PDA

View Full Version : More on Phasing out OS 9, and Pinot (10.3)


arn
Aug 2, 2002, 10:32 AM
eWeek (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,431382,00.asp) provides some confirmation on the possibility of a lack of OS 9 support in future Macs:

A tweak to new models in its Macintosh line of desktop and portable computers will prevent booting into Mac OS 9, sources said, leaving the Unix-based Mac OS X as the sole operating system.

Spymac (http://www.spymac.com/) provides some further details and confirms that 10.2 will not ship with OS 9.

eWeek also references "Pinot" as the next major Mac OS X update after Jaguar.

peterjhill
Aug 2, 2002, 10:54 AM
os 9, i wll not miss thee...

damn, i wanted to put 6.07 on a ibook

mymemory
Aug 2, 2002, 11:14 AM
Well, even I have OS9 under my control after so many years... that would be a necessary move by Apple to do.

The problem is not the OS, the problem are the developers that are taking so much time to make the jump. There are lots of usefull applications develop by small companies that are taking their time. I have OSX in one of my partition but I never use it just because 2/3 of the software that I use are in 9.

I'm agree with the movment.

StuPid QPid
Aug 2, 2002, 11:18 AM
Mmmm. Pinot Noir, a full bloodied, mature red wine. Let hope the same's true for the next revision of OS X :)

The following description I found is rather apt!

"Pinot Noir embodies complexity and delicacy at the same time, outpouring with elaborate flavors that may be simply ravishing. Yet the Pinot Noir grape is well-known for its fickleness and genetic changeability, making it a truly challenging varietal for winemakers to master."

Cheers

Billicus
Aug 2, 2002, 11:20 AM
What about all those OS 9 games I still have? What about them...

barkmonster
Aug 2, 2002, 11:32 AM
If the new powermacs won't boot into OS 9 then the mac is next to useless for audio till all the plug-in, sequencer and software synth companies port all their stuff to OS X!

Not to mention all those hardware systems. Protools, Korg OASYS, Creamware... Anyone with any kind of DSP based system isn't going to be buying a new mac for quite some time.

Sure, we've got Reason, Peak, Unity Session and a few others. Cubase SX and Logic will be out by the end of the year (I assume) but that still leaves lots of plug-ins with no OS X upgrade, people become attached to certain plug-ins for aspects of their sound. Starting from scratch with just a sequencer, the stock plug-ins and a few software synths could stiffle people creativity because they'd no longer have the tools they need to be creative.

I don't doubt that this time next year they'll be tons of OS X native audio stuff and anyone still running in OS 9 will be doing so purely because they've got a highly tweaked older model or they simply can't afford to upgrade any of their software to OS X native versions.

People who use macs for audio badly need as much DSP as they can get, a powermac with a 1.2Ghz or above G4 and DDR would be a beast of a system no matter what sequencer platform you use, it we're left out due to OS issues with the new range it's more than a little bit unfair.

sparkleytone
Aug 2, 2002, 11:33 AM
the idea of Pinot is interesting. the way technology moves, I would expect it to be the "next" OS for Apple. OS 11 if you will. what is interesting to me, is what is there to do next?? I really think they've put together an OS that encompasses the ideas of what a modern OS should do. Sure there will be updates and additions, but what is the next major concept??

job
Aug 2, 2002, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Billicus
What about all those OS 9 games I still have? What about them...

Use Classic I guess. The framerates will suffer, but unless you want to play on a Windoze box...

msbsound
Aug 2, 2002, 11:34 AM
Well until the audio industry gets going on X, some of us are out of luck with new powermacs...Hopefully digidesign has PT6 ready to roll right after Jaguar.

MB

nuckinfutz
Aug 2, 2002, 11:36 AM
Those who need to run OS9 because of their apps will have to stay until their apps have been upgraded to OSX. This is not Apples fault per se but the Developers job to keep their apps up to date.

I like OS9 but it had run out of steam. RIP OS9.

kumichou
Aug 2, 2002, 11:40 AM
Wasn't it just recently that we heard that Macs that come out in Fall 2003 won't boot OS 9, but Classic will still be there? Hmm, it took almost a year to release 10.2 after 10.1 (September 2001 IIRC). This news would seem to confirm that previous rumor.

Frankly, it doesn't bother me a bit that this is happening. Yes it sucks for people who have invested in a lot of OS 9 software, but when X 10.3 comes out (assuming they keep with 1 year between major updates), OS X itself will be 2.5 years old already. I don't think it's fair to require that the OS has to support your older software. Look at the jump from 8.6 to 9.0. Sound Manager changed, 9.0 broke quite a bit of software, etc. What happened then? You grabbed updates, either free or paid for (I remember work ordering a few new versions of Suitcase just because of the 9.0 upgrade...then again for the 9.2 update).

Apple & the Mac OS aren't the only ones having this "you will have to upgrade eventually" stance. Microsoft has done it (though admittedly a bit too often) as well as other vendors. However, I think that like the move to the PPC from 68K, dropping booting support for OS 9 is a necessary thing.

rugby
Aug 2, 2002, 11:47 AM
they're talking about 10.3, which won't be out for a year or two. Give them a break and don't start wild insane rantings yet. If your software hasn't been ported over to X 4 years after X has been out maybe it's time to look for different software.

red cap
Aug 2, 2002, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Those who need to run OS9 because of their apps will have to stay until their apps have been upgraded to OSX. This is not Apples fault per se but the Developers job to keep their apps up to date.

I like OS9 but it had run out of steam. RIP OS9.

EXCUSE ME, NUCKING ****, SO I GUESS ITS MY FAULT!

STOP PUSHING

IJ Reilly
Aug 2, 2002, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by hitman


Use Classic I guess. The framerates will suffer, but unless you want to play on a Windoze box...

I'm no game maven by any means, but it just so happens that the only game I ever play does not work in Classic. It requires RAVE acceleration -- and apparently there's something broken in Apple's RAVE for Classic extension, and the developer is disinterested (for good reason) in working around it. This game only runs properly in OS 9.

ibjoshua
Aug 2, 2002, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by StuPid QPid
Mmmm. Pinot Noir, a full bloodied, mature red wine.

maybe. but it may be Pinot Gris. a kinda boring white. now give me a chardonnay OS any day.

josh

gropo
Aug 2, 2002, 12:17 PM
Interesting... Moving from a line of "Big Cats" codenames (indicating faster-and-fiercer I suppose) to a line of Grape varieties (or perhaps wine) indicating what? More refined bouquet? Better aged? Interesting...

gropo
Aug 2, 2002, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by i_b_joshua
now give me a chardonnay OS any day.
ANYTHING beats Boons Farm XP >:D

mymemory
Aug 2, 2002, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
If the new powermacs won't boot into OS 9 then the mac is next to useless for audio till all the plug-in, sequencer and software synth companies port all their stuff to OS X!

Not to mention all those hardware systems. Protools, Korg OASYS, Creamware... Anyone with any kind of DSP based system isn't going to be buying a new mac for quite some time.


The problem will be the investment that takes to have the same thing for OSX, because there is not upgrade from OS9 to OSX, you may have to get the entire thing again.

MacArtist
Aug 2, 2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Those who need to run OS9 because of their apps will have to stay until their apps have been upgraded to OSX. This is not Apples fault per se but the Developers job to keep their apps up to date.

I like OS9 but it had run out of steam. RIP OS9.

I run OS 9 for 1 thing, and 1 thing only, to play Rogue Spear. There is noway this game will ever get updated to OS X. It's 3 years old, but still (IMHO) one of the best FPS games around. And to play it in Classic is just unacceptable. Bad framerates, poor mouse response, etc.

But back to the discussion at hand. I'm surprised that Apple has kept OS 9 and Classic for that matter as long as they have. When software developers realize that they have no choice but to develope for OS X, the apps will come.

barkmonster
Aug 2, 2002, 12:37 PM
It does say January for the new OS X release after Jaguar, that's got to mean the next range of macs to come out this year will boot into OS 9 but anyone buying a mac after january will be stuck if they can't get all the software they need by then.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see digidesign release Protools X in both full and LE versions before october of this year, hints on the digidesign messageboards suggest it could be before september even. I know digidesign will be hard at work getting all their plug-ins working under it too, where that leaves the likes of bombfactory, McDSP, Waves, Native Instruments, DUY and others is anyone's guess.

seeing as I havn't got a hope in hell of buying a new mac this side of february '03 (If I'm lucky), I just hope I can get a good deal on either the entry level or mid range from this years new lineup, at least then I'd have a mac that makes my beige G3 look like an abacus, runs any of my current software with no problems and isn't so old it's out of date.

If I can get a minimum of a 1Ghz G4 with DDR sometime over the next 6 months and it runs OS 9, i'll be happy till more software becomes OS X native.

MM2270
Aug 2, 2002, 12:39 PM
I'm not sure if I like the sound of new Macs not being able to boot into 9. I use OS X nearly full-time both at home and work, but at times, I still need to run repair utilities on my disks. Those apps currently only run in 9, and to use them effectively, you need to boot off the CD (in OS 9). DiskWarrior is a perfect example. Now, if these new Macs don't allow booting into 9, then I imagine I also could not boot into 9 on a CD. This would be a fundamental change in the Mobo maybe that just won't allow it. If so, that rots! So I can't run repair utilities if this happens? And don't talk to me about booting into single user mode or whatever to run the disk check. I don't believe that does as good a job as DW or Norton (even though I really don't like Norton)

Also, consider this. If you buy one of these new Macs, and Classic is already installed, all is cool. But what happens if your disk goes south and you need to reinstall everything, on a new disk for example. How can you install 9? You can't since the OS 9 installer is a Classic app, and if Classic isn't present, you can't run the installer. So, you'd want to boot up from the OS 9.x.x CD right? Yeah, well what if it doesn't allow booting from a CD? Than guess what, you're screwed, at least if you still need Classic at all. Sorry, but I think this is a really stupid idea, and I hope this will only happen sometime down the line and not in the very near future.

