling that Apple is a brand for the elite,snooty and rich,and that maybe I should seriously consider supporting the more open minded,and affordable PC market!

iGav

Sep 10, 2002, 07:12 AM

edesignuk

Sep 10, 2002, 07:13 AM

rEd Eye - I think the whole point of Apple doing this is to FORCE those slacking software companies to get their a$$es in gear and get their applications fully OSX native.
X has been around for quite some time now and yet still alot of the software you guys seem to want (proffessional level stuff), has still not been made for X, the OS of choice for the Mac platform.
This is just crazy, but, not Apples fault, it's the 3rd party companies responsible for keeping their own apps up to standard with the current OS, hopefully this move by Apple will force them to get a move on and catch up with the times.

j763

Sep 10, 2002, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by iGAV

Well maybe the Audio software companies should get there ar*es into gear then..... rather than laging behind......

exactly... they either get their s/w out soon or they don't develop for mac... simple as that.

iGav

Sep 10, 2002, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by verbose101
rEd Eye - I think the whole point of Apple doing this is to FORCE those slacking software companies to get their a$$es in gear and get their applications fully OSX native.
X has been around for quite some time now and yet still alot of the software you guys seem to want (proffessional level stuff), has still not been made for X, the OS of choice for the Mac platform.
This is just crazy, but, not Apples fault, it's the 3rd party companies responsible for keeping their own apps up to standard with the current OS, hopefully this move by Apple will force them to get a move on and catch up with the times.

Exactly.......... ;) :)

Hmm

Sep 10, 2002, 07:25 AM

Of course, you don't have to wait until your apps are ready for OS X. You can just buy a mac that still boots into OS9 right now. I'm sure Apple is hoping you will!

pretentious

Sep 10, 2002, 07:31 AM

Calm down every one, we all know that some of the Music apps haven’t fully conformed, but that is their fault, not Apple's.
Now we didn't expect our Power Macs to run OS 6, we didn't expect our G3's to be able to run OS 7, so we shouldn't be expecting what is next Mac's to be able run OS 9.
This should be a good sign; this could be meaning something bigger and better!

thies

Sep 10, 2002, 08:02 AM

not being a music professional, but knowing some people in the business who ranted about it, there was no way the companies could port their apps to OS X as the groundwork in OS X was not there compared to OS 9.
Although the music applications are not my main gripe with the hard and software situation on the Mac I ordered a PC, should be here in the next days. Apple simply pulled of too much ********, overpromised while underdelivering and simply seems to have lost touch with its average user.

maelstromr

Sep 10, 2002, 08:23 AM

Apple computer has led the way in hardware for a long time now, and this is the logical step in forcing everyone else to follow the future trend and not hide in OS 9. OS 9 is dead, and it was Apple's responsibility to finally bury it, not to develop every piece of software imaginable.

What do you need to do that you can't do with a OS 9 compatible 1.25 ghz dual processor G4 powermac while you wait the few months for OS X software?

The powerbook might be a bit slow for hardcore stuff, but there aren't many (that can really be considered portable) that can. People, a POWERBOOK LAPTOP PORTABLE computer is not made to crunch the biggest numbers, it's meant to be convenient and to move around!

Take a deep breath, look at the mac's simplicity, beauty and quality...and wait a little bit for the software community to catch up. :rolleyes:

groovebuster

Sep 10, 2002, 08:24 AM

But this is not only about the major apps or some plug-ins. I know a lot of medium sized ad companies, who use special software for their work-flow and other stuff, that is only available for MacOS 9 and does not run in classic!

Of course it is the fault of the software companies, that no OS X version is available so far, but just keep in mind that most companies didn't do the switch to OS X so far. As a result they don't have a real market for an OS X version. And as long as not all the software needed is available for OS X a lot of companies will stick with OS 9...

In case they can't buy a new Mac anymore that is booting in OS 9 without having all the software available they need, they run into big trouble. They can't just close down their business, until they got, what they need! And the software companies (which almost always have a Windows-Version of their software as well) couldn't care less, if the companies switch to Windows. On the long-run it would save them the costs to develop not for 2 platforms anymore.

So what's the solution? I really don't know!

The only way I see to convince people about using Mac OS X in the companies is to make it so outstanding compared to OS 9, that everybody is craving to have it, putting pressure on the software companies indirectly! But so far OS X is still far from being as good as OS 9 on a lot of issues... People don't really see a productivity gain and even worse in 10.2 the GUI is still slow sometimes and the system responds not as fast as we would like it, giving us the feeling the whole system is slower than an OS 9 installation. And all the new gadgets built into Jaguar are nice, but do they really help the normal proferssional to get his work done faster? In most cases it is a clear NO! I finally imstalled 10.2 last weekend and it is a nice service update, but I really ask myself why they believe it is worth that much money? Working with the pro apps (like Photoshop, etc...) I don't notice big of a difference and QuartzExtreme is nice, but I still consider it as a bug-fix that shouldn't cost anything and that makes the GUI usable finally...

Those companies have a functioning working process and they will never change that to get into adventures with an unsure outcome, that burns their money and maybe causes the death of the company...

Interesting times!

I guess that we Apple lovers are just not aware of how serious the situation is for Apple at the moment. If they don't provide really performant gear and all the important Software (including plug-ins) will be available within the next 6 months, we'll see a lot of "switchers" in the pro market!

It's a pity... (almost) nice OS, but no hardware and software... same old story!

At the moment I have a really bad feeling about all this...

groovebuster

rEd Eye

Sep 10, 2002, 08:24 AM

"Well maybe the Audio software companies should get there ar*es into gear then..... rather than laging behind......"

Well even if the arses do get in gear,I'm still going to have to shell out the dough for all the upgrades.Even if everything I need and use were made available the same day that I buy an osX only machine,can you imagine how much that day is going to cost me?And the point still remains that alot of VST and VSTI's that I love dearly will likely never be ported to osX,and it's going to take some time and more $$$ to find suitable replacements.I get the feeling sometimes that everyone on this board is stinkin rich,cause no one here thinks Apple products are way overpriced when they clearly are,and everyone seems to think the personal expense of magicly switching many thousands of dollars worth of software to osX as an insignificant afterthought.
Apple is making their moves based on way to much personal pride and vanity for my liking these days.OsX or bust!!!We buit it.....you use it!NOW!!!
Ohhhhh,I get it! $5000 email machines that look real pretty!
Yeeech!
I quite look forward to moving to osX....when the time comes.Right now os9 is doing exactly what I need it to,so why should I inconvenience myself for the benefit of Apples fatheaded approach to pushing their products on people who arent ready for them yet?Why not continue to manufacture "classic"machines for the market that just isn't ready to put all of it's eggs in the still way too new to be practical for everyone osX basket just yet?

clonenode

Sep 10, 2002, 08:25 AM

People need to calm down. Apple is doing nothing to YOU. They are moving forward with their OS strategy. Stop taking it so personally.

groovebuster

Sep 10, 2002, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by maelstromr
What do you need to do that you can't do with a OS 9 compatible 1.25 ghz dual processor G4 powermac while you wait the few months for OS X software?

Take a deep breath, look at the mac's simplicity, beauty and quality...and wait a little bit for the software community to catch up. :rolleyes:

We are not talking about private users only, we are talking about business.

Companies don't buy machines now, just because they maybe(!) need them in 6 months! They buy the machines when they are needed or older machines are due to be replaced. They have budgets and write stuff of from tax. What shall a company do, if they need 10 new PowerMacs next January, but they won't boot in OS 9 anymore and the Software they use doesn't work properly in Classic and an OS X version is still not in sight?

Think about it for a minute and you hopefully will start to understand the problem!

groovebuster

maelstromr

Sep 10, 2002, 08:32 AM

so instead you spent how much switching all your software to windows?

go play with PC's then, I'm sure apple won't cry over your lost business. now I'm going to lay back and light a few cubans with burning $100 bills while I yell at my servants to get the yacht ready to sail to Monaco where I will blow a small country's GNP betting on whether or not compaq will last another year...

I'm a self supporting (tuition paying) student that has done just fine switching to OS X and a pretty decent graphics suite. Now, I recognize that education prices make a HUGE difference, but I'm really not sure if that justifies the W H I N I N G coming from all these people.

rEd Eye

Sep 10, 2002, 08:35 AM

"
People need to calm down. Apple is doing nothing to YOU. They are moving forward with their OS strategy. Stop taking it so personally.
"

I take it personaly because I bought into their strategy,and now they don't give a **** that they're leaving me behind!I want a 1Ghz powerbook that I can now almost afford,and now it looks like I won't be getting it anytime soon:(
I see a rocky road ahead of Apple for the next couple of years!

groovebuster

Sep 10, 2002, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by clonenode
People need to calm down. Apple is doing nothing to YOU. They are moving forward with their OS strategy. Stop taking it so personally.

It is pretty personal, if I earn money with my Mac, but I can't completely switch to OS X, because not all the software needed is available so far and doesn't run in classic! That means from January on I can't buy a Mac anymore, as long as I don't get the complete package of software for OS X. Not to mention the costs of updating all the software. I don't think that most software companies don't want to see cash for the transition to OS X.

We are talking about thousands of dollars per work-place here.

groovebuster

iGav

Sep 10, 2002, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by maelstromr
now I'm going to lay back and light a few cubans with burning $100 bills while I yell at my servants to get the yacht ready to sail to Monaco where I will blow a small country's GNP betting on whether or not compaq will last another year...

Fantastic :p :p :p

iGav

Sep 10, 2002, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by rEd Eye
I take it personaly because I bought into their strategy,and now they don't give a **** that they're leaving me behind!I want a 1Ghz powerbook that I can now almost afford,and now it looks like I won't be getting it anytime soon:(
I see a rocky road ahead of Apple for the next couple of years!

Again...... Apple is HAVING to force change.... otherwise the lazy ar*e software companies that can't be bothered to develop OSX software will have no incentive to get off said lazy ar*e and start trying to please people like yourself that want to change, but can't because there software products aren't compatiable with Apples de-facto OS........

robguz

Sep 10, 2002, 09:06 AM

I need to boot into 9 at least once per week to:
make VPC usable
move or delete files that X won't allow me to on my own machine
run disk repair utilities
feel like I have a mac that's not 10 years old
play any of dozens of games that only run or run far faster in 9, but not classic.
want to use a version of Office that can keep up with my slow typing

I guess my next mac won't be a new mac, but a used one that can run 9. Classic compatability is not good enough. Maybe in 3-5 years this is good. I understand Apple needs to move on to getting everyone using X, but X is not mature enough. Jaguar is an overpriced minor bug fix with bloatware. It is still far too slow.

nickmcghie

Sep 10, 2002, 09:06 AM

I think this is a bad decision on Apple's part. Sure, its probably fine for 90% of the Mac users out there, but for those niche markets where the Mac has traditionally been strong (like the audio market), it is a huge blow in their face. I hope something major happens within the next couple of months to make it worth while for *everybody* to switch to OS X.

On a side note, do you guys think it'd be possible to some how hack a new 2003 Mac to boot into OS 9? just a thought.. hehe

iwantanewmac

Sep 10, 2002, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by bidge

Quite contradictory with your username

Why is that?

1) I explained it 10 times before.I was drunk a bat when I thought of it.

2) I DO want a new mac but not a cheesy upgrade
wich the "new" powermac is.

edesignuk

Sep 10, 2002, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by robguz

move or delete files that X won't allow me to on my own machine

Is called keeping your OS stable by not letting you delete things you shouldn't be, and anyway, if you must delete certain files enable your root account and login as that when you want to be be ale to delete things as you wish and screw up your system.

skiphunt

Sep 10, 2002, 09:23 AM

I'm not sure how Apple intends to force the issue... be it via new motherboards that refuse to boot into 9? Or, new revisions of OSX that won't allow an OS9 boot. But, if it's the hardware scenario, wouldn't a CPU upgrade card get around that? I'm a graphics and DV professional, and haven't had the cash to upgrade ALL of my tools and plug-ins to OSX. That is, the ones that have upgrades available. And most that I use, don't appear to work in Classic mode. So for now, and the foreseeable future I'll be living in 0S9 land, but playing in OSX land. I recently upgraded my 2000 firewire Pismo from a G3/400 to a G4/500 via Powerlogix cpu upgrade card. Works GREAT! and I figure this will not only buy my more time before I have to upgrade my hardware, it may also buy me more time in OS9 while developers get all the OSX upgrades available, etc. I was planning on buying a new desktop after the first of the year, but with this news, and because I've been so happy with the stability of my upgraded Pismo I'll probably just upgrade my G4/450 with one of the new Powerlogix dual cards. That is, as soon as I've heard enough great feedback about them as well. ;-)

skip hunt

Chris66

Sep 10, 2002, 09:27 AM

Time to say goodbye to 9?

I very much doubt that it wont be possible to make the new machines boot into 9.

Just trash X that is format the HD and install the HD drivers for 9 using an external Firewire disk containing both X and 9 and install 9 on your new machine.

Maybe you'll have to wait for some patch but that's it.

robguz

Sep 10, 2002, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by verbose101

Is called keeping your OS stable by not letting you delete things you shouldn't be, and anyway, if you must delete certain files enable your root account and login as that when you want to be be ale to delete things as you wish and screw up your system.

Cool, just like Windoze! Yes I understand this, but sometimes there are things I also can't do when logged in as root. Oh yes, I certainly needs hundreds of drivers for modems and printers. Gee, where's that Prometheus 2400 baud modem that I absolutely MUST use with 10.2? Sorry, but on a portable with limited hard drive space, trimming the fat is the smart thing to do. Especially on my older iBook with only a 10GB drive (yes I could upgrade it but apparently I'd need to take a day off and go on anti-anxiety drugs to do it).

edesignuk

Sep 10, 2002, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by robguz
...but sometimes there are things I also can't do when logged in as root.
Like what? With root access there should be nothing you can't do....even if it means you kill your system.

eyeONdoor

Sep 10, 2002, 09:39 AM

the previous post brings up a point no one seems to really be talking about. how will they force the issue. will it be with new hardware (faster cpu included!)? or will it just be some fireware or software upgrade thing that simply can't be booted with os9?

is apple really pre-announcing that they will have new hardware for mwsf or are they just saying that all new macs that they ship after january, that have almost the same hardware config as now, will simply not have the ability to boot into os9?...or does it mean that whatever hardware they update at mwsf (powerbooks and ibooks?) will not boot into os9 and the new powermacs, whenever they are announced, will follow suit?

i could have said the above better but you know what i mean...

skiphunt

Sep 10, 2002, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Chris66
Time to say goodbye to 9?

I very much doubt that it wont be possible to make the new machines boot into 9.

Maybe you'll have to wait for some patch but that's it.

I remember attempting to install an OS8 or 9 disk that had come with a G3 Powerbook, but wanted to install on a G3 desktop. Wouldn't install. I then tried intalling onto an external, but with a PB startup, then tried to start off the new install with the desktop...... still didn't work. At some point, it appears Apple was shipping software that was machine specific. So, it appears it IS quite possible. I wonder if the Powerlogix upgrade cards, and those of their brethren, would be a viable alternative to get around this OS9 shut-out? With the new life the Powerlogix cpu upgrade card gave my beloved Pismo, I'm certainly gonna give it a try. I've got to stay in 0S9 a bit longer, but I truly am looking forward to the day I can just use one OS. I just don't think it's reasonable to force the issue so soon.

skip

Cappy

Sep 10, 2002, 10:29 AM

I'm beginning to suspect that it's not so much a matter of people and their software having a problem with this decision but that it is them not wanting to change period. I know people who actually got out of the Mac market when X came out because frankly it scared them. Everything changed so if they're going to learn something new why now learn Windows.

Don't get me wrong Apple needs to convince the software companies to move things along. Another aspect to this is that money is tight and by doing this it allows Apple to not spend as much on support. Apple isn't MS afterall where they can support a large number of OS's.

MacKenzie999

Sep 10, 2002, 10:32 AM

Now I just wish Macromedia would sort out Director....... they really are crap they are.... :eek: :p :p [/B][/QUOTE]

In defense of Macromedia...Freehand was one of the very first major graphic apps ported to 10.

Rocketman

Sep 10, 2002, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by barkmonster
well if protools and a whole heap of 3rd party plug-ins and software synths don't come out in the next 3 months I'm not buying another mac for a long time.

why force people to use OS X ?

shouldn't it be a choice ?

I wouldn't pay for anything that doesn't work 100% with what I want to do with it, I think my next mac will be the cheapest digital audio or quicksilver G4 I can find on eBay and a dual cpu upgrade later on while I wait for everything to come out.

Very simple. Next Mac you buy, just keep your old one too. Stick it on the network and have a compatible environment for those tasks, and a server capable of any new "monster appplications" which generally ought to not interest consumers at all.

This announcement basicly says BUY CURRENT machines now since they are DUAL BOOT.

Rocketman

iGav

Sep 10, 2002, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by MacKenzie999
Now I just wish Macromedia would sort out Director....... they really are crap they are.... :eek: :p :p

In defense of Macromedia...Freehand was one of the very first major graphic apps ported to 10. [/B][/QUOTE]

Totally..... freehand was a very smart release indeed....... shame they've let themselves down with Director though...... it's taking far too long to port..... I really do hope it's worth it...... :rolleyes: :)

iShater

Sep 10, 2002, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by rEd Eye
The PC world is looking friendlier and friendlier these days!And Mhz myth?PC's are faster right now!Lot's faster!!!Macs are slugs in comparison to the latest PC technologies,and you can even use most windoze 98 apps in XP.
Who knows,I could even end up a"switcher",because the company that I presently support,appears to have no real interest in MY needs!
I'm starting to get the feeling that Apple is a brand for the elite,snooty and rich,and that maybe I should seriously consider supporting the more open minded,and affordable PC market!

When MS moved from DOS to Win95, the same thing happened, you had to boot into DOS mode for a while for your programs to work. That functionality I believe lasted into Win98, but I don't think you can run really old DOS programs there that access hardware directly. It is the responsibility of application developers to update their applications to work with new operating systems.

Thirteenva

Sep 10, 2002, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by rEd Eye
Well even if the arses do get in gear,I'm still going to have to shell out the dough for all the upgrades.Even if everything I need and use were made available the same day that I buy an osX only machine,can you imagine how much that day is going to cost me?And the point still remains that alot of VST and VSTI's that I love dearly will likely never be ported to osX,and it's going to take some time and more $$$ to find suitable replacements
the same problem would exist if you switched to windows. You'd still have to buy new software.

I get the feeling sometimes that everyone on this board is stinkin rich,cause no one here thinks Apple products are way overpriced when they clearly are,and everyone seems to think the personal expense of magicly switching many thousands of dollars worth of software to osX as an insignificant afterthought.

I have very little money to spend on anything let alone computers. I don't however find apple products to be "overpriced" and the cost of upgrading is no afterthought but it is a neccessity. If the software you need is business related buy it and write it off on your taxes.

Apple is making their moves based on way to much personal pride and vanity for my liking these days.OsX or bust!!!We buit it.....you use it!NOW!!!

OS 10 has been in development for a very long time and has been out to the public for 2 years now. So excuse apple for wanting people to start using it exclusively now after all the time and effort they've put into it. People complain that "macs are way behind in speed" well we're way ahead in OS technology and can't stay that way if you don't upgrade. Do you want to live with yesterday's technology?

Ohhhhh,I get it! $5000 email machines that look real pretty!
Yeeech!

If you need a machine to only get email you wouldnt buy a $5,000 power mac, and if you're implying that all a $5000 powermac would be good for is getting email, then well i don't even know where to start telling you how mistaken you are. Just buy a pc at this point because your very disillusioned

I quite look forward to moving to osX....when the time comes.Right now os9 is doing exactly what I need it to,so why should I inconvenience myself for the benefit of Apples fatheaded approach to pushing their products on people who arent ready for them yet?Why not continue to manufacture "classic"machines for the market that just isn't ready to put all of it's eggs in the still way too new to be practical for everyone osX basket just yet?

Just because you're "not ready" for something doesnt mean the world stops turning. Christ if people stopped technological progression because people weren't ready we'd still be staring at an apple II

People weren't ready for the automobile either, so they strapped on some shoes and WALKED!

i suggest you do the same.

I think dell is having a sale...

jelloshotsrule

Sep 10, 2002, 12:01 PM

great post thirteenva...

i can certainly see where people are coming from. i still have a couple occasional reasons to boot up in 9... games, some apps, whatever...

but i agree that apple needs to apply more pressure to those who haven't already taken advantage of the much better os that is os x...

i'm happy to see it being done now

digitalbiker

Sep 10, 2002, 12:14 PM

Hey! don't just blame lazy a#%@*s software developers. Prior to Jaguar a large number of the audio components weren't supported in OS X. Even with Jaguar, I have heard many complaints on the devleoper networks about how buggy a number of the new features are.