Sounds to me like Apple is doing whatever it takes to FORCE adoption of OS X. Maybe they should try tactics like, oh, I dunno, LOWERING the price of Jaguar, for instance. By making it nearly prohibitively expensive for the average Mac user to buy X, they are killing potential upgraders, so now they want to do this, so if you buy a New Mac you have NO CHOICE but to use OS X? Wow Apple, this is really a bad move. Someone over there needs a lobotomy!!

zimv20
Aug 2, 2002, 12:54 PM
i'm in that mac audio boat, too. i run proTools LE, emagic logic, and sometimes digital performer. plus all the software synths i've got.

the reality is i've got a dual g4 that runs this stuff now, and it's fine. i've had the machine for nearly two years and it'll work for many more (heck, my mid-80s Mac 512ke still boots and works -- and i can sequence on it!)

just because os9 booting goes away in future osX releases doesn't mean what i've already got running stops working. yes, the audio companies will catch up eventually, and that will likely be long before i'm ready to buy a new powermac. so no worries here.

magic question:

does anyone know what in Pinot would prevent booting os9, and what would prevent me from buying a Pinot-loaded machine, wiping the hard drive and installing os9.2?

wilhelmd
Aug 2, 2002, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by MM2270
Also, consider this. If you buy one of these new Macs, and Classic is already installed, all is cool. But what happens if your disk goes south and you need to reinstall everything, on a new disk for example. How can you install 9? You can't since the OS 9 installer is a Classic app, and if Classic isn't present, you can't run the installer. So, you'd want to boot up from the OS 9.x.x CD right?
No. The restore CD's that come with each new Mac will put your hard drive back to the way it was when the machine shipped. So the restore CD's for new Mac's will include some (stripped-down?) version of 9.

When I got my 600 Combo iBook, I had to use four restore CD's to install everything! This is a smart move from Apple, because when they launch new operating system versions, they only need to replace the CD's that come with the machine, not reformat the hard drive!

zimv20
Aug 2, 2002, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see digidesign release Protools X in both full and LE versions before october of this year

a friend of mine has been running a ProTools LE OSX alpha version for many, many months now. it's coming.

dwishbone
Aug 2, 2002, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by MacArtist


I run OS 9 for 1 thing, and 1 thing only, to play Rogue Spear. There is noway this game will ever get updated to OS X. It's 3 years old, but still (IMHO) one of the best FPS games around. And to play it in Classic is just unacceptable. Bad framerates, poor mouse response, etc.

How do you know it will never get ported? Sometimes people will make unofficial ports. Look at Quake and Quake II for example. they were never meant to run in OS X...but they do thanks to some great programmers. Someone also ported the Ambrosia classic Maelstrom. I once heard of a Duke Nukem 3D port in the works. That would be awesome.

zimv20
Aug 2, 2002, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by MM2270
Maybe they should try tactics like, oh, I dunno, LOWERING the price of Jaguar, for instance. By making it nearly prohibitively expensive for the average Mac user to buy X, they are killing potential upgraders, so now they want to do this, so if you buy a New Mac you have NO CHOICE but to use OS X? Wow Apple, this is really a bad move. Someone over there needs a lobotomy!!

sorry to pick on you, MM2270, but i'm getting quite bored w/ complaints about the jaguar price tag. $120 for a full-featured unix OS is _not_ expensive.

and it's not out of reach for someone who spends $1200 (or $3400) on a computer. if you don't want it, DON'T BUY IT. and it's free if you buy a new machine.

btw, everyone who's found a pre-release copy of jaguar and has run it RAVES about it and says it's well worth the price.

i will buy it.

rugby
Aug 2, 2002, 01:14 PM
Here's another take on this new story. Apple has traditionally needed special enablers to make OS'es work on later machines. For example we have lots of beige G3's that came with OS 8.1 rom (some number). This is OS 8.1 with special additions to make it work with this model of computer that came out after 8.1 did. They have done this since the beginning of all their OS'es.

Now, I take this story to mean not that they will cripple the machine to not boot 9, but they just won't produce any enablers to boot 9. Put an OS 8.1 cd in a G4 and try to boot it. Same thing will happen with 9.2 and a new computer if they choose to go this route.

etoiles
Aug 2, 2002, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by zimv20

magic question:

does anyone know what in Pinot would prevent booting os9, and what would prevent me from buying a Pinot-loaded machine, wiping the hard drive and installing os9.2?

...because apple is going to use some badass NVIDIA chipset on the new motherboards...which wont be supported by os9.2...hey there is nothing wrong with wishing really hard, is it ? ;)

Jays
Aug 2, 2002, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by zimv20

magic question:

does anyone know what in Pinot would prevent booting os9, and what would prevent me from buying a Pinot-loaded machine, wiping the hard drive and installing os9.2?

If I am not mistaking it said that the new powermac's wont let you boot into OS9, it will be a hardware tweek and not in the software.

I don't see it as a bad move, os9 seems OLD to me, `I don't use it at all any more, besides QuarXpress I don't mis any programs (I am using Indesign for now) and I don't play any games so no problem there. true but for people that do music until logic/Qbase are OSX ready there is aproblem, but as mentioned befor by the time OS9 boot is droped that will be fixed + if someone buys a new Pmac and it won't boot into OS9 you could still use youre older mac for OS9, so people stop Bitc*** we have the best OS out there enjoy it and support Apple, buy Jaguar!

Jays
Aug 2, 2002, 01:37 PM
etoiles beat me there....

Rocketman
Aug 2, 2002, 01:47 PM
[i] Sure there will be updates and additions, but what is the next major concept?? [/B]

Full voice in and out.

Seamless access and virtual machines for legacy computers or OS's.

A add-in card or box with legacy peripheral support (parallel, scsi, serial, ps2) and a set of drivers that allow use of old legacy native frivers for OS7,8,9, Win 95,98,me, DOS, etc.)

support for seamless control of household, alarm, lighting, temperature, energy saving, whatever.

video media center including tivo like features, video libraries similar to the disctibuted server rings used for music.

audio same

books and mags, same

A means to digitize and organize the PHYSICAL files and OBJECTS in a person's life so if they want something they know where to find it, and if all they want is to look at it or learn about they bring up the digital record.

Social gathering softweare and servers that do what dating services do now, but for groups of people, systems of friends and form mini-collectives similar to former tribal patterns, but higher layering.

Rocketman

Look forward. Where else is there?

TEG
Aug 2, 2002, 01:59 PM
It is a good thing to releave OS9 of its burden, Its 18 bloody years old. My only problems are: OSX has no native joystick support (If its there, some one please tell me how to use it), Many games that are dual session (i.e. Data & Music CD) will not run correctly (For instance Warcraft II will not run from X), and with out OS9, we will have less flexability to modify our UI unless we want to worry about messing with it as root.

TEG

Kelso41
Aug 2, 2002, 02:20 PM
I might be in the minority here, but I am starting to get annoyed with everyone who is worried about their games not running on OSX.

I probably spend way too much time with my computers both here and at home, so the idea of spending even more time with them to play games is just inconceivable to me. While dropping 20K on my systems and software over the past few years, the idea of running games never even entered my mind. If I want to play, I pull out the PS2, and kick back with some friends.

As for the OS... I fully support Apple and their desire/continued effort to move forward. In time everyone will catch up, but that does not mean apple should stop and wait for them.

beulahman
Aug 2, 2002, 02:23 PM
So yeah, is this pinot grigio or pinot noir?
The one thing they do have in common is that they are, generally speaking, considered the "lightest" white and red wines, respectively

robbyd
Aug 2, 2002, 02:35 PM
i bet that the computers will still be able to boot up in os 9 but they will make it so dumbasses couldnt figure out how to do it..

wilhelmd
Aug 2, 2002, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by robbyd
i bet that the computers will still be able to boot up in os 9 but they will make it so dumbasses couldnt figure out how to do it..
Maybe they'll just remove the Startup Disk prefpane? Not likely...

But anyway, I think there will be a patch or something. That Apple doesn't develop for OS 9 doesn't mean that nobody develops for OS 9.

Bob, let there be a patch.

Megaquad
Aug 2, 2002, 02:48 PM
I think they called it "Pinot" because of its flexibility. So,I hope we will be able to customize everything from interface to the core..

rasha
Aug 2, 2002, 02:57 PM
I thought Apple said OS9 development would continue with OSX for a few years. I thought there was to be a OS9.5 final release.

What happened to the support for legacy software and hardware? I thought that OS9.5 was going to be the ultimate of the old OSes with better memory managment ect...

I was really hoping on that to keep on my older machine with OS X on my new one. I have a lot of years behind the classic mac OS and plan to use some of that software I have collected over the years while I use OSX to actually be productive.

BTW, yes you are right. I still do fire up the C-64 upon occasion.

zimv20
Aug 2, 2002, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by wilhelmd

Maybe they'll just remove the Startup Disk prefpane? Not likely...


it is unlikely. there's still the ability to boot from different places, like over the network.

digitalbiker
Aug 2, 2002, 03:13 PM
This doen't make sense to me! Apple probably spent millions trying to get an "UNIX" OS environment that would be backwards compatible with Mac OS 9.

All total, they have probably spent over 3 years to finaly get to a first release of the OS that sounds like it will satisfy most users (gamers, business, graphics, audio, hackers) "Jaguar".

Immediately they announce that they are abandoning the bulk of their previous userbase considering that according to Apple only about 20 percent of the user base will be booting OS X 10.2 when Jaguar is released.

Sounds crazy!

My question is; Does anyone know for sure if classic will even start without OS 9 being installed somewhere on the system?

I thought that a bootable copy of OS 9 needed to be installed in either the same partition or another partition but somewhere on the disk with OS X.

If OS 9 is not installed, will classic run?

Roger1
Aug 2, 2002, 03:39 PM
If they cut support for os9, what about those who use Netboot at work? The last I heard, OSX was not Netbootable. This is one of the big things they push in the education market, in addition to MacManager. If they go this route, they are shooting themselves in the foot, at least in the education market.

bousozoku
Aug 2, 2002, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i'm in that mac audio boat, too. i run proTools LE, emagic logic, and sometimes digital performer. plus all the software synths i've got.

the reality is i've got a dual g4 that runs this stuff now, and it's fine. i've had the machine for nearly two years and it'll work for many more (heck, my mid-80s Mac 512ke still boots and works -- and i can sequence on it!)

just because os9 booting goes away in future osX releases doesn't mean what i've already got running stops working. yes, the audio companies will catch up eventually, and that will likely be long before i'm ready to buy a new powermac. so no worries here.

magic question:

does anyone know what in Pinot would prevent booting os9, and what would prevent me from buying a Pinot-loaded machine, wiping the hard drive and installing os9.2?

It doesn't look to me as though there will be any changes to Mac OS X that could accomplish this. It will most likely be done in the firmware. It's also likely that the Classic environment will run for a while.

neilt
Aug 2, 2002, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by zimv20


sorry to pick on you, MM2270, but i'm getting quite bored w/ complaints about the jaguar price tag. $120 for a full-featured unix OS is _not_ expensive.

and it's not out of reach for someone who spends $1200 (or $3400) on a computer. if you don't want it, DON'T BUY IT. and it's free if you buy a new machine.

btw, everyone who's found a pre-release copy of jaguar and has run it RAVES about it and says it's well worth the price.

i will buy it.

I agree - look at this example. If you recently bought a dell with windows 2000 (2Ghz 40GB hd) you spent around 1500*. To upgrade to XP Pro will cost you 199.
The OS upgrade is going to cost you 13% of you hardware.

a similar mac will cost you 1599 with a 129 upgrade
this is 8% of you hardware.

The relation of OS to hardware is 5% cheaper on the Mac. So all those people who say they are going to switch because apple charges to much for the upgrade should look at the numbers.



* I just looked this up on Dell's website. It is a similarly configured desktop precision box.

zimv20
Aug 2, 2002, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by neilt

There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those that don't.

that cracks me up. then again, i'm the guy who shows people how to count to 31 on one hand. they couldn't be less interested.

zimv20
Aug 2, 2002, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by digitalbiker


Immediately they announce that they are abandoning the bulk of their previous userbase considering that according to Apple only about 20 percent of the user base will be booting OS X 10.2 when Jaguar is released.

i wouldn't say "abandoning." there's an upgrade path. fact is, most "normal" os9 software works in classic mode.

i think that a lot of the discussion in this group centers around apps that are high-powered: music apps, games, video editing. these apps, to get their power, often take advantage of lower level system calls and are harder to port.

but if you look at what most "normal" people need, it's there: email, browsing, content viewing, productivity suites, plus some lower end audio/video stuff.

iow, a lot of those 80% could switch to OSX now no problem, but it's normal apathy that's in the way.


My question is; Does anyone know for sure if classic will even start without OS 9 being installed somewhere on the system?


it will not. but that's not what pinot is about. there will be an os9, but only accessible through classic mode ('til someone hacks a way of doing it).

again, this will satisfy the needs of most people.

wilhelmd
Aug 2, 2002, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by neilt


I agree - look at this example. If you recently bought a dell with windows 2000 (2Ghz 40GB hd) you spent around 1500*. To upgrade to XP Pro will cost you 199.
The OS upgrade is going to cost you 13% of you hardware.
The only problem with Dell is this:

I bought a Dell 1.7 Ghz a year ago (yes, I regret it, but I have thirteen macs at home). It came with Windows ME. Well, Windows ME is a flashy operating system, but it did not take long until it was completely ruined with bluescreens and so on. So I upgraded it to Windows 2000.

After about three months, the PC suffered a very bad hard disk drive crash. I could not boot it. Dell gave me a very cool deal when I bought the PC: If something go wrong, they will come to my house, pick the computer up, bring it to the lab, fix it, and bring it back for two years all for free! So I phoned Dell Tech-Support. But it turned out that my support-deal (wich I had payed a lot of money for but never used) was no longer valid bacuase I had upgraded the Operating System.

Me: (explains problem)
Dell: Er, I'm didn't catch you ... Did you connect it to the power socket, you said?
Me: Yes.
Dell: Ok. Then your tech-support deal is no longer valid.
Me: What the ****? I never - I - Wha - Who - What?
Dell: Oh yeah, sure, your'e going to give me the "I didn't read that part of the agreement"-bit, are you? It says so in the agreement, page sevenhundredandfiftysix, paragraph 2873.37, line two: "If you turn on your PC, then you tech support deal is no longer valid."
Me: Ok, then.

I don't see Apple doing this ...

peterjhill
Aug 2, 2002, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Roger1
If they cut support for os9, what about those who use Netboot at work? The last I heard, OSX was not Netbootable. This is one of the big things they push in the education market, in addition to MacManager. If they go this route, they are shooting themselves in the foot, at least in the education market.

I just watched a live webcast today at work about Xserve and 10.2 server. Netboot is supported by 10.2, along with lots of other server goodness. If you think that 10.2 client has alot of new features, 10.2 server sounds pretty amazing.

They are certainally not shooting anything in the foot. The Xserve hardware, combined with 10.2 Server will rival Dell Linux rackmount servers in every respect.

tjwett
Aug 2, 2002, 04:56 PM
I hope this does not happen. I too work with pro-audio and I'm not expecting all my apps, synths and plug-ins to be ready till 2004. Plus, I hate OS X. After using it for almost a year now I've come to see that it is a slow, crashing, kernal panic-infested nighhtmare with a pretty face. Hopefully 10.2 will be better but I see X just getting in the user's way more and more. With all the silly iApps and the recent Microshaftesque corporate maneuvers I think it start to be a bit bloated and intrusive. The white Aqua interface is extremely annoying and distracting. Anyway, enough bitching. I really wish they would continue to develop OS9. They could drop the 9 and start calling it "Mac Classic" or something. Atleast it is it's own OS, not a GUI for Unix. Much like Winpuke is a GUI for DOS. I may be nuts but I'd trade all the throbbing, bouncing vector icons in the world to have some speed again. Oh well.

G4scott
Aug 2, 2002, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
If the new powermacs won't boot into OS 9 then the mac is next to useless for audio till all the plug-in, sequencer and software synth companies port all their stuff to OS X!

Actually, it's the software companies who are useless. If a software company doesn't want to make a Mac OS X version of their software, then they shouldn't make a version for the next version of windoze that comes out. Software companies still stuck in OS 9 are useless to Apple, and most consumers. Apple is trying to move forward, and without the support of developers they can't.

I think Apple's being generous by still supporting classic mode in OS X...

eric_n_dfw
Aug 2, 2002, 05:16 PM
... when MS released Windows 95. They anounced right afterwords that support for MSDOS was ending. People were up-in-arms all over the place. So many legacy applications in the workplace would be orphaned, blah, blah, blah.

You've gotta cut the cord at some point. Face it, the "Classic" Mac OS is dead, long live OS X. It was nice for it's time, but it's lack of pre-emptive multitasking and protected memory are a HUGE liability. I can't imagine developing software on such a beast.

G4scott
Aug 2, 2002, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by digitalbiker
This doen't make sense to me! Apple probably spent millions trying to get an "UNIX" OS environment that would be backwards compatible with Mac OS 9.

All total, they have probably spent over 3 years to finaly get to a first release of the OS that sounds like it will satisfy most users (gamers, business, graphics, audio, hackers) "Jaguar".

Immediately they announce that they are abandoning the bulk of their previous userbase considering that according to Apple only about 20 percent of the user base will be booting OS X 10.2 when Jaguar is released.

Sounds crazy!

My question is; Does anyone know for sure if classic will even start without OS 9 being installed somewhere on the system?

I thought that a bootable copy of OS 9 needed to be installed in either the same partition or another partition but somewhere on the disk with OS X.

If OS 9 is not installed, will classic run?

You know, this doesn't mean that older machines won't be able to boot into OS 9. It's only with the new machines. X.III, or Pinot, may not be able to run on machines that are now over 2 years old, and that wouldn't be bad. It just means that your hardware is outdated, and cant handle the new features. You wouldn't install photoshop 7 on a Mac Classic, would you?

Besides, that 20% of their user base includes older Macs. It could actuallly be that around 80% of the computers that are capable of running OS X are using it. Only about 30-20% of the computers made by Apple are capable of running OS X.

If you want OS 9, keep your dual Ghz G4, or your PowerMac 9600...

zimv20
Aug 2, 2002, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by tjwett
I hate OS X. After using it for almost a year now I've come to see that it is a slow, crashing, kernal panic-infested nighhtmare


wacky. it runs on my 266 MHz G3 just fine. a little pokey, but rock solid. it runs my webserver. i've edited movies. my band ftps huge SDII files to/from it. no problems whatsoever.


Atleast it is it's own OS, not a GUI for Unix. Much like Winpuke is a GUI for DOS.


oh come on. DOS can't hold a candle to Unix. yes, OS9 is its own OS, but not a very good one (multi-threading? memory partitioning?). I remember when they introduced Multi-Finder (now called Finder). previous to that, you could run exactly ONE app at a time. you'd have to quit the running one to launch a different app. the MacOS has overreached its expected lifespan.