So blaming the software developers doesn't hold water! Apple has been extremely slow getting OS X up to snuff where it could perform at the same level as OS 9. ALso the last set of fiqures I had seen on Apple users were; 80% OS 9 and 20% OS X. How does a software developer make money in such a small market? And how many actual OS X users are we talking about?

I am still a bit sceptical about how well classic will be supported when the hardware doesn't have OS 9 native drivers that allow booting into OS 9. I'll bet classic performance will be really lame on the new hardware from Apple. That will really please the remaining 80% of Apples user base

Dephex Twin

Sep 10, 2002, 12:16 PM

I just wanted to mention one thing regarding Apple "disabling" OS 9 on hardware in January. From what I've always heard, it's the other way around. Each time new hardware is created, Apple has to go through a specific effort to make the already-existing OS work on it. So this is Apple saying that after years of OS X being around, they are not planning to make OS 9 work on the newest hardware.

When January 1st comes around, Apple is not going to seize all current Mac hardware that you own, nor will they outlaw all Mac stores selling OS 9-compatible hardware. They will not sue people selling these machines on eBay. The product will continue to exist. You have your Mac, and you have the software for it.

If OS X fails then it's bye-bye Apple. Why should Apple put their entire business model and very existence at risk because a few of you *might* buy computers in the next few years and you want even the newest ones to run your years-old OS?

sedarby

Sep 10, 2002, 12:17 PM

Okay, so they won't come with OS 9 installed. Are we to believe that OS 9 will not run on the new machines? I for one will not be buying into OS X until anoher release or 2. The previous versions were nothing more than beta so until I see a real value in upgrading I will stay with what I have.

Do you really believe that Apple can afford to lose 3rd party developers at this point? These are perilous times and to lose support at this juncture is just suicide. If I owned stock in Apple, I'd be dumping it now.

sturm375

Sep 10, 2002, 12:22 PM

I have a friend in the music industry. I have helped him many times upgrade, fix his computer. He uses professional recording software/hardware to tweak his music. Until very recently, he had to use Windows98 or ME, because of the way operating systems handle applications. In the newer OSs, the OS dictates how much time a given application is given. This is a pain for recording, because, as my friend put it, it makes "gaps" in the recording. This is why he used Win98. This was an older OS, that allowed the apps to take complete control over the system.

The reason I am saying this, is perhaps the Pro-Audio software guys don't yet have the ability to make decent software with OS X's "modern" OS like Pre-emptive Multi-tasking. So just because Apple is "forcing" the OS X issue, does not mean that it is even possible to upgrade some software yet. I am only guessing here, so don't get your panties in a bunch, just expressing a possibility they has yet to be posted.

pretentious

Sep 10, 2002, 12:23 PM

I leave one message and comeback and everyone is all pissy...

Now SJ said that the NEW computers are only going to be bootable in OS X now I highly doubt that they are simply going to just screw w/ the motherboard just to piss off all of the stragglers who can or want to buy the latest and greatest but stay w/ the old.
More likely that there is a major upgrade is very soon.
This is a good thing.
Now about the 'puny' little DUAL 1.25 GHZ POWERMAC that can run OS 9, well I'm sure that this can suffice until the developers can give us decent apps for X. Apple is just saying this now to tell them to get it in gear or their apps will be extremely outdated.
Now I haven't switched to OS X because I would need a new computer and I simply don't have any money and on my old 7200/75 that someone gave to me, and it runs OS 9. This was made almost 9 years ago! And it still runs the very same OS that you want to run on your brand new machine. Just to put it into perspective.

And one more thing for the Audiophiles, didn't Apple just shell out some money to buy out an Music app company? Can we say FCP for music in X soon?

TechLarry

Sep 10, 2002, 12:27 PM

Ok, this brings up a problem.

Symantec has publically stated that they CANNOT make a MacOS X Bootable CD because Apple does not provide them the capability/permission to do so.

So... What are all the utility and other companies going to do now? All of their boot CD's are MacOS 9 based...

IMHO, this is a STUPID move on Apple's part. It's the sort of customer corralling you would expect from Microsoft.

TL

Cappy

Sep 10, 2002, 12:28 PM

There's alot of opposition here to not being able to run Mac OS 9 and it's due to lack of software being developed for Mac OS X. How about folks put your money where your mouth is and start tracking what software you keep talking about? I've seen very few mentioned and there is another 3-4 months that could bring said applications to Mac OS X.

I really do not consider this an Apple issue with developers having known for years now that Mac OS was moving this direction. We're not talking about since the time of public release but dating back farther where this was all first announced. Carbon, Cocoa, and the Classic Environment were established fairly early. Unless an app needs to bang the hardware directly it should run in Classic.

Bear

Sep 10, 2002, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by barkmonster
why force people to use OS X ?

shouldn't it be a choice ?

Funny, Apple lets you have the choice for well over a year after they release OS X.

Microsoft Users who bought new machines had to buy them with XP once XP was announced. And some of those machines you can't even get device drivers for early version of Windows.

So, why force people? There is no forcing here. I f you need to run OS 9.x for the long term, buy a new machine now.

Cappy

Sep 10, 2002, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by TechLarry
Ok, this brings up a problem.

Symantec has publically stated that they CANNOT make a MacOS X Bootable CD because Apple does not provide them the capability/permission to do so.

So... What are all the utility and other companies going to do now? All of their boot CD's are MacOS 9 based...

IMHO, this is a STUPID move on Apple's part. It's the sort of customer corralling you would expect from Microsoft.

TL

Things change. If someone really wants to develop a way to boot off a cd to access Mac OS X, they will. This is what has happened in the Windows world with NT, 2000, and XP when using NTFS. There are only a handful of products that can do this.

It's a security issue. Climb out of your hole and see the bigger picture. People moaned and groaned when MS did this but you know what? Very few people have a need to do this. Are you saying that with Mac OS X you' and *many* other users are going to need to do this when it's rarely needed on any of the modern Windows systems with NTFS?

I've worked with NTFS for years and can vouch for this. If I really needed to access the system, I know where I can go to get the needed resources but I've never had the need.

dongmin

Sep 10, 2002, 12:40 PM

The optimist in me say that "No Boot to OS 9" means that Apple will introduce new hardware across the line, with features that OS 9 is NOT gonna support, including Firewire 2, Airport 2, & Bluetooth. Why should Apple waste development resources writing drivers for OS 9?

And hopefully this also means the iBooks will get G4s! And the PowerMacs get new processors!!! OK, maybe that's being overly optimistic....

Even though I still use OS 9 about half the time (on my iBook), I'm glad Apple is really making the push with OS X. Apple is a small company (relatively speaking) and they simply can't afford to support two OSes.

Bear

Sep 10, 2002, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by arn
Apple annonunced (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/sep/10macosx.html) that all new Mac models as of January 2003 will only boot into Mac OS X. Classic compatibility will remain.

This sounds like that as model lines get updated they will lose the OS9 boot capability.

So while we may see some new models around MWSF '03, don't expect everything to be updated that soon.

Blackcat

Sep 10, 2002, 01:10 PM

pgwalsh

Sep 10, 2002, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by rEd Eye
Apple is really making a mistake pushing some people,especially those in the audio industry, where they are not ready to go.
What?I'm supposed to happily move to Appllogic osX,drop 90% of my plugins And Mhz myth?PC's are faster right now!Lot's faster!!!Macs are slugs in comparison to the latest PC technologies,and you can even use most windoze 98 apps in XP.

I'm starting to get the feeling that Apple is a brand for the elite,snooty and rich,and that maybe I should seriously consider supporting the more open minded,and affordable PC market! If you decide to switch, I wouldn't go to XP. XP is awful. I think W2K is much better and much more stable. Good luck finding W98 on a new machine. You could install it over a newer version, but it'll be a bit of a headache.

As for OS X, I agree that the Audio applications are coming extremely slow. The upgrades will be a pain, but so will the cross grades to windows. However, I think in the long run OS X will be a superior Audio application platform (IMO).

As for plug-ins there's quite a few that come with windows and mac versions. Native-Instruments is now doing this across the line. I don't know for sure, but I don't think Waldorf is using this approach or Steinberg. So that'll be an out of pocket cross grade.

At least two great applications are available for OS X and that's Propellerheads Reason and Emagics Logic. I own Reason and will eventually get Logic, but it's not urgent because my older system is okay with audio for now. I don't mind using two systems while I migrate to OS X.

On a Separate note:
Is it feasible for one of these Mac sites to start a list of Classic apps and those that have crossed the great divide to OS X?

I think if we had a list with the companies url and support or sales address we could harass them into making OS X applications. Even if we don't use the darn products we could collectively make a conscious effort to email them asking when they're product would be released for OS X.

Maybe MacRumors, SpyMac, OSXAUDIO, and the numerous other Mac sites could collective compile this list to one location or mirror it to all the mac sites.

technocoy

Sep 10, 2002, 01:33 PM

Before everyone blows up, about apple not giving you what you want, maybe you should think about what you've been whining about.... "i need a faster powermac... we need new processors!!"

boo hoo,

maybe that is exactly what apple is intending to give you next year, and the new hardware and processors are not going to support OS9. you boo hooers...

I work on 3 different macs @ work 2 quicksilvers and an old dual 533, and a b&w g3 at home, and they are all loaded with all the graphics and web software that i need professionaly ( with the minor exception of pro tools which is slated for november) and OSX runs awesome across the board... in the 6 mos i've been running it i've had 2 system crashes. I can't even stand to go back to 9....

oh well,
go ahead and boo hoo,
cause i can't even figure out what to say about all this ignorant, whiny, boo hooing!! boo hoo!

christ quit boo hooing!!

later:mad: :rolleyes: :o

biw314

Sep 10, 2002, 01:55 PM

Not Apple's fault? If Apple can't even get the audio in iMovie to work right in OS X, how could you expect anyone else to?

Snowy_River

Sep 10, 2002, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by robguz
I need to boot into 9 at least once per week to:
make VPC usable

Get the latest version of VPC. I use it occasionally on my iBook (slowish, G3) running OS X, and, while it's slow, it is useable. (I've even run AutoCAD for some file inspection in this way.)

move or delete files that X won't allow me to on my own machine

As has been said, you can log in as root, or, as hasn't been said, you can use the terminal in superuser mode. Both of these are trivial to do. I regularly use the terminal as superuser, and it is really easy and quick.

run disk repair utilities

There are such utilities available for OS X, even built into OS X. fsck has been mentioned...

feel like I have a mac that's not 10 years old

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, but I'll guess that you're referring to the GUI being too slow. I don't know what to tell you. X runs fine on my iBook, X.2 even better. But that is, of course, my opinion.

play any of dozens of games that only run or run far faster in 9, but not classic.

I can probably name a fair number of games that stopped working with the release of OS 8. When I got a new computer, the only way that I could play those games was to keep the old computer around as a game machine. Either that, or give up the games. (I kept it for a while, then I gave up the games. I still miss some of them. :D )

want to use a version of Office that can keep up with my slow typing

Here again, I'm not sure what you mean. I use Office98 in Classic mode, and I have absolutely no complaints about it (other than not being OS X native - yes I know that I could get Office X, but I don't have the money or incentive right now.)

I guess my next mac won't be a new mac, but a used one that can run 9. Classic compatability is not good enough. Maybe in 3-5 years this is good. I understand Apple needs to move on to getting everyone using X, but X is not mature enough. Jaguar is an overpriced minor bug fix with bloatware. It is still far too slow.

As for the whole business software question, I've seen it many times at many different companies that I've worked for. It's always been the case that new OSes will break old software, and sometimes the company that wrote the software doesn't even exist anymore to update it.

I worked for an engineering company that was using a Win3.1 application for job scheduling. It wouldn't run on anything newer, so they struggled through maintaining one computer with Win3.11 amid their WinNT, Win98, etc. machines, rather than try to find a more up to date application that would serve their purposes.

I saw something similar at a school where they were supporting a Mac running System 6 because an application that they wanted to run was broken in System 7.

This happens with progress. If you need to support older, outdated software, then expect to support older hardware too.

Scab Cake

Sep 10, 2002, 02:14 PM

Okay, first, please forgive me for not reading the entire thread, but there's something that I just have to say. I don't know if anyone else has said this, but all of you Pro Tools users can stop complaining because Pro Tools 6 is coming out for OS X in a few weeks. Early October is when it will be released. It is for OS X only. Unfortunately, there will be no new features. It is Pro Tools 5, but rewritten from the ground up for OS X. It will support dual processors, and it is MUCH faster than the OS 9 version...you'll have to trust me on this one. :)

Also, all of your plugins will have to be re-written in Audio Units. As far as I know, the old plugins won't work. But, you can't quote me on that one. Development is just about complete and it is on schedule for its release in a few weeks. So, please, for the love of all that is good and holy, stop stop stop complaining.

Secondly, I think that it's great that Apple is forcing developers to write for X. It's about time. The OS is so much better, and when everyone starts using it, we will all be much happier.

EDIT: As far as I know, all Digidesign hardware will work (i.e. all versions of Pro Tools will be released. I've even heard that the free version will be released around the same time). So, TDM, LE, and Free are all going to be available soon.

Billy_ca

Sep 10, 2002, 02:38 PM

For all those of you accusing Apple of crimes against humanity I have three questions:

1. What exactly is going to happen to the MacOS 9 computer you are using right now on January 1, 2003? Is it going to automatically self-destruct?

2. How long exactly should Apple continue to sell dual boot systems? As of January 1, 2003 it will have been almost two full years that they sold Macs that booted into OS X or OS 9. Obviously two years isn't enough for some of you in here. So I would just like to know exactly how long is ideal? 3 years? 4 years? 5 years? Even more?

3. Why don't I hear any of you bringing Microsoft to task for not incuding a copy of Windows 98 in the XP box?

Billy_ca

Sep 10, 2002, 02:42 PM

So much whining for something that hasn't even happened yet...sheesh...

robguz

Sep 10, 2002, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Dephex Twin
I just wanted to mention one thing regarding Apple "disabling" OS 9 on hardware in January. From what I've always heard, it's the other way around. Each time new hardware is created, Apple has to go through a specific effort to make the already-existing OS work on it. So this is Apple saying that after years of OS X being around, they are not planning to make OS 9 work on the newest hardware.

After years of OSX? It will be a whopping 21 months by January 1, 2003, and only 4 months since the first barely usable version of X was released. I think the word years implies 2 or more (and the Beta, which really should have been called a public pre-Alpha, doesn't count).

How hard can it be for a $6 billion a year company to enable their machines for OS9? Some dude put together a hack in a matter of days that let's X run on macs from 1995!

Maybe a better way to convince users and developers is by shipping fast machines with a fast OS, not by forcing them to make major compromises to get a new mac. Better yet, why don't they do some more work on Classic to make it much more compatible than it currently is.

AmbitiousLemon

Sep 10, 2002, 02:58 PM

a few comments;

1) boot disks. you can create osx boot disks. i made one of my own. symantec (the people one user claimed said a boot cd could not exists) created a utility that boots into osx. and other utilitys will be available before year end. in addition to all of that this is unix, you dont really need those tools.

2) os9 came out in 1999, to think that apple should continue wasting developing efforts on it into 2003 is not reasonable. why do you need brand new hardware to run a 4 year old os and software?

3) software: it is interesting how the people using os9 still think 'these are hard times for apple' i think your using a 4 year old os has also left you 4 years in the past. the software situation in osx is spectacular. i mostly moved to osx because thats where all the software was (in addition to a better system all around). this is a very good time for apple -- because of osx.

4) companies using 'specialized' software that strangely does not work in classic mode and has no osx version? why do they need brand new computers? certainly a dual 1.25mhz machine is enough to run office software that is 4 years old. and, this move by apple will most likley mean they will be enjoying osx sooner rather than (much much) later since perhaps their 'specialized' developer will port the software to osx... or they can use something now thats already osx native.

at some point a company has to stop supporting old systems. they can not keep wasting resources on obsolete operating systems. when adobe wrote phtoshop 7 did they make it able to work on my mac SE? it takes time and money to continue to support these things, its not like apple is going out of their way to prevent os9 from functioning on anew hardware, they are simply going to stop building such compatability into the systems. apple hasnt done anything to any of you. they are simply selling a product. and the fact that they gave people a heads up was more than they had to do.

sparkleytone

Sep 10, 2002, 02:58 PM

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

QuiteSure

Sep 10, 2002, 03:43 PM

My fantasy:

Keeping machines dual-os bootable has been inhibiting hardware performance. Apple frees itself from this constraint and releases an incredible machine at MWSF that is OSX bootable only. What will the skeptics do? Ha! They have to abandon the OS9-bootable only apps to buy the magnificent hardware!!

No complaints, only drooling.

I can dream, can't I?

bigjohn

Sep 10, 2002, 04:32 PM

When my iBook HD crashed (hardware failure) the AppleCare guy said I had to boot into OS9 to partition the drive. If they plan on moving to OS X only, they should include some disk management software with the next X release because the current iteration can't partition.

Big John
FSN

AmbitiousLemon

Sep 10, 2002, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by bigjohn
When my iBook HD crashed (hardware failure) the AppleCare guy said I had to boot into OS9 to partition the drive. If they plan on moving to OS X only, they should include some disk management software with the next X release because the current iteration can't partition.

Big John
FSN

you can partition from the osx install cd just like you can with the os9 cd. in fact the tools on the osx disc are better.

Wry Cooter

Sep 10, 2002, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by iGAV
It's a good thing........ Apple making such a bold move will force those software companies that aren't pulling their weight to either start to do so and get developing or get left behind.

Or decide it isnt' worth the effort. There is a difference between getting left behind, and deciding to leave.

Billy_ca

Sep 10, 2002, 05:14 PM

Why is it that Apple always has to drag people like you kicking and screaming into the present?

Wry Cooter

Sep 10, 2002, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by pgwalsh

On a Separate note:
Is it feasible for one of these Mac sites to start a list of Classic apps and those that have crossed the great divide to OS X?

I think if we had a list with the companies url and support or sales address we could harass them into making OS X applications. Even if we don't use the darn products we could collectively make a conscious effort to email them asking when they're product would be released for OS X.

Maybe MacRumors, SpyMac, OSXAUDIO, and the numerous other Mac sites could collective compile this list to one location or mirror it to all the mac sites. [/B]

Such a list would be more useful if it were three headed- that is, have a column titled MUST BOOT IN OS 9 TO USE.

It's not so much ProTools or Cubase (although they might not necessarily be warm to the Logic purchase); It's not that much Quark, or Acrobat, or whatever Macromedia hasn't ported yet.... its the third party plug ins for these apps. Some of these we know, due to the nature of third party plug in developers, will NEVER be rewritten for -any- OS.

Unfortunately, a lot of work flow has become dependant on some of these plug ins. Who is going to rewrite them? Apple?

Dephex Twin

Sep 10, 2002, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by robguz

After years of OSX? It will be a whopping 21 months by January 1, 2003, and only 4 months since the first barely usable version of X was released. I think the word years implies 2 or more (and the Beta, which really should have been called a public pre-Alpha, doesn't count).

The OS X gameplan has been laid out and in progress for years. This is obviously what I meant. This is just pedantic quibbling.

How hard can it be for a $6 billion a year company to enable their machines for OS9? Some dude put together a hack in a matter of days that let's X run on macs from 1995!

Well, then I guess it's inevidable that "some dude" will make a hack to run OS 9 on the new machines, since it's so easy. So you don't have anything to worry about.

Maybe a better way to convince users and developers is by shipping fast machines with a fast OS, not by forcing them to make major compromises to get a new mac. Better yet, why don't they do some more work on Classic to make it much more compatible than it currently is.

You want Apple to have a fast OS and hardware in order to encourage people to adopt. So, how would Apple better spend their time... working on OS X like crazy (as they have been), or further developing the crutch that allows 3rd-party developers to procrastinate?

How do you think Apple has survived this long and thrived even when other computer companies are failing? Not by supporting old technology long past its prime. Quite the opposite.

Over Achiever

Sep 10, 2002, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by sparkleytone
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

lol...very helpful post there sparkleytone :D

For the rest of you...
QUITE YA WHINING!

That said, I noticed that the U of M computers are all on OS 9...wonder what will happen to them:(

AmbitiousLemon

Sep 10, 2002, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Over Achiever
That said, I noticed that the U of M computers are all on OS 9...wonder what will happen to them:(

nothing will happen to them. apple is going to go arond and destroy old computers. U of M will keep using their machines like nothing changed.

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 10, 2002, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by barkmonster
well if protools and a whole heap of 3rd party plug-ins and software synths don't come out in the next 3 months I'm not buying another mac for a long time.

Yeah, well now Digidesign is going to have to get off their butt, right?