I may be nuts but I'd trade all the throbbing, bouncing vector icons in the world to have some speed again. Oh well.

you can turn that off in the Dock preference panel.

you don't like change, eh? :-)

barkmonster
Aug 2, 2002, 07:44 PM
The difference between DOS and windows 95 from a usability point of view is not comparable to OS 9 and OS X.

They're both fully graphical interfaces with no ties to each other, they can both multitask either cooperatively or pre-emptively and they even look similar.

DOS is joke to anyone, windows 95 is just a joke to anyone who's ever used a mac, Atari ST or an Amiga. For most PC people windows 95 was some miracle cure for they're compex comandline headaches and NT was the more stable version for people with deeper pockets.

As far as the mac goes, there's a huge established base of classic applications, if the concept of plug-ins hadn't been invented by the likes of Digidesign and Adobe it wouldn't be a huge problem if only the main applications from the big companies were OS X native but there's loads of audio and graphics plug-ins from small companies that might not have the budget to port all their products to OS X for quite a while even if the host application exists for it.

This alone means OS 9 should remain as a fully bootable OS. Till OS X has a massive library of software in all categories a mac won't truly be a mac without the Mac OS it's gained it's reputation and fanatical userbase from.

I imagine by early 2004 we'll all be looking back at the transition from OS 9 as a long gone memory and we'll all be using plenty of OS X software in our areas of interest.

There's still loads of PC software that only works in WinME or Win95/98, I can't see the mac being any different for the next year or so. I'm just glad I don't have to stare at some flavour of windows everytime I boot up while I'm waiting for more progress from software developers. OS 9 will do for now till things change.

Rocketman
Aug 2, 2002, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
... when MS released Windows 95. They anounced right afterwords that support for MSDOS was ending. People were up-in-arms all over the place. So many legacy applications in the workplace would be orphaned, blah, blah, blah.

.

Correct me if I am wrong please.

DOS applications ran under DOS under windows (all versions) for many years after windows was released. Maybe still does. I am not a windows user, just a former DOS user.

Macs run DOS under VPC both under OS9 and OSX and seemingly will do so for decades to come as VPC seems to be likely to be an OSX early adopter for the forseeable future. Incidentally it also runs DR-DOS, linux, SCO unix and several other things IIRC.

Now the issue I see for OSX/Classic is if it runs software originally compiled for OS (4-9). I have a copy of Mac Draw II which the file format is NOT exportable to editable EPS or any resolution independent format (they offer crappy-pict) so I keep using it because of alot of legacy files. It is used to create files suitable for web and documents suitable for high resolution printing (even linotype).

It runs under OS9 (as do almost all of my OS (4-9) applications. All I really care about is if it still runs under classic.

Heck I could install VCP, DOS, Wordstar and I bet I could still flip text faster then two of you.

I understand it will run on x-serve too. (most advanced DDR/G4/MP MOTHERBOARD)

I want the ability to read and even write old files preferably with old apps, if I want. The ability to read and write Mac Draw II files as crude as that is, justifies the entire cost of 3 computers and a network and 2 printers in my shop.

I cannot believe I am the only one occasionally dipping my toes in the stone-age.

Rocketman

:rolleyes:

bretm
Aug 2, 2002, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by rugby
they're talking about 10.3, which won't be out for a year or two. Give them a break and don't start wild insane rantings yet. If your software hasn't been ported over to X 4 years after X has been out maybe it's time to look for different software.

They're explicitly talking about the new hardware. "Macs" won't boot in OS9. They'll still run classic.

Jaguar runs classic. It doesn't come with a copy of OS9 however is the prediction. The article theorizes that the next "macs" (hardware) won't boot OS9. In other words, the next line of computers. Whether you're running 10.1.5 or 10.2 or whatever will have motherboards that have no way of booting OS9. There are new computers scheduled for August, and of course MWSF. So, in a matter of weeks people might be bringing home computers without OS9 or the ability to boot OS9.

It further states that 10.3 will disallow it via software. In other words, 10.3 kills booting OS9 even if you're running it on a G4.

But hey thats what I read.

bretm
Aug 2, 2002, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by digitalbiker
This doen't make sense to me! Apple probably spent millions trying to get an "UNIX" OS environment that would be backwards compatible with Mac OS 9.

All total, they have probably spent over 3 years to finaly get to a first release of the OS that sounds like it will satisfy most users (gamers, business, graphics, audio, hackers) "Jaguar".

Immediately they announce that they are abandoning the bulk of their previous userbase considering that according to Apple only about 20 percent of the user base will be booting OS X 10.2 when Jaguar is released.

Sounds crazy!

My question is; Does anyone know for sure if classic will even start without OS 9 being installed somewhere on the system?

I thought that a bootable copy of OS 9 needed to be installed in either the same partition or another partition but somewhere on the disk with OS X.

If OS 9 is not installed, will classic run?

Actually, the "NEW" OS that was to become OSX was first scheduled to be released in beta in 1996. Then '97, then they changed formats to Rhapsody based on Next or something, after awhile Jobs decided it just wasn't strong enough and a lot of that technology fell into the original OSX server, OS9, etc. Then they switched to the full UNIX concept they have now, which I've been following for about 3 years. Chew on that.

eric_n_dfw
Aug 2, 2002, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Rocketman


Correct me if I am wrong please.

DOS applications ran under DOS under windows (all versions) for many years after windows was released. Maybe still does. I am not a windows user, just a former DOS user.
I didn't mean that DOS stuff wouldn't run (more-or-less) under Win95, I meant that MS said they were no longer supporting DOS. As in, if you have a DOS problem, you aren't able to call MS and ask for help.

If you had a problem running DOS app's under Win95, I'm sure they referred you to whomever wrote the app.

In a similar vein , I'll bet Apple moves to the same practice, where if you have a problem with an OS 9 or earlier app, call the app developer.

BTW, Have you noticed that OS 9 is nowhere to be found on http://store.apple.com OR on the http://www.apple.com/software sites?

The bell is tolling...

G4scott
Aug 3, 2002, 12:32 AM
Any guesses on how Jobs is going to pronounce "Pinot"? :eek: ;) :p

redAPPLE
Aug 3, 2002, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by StuPid QPid
Mmmm. Pinot Noir, a full bloodied, mature red wine. Let hope the same's true for the next revision of OS X :)

The following description I found is rather apt!

"Pinot Noir embodies complexity and delicacy at the same time, outpouring with elaborate flavors that may be simply ravishing. Yet the Pinot Noir grape is well-known for its fickleness and genetic changeability, making it a truly challenging varietal for winemakers to master."

Cheers

Remember SJ pronouncing "Jaguar" as [i]"Jagwire"[/]?

Hope he does not pronounce "Pinot" as "PEANUT"... :)

elgruga
Aug 3, 2002, 01:24 AM
OS 9 is here to stay for at least another 5 years, and probably a lot longer.
many folks are happy doing what they do on their macs running 7, 8 and 9.
Thats just a fact.
Will they change? No, not for a long time.
They can DO their stuff and they dont give a rats ass about Operating Systems.
A woman I know bought a Wallstreet and now a LCD imac to run her Homeopathic software - which was designed around 7, but will run in 9 with a dongle and a floppy! her colleagues all bought Powerbooks too, when they knew they could run their special software on 9.
Thats her life and her many patients depend on it.
There are many like her in the Mac world.

Apple need to be a bit careful about leaving these folks behind - they are all true Apple fans and buy a lot fo stuff.

OSX will confuse them, and be useless if 9 isnt a boot option.

keep it. It only needs a little partition and it doesnt hurt anything.

Q-bert
Aug 3, 2002, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by tjwett
I hope this does not happen. I too work with pro-audio and I'm not expecting all my apps, synths and plug-ins to be ready till 2004. Plus, I hate OS X. After using it for almost a year now I've come to see that it is a slow, crashing, kernal panic-infested nighhtmare with a pretty face.OS X has been running rock-solid for me for the last year, only ONE kernal panic in all that time when I plugged in a serial adapter under 10.0.2, and none since I upgraded to 10.1. I have two Macs at home, one of which is a pro audio workstation - that Mac runs OS 9 (but has X installed and unused), the other OS X. I don't know about you, but I treat my audio Mac like a hardware synth or rackmount recorder, once it is configured properly, there's no need to keep tweaking and upgrading it, as long as it continues to do its job. It's self-contained and doesn't need anything else.

If you hate OS X - don't run it. You certainly have a point when it comes to pro audio availability, I don't do pro audio on OS X by necessity, same as everybody else. But don't fault Apple for moving forward, I don't think they can keep sticking with OS 9 while simultaneously trying to develop hardware that advances well beyond the capabilities of OS 9. A good example is memory allocation, OS 9 apps can only allocate a MAXIMUM of 1GB of RAM (999MB). What if the next Apple hardware can handle 3 or 4GB max RAM, and no OS 9 application can support it? In that case, supporting OS 9 is actually crippling the hardware's capabilities! There are even other areas where OS 9 isn't up to the job of today's hardware from Apple, multi-threading being another one. That's TODAY'S hardware, what about the future? OS 9 isn't built for that, and they've already tried to hack it to make it work, it just can't.

We gotta move on from OS 9 eventually, it's not like nobody saw this coming. Jobs has been talking about this for the past year relentlessly. Technology marches on - even Microsoft stopped supporting DOS eventually.

beatle888
Aug 3, 2002, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by barkmonster
If the new powermacs won't boot into OS 9 then the mac is next to useless for audio till all the plug-in, sequencer and software synth companies port all their stuff to OS X!


they dont need to port to OSX, they just need to be able to
run in Classic Mode, since this will still be availabe for OS9 apps.

barkmonster
Aug 3, 2002, 04:36 AM
they dont need to port to OSX, they just need to be able to
run in Classic Mode, since this will still be availabe for OS9 apps.