I'm a musician, and I'm waiting for Cubase SX, but I am presently using Deck 3.5 and Peak DV, and they run really well in OS X, much better than in 9!

why force people to use OS X ?

shouldn't it be a choice ?

No, Mac OS 9 is a discontinued OS. Companies stop making products all the time. Why force Apple to waste resources updating it to run on new hardware.

Think about it this way. All the new Macs also cant boot into OS 8, not to mention System 6 or 7.5. Did Apple force us to switch? Damn shame I can't run System 6 on my 6100, or System 3 on my Quadra... ;)

The worrying thing is that so many audio companies arn't even mentioning their plans for OS X yet and that either means they're as secretive as digidesign and apple are, or their not planning on spending the resources on porting to OS X for quite some time, hoping they can fall back on OS 9.

I know protools X should be out within months and that should take the panic out of the situation for me but anything that costs me money for upgrades because of apple's decision isn't going to make me very happy.

Stop worrying. Apple is doing this to make things move faster. Most of the major players have said that OS X versions are on the way. We already have products from BIAS, a still slightly rough version of Logic, several versions of Spark, drivers from M-Audio and MOTU, Cubase SX due for October...

I'm excited about doing audio in OS X! :D

AmbitiousLemon

Sep 10, 2002, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon
Stop worrying. Apple is doing this to make things move faster. Most of the major players have said that OS X versions are on the way. We already have products from BIAS, a still slightly rough version of Logic, several versions of Spark, drivers from M-Audio and MOTU, Cubase SX due for October...

I'm excited about doing audio in OS X! :D

you tell em dave! finally a voice of reason from the aduio crowd. looks like dave did his homework and checked on all the apps rather than assuming things dont work in osx like so many are doing (no partitioning, no boot cds... come on - quit making stuff up and check out osx).

medazinol

Sep 10, 2002, 05:54 PM

I've been on OS X since the public beta (I really liked 10.1 though!).

All my software is OS X native so I don't care about OS 9 anymore however most the people who still care about OS 9 are either using Quark or some music software.

Apple IS working with those developers to move to OS X but I have a feeling they are doing this to give everyone time to settle into the idea of "One True OS™".

Also, I think Apple is doing this to boost the sales of the current PowerMac line to make the financial bottom line look better for the next sales figures!

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 10, 2002, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by rEd Eye
Apple is really starting to pi$$ me off!! I have my first powerbook planned for the next upgrade release,but if it don't boot into OS 9,I have absolutely no use for it.It would be easier for me to switch to windoze right now rather than OS X.
<snip>
I'm supposed to happily move to Appllogic osX,drop 90% of my plugins that I can't afford to upgrade,aren't ready for osX yet,or never will be ready for osX, and move happily on?Screw that!
<snip>
The PC world is looking friendlier and friendlier these days!And Mhz myth?PC's are faster right now!Lot's faster!!!Macs are slugs in comparison to the latest PC technologies,and you can even use most windoze 98 apps in XP.

I believe you are a Windoze using troll, either that or you lack common sense.

So, you can't afford to upgrade your plugins, but you are going to run out and buy Windows versions of them anyway?

And what about when the new version of what ever plugin and/or program you use comes out in an OS X ONLY version (like Cubase SX). You will be stuck with your old version, running on an old Mac, running on an obsolete OS.

You are probably upset because you downloaded all those plugs somewhere, and now they wont work...

You know what? I paid $800 for the CubaseVST 4.1 producer pack, and when most of the companies upgraded the bundled plugs for Cubase 5 they didn't make free upgrades for the bundled versions. So I didn't bother when I upgraded to Cubase 5.

For the plugs I like, I'll have to pay for, but there are a LOT of FREE VST plugs out for OS X already.

So why would we want to switch to OS X instead of staying in 9? That kind of a question makes me wonder about anyone who would ask it. Same with switching to Windows XP. Sure, PC hardware is faster, but Windows is not the greatest OS for doing music on... just visit any of the various websites for these products and read the support pages. Item after item on why your new PC with your new sound card and new app wont work.

While I'm waiting for Cubase SX, I've been running Deck 3.5 in OS X. It's smooth, fast, stable, and the CPU meter was showing only about 10%, instead of 50% like I see in OS 9. Far less glitches with audio, and the latency of the M-Audio drivers for my Audiophile 2496 is about 2 ms! I usually don't monitor that way, but you almost can't hear the delay. Same with playing my MIDI keyboard and triggering samples or a soft synth. OS X is amazing for music!

Oh yeah, and it doesn't crash! That, my friend, is worth the admission price alone. (thinking about how many tracks have been lost over the years to OS 8/9 locking up).

reyesmac

Sep 10, 2002, 06:21 PM

Considering how slow Apple has been to update its processors, the people who buy powermacs today will have a usable system that will be usefull with OS 9 for the next 3 years. That is unless they start making machines that can get the most out of OS X (New Chips). I doubt we would see that at the begining of the year though. Apple is good at making big changes to its conusmer line because they just use parts from the pro line that already exist to make them. Making a revolutionary Powermac is harder because all the parts they need would be brand new, unless they come from the PC world. I just hope that USB 2 will be in it.
I thought I was going to get a new powermac this next year, now, I will have to wait and see if what they offer is at least 500mhz more than what they have now or else I will just uprade the one I have now and buy a used OS 9 compatible Mac in a year. How can they convince people that use 9 to upgrade if resizing a window is still slow on a Mac? Speed is the only factor that would make someone invest money on a new system. I tried OS X and will stick with 9 untill I get a processor upgrade because I like a fast finder. I dont want to buy a Mac right now because Apple is going thru a transition right now and if they get their act together, they can have totally kick ass macs in about a year. If I buy one now I wont upgrade for 3 or for years so I will have a mac that is great for on year and not that great for 2 years. The one I bought long ago was great for 3 years untill OS X came out.

This raises another question. Why would they make OS 9 not bootable on an iBook or iMac if they motherboards are not going to change much in them? Are you telling me the iBook with a G4 and an iMac with a 1gig processor cant run OS 9? This is going to hurt Apple BIGTIME if they don't speed up every computer that can't run OS 9 by many hundreds of mhz because people won't see a need to upgrade early and in the first revision of a machine. They will say, I need OS 9 and Apple is changing things around but not getting much faster than what I have, and they wont buy new gear.

JupiterZen

Sep 10, 2002, 06:41 PM

My oh my ...

You mention something about technological progress being imperative and an all out war starts between OS 9 and OS X users.

Just sounds like the "Windows versus Macintosh" wars kids all around me had at school years ago.

My oh my ...

:rolleyes:

When Cubase SX comes out I'll be making music without my fingers glued to the command-S keys to save my work every nanosecond, because I'll have a stable system at last :) :) :)

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 10, 2002, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon

you tell em dave! finally a voice of reason from the aduio crowd. looks like dave did his homework and checked on all the apps rather than assuming things dont work in osx like so many are doing (no partitioning, no boot cds... come on - quit making stuff up and check out osx).

Thanks for the support. :)

You know what? I use Macs to make a living. I use Macs for leisure activities. I use Macs to make music. I've been playing music since I was young, so we are talking about 36 years.

I take all this seriously, and since I get paid to make sure the Macs are happy, I'm on all the Mac websites every day.

I have a lot of money invested in my equipment, and no one likes buying a product only to have the company drop support a few years down the road. With some things like guitars and keyboards, old is good! But not with computers and software. And I'm not rich, and I'm a single parent, so I have an 11 year old who always seems to want to eat, and have new clothes and new games for his GameCube! ;) (GameCube... runs on a 500 MHz G3 CPU!)

So, yes, I have been reading up on all this.
There's a good website, www.osxAudio.com that keeps up on all this stuff.

I was a DECK II user from right before Macromedia bought it from OSC, on my first Mac, a 60MHz Performa 6115 with a whopping 8 MB of RAM, upgraded to 32MB! (just to put things in perspective, 16 MB of RAM was about $700 back then)

If people worry about Apple buying Emagic and pulling a Gibson/Opcode fiasco, don't. But there was all of us DECK users, and when Macromedia got on the whole Shockwave/Flash/Web train, they forgot about DECK, and their own SoundEdit 16. So we languished with no VST support, and no ASIO support, and only had support for two sound cards, a Korg, and some of the old AudioMedia cards.

So I switched to CubaseVST 4.1 when it came out... and life has been better. But I always have that worry about investing time and money on software and hardware that will stop working at some point.

I've been using a few audio applications in OS X and I really like what I see so far. I hate OS 9 so much now that I'm waiting for CubaseSX before I start on any new projects! I have been using Deck 3.5 though for a few weeks, and it's much nicer doing music in OS X. To bad Deck doesn't do MIDI sequencing.

People need to stop the knee-jerk behavior. Any time Apple comes out with new hardware it excludes it from running older OSes. In fact sometimes you need the exact version of the current OS for that hardware. This is why you see different build numbers for Jaguar on some of the new Macs.

Apple can't devote resources forever to make OS 9 run on the new machines any more than we would expect them to update System 7 to run on a Quicksilver!

It's the same with anything. I really liked the Volvo 240, and just when I wanted to buy one, they stopped making them! So I bought a used one... ;)

rEd Eye

Sep 10, 2002, 06:59 PM

"I believe you are a Windoze using troll, either that or you lack common sense."

Actualy,my first computer was a G4 400,but I have since aquired a Dual Ghz Quicksilver G4,and a 1333Mhz AMD/ASUS PC running Windows XP.I use both of them side by side,as I like having access to the best of both worlds.The Mac,however,is my main DAW.

"So, you can't afford to upgrade your plugins, but you are going to run out and buy Windows versions of them anyway?"

Already there!Primarily stuff that isn't available for the Mac though.
Heard of VST System Link?Doh!

"You are probably upset because you downloaded all those plugs somewhere, and now they wont work..."

Yep!You wouldn't believe the multitudes of free or shareware resources for audio purposes!

"So why would we want to switch to OS X instead of staying in 9? That kind of a question makes me wonder about anyone who would ask it. Same with switching to Windows XP. Sure, PC hardware is faster, but Windows is not the greatest OS for doing music on... just visit any of the various websites for these products and read the support pages. Item after item on why your new PC with your new sound card and new app wont work."

Hmmmmm......actually,my PC works quite well so far.I am actually quite keen on switching to osX,however,until I can open a Nuendo project in osX,that loads all of the plugins that were in use when I started the project in os9,I won't even bother.I currently have os9 projects that are up to almost two years old,that I thoroughly intend on finishing someday.
My main beef with the osX only thing,is that I very much need a powerbook that runs at about the same speed as my present 1Ghz G4 that will open and be able to run my current projects,IN OS9!!! I am not going to be in the market for a new tower for at least another 16 months,and hopefully at that point,I will be able to smothly make the transition.
Crap!I can't even use my MOTU audio interface under osX yet!