True but there's no low level access to the hardware through classic mode, DAE won't work, No OMS, No drivers for any cards you have, it's just an empty shell of an OS with only the basic GUI. Classic Mode is not an option until apple find some way of allowing software complete access to the hardware.

On the the other hand, maybe some kind of driver for both OS X and OS 9 could allow these kinds of applications to work perfectly in classic while we wait for OS X native versions to come out.

People need OS 9 to run their current software as much as they need an OS X version in the future so they don't have to boot into OS 9 anymore. I can only imagine how stable and speedy a full working audio system would be under OS X with Coremidi and Coreaudio linking all the hardware and software together and Quartz Extreme handling the GUI so extra CPU time can be used to run even more plug-ins or tracks.

tjwett
Aug 3, 2002, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by Q-bert
OS X has been running rock-solid for me for the last year, only ONE kernal panic in all that time when I plugged in a serial adapter under 10.0.2, and none since I upgraded to 10.1. I have two Macs at home, one of which is a pro audio workstation - that Mac runs OS 9 (but has X installed and unused), the other OS X. I don't know about you, but I treat my audio Mac like a hardware synth or rackmount recorder, once it is configured properly, there's no need to keep tweaking and upgrading it, as long as it continues to do its job. It's self-contained and doesn't need anything else.

If you hate OS X - don't run it. You certainly have a point when it comes to pro audio availability, I don't do pro audio on OS X by necessity, same as everybody else. But don't fault Apple for moving forward, I don't think they can keep sticking with OS 9 while simultaneously trying to develop hardware that advances well beyond the capabilities of OS 9. A good example is memory allocation, OS 9 apps can only allocate a MAXIMUM of 1GB of RAM (999MB). What if the next Apple hardware can handle 3 or 4GB max RAM, and no OS 9 application can support it? In that case, supporting OS 9 is actually crippling the hardware's capabilities! There are even other areas where OS 9 isn't up to the job of today's hardware from Apple, multi-threading being another one. That's TODAY'S hardware, what about the future? OS 9 isn't built for that, and they've already tried to hack it to make it work, it just can't.

We gotta move on from OS 9 eventually, it's not like nobody saw this coming. Jobs has been talking about this for the past year relentlessly. Technology marches on - even Microsoft stopped supporting DOS eventually.

I realize OS9 is not going to be able to handle the future and I agree that it's not Apple's fault for the lack of software. I just feel that OSX is so hungry and flashy that it may be waisting DSP on the OS, which is supposed to "not get in the way".
I'd rather have a stripped-down gray OS instead of cartoonish minimizing windows and scalable vector images for icons if it is going to be eating valuable CPU. Regarding the audio apps, some people in the business have told me that more than one of the major audio sequencers(Logic included) have been completed for a few months now and are forced to hold back the release until 10.2 because they were built around the new Core Audio and MIDI unit(which I assume they had access to in advance)and may even need 10.2 as a minimum system requirement. Even if we get them soon, how long until Native Instruments and the rest get on it? The one I'm really concerned with is Metasynth, which I use ALOT. It was made by one dude(the guy who made Bryce)and no one has heard anything of OS X support. Wait and see, I guess.

Roger1
Aug 3, 2002, 07:46 AM
True the xserve supports Netboot, but some of the rumors on this site are saying that it will be a motherboard adjustment that prevents os9 from working. If that's the case, I'm curious how Netboot will work on new client machines (as we add them to the network).

jefhatfield
Aug 3, 2002, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by barkmonster
If the new powermacs won't boot into OS 9 then the mac is next to useless for audio till all the plug-in, sequencer and software synth companies port all their stuff to OS X!

Not to mention all those hardware systems. Protools, Korg OASYS, Creamware... Anyone with any kind of DSP based system isn't going to be buying a new mac for quite some time.



and then there is video and the graphics people...a graphics friend of mine who has some really good gear can still only use it with os 9

apple does have to move forward, but os x as the sole os right now is still a bit early

now that i have had the chance to fool with it, os x is not bad but i wish there was more support for it...i always hear what supports it, but there is much more out there that still only works with os 9 when i go to the mac store or the college bookstore

Rocketman
Aug 3, 2002, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by bretm


Actually, the "NEW" OS that was to become OSX was first scheduled to be released in beta in 1996. Then '97, then they changed formats to Rhapsody based on Next or something, after awhile Jobs decided it just wasn't strong enough and a lot of that technology fell into the original OSX server, OS9, etc. Then they switched to the full UNIX concept they have now, which I've been following for about 3 years. Chew on that.

The roadmap released for Rhapsody/whatever-they-called-the-alternate-view-at-the-time specifically addressed and proposed using Intel chips on low level OS basis by having a kernal to support that, and similar to PowerPC chips, and even addressed other chips such as alpha at the time.

Apple wrote and seeded an Intel based mac OS called Star Trek which many people called slow but maclike.

I think it is fair to say there are a few stable running macs at Cupertino right now running on Intel chips. What clearly is not happening is a business decision to change over for a variety of reasons. Last I checked Intel chips were considerably more expensive than PowerPC in production quantities and this might be a driving factor for a niche supplier like Apple where margin matters.

Bottom line is if Apple wanted to release an Intel or AMD chip based computer next year, they could.

Rocketman

mnkeybsness
Aug 3, 2002, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Rocketman


Correct me if I am wrong please.

DOS applications ran under DOS under windows (all versions) for many years after windows was released. Maybe still does. I am not a windows user, just a former DOS user.


winblowz hexpee no longer uses DOS and is not DOS-based...and it seems all the important apps don't need DOS any longer...winblowz does have a little DOS terminal...and what a waste it is

ibookin'
Aug 3, 2002, 12:56 PM
As I sit here and write this on a Winblows 2000 PC, I am reminded of all the software and hardware and software I had to give up to make the switch to Mac. Scanner, TV card, CD burner, printer and a ton of decent software for the PC were given up just to get the latest and greatest OS, Mac OS X. Even when I was running 10.0.3, I marveled about how good this OS was, how stable it was, etc. Leaving old hardware and software behind is part of the way computers evolve.

My 2 cents

Jack Tenric
Aug 3, 2002, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by tjwett
I'd rather have a stripped-down gray OS instead of cartoonish minimizing windows and scalable vector images for icons if it is going to be eating valuable CPU.

As valid as your point is, that is not the view of the majority of users. People have gotten used to seeing operating systems that look fancy like OS X or XP. To use anything else seems primative to them now. Besides, thos special effects that you mention are going to be handled by the 3D card more than CPU in 10.2.

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 3, 2002, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Billicus
What about all those OS 9 games I still have? What about them...

Unfortunately it's a normal thing to be left with software that wont run on new OS's. I have a box full of it!

It's also quite normal for new Macs to not run old OS's ... try booting a Quicksilver off a Mac OS 8.6 CD.

I had games that worked in System 7.5, that stopped working in OS 8, then started working again in OS 9, only to break in 9.1.

The only thing you can do is either don't upgrade to the new OS and/or Mac, keep an old Mac for those Games, or see if you can get updated versions.

The issue here is Mac OS 9 is discontinued, and Apple will not be putting any effort into getting it to run on new hardware. I think if the new OS really disables dual booting (and I don't think you can stop from being able to boot from a different partition) on machines that *can* still boot into OS 9, it's because Apple wants to send the message to the developers that are dragging their feet (cough*quark*cough) to get on the ball!

Either way, don't expect new hardware to be able to run OS 9, anymore than it would run System 7! New hardware = new motherboard chipsets.

I'm a musician and a graphic artist, so I'm waiting for CubaseSX in October, and Quark 6... although I think I like InDesign better. :)

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 3, 2002, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
...No OMS...


OMS is more or less built into Jaguar now :)

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 3, 2002, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by tjwett
I just feel that OSX is so hungry and flashy that it may be waisting DSP on the OS, which is supposed to "not get in the way".
I'd rather have a stripped-down gray OS instead of cartoonish minimizing windows and scalable vector images for icons if it is going to be eating valuable CPU.

How is drawing gray pixels any faster than drawing white and blue pixels? It's not. The thing that slows down X's GUI is the alpha masks and animations. That will be fixed in Jaguar.

Mac OS always had feedback as far as opening a window with the zoom recs. it gives you a sense of where the window came from, or went.
Now they can draw the whole window moving, which I think is a very cool thing.

Also the GUI doesn't use much CPU time unless you are moving, or minimizing a window.

Also, I for one like Aqua much better than Platinum, and I've been using Macs since System 7.

Regarding the audio apps, some people in the business have told me that more than one of the major audio sequencers(Logic included) have been completed for a few months now and are forced to hold back the release until 10.2 because they were built around the new Core Audio and MIDI unit(which I assume they had access to in advance)and may even need 10.2 as a minimum system requirement. Even if we get them soon, how long until Native Instruments and the rest get on it? The one I'm really concerned with is Metasynth, which I use ALOT. It was made by one dude(the guy who made Bryce)and no one has heard anything of OS X support. Wait and see, I guess.

BIAS has Deck and Peak out now. I was a former DECK II user, but switched to Cubase. I use Peak DV, and it runs much better in OS X.

Developers had plenty of notice, about 2 years, that OS 9 was going bye-bye. I agree that I think they are waiting for Jaguar, but 10.1 has much of the same core audio and many audio apps run on it now.

It's frustrating to have to wait for the apps we use, but making music in OS X is (forgive the pun) gonna ROCK! :)

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 3, 2002, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Rocketman
The roadmap released for Rhapsody/whatever-they-called-the-alternate-view-at-the-time specifically addressed and proposed using Intel chips on low level OS basis by having a kernal to support that, and similar to PowerPC chips, and even addressed other chips such as alpha at the time.

Apple wrote and seeded an Intel based mac OS called Star Trek which many people called slow but maclike.

I think it is fair to say there are a few stable running macs at Cupertino right now running on Intel chips. What clearly is not happening is a business decision to change over for a variety of reasons. Last I checked Intel chips were considerably more expensive than PowerPC in production quantities and this might be a driving factor for a niche supplier like Apple where margin matters.

Bottom line is if Apple wanted to release an Intel or AMD chip based computer next year, they could.

Rocketman


Two things to consider here. Rhapsody is the OS based on NeXTSTEP, and NeXTSTEP did indeed run on Intel hardware.

Since OS X is descended from NeXT, it wouldn't be too hard to get it to run on Intel/AMD processors, and I'm sure it's been done already at Apple.

They used to call this "Yellow Box." However, just because the Mach kernel can run on a different CPU, the applications would still need recompiling. There was talk that true Cocoa apps only needed the Yellow Box API libraries to run on Windows, but they would have the Windows GUI.

Star Trek was a version of System 7 running on x86 hardware. So it's more closely related to OS 9 than OS X. Apple dropped that plan when a major PC maker said they would like to use it, but couldn't afford to pay for it, because MS has them paying a fee per every PC they sell, even if it had Star Trek on it instead of Windows.

The next version of the Mac System software would have been Copland, aka System 8 (not the same as OS 8, which was originally System 7.7), which was killed off in favor of buying outside technology. We did get a few things from Copland, such as the V-Twin search engine, later known as Sherlock, and the OS 8 Platinum look.

Darwin does run on x86 hardware of course. I don't think Apple will ever make a version of OS X that runs on other companies' PC hardware, since Apple makes most of its money on hardware sales, but they may use x86 processors.

Steve Jobs was quoted as saying this would have to wait until OS X is fully deployed. Apple already switched CPUs when going from 68k to PPC, but this will be a bit trickier. I think the PowerPC is still better than the Pentium and even the Athlon, but we really need to get the clock rates up.

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 3, 2002, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by ibookin'@mwny
As I sit here and write this on a Winblows 2000 PC, I am reminded of all the software and hardware and software I had to give up to make the switch to Mac. Scanner, TV card, CD burner, printer and a ton of decent software for the PC were given up just to get the latest and greatest OS, Mac OS X. Even when I was running 10.0.3, I marveled about how good this OS was, how stable it was, etc. Leaving old hardware and software behind is part of the way computers evolve.

My 2 cents

I agree with you about things getting left behind, been there, done that.

But I'm also puzzled.

Before I bought my G4, I had a Mac clone. It was getting harder to find new printers that had Mac serial ports, and ADB mice and keyboards, so I purchased a $50 USB card, and bought an MS Itellimouse Optical, and an Epson StylusPhoto 870.

I also had an old UMAX Astra 1220S SCSI scanner, a LaCie CD-RW drive, and an original SCSI Iomega Zip drive, circa 1995.

When I ordered my G4 (from Smalldog Electronics.. GREAT people to buy from!) I also got an OrangeMicro SCSI card.

When I first got OS X 10.0 the SCSI card didn't work due to lack of drivers, and there were also no drivers for the printer. I could print out of classic, however. But this changed after about 6 months, and now everything, including the scanner, works great in OS X. Even the LaCie burner works with the Finder's DiskBurner, as well as Toast. None of this stuff is new! The newest pieces being the three year old printer and LaCie burner.

I read that Jaguar has native support for scanners, enabling you to scan right from Image Capture, and it even comes with drivers for Canon scanners. More to follow I'm sure.

What peripherals do you have that don't work in OS X?

3777
Aug 3, 2002, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by bretm


They're explicitly talking about the new hardware. "Macs" won't boot in OS9. They'll still run classic.

Jaguar runs classic. It doesn't come with a copy of OS9 however is the prediction. The article theorizes that the next "macs" (hardware) won't boot OS9. In other words, the next line of computers. Whether you're running 10.1.5 or 10.2 or whatever will have motherboards that have no way of booting OS9. There are new computers scheduled for August, and of course MWSF. So, in a matter of weeks people might be bringing home computers without OS9 or the ability to boot OS9.

It further states that 10.3 will disallow it via software. In other words, 10.3 kills booting OS9 even if you're running it on a G4.

But hey thats what I read.

I have been running all of my OS9 apps in Classic...... not realizing I could still boot OS9 dektop directly. I thought classic was the OS9 boot....... At this point I only need Classic for Photoshop anyway........ but what I don't understand from your statement...... is how Jaguar will run Classic if the hardware cannot boot OS9? Classic ...... I believe..... runs directly off of OS9. Without OS9 installed, Classic wont' work? If you have to install OS9 first.....but the hardware won't accept it........how will Classic run on future versions of OSX? If this is not the case then how can I remove OS9 from my system now? I try to send the OS9 system folder to trash, but it won't let me because it is required to run Classic?:confused:

3777
Aug 3, 2002, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by 3777


I have been running all of my OS9 apps in Classic...... not realizing I could still boot OS9 dektop directly. I thought classic was the OS9 boot....... At this point I only need Classic for Photoshop anyway........ but what I don't understand from your statement...... is how Jaguar will run Classic if the hardware cannot boot OS9? Classic ...... I believe..... runs directly off of OS9. Without OS9 installed, Classic wont' work? If you have to install OS9 first.....but the hardware won't accept it........how will Classic run on future versions of OSX? If this is not the case then how can I remove OS9 from my system now? I try to send the OS9 system folder to trash, but it won't let me because it is required to run Classic?:confused:

.........And if Jaguar does run OS9 Applications in Classic .....without OS9 itself having to be installed ......... then I'll just do clean install of jaguar when it arrives in a few weeks........ if OS9 isn't needed for Classic? :confused:

allpar
Aug 3, 2002, 04:00 PM
I still suspect that the reason for not allowing OS 9 booting is (a) to get everyone to Carbon and Cocoa, and (b) THAT'S partly so they can switch over to Intel or Power4 or Transmeta or some other chips when they need to. Apple can always figure out a way to disable OS X on non-Apple computers - remember proprietary hardware ROM chips? I understand OS X has a pretty serious hardware abstraction layer. Would be pretty darned cool of today's Carbon and Cocoa programs could run without recompiling on a 3 GHz Pentium 5 Mac...though I do prefer the PowerPC architecture, they're getting a bit slow compared to cheap PCs. I can get a 1.2 GHz PC for about the price of a used B&W G3...! (Admittedly I'd need to buy another air cnditioner for the office).

But that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 3, 2002, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by MM2270
I'm not sure if I like the sound of new Macs not being able to boot into 9. I use OS X nearly full-time both at home and work, but at times, I still need to run repair utilities on my disks. Those apps currently only run in 9, and to use them effectively, you need to boot off the CD (in OS 9). DiskWarrior is a perfect example. Now, if these new Macs don't allow booting into 9, then I imagine I also could not boot into 9 on a CD. This would be a fundamental change in the Mobo maybe that just won't allow it. If so, that rots! So I can't run repair utilities if this happens? And don't talk to me about booting into single user mode or whatever to run the disk check. I don't believe that does as good a job as DW or Norton (even though I really don't like Norton)

This is not a new thing that Apple is suddenly doing. Try taking a Norton Utilities 5 CD and boot up a fairly new G4. You cant! You also cant install or boot from Mac OS 8.6, or OS 9.04 either. Also keep in mind that any version of Norton older than 6 will mess things up on your OS X partition. Same is true for anything but the newest version of DiskWarrior.

So having to buy a newer version of a repair utility happens every time Apple upgrades OS's or hardware. If you want something free, use fsck or Disk Utility. I'm sure there will be new versions out that will boot the new Macs when the time comes.


Also, consider this. If you buy one of these new Macs, and Classic is already installed, all is cool. But what happens if your disk goes south and you need to reinstall everything, on a new disk for example. How can you install 9?


Classic will be part of the Jaguar install, and presumably the next version also. It just wont include a bootable copy of OS 9, because the machines can't run OS 9. OS 9 is a discontinued OS, just as System 6, 7 and OS 8 are. Yes, it's a little different here, because we are dealing with a whole new OS, but Apple gave the developers a two year warning that this day would come.


You can't since the OS 9 installer is a Classic app, and if Classic isn't present, you can't run the installer. So, you'd want to boot up from the OS 9.x.x CD right? Yeah, well what if it doesn't allow booting from a CD? Than guess what, you're screwed, at least if you still need Classic at all. Sorry, but I think this is a really stupid idea, and I hope this will only happen sometime down the line and not in the very near future.

It's not about not allowing it to boot, it can't. Apple is not trying to play big brother. For everyone here who is a new Mac user, this is like trying to run a version of Windows on an unsupported motherboard chipset. Apple makes big changes when they release new hardware, it's not just the bus and CPU speed. Since OS 9 is EOL'ed, they are not going to continue to update it to run on new hardware.


Sounds to me like Apple is doing whatever it takes to FORCE adoption of OS X. Maybe they should try tactics like, oh, I dunno, LOWERING the price of Jaguar, for instance. By making it nearly prohibitively expensive for the average Mac user to buy X, they are killing potential upgraders, so now they want to do this, so if you buy a New Mac you have NO CHOICE but to use OS X? Wow Apple, this is really a bad move. Someone over there needs a lobotomy!!

How is it "prohibitively expensive"? It's $129. I'm an average Mac user, and that's less than I spend for Starbucks and lunch every month! Apple releases a new OS once a year that they expect you to pay for. I paid for 10.0, and I got 10.1 free. I will pay for 10.2 and I'm sure the next upgrade will be free. As will all the little point releases. The problem here is people who either just bought 10.1, or never bought OS X and either borrowed it or pirated it, and want 10.2 free or cheap. Is that fair to the people who paid for 10.0 when it came out? I paid $120 when 10.0 came out and have been using it for 20 months now. That's $6 a month. I think asking us to pay for a new OS every 17 months or so is quite fair. Look how much work Apple does compared to MS. We are at version 10.2, while Windows is still at 5.2.