"Oh yeah, and it doesn't crash! That, my friend, is worth the admission price alone. (thinking about how many tracks have been lost over the years to OS 8/9 locking up)."

So when that beach ball is sitting there spinning for two hours when you try to change the IE preferences,and you have to hit the reset button,that's not a crash?
As far as losing tracks,howabout doing a "save as"every time you make a significant change?Works for me,even though running Nuendo with Reason,multitudes of plugins and several Native Instruments VSTI's has only crashed my computer ONCE!Now the DP3 days,that was a different story.Ouch!

I could spend the rest of the day answering to all of the narrowminded comments like

"I'm beginning to suspect that it's not so much a matter of people and their software having a problem with this decision but that it is them not wanting to change period."

and:

"waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

.....but I really don't feel like it!

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 10, 2002, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by medazinol
I've been on OS X since the public beta (I really liked 10.1 though!).

Are you running Jaguar? You must! I started using Macs when System 7Pro was out, and I absolutely LOVE 10.2! It's my favorite Mac OS so far.

<RANT>
You know what's so cool about being a Mac user? A lot of people seem to be whining and complaining about so many upgrades.. blah, blah, blah! The upgrades are exciting! "What will they think of NeXT?" (sorry... couldn't resist!) Maybe they would be happy if Apple came out with the same old OS every three years and just changed the name! (Mac OS 2001!) People fear change.

It's like when I was younger and everyone waited to hear the next Beatle LP, wondering what it would be like. And later with the band XTC. Well to me, Apple is like that. Apple does cool things. Apple invents new ideas. M$ just copies Apple.

All this cool music software wouldn't exist now without Apple. Macs were made to do sound. Digidesign started on Macs because PCs couldn't do it at the time, and Macs still do it better. MOTU is still Mac only, Emagic started out on Macs, and so did Opcode. Steinberg started on the Atari, but that was almost a Mac!

OS X is the most exciting thing that's come along for musicians, even if people don't see it yet. </RANT>

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 10, 2002, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by JupiterZen
My oh my ...

You mention something about technological progress being imperative and an all out war starts between OS 9 and OS X users.

Just sounds like the "Windows versus Macintosh" wars kids all around me had at school years ago.

My oh my ...

:rolleyes:

Ha! :eek:

When Cubase SX comes out I'll be making music without my fingers glued to the command-S keys to save my work every nanosecond, because I'll have a stable system at last :) :) :)

Oh don't I know about that one! I almost lost 4 months of work because OS 9 wanted to eat my tracks! :mad:

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 10, 2002, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by reyesmac
Considering how slow Apple has been to update its processors, the people who buy powermacs today will have a usable system that will be usefull with OS 9 for the next 3 years.

I know you know this, but Apple doesn't make processors and has no control over what Motorola does, or doesn't do. And you know what? People think they need this and that, but they don't. A lot of people think they can't make music unless they have all the latest gear. Hog wash!

I'm using a 466 MHz G4 that I paid $1650 for last year. Look what that money buys today? Does my G4 hold me back? Not really. I'd like a faster machine, but I'm never thinking "Oh God, this is so slow" because it isn't.

I just hope that USB 2 will be in it.

Why? What good is it? What do you need it for? What can't you do now because you only have USB 1.1? Stop worrying about having the latest stuff. USB stinks for audio, and it's really only good for things like keyboards, mice and digital cameras. Firewire 2 would be nice, but I don't even use Firewire 1 yet. USB 2 will never have the high sustain rate as Firewire, or even SCSI.

I tried OS X and will stick with 9 until I get a processor upgrade because I like a fast finder. I don't want to buy a Mac right now because Apple is going thru a transition right now and if they get their act together, they can have totally kick ass Macs in about a year. If I buy one now I wont upgrade for 3 or for years so I will have a Mac that is great for on year and not that great for 2 years. The one I bought long ago was great for 3 years until OS X came out.

Have you tried Jaguar? The Finder is nice and zippy. Not as zippy as 9, but it sucks a lot less! ;) The zoom effects make me smile every time I open a window. Jag is fast, just buy as much RAM as you can, it's dirt cheap now.

This raises another question. Why would they make OS 9 not bootable on an iBook or iMac if they motherboards are not going to change much in them? Are you telling me the iBook with a G4 and an iMac with a 1gig processor cant run OS 9?

You are thinking backwards. How do you know the motherboards wont change? Because the clock speed doesn't change? Apple designs many of the chips on the MB, and Moto makes others for them. A LOT changes from one model to another. This is the main reason Steve Jobs cut the number of models down from what Apple had in the past! Every Mac had a different motherboard that required "enablers" -- special drivers, to make it run on that hardware. This is still the case with some of the models. Apple has tweaked versions of the OS for that model.

The reason why a new Mac wont run an old OS is because that OS does not have support for that hardware. Apple will have to write new drivers and such to make OS 9 work on new chipsets. Plus OS 9 has a limit to how much RAM a Mac has. 1.5 GB is it. Period. Plus OS 9 doesn't really support more than one CPU, not in any meaningful way. And right now all the "pro" Macs are dual CPU models.

Also Apple wants to send the message that OS 9 is dead, and it's time to start getting al the old apps up to date.

This is going to hurt Apple BIGTIME if they don't speed up every computer that can't run OS 9 by many hundreds of mhz because people won't see a need to upgrade early and in the first revision of a machine. They will say, I need OS 9 and Apple is changing things around but not getting much faster than what I have, and they wont buy new gear.

OS X does what you need it to do on rather old hardware. Have you tried a new Dual 1GHz G4? Really really fast. The Finder is MUCH faster than in OS 9.

This is now.

solvs

Sep 10, 2002, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by rEd Eye
Apple is really starting to pi$$ me off!! I have my first powerbook planned for the next upgrade release,but if it don't boot into OS 9,I have absolutely no use for it.It would be easier for me to switch to windoze right now rather than OS X.
Apple is really making a mistake pushing some people,especially those in the audio industry, where they are not ready to go.
What?I'm supposed to happily move to Appllogic osX,drop 90% of my plugins that I can't afford to upgrade,aren't ready for osX yet,or never will be ready for osX, and move happily on?Screw that!This move is going to take some time.I don't forsee being able to drop into pure osX land for at the very least another year,but I would like very much to continue using the latest gear. The PC world is looking friendlier and friendlier these days!And Mhz myth?PC's are faster right now!Lot's faster!!!Macs are slugs in comparison to the latest PC technologies,and you can even use most windoze 98 apps in XP.
Who knows,I could even end up a"switcher",because the company that I presently support,appears to have no real interest in MY needs!
I'm starting to get the feeling that Apple is a brand for the elite,snooty and rich,and that maybe I should seriously consider supporting the more open minded,and affordable PC market!

Believe me, I know how you feel. It's frustrating sometimes. But don't forget, as someone else mentioned, you'd have to buy all new software for PCs anyway. So if things look rosy for Apple later on, you may want to continue with them. Especially if you can still use classic. Or a new TiPB that will still boot into 9. This OS X only thing is awhile away.

And then let me tell you about my state-of-the-art PC, and the Nightmare of trying to install Win2000. You'll be back. Can't wait to get a new Mac after I move.

To everybody else: ease up on this guy and please stop telling people like him, with legitimate concerns, to go buy a PC.

Because DUH, guess what he'll do...

Edit: Oh, looks like you do have a PC. But your Mac is you main computer? Probably good to keep both around. You should contact the software companies. It doesn't always work ("thank you for your inquiry, here's an automatic response that doesn't help you at all and answers none of your questions, have a nice day"), but if a company can't do what what you want it to do, take your business elsewhere. Unfortunetly sometimes you have to either bite the bullet and buy new software with your new computer, or stick with an older computer. Sometimes you can't have it both ways.

Save your pennies, and cross your fingers.;)

Choppaface

Sep 10, 2002, 08:13 PM

they better be up to 10.5 or beyond by then...otherwise there would be no reason to by a $4,000 toy.... :\

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 10, 2002, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by rEd Eye
"I believe you are a Windoze using troll, either that or you lack common sense."

Actualy,my first computer was a G4 400,but I have since aquired a Dual Ghz Quicksilver G4,and a 1333Mhz AMD/ASUS PC running Windows XP.I use both of them side by side,as I like having access to the best of both worlds.The Mac,however,is my main DAW.

OK so you are a Windoze using troll! But I guess you are also a youngin', so you may be excused for lack of insight. My first computer was a Sinclair Z81, followed a few years later by an AST 90 MHz Pentium running Windows 3.1. My first Mac came a month later, a Performa 6115 (PowerMac 6100 running at 60 MHz).

On the PC you couldn't do any thing regarding recording. Some basic MIDI, but it never did work right. On the 60 MHz Mac I got 8 tracks of audio, with effects, in Deck II, with Metro slaved for MIDI.

Already there!Primarily stuff that isn't available for the Mac though.
Heard of VST System Link?Doh!

Of course I know what SytemLink is. System link is cross platform. So what are you whining about? And how many of those plugs are "warez"? ;)

"You are probably upset because you downloaded all those plugs somewhere, and now they wont work..."

Yep!You wouldn't believe the multitudes of free or shareware resources for audio purposes!

I already know just about every free VST plugin out there, and have a ton of OS X compatible plugs.

Hmmmmm......actually,my PC works quite well so far.I am actually quite keen on switching to osX,however,until I can open a Nuendo project in osX,that loads all of the plugins that were in use when I started the project in os9,I won't even bother.I currently have os9 projects that are up to almost two years old,that I thoroughly intend on finishing someday.

That's probably not going to happen. I was reading up on Cubase SX, and that's one of the things that wont translate when you open old projects. You need to research some of this stuff. The information is readily available. Write down your settings and set up your effects again. Or dump the output of the track as an audio file and import it. That's what I do all the time.

My main beef with the osX only thing,is that I very much need a powerbook that runs at about the same speed as my present 1Ghz G4 that will open and be able to run my current projects,IN OS9!!! I am not going to be in the market for a new tower for at least another 16 months,and hopefully at that point,I will be able to smothly make the transition.