Apple's prices are much lower than MS, even for upgrades. XP Pro upgrade is $70 more than jaguar. And the upgrade to XP home is only $20 cheaper. If you are a student, you get 10.2 for half price.

And yes, you have no choice but to use OS X. You can't buy a new Mac with System 7.6 or OS 8 on it. How is this any different? I have some old software that only runs in System 7. You also can't buy a new PC with Windows 3.1 on it, or even Windows 95. You cant even download drivers for Win 3.1! Why would you want to?

New Macs run Mac OS X as default anyway, and since Apple is not making OS 9 anymore, you wont find it on any new Macs. This is the normal effects of progress. If you own your OS 9 software, you should be able to get upgrades to OS X versions, since most current versions run in OS X. If you have a bunch of stuff you downloaded from Limewire, well that's too bad isn't it.

I have everything I need except for QuarkXPress, and CubaseSX. After that I dont care if I never see OS 9 again :)

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 3, 2002, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by 3777


.........And if Jaguar does run OS9 Applications in Classic .....without OS9 itself having to be installed ......... then I'll just do clean install of jaguar when it arrives in a few weeks........ if OS9 isn't needed for Classic? :confused:

People are misunderstanding the story here. This is not about Jaguar at all. When the next version comes out AFTER Jaguar, which will probably be in January, it is rumored to prevent you from dual booting.

This is probably because there will be no Startup disk CP, or it wont recognize OS 9 as a valid OS. I think if you have a separate partition with 9 on it, you should be OK, but the install will replace 9 on the OS X partition with a new version of classic. But then again, how to choose the OS to boot from? I wonder if the Startup Manager in OpenFirmware will be changed?

But the REAL reason is that the new machines coming out wont be able to run OS 9. This means you cant wipe the hard drive clean and install OS 9 even if you wanted to. Possibly you can hack it to run, the way people do with OS X on old PowerMac 9500 and such, but I doubt it.

As I have said a few times here, try and boot even a two year old G4 on an old Mac OS CD. It cant boot. It's not because Apple is being mean, it's because the system software on that CD lacks the necessary drivers for that machine.

That's all there is to it. No conspiracy at all. It's just that Apple is no longer updating OS 9 to run on new hardware anymore than they are updating System 7. It's a dead issue.

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 3, 2002, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by 3777


but what I don't understand from your statement...... is how Jaguar will run Classic if the hardware cannot boot OS9? Classic ...... I believe..... runs directly off of OS9.

I'll try to explain.

Classic is an application running on OS X that runs OS 9. So even if the hardware can't run OS 9, the Classic application can. It's the same way you can run Windows inside of the VirtualPC application. Classic is using only certain parts of OS 9... other stuff is disabled, like most extensions, and classic cannot access hardware directly. Jaguar will contain only the parts of OS 9 it needs to run Classic.

Currently you can install OS X either on the same partition as OS 9, or on separate partitions. You can also have two copies of OS 9 installed, one to use as classic and one for dual booting.

I started out with two copies, because I have OS 9 on a separate partition. I did this because of disk corruption issues early on with OS X.

Now I use my OS 9 partition for classic.

Jaguar does not need a separate install of OS 9, apparently it has enough parts included to run classic, but not enough to boot the Mac from.

If you own a current Mac that can run OS 9, there's nothing stopping you from installing it and booting from it. Reports are that Pinot (10.2.5? 10.3?) will disable OS 9 from booting, and as I've said here, new Macs will be unable to boot from the present version of OS 9, and Apple will not be updating 9 to work on new machines.

And I'm sure the new machines will not run OS X 10.2 either.

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 3, 2002, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by allpar
I still suspect that the reason for not allowing OS 9 booting is (a) to get everyone to Carbon and Cocoa, and (b) THAT'S partly so they can switch over to Intel or Power4 or Transmeta or some other chips when they need to. Apple can always figure out a way to disable OS X on non-Apple computers - remember proprietary hardware ROM chips? I understand OS X has a pretty serious hardware abstraction layer. Would be pretty darned cool of today's Carbon and Cocoa programs could run without recompiling on a 3 GHz Pentium 5 Mac...though I do prefer the PowerPC architecture, they're getting a bit slow compared to cheap PCs. I can get a 1.2 GHz PC for about the price of a used B&W G3...! (Admittedly I'd need to buy another air cnditioner for the office).

But that's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

This is an interesting theory I hadn't thought of.

Yes, the Mach kernel does hardware abstraction, and providing you make the kernel run on the hardware, the rest of OS X would follow with only minor tweaks.

Darwin, which is OS X without Aqua, does run on x86, and NeXTSTEP did too. I'm sure that's why Apple made Darwin open source ... this lets others do the PC port for them. They get free labor and don't piss off MS too badly while they still had that agreement.

Apple also had versions of Rhapsody, which became Mac OS X Server, running on Intel/AMD hardware.

Apple might still be able to run Classic on a version of OS X running on non PPC hardware, as an emulator.

I'd still rather have a 3GHz PPC over a x86 CPU though. A Power4 type CPU would be nice, but we would lose Altivec.

Either way, we can be sure that Apple wants OS 9 to go away, and soon.

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 3, 2002, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by rasha
I thought Apple said OS9 development would continue with OSX for a few years. I thought there was to be a OS9.5 final release.

What happened to the support for legacy software and hardware? I thought that OS9.5 was going to be the ultimate of the old OSes with better memory managment ect...

I was really hoping on that to keep on my older machine with OS X on my new one. I have a lot of years behind the classic mac OS and plan to use some of that software I have collected over the years while I use OSX to actually be productive.

BTW, yes you are right. I still do fire up the C-64 upon occasion.

Where did you hear this? Jobs said at the WWDC OS 9 is dead, not for consumers yet, but for developers. I think 9.2.2 is it, and surely Apple will not invest the time to make it better. I've been using a Mac since System 7, so I know how you feel.

Jaguar is said to have classic support built in, but does not comes with a full OS 9 install. I have a Mac clone running 9.1, the last version that will install on 7x00 class machines. it still works, and installing 10.3 on my G4 wont break it! ;)

I have 12 Macs, some of them running System 3, 6, 7 and 8.5. I can play with those if I want to feel nostalgic. :)

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 3, 2002, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by digitalbiker

My question is; Does anyone know for sure if classic will even start without OS 9 being installed somewhere on the system?

I thought that a bootable copy of OS 9 needed to be installed in either the same partition or another partition but somewhere on the disk with OS X.

If OS 9 is not installed, will classic run?

No it wont. But Jaguar is said to have it's own OS 9 files for classic, and wont need to have a full version intsalled.

It will not come with an OS 9 CD however.

Thus is the rumor anyway... we will see in a few weeks.

merges
Aug 3, 2002, 05:41 PM
classic requires a real OS 9.2.2 system to be installed, even in jaguar.

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 3, 2002, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by tjwett
I hope this does not happen. I too work with pro-audio and I'm not expecting all my apps, synths and plug-ins to be ready till 2004. Plus, I hate OS X. After using it for almost a year now I've come to see that it is a slow, crashing, kernal panic-infested nighhtmare with a pretty face. Hopefully 10.2 will be better but I see X just getting in the user's way more and more.

I've been running OS X since the day it came out as my main OS, and I have had about 7 crashes in that time. Most of those were kernel panics, and all during 10.0.3.

It's not slow on my G4/466, and I can't through a week running 9.1 at work without having to reboot. Most of the time I reboot at lunch time just to play it safe!

If it wasn't for the fact that I shut down my Mac at night, I wouldn't have to.

I suggest you look at your install. Something not right with it. Also it seems a lot of people want to start messing with things they shouldn't and destabilize their systems. Some people are too anal retentive. Leave the stuff Apple installed where it is! Learn to use OS X the way it was intended and stop trying to make it OS 9.

I also work in pro audio, and that's the only time I boot into 9.2.2. After using Peak and Spark in OS X, I cant wait for CubaseSX. While it's true that I have to wait for some of my plugins to be updated, everything else works... my M-Audio card, etc. I hate booting into 9.

There's a good article on osxAudio.com, with the two guys from Destroy FX. In the article they asked:

*****
Q: There is much talk about how complex it is to port an OS 9 plugin over to OS X, what was your experience been?

Marc: It takes me about 1 minute. If the code doesn't any involve any special platform-specific system routines, then there's nothing complicated at all. You just link against carbon libraries instead of InterfaceLib & the other old libraries. Actually, some old libraries are still okay to use. Then you just have to change the prefix file, include a carb resource, link against vstguicarbon.lib rather than vstgui.lib if you're using that library, & you're all done. But if you are using system-specific routines, then it can be more complicated, it depends. A lot of it is the same in carbon, though. And if you're using your own graphics code or other libraries, it depends. Basically if the plugin is very complex & platform-dependant, then porting it may or may not be complex, but in most cases it's very simple. This is all regarding VST, I don't know about other formats (but I think that VST is the only one that currently exists under both OS 9 & OS X).
*****

So you can see it's easy to convert plugins to OS X.

Jaguar will have great support for audio and MIDI... think of having OMS built in to the system.

I also don't see where you think OS X gets in the way. As I said, some people try and make it work like OS 9 instead of learning how to use the new OS.

I think it's a joy to operate. I get much more done on OS X. The GUI is cleaner, and you can do more things simultaneously.

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 3, 2002, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by merges
classic requires a real OS 9.2.2 system to be installed, even in jaguar.

Well, the new Macs coming out wont have OS 9 CDs, and neither will Jaguar.

So it would seem you are incorrect.

Several articles I read stated that Jaguar will include classic, but will not have a real OS 9 install. This is not to say it wont install a nearly full version of 9.2.2, but it wont include the CD as 10.0 and 10.1 did.

From MacInTouch:

"Earlier versions of MacOS X included a bootable copy of MacOS 9 with a stand-alone installer. This meant that the user could create a dual-boot system. Jaguar includes enough of MacOS 9 to run inside the Blue Box, but not enough to boot stand-alone. "

and:

"A friend of mine told me the following, and Apple's web site seems to confirm it. OS X 10.2, aka Jaguar will NOT come with OS 9.2 installation disks at all. The $129 price tag gets you the following, as stated on Apple's web site:

Contents (of OS X 10.2)
Mac OS X CDs
Developer Tools CD
user documentation

It says it supports classic technology, but it appears that OS 9 DOES NOT come with OS X 10.2. If you want, but don't have OS 9.2, it will cost you an addition $90 or so. Please note that this will mostly effect people buying new computers (since those with 10.2 installed, will NOT have OS 9 installed). Please note, that I could be wrong, but given Apple's recent stances, it appears doubtful."


Therefore were would you get 9.2.2 to install on your new 17" iMac??

All the Macs at Apple's Pavilion at MacWorld Expo were already running Jaguar.

dimeadozen
Aug 3, 2002, 10:21 PM
I'm not saying is an end of the world for k12 thing, but look at it this way. (I have to, I'm a k12 network admin) Right now, X is out, and it's a very positive powerful OS, but it lacks the ability to take care of the needs of k12 environments. All we have from Apple is Mac Manger, as of yet, there is no client for X. Apple says try NetInfo. Yeah right. Apple is doing an amazing job of learning how to attract regular customers, but without education sales they'll take a major hit, and it never fails, Apple's server and apps group changes directions and standards faster than we can adopt them. Then they force us to the new product. There's nothing wrong with 9. If they want to move all machines to X then they need to address the issues such as network environments and client systems for k12 customers. That's all I want to vent.

3777
Aug 3, 2002, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon


I'll try to explain.

Classic is an application running on OS X that runs OS 9. So even if the hardware can't run OS 9, the Classic application can. It's the same way you can run Windows inside of the VirtualPC application. Classic is using only certain parts of OS 9... other stuff is disabled, like most extensions, and classic cannot access hardware directly. Jaguar will contain only the parts of OS 9 it needs to run Classic.

Currently you can install OS X either on the same partition as OS 9, or on separate partitions. You can also have two copies of OS 9 installed, one to use as classic and one for dual booting.

I started out with two copies, because I have OS 9 on a separate partition. I did this because of disk corruption issues early on with OS X.

Now I use my OS 9 partition for classic.

Jaguar does not need a separate install of OS 9, apparently it has enough parts included to run classic, but not enough to boot the Mac from.

If you own a current Mac that can run OS 9, there's nothing stopping you from installing it and booting from it. Reports are that Pinot (10.2.5? 10.3?) will disable OS 9 from booting, and as I've said here, new Macs will be unable to boot from the present version of OS 9, and Apple will not be updating 9 to work on new machines.

And I'm sure the new machines will not run OS X 10.2 either.


That is what I wanted to know. If OSX Jaguar can run classic layer without a separate OS9 partition installed, then I'll just delete my OS9 partition and do a clean install of 10.2 ......the only application I run is Photoshop and it works fine in OSX classic.

Ensign Paris
Aug 4, 2002, 10:24 AM
The fact that we already know what the next version of X will be called (well in code atleast) kind of scares me.

Ensign

crs
Aug 4, 2002, 11:09 AM
What do they expect? Fact is you have to have a fast machine to run OS X and you also need all your software ready for it.
This change takes it's time. Who cares what Microsoft or Corel say, we change when WE are ready, not them.

Expecially for institutions or schools it's a big step to get the whole administration thing running. I work at a university where we need Quark (not ready until late spring 2003) and an administration solution (where I get a beta the next weeks).
Even Apple is not ready yet to support OS X Clients with their MacManager (as far as I know).

The university will change in various steps until summer 2003. Within that, for many labs new machines have to be bought to be able to work good under OS X.

So again: it takes the time it needs to change, no matter what we are wanted to do by some companies.

crs

G4scott
Aug 4, 2002, 06:46 PM
Apple should come out with a new ad campaign about the price of Jaguar, .Mac, and the phasing out of OS 9... They could call it "***** Happens"

merges
Aug 4, 2002, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon


Well, the new Macs coming out wont have OS 9 CDs, and neither will Jaguar.

So it would seem you are incorrect.

Several articles I read stated that Jaguar will include classic, but will not have a real OS 9 install. This is not to say it wont install a nearly full version of 9.2.2, but it wont include the CD as 10.0 and 10.1 did.


I am running Jaguar right now, and like all versions of Mac OS X, its Classic mechanism (Classic is *not* an OS) requires a valid Mac OS 9 system folder.

G4scott
Aug 4, 2002, 08:03 PM
Lets face it, OS 9 is dead. Even though you still may be able to run it using Classic, Apple doesn't want you to buy any more copies of OS 9...

SilvorX
Aug 4, 2002, 08:10 PM
i wouldnt want to see os9 phased out yet, unless osx had more support for running older apps (not like how hexpee has "compatibility mode" which doesnt work) so that ppl wouldnt need to use os9 to run classic appz

Wry Cooter
Aug 5, 2002, 01:34 PM
From Monday August 5 Macintouch

__________________________________

[13:55 ET]_ William Frank forwarded a note from Steve Jobs about the purported demise of Mac OS 9 support in Apple's next hardware releases:

I wrote Steve Jobs my concern about the story on Eweek about not being able to boot into OS 9 with New Macs. I got a response back:

This rumor is simply not true. Steve

___________________________________

jefhatfield
Aug 5, 2002, 05:42 PM
i will be getting a new mac to replace my original ibook which has os9 but not powerful enough to run os x well with only a 160 MB RAM max

so would it make sense for apple to ditch os 9 next year in their ibooks which max out at 640 MB of RAM?

doesn't os x soak up RAM and to use photoshop and os x - 10.2?

well, one should have at least a gig of RAM to open up several programs and run everything well with good speed, correct?

what would the ibook/classic imac/ older g3 tower users do if apple goes exclusively to os x?

peterjhill
Aug 6, 2002, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by DavidRavenMoon


Well, the new Macs coming out wont have OS 9 CDs, and neither will Jaguar.

So it would seem you are incorrect.

Several articles I read stated that Jaguar will include classic, but will not have a real OS 9 install. This is not to say it wont install a nearly full version of 9.2.2, but it wont include the CD as 10.0 and 10.1 did.


Well, the GM of Jaguar will not run classic without having preinstalled OS 9 first. I did an ultraclean install of 6C115, and did not install OS9 first, and the Classic CP says that

There is no volume with a system folder that supports starting Classic. Please install Mac OS 9.1 or later to run Classic

So, we have a quandry. If the new machines will not boot OS 9, how would one install OS 9, in order for 10.2 to run Classic? As for not shipping 0S 9 in the 10.2 box, fine! All current computers that run 10, should have a current valid license for 9.1 or later. Why ship another disk when they don't have to. If they sell a million copies of 10.2, and save 25 cents by not putting in OS 9 disks, they just saved 250,000 dollars. Not too bad.

I would think that Apple is getting tired of using software developers to update OS 9 code to run on all the new hardware. A significant upgrade in hardware might cross the boundry on the "Is it really worth our money to do this" equation.

Goodbye OS 9! Goodbye forever.

peterjhill
Aug 6, 2002, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
doesn't os x soak up RAM and to use photoshop and os x - 10.2?

well, one should have at least a gig of RAM to open up several programs and run everything well with good speed, correct?

Well, OS X has a much better memory manager than classic. You do not have to assign memory requirements to applications. They ask for memory, and the kernel takes care of doling it out. If it runs out of real memory, it starts to swap out pages of memory to disk. The OS might use more memory than classic, but when I was running the Public Beta on an original Tangerine iBook, it ran pretty well. I have 512 MB and it runs great. If you are running Photoshop on an iBook, you probably are not using Photoshop to make alot of money, or else you would get something with a G4 and a bigger screen, and thus can probably get by with 640 MB of ram in the iBook.

what would the ibook/classic imac/ older g3 tower users do if apple goes exclusively to os x?

Well, they would probably do what all the people who are still using Mac Classics do, they run the most recent version of the OS that is supported by the hardware. If that is not satisfactory, ie. you need to use a more recent version of the OS, then you would need to purchase new hardware.

BillGates
Aug 7, 2002, 05:01 PM
The new G4s coming out this month WILL boot OS9. Maybe they won't come with it loaded or even in the box but they WILL boot and run OS9 natively if you choose to do so. This is really good news for the prepress/design industry since some of our application developers are really dragging their feet.

Wry Cooter
Aug 7, 2002, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by BillGates
The new G4s coming out this month WILL boot OS9. Maybe they won't come with it loaded or even in the box but they WILL boot and run OS9 natively if you choose to do so. This is really good news for the prepress/design industry since some of our application developers are really dragging their feet.

Wasn't there some odd bit about the eMacs not being able to boot into OS9? Or was that just a loose nut behind the keyboard?

That seems unlikely as well, being designed for the educational market, which has a lot of legacy software concerns, but it would explain why they were made available to the general public.

The real lag in pre-press will be with plug-ins. If I were on a production staff, I'd be hammering the authors of those plug ins hard about bringing quark, photoshop, and other plug-ins up to OS X compatibility.

neilt
Aug 7, 2002, 06:07 PM
Apple OS 9 Underground Sabotages Power Mac.

Sources close to the development of the upcoming revision to the Power Mac G4 indicate that sabotage by rogue elements within Apple has caused the machine to boot only into OS 9.2.
An Apple hardware engineer, who declined to be identified, said the machine's original design had called for it to boot only into OS X, in an effort to get professional users to switch to Apple