First off a lot of people use PowerBooks for recording audio. Personally I wouldn't, because you never get as much horse power out of a laptop. That said, there are no issues with OS X speed outside of the Finder. For applications that I run in both OS 9 and OS X on this same hardware, such as Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, Peak and Deck, I can tell you that things run faster in Jaguar on this G4 than in OS 9.2. Peak crashes a lot in OS 9 opening big files, but I have not had one crash in X and it opens files a lot faster too.

But the Finder still makes people think OS X is slow. I don't do work in the Finder however. ;)

Crap!I can't even use my MOTU audio interface under osX yet!

No? Don't they have some drivers out now? (http://www.motu.com/english/download/index.html) They have a beta driver for the MOTU 828 on their website. I was using a beta driver for my Audiophile 2496 for a while. It works great for both audio and MIDI in OS X. I have it hooked up to a Roland VM-3100Pro digital mixer using the S/PDIF inputs.

So when that beach ball is sitting there spinning for two hours when you try to change the IE preferences,and you have to hit the reset button,that's not a crash?

That sure doesn't happen on my system. Never. And no, that's not really a crash. That's the window manager locking up. In Jaguar when you move the mouse away from that window the beach ball stops. Why don't you trash the IE pref file? Or force quit IE?

When I read about people with these sort of problems it's usually attributed to user error. People do weird things to their computers, thinking they are "personalizing" it. They end up with a troubled system that just gets worse when they upgrade the OS.

Too many crappy shareware do-hickys.

Folders that were renamed and moved around. Stupid hacks they read about online. Installing some beta OS X update they downloaded on KDX. Formatting their drives as UFS so they can feel like a geek. It's a wonder the poor computer boots at all! People were actually complaining that jaguar didn't run well after admitting that the installer froze half way through forcing them to hit the power button! Well, Duh! I've had to do a force reboot about 6 times since I started running OS X March of 2001.

As far as losing tracks,howabout doing a "save as"every time you make a significant change?Works for me,even though running Nuendo with Reason,multitudes of plugins and several Native Instruments VSTI's has only crashed my computer ONCE! Now the DP3 days,that was a different story.Ouch!

I do, but better still how about if the system never makes you have to do that. I have yet to have any audio app crash in OS X.. And Peak used to crash five times a day!

I could spend the rest of the day answering to all of the narrowminded comments like

"I'm beginning to suspect that it's not so much a matter of people and their software having a problem with this decision but that it is them not wanting to change period."

But that's not narrow-minded, its a true assessment of the way humans are. People are taking this as a personal attack by Apple. For all the whining YOU did, you have yet to make any reasonable argument on why OS X is not a better OS for music than OS 9 is. Nothing personal, but you should spend the rest of the day working on your spelling, grammar and punctuation, people will take you more seriously.

BongHits

Sep 10, 2002, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Molson
Does this signify no new hardware 'til MWSF?

Why would Apple bring out a new Powerbook (for example) that could boot OS 9, when new hardware next year will only boot OS X?

I don't expect to see new PowerBooks this year.
the powerbook won't be redesigned by mwsf, but i bet it gets:
chip upgrade to approx. 933-1ghz range with 1mb l3
ati radeon 9000 mobility (i wish for at least, though i bet it's held until new design)
so more likely we still see ati 7500m
upgraded hard drive capacity etc.
perhaps a 167 mhz bus on ultimate?
removal of dual boot option (thank god, even tho many still need os9, i wish it never was)

and with the redesign i expect to see Phillips new notebook dvd-r with a fast ass g4 black anodized magnesium coating that WONT chip and a nice glowing white apple with the SAME form factor
someone had said that sony makes their own in a previous rumor, but sony actually oem's dvd-r's from phillips (as do alot of companies i found out) and just rebrands them as sony. they had said that sony would not give apple a leg up by providing them with their exclusive notbook dvd-r, but fortunately sony has no choice :D

BongHits

Sep 10, 2002, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Choppaface
they better be up to 10.5 or beyond by then...otherwise there would be no reason to by a $4,000 toy.... :\
at the rate that their going...10.5 will be close to a brand new operating system by the time we see it.
hopefully 10.3 will iron everything out (all of these crazy audio qwerks etc)
10.4 will be the beginning of what OS X is REALLY capable of
and 10.5 will blow us all away
i mean, hasn't it taken about 3 years to go from 10 to 10.2 (i dont know actually) and the majority of improvements are being done "under the hood." once the OS is tweaked just right the real fun begins.

rEd Eye

Sep 10, 2002, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon

OK so you are a Windoze using troll! But I guess you are also a youngin', so you may be excused for lack of insight.

Well,I can see that you've already written me off as knowing far less about what I do than I think I do.
Apparently you are of a much higher order of human than I.
Well,good for you!

For all the whining YOU did, you have yet to make any reasonable argument on why OS X is not a better OS for music than OS 9 is.

Hmmmm.....?I could swear I said "I am actually quite keen on switching to osX"....when it works for me!
I am not ignorant as to the benefits of working with an unix based os,and I firmly believe that unix based platforms,including osX are the way of the future.Just not MY immediate future!

Nothing personal, but you should spend the rest of the day working on your spelling, grammar and punctuation, people will take you more seriously.

Do you not take someone seriously who has not had the same interest in learning to type as perfectly as you?
How about foreign accents?
Skin colour?
Race?
Don't limit yourself buddy!

btw,that's a PCI MOTU 2408 that I still cannot use under osX.

This discussion is getting old.

rEd Eye

Sep 10, 2002, 11:23 PM

Damn!I just can't get this "quote"thing right!

3rdpath

Sep 10, 2002, 11:56 PM

i'm an audio professional(freelance music and sound design) and i just don't understand what all the hoopla is about...i think X looks really snazzy and coreAudioMidi/AudioUnits are gonna rock...but i'll live and work just fine in 9.2.2 until everyone has their software sorted out. anyone who jumps headfirst into X for all their audio needs better be happy with limited choices...and relish the job of being an unpaid beta tester :D you think things are nasty now...just wait until the X only hardware is released...some software companies still won't be ready-plan on it. the finger-pointing is going to be enormous( its already started....)

i think we're going thru a painful transitional period for software-and hey, apple's not having an easy time either...this latest tower release is an embarrasing stop-gap. the DDR is hobbled, its noisey and the cooling system is inadequate for some PCI cards( the CineWave cards are being cooked like shrimps on a barbie)...2002 will not be remembered as a great year for technological advances...at least to the audio community.

so i'm just gonna sit back, pop a corona and get back to work...theres not a chance in hell i'll lose a client because i'm not running X...and to be quite frank, it'll be years before i truly mine the capabilities of the software and gear i have right now... :)

dethl

Sep 11, 2002, 12:29 AM

I am finishing my install of 10.2 (bout time :P) As I am finishing this install, my iBook will be a non-Classic (OS 9) machine. I'm glad I made this move. All those companies should be getting their rear in gear and making some new upgrades for OS X.

Quoting from an earlier post about new Power Macs:
"I just hope that USB 2 will be in it."

USB 2 sucks....As fast as it is, and as good as it sounds, it IS too good to be true. With USB 2, you cannot power drives with the cable alone because the cable does not carry power. This means that all those cool USB 2 drives you bought are gonna clutter your powerstrip/wall socket (whatever you use). I have an 8x8x20x Firewire drive that uses my firewire port for its power, and I like it better because it does not clutter my powerstrip, which is now full.

On another note about new ports, Firewire was developed by Los Alamos National Laboratories, and Apple got the marketing rights. Will Firewire 2 be developed by the same people?

obilix

Sep 11, 2002, 01:49 AM

Does anyone know if
Darwin 64-bit clean?

(ya, i know if the applications are not 64-bit
clean, they won't run on a 64bit CPU)

The reason i'm asking is that i *may* be
possible that the next cpu's coming out
require a 64-bit OS. Apps can still run
under 32bit mode, but the OS runs
only in 64bits....(though the device
drivers would have to be re-compiled
or rewriten)

opinions??

obilix...

Choppaface

Sep 11, 2002, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by BongHits

10.5 will be close to a brand new operating system by the time we see it.

it better be, and all the "old" software (that which worked with 10.1) better work with it too. if it's 10.2 on new hardware that won't boot into 9, it would be throwing perfectly functional software and hardware away....no scanner, no KPT filters, no proper color control w/ my epson....no sorting in column view WTF....and i want my damn gloved scrolling back!!! :D :D

Thirteenva

Sep 11, 2002, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by reyesmac
Considering how slow Apple has been to update its processors, the people who buy powermacs today will have a usable system that will be usefull with OS 9 for the next 3 years. That is unless they start making machines that can get the most out of OS X (New Chips). I doubt we would see that at the begining of the year though.

With every rant you lose more credibility. The current chips can get the most out of OS X. OS X is optimized to take advantage of the G4's altivec technology. Then we could also bring up how the current mac's can take advantage of quartz extreme technology to further aid OS X. So if you think about it the machines being sold right now are more geared towards running OS X than they are OS 9.

Who would want to run OS 9 for the next three years, its outdated. OS X is an improvement in almost every way, it's so far advanced than 9 you can't even compare the two. Go ahead keep using 9 for another 3 years. You've obviously never spent significant time using OS X and you haven't tried jaguar, or you'd be hooked. I switched over a year go with 10.0.4, and with a lot of hesitance, but once i got into the OS, i couldn't even look at 9, there was no going back. With every major upgrade it gets better and better.

As far as the rest of your comments, i have neither the time nor the patience to address anymore of your ignorance today...

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 11, 2002, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by rEd Eye
Well,I can see that you've already written me off as knowing far less about what I do than I think I do.
Apparently you are of a much higher order of human than I.
Well,good for you!

I was simply commenting on your rant, since you started typing before you either did any research, or before you stopped and did any thinking.

I don't think I'm better or worse than anyone, but I like to gets facts straight. I also know how to use the quote feature ;)

Hmmmm.....?I could swear I said "I am actually quite keen on switching to osX"....when it works for me!
I am not ignorant as to the benefits of working with an unix based os,and I firmly believe that unix based platforms,including osX are the way of the future.Just not MY immediate future!

Not on your first post you didn't. You went on about how you would have to buy all new plugins and that the windows world was looking good. Let me refresh your memory:

Apple is really starting to pi$$ me off!! I have my first powerbook planned for the next upgrade release,but if it don't boot into OS 9,I have absolutely no use for it.It would be easier for me to switch to windoze right now rather than OS X.

<snip>
What?I'm supposed to happily move to Appllogic osX,drop 90% of my plugins that I can't afford to upgrade,aren't ready for osX yet,or never will be ready for osX, and move happily on?Screw that!

<snip>
The PC world is looking friendlier and friendlier these days!And Mhz myth?PC's are faster right now!Lot's faster!!!Macs are slugs in comparison to the latest PC technologies,and you can even use most windoze 98 apps in XP.
Who knows,I could even end up a"switcher",because the company that I presently support,appears to have no real interest in MY needs!

That's what you said. Maybe you are realizing you put your foot in your mouth?

Do you not take someone seriously who has not had the same interest in learning to type as perfectly as you?
How about foreign accents?
Skin colour?
Race?
Don't limit yourself buddy!

You sure like the taste of that foot, don't you?

Ignorance is ignorance, but as far as race, accents and skin color, do you even know what race I am? Just for the record, I'm white, my ex wife was Jamaican, so she had brown skin AND an accent, and used UK spelling, and our son is biracial.

If you have no interest in learning how to properly communicate with others why should anyone want to listen? The whole world will judge you on your spelling, not just me.

It's tiring to read these forums and see the same knee-jerk reactions from people that don't take the time and think. Must be something about the anonymity of being online that brings out the worst in people.

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 11, 2002, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by obilix
Does anyone know if
Darwin 64-bit clean?

(ya, i know if the applications are not 64-bit
clean, they won't run on a 64bit CPU)

The reason i'm asking is that i *may* be
possible that the next cpu's coming out
require a 64-bit OS. Apps can still run
under 32bit mode, but the OS runs
only in 64bits....(though the device
drivers would have to be re-compiled
or rewriten)

opinions??

obilix...

I don't think it is, but I have read they are working on it. 64-bit is not the big deal people make of it. It only allows you to do things like access more memory. It's not faster per se.

Also CPUs like the IBM POWER series are 64-bit, but can handle 32-bit OS's without any problem.

MacBandit

Sep 11, 2002, 11:47 AM

Some people are acting like this is the end of the world. No one is forcing you to buy these new macs that won't support boot up in OS9. You could just as easily buy one of the current macs now or later it doesn't matter except they will be cheaper later. That should tie you over for a year which should give any software developer worth there beans time to develop there software for at the minimum classic though from what I've seen rebuilding an OS9 app and giving it carbon compatibilty doesn't take a rocket scientist. Also do you people really think that someone won't develop a hack so the new macs even could boot up in OS9. People there are people out there booting OSX on to old pre PPC macs. Anything possible with a bunch of Mac hacks.

DavidRavenMoon

Sep 11, 2002, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by dethl
On another note about new ports, Firewire was developed by Los Alamos National Laboratories, and Apple got the marketing rights. Will Firewire 2 be developed by the same people?

Where did you get that infomation? Any links to it?

This is the story I've always heard. from Wave-Report:

Firewire Tutorial (http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/firewire.htm)

History

In the mid 1990's, Apple Computer invented the Firewire bus for local area networking. At the time it provided connection speeds of 100 Mb per second, although speeds of up to 1000 Mb per second were planned for the future. The standard was soon embraced by computer companies such as Intel and Microsoft, who saw the advantage of the Firewire/IEEE 1394 system over the established USB connection standard for applications such as connecting storage and optical drives. Universal Serial Bus (USB) has a connection speed of only 12 Mb per second. As electronics companies began producing digital video cameras, they too looked to the Firewire standard for connectivity, to maintain an all-digital path for signal quality in digital video editing.

In late 1998, Apple, which held the primary IP for Firewire, began charging a licensing fee of $1 per port--so a hard drive with 2 Firewire ports would cost an extra $2 per unit to construct. While a nuisance in the thriving PC industry, the additional fees would have seriously hampered the future of Firewire in the electronics industry, which typically operates on very thin margins. By the end of 1999, however, the standard was operating under a general licensing group, known as 1394LA, that holds the essential patents relating to the Firewire/IEEE 1394 standard in trust. This is similar to the way in which the patents regarding the MPEG video compression standard are licensed. Companies can now license the IEEE 1394 standard for $0.25 per finished unit, regardless of the number of actual 1394 ports in the unit. The term Firewire, however, remains a trademark of Apple.

Thirteenva

Sep 11, 2002, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon

You sure like the taste of that foot, don't you?

LOL!

locovaca

Sep 11, 2002, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon

I don't think it is, but I have read they are working on it. 64-bit is not the big deal people make of it. It only allows you to do things like access more memory. It's not faster per se.

Also CPUs like the IBM POWER series are 64-bit, but can handle 32-bit OS's without any problem.

Incorrect. 64 Bit CPUs have at least double the registers (and double the register size), and a simple recompile of any program can net up to a 10-15% increase- that is without optimizing any code. Memory loads and writes can take on the magnitude of hundreds of cyclones to do, and halving that number by doubling the number of registers has a very positive impact.

locovaca

Sep 11, 2002, 01:19 PM

Not to be a troll or anything, but the one problem that I have with Apple's policy of "discontinued OS's" is that they are the only ones that implement it. I can go put Redhat 5.0 linux on a new Intel/AMD system. Hell, for that matter you could put Dos 6.22 and Windows 3.1 on if you really felt like. Sure, it's of no use, but it's a freedom that you have, even if you don't exercise it.

As trivial as it seems, it's an artificial limit imposed by Apple, and the last thing that any good American likes it a limit put on their freedom. Apple doesn't have to support OS 9 at all- they don't need to release updates, release drivers, or patch any bugs. If Apple came out with a bluetooth keyboard and it didn't work under 9, nobody should complain because it's a discontinued OS.

That said, here's why Apple is doing it:
People would complain. Let's just say that Apple keeps shipping 9 on the new Macs in January. Let's say that they upgrade to Radeon 9700 Pros. So, you're average Joe Schmoe boots into 9 in order to install something like Quake 2. OS 9 doesn't have a proper extension for it because Apple never made one since it's a "discontinued os." So, Joe whines and kicks and screams because Apple shipped him a computer that has an OS that doesn't fully support his new hardware. So, Joe takes Apple to court.

Sound unreal? Maybe, maybe not. As trivial as it may seem, it takes double the money, double the time, and double the man power to support two OSs vs. one- money, time, and man power better spent elsewhere.

atomwork

Sep 11, 2002, 02:24 PM

I didn't follow. But didn't Jobs mentioned that you can still install 9 if you delete the mac. So if this is possible i don't know why people complain. Or is the hardware so different that 9 wouldn't run on it? Can't imagen this.

Also i think that Apple has to do this to force the 3r party developers to get ther a*ses up. 2 years now with X and even Quark didn't tought about upgrating. I can just hope that people switch now. X is just so much nicer.

dethl

Sep 11, 2002, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon
[B]

Where did you get that infomation? Any links to it?

I actually work for Los Alamos National Labs. I heard the info from a friend working in Divison X (highly classified division involving nuclear weapons, mainly computer models). He told me that Los Alamos developed it, and I guess Apple bought the rights to it? I don't have any links. Sorry. If I can, I'll try and contact him again and ask for more information.

Wry Cooter

Sep 11, 2002, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by locovaca

That said, here's why Apple is doing it:
People would complain. Let's just say that Apple keeps shipping 9 on the new Macs in January. Let's say that they upgrade to Radeon 9700 Pros. So, you're average Joe Schmoe boots into 9 in order to install something like Quake 2. OS 9 doesn't have a proper extension for it because Apple never made one since it's a "discontinued os." So, Joe whines and kicks and screams because Apple shipped him a computer that has an OS that doesn't fully support his new hardware. So, Joe takes Apple to court.

Some developers indeed are going to develop for X faster now that 9 is officially not supported. They may still do carbon apps, but they may not bother with a driver for OS 9, which saves them coding man hours.

I am already limited from booting into 9.1 (the useful version of 9 I keep around, I have a non tweaked extentionless 9.2.1 as well) although I need to, because my video card does not have a driver for 9.1. So what has happened? I don't need to boot into 9 so much anymore (If I did, I would have to switch to my PCI video card).

We may bitch and moan about the very real issues behind this, but if presented with a Mac that for some reason could NOT handle the legacy junk we have lying around, I doubt many of us would complain. We would just use the old mac for that task, or find some other way to complete that task.

Jeffx342

Sep 11, 2002, 08:40 PM

I baught windows XP Pro $200
let me tell ya not even worth a penny

1. Microsoft has rights to access your computer (disclaimer)
2. Internal errors in IE 6 (no line found 140)
3. Uses too much recourses
4. Something always screws up
5. you delete a system file by accident windows wont log you in
6. you have to download Drivers for everything
7. Movie maker Sucks on XP
8. Media player sucks also
9. I feel like I am handicaped when im using XP, (goofy looking Icons)
10. Setting up a network can be a biatch*
11. not responsive enough
12. Ms Office Xp sucks compared to Mac edition
13. Freezes sometimes
14. Doesn't look pretty like Os X

my comp specs: Pentium 4 1.7Ghz
256 DDR System memorey
40 Gigs HD 7200
Geforce 3 Ti w/ 64 DDR

Looking forward to getting a Mac...

MacBandit

Sep 11, 2002, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon

Where did you get that infomation? Any links to it?

This is the story I've always heard. from Wave-Report:

Firewire Tutorial (http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/firewire.htm)

History

In the mid 1990's, Apple Computer invented the Firewire bus for local area networking. At the time it provided connection speeds of 100 Mb per second, although speeds of up to 1000 Mb per second were planned for the future. The standard was soon embraced by computer companies such as Intel and Microsoft, who saw the advantage of the Firewire/IEEE 1394 system over the established USB connection standard for applications such as connecting storage and optical drives. Universal Serial Bus (USB) has a connection speed of only 12 Mb per second. As electronics companies began producing digital video cameras, they too looked to the Firewire standard for connectivity, to maintain an all-digital path for signal quality in digital video editing.

In late 1998, Apple, which held the primary IP for Firewire, began charging a licensing fee of $1 per port--so a hard drive with 2 Firewire ports would cost an extra $2 per unit to construct. While a nuisance in the thriving PC industry, the additional fees would have seriously hampered the future of Firewire in the electronics industry, which typically operates on very thin margins. By the end of 1999, however, the standard was operating under a general licensing group, known as 1394LA, that holds the essential patents relating to the Firewire/IEEE 1394 standard in trust. This is similar to the way in which the patents regarding the MPEG video compression standard are licensed. Companies can now license the IEEE 1394 standard for $0.25 per finished unit, regardless of the number of actual 1394 ports in the unit. The term Firewire, however, remains a trademark of Apple.

So when did IEEE 1394 go from 100Mb/s to 400Mb/s that it is today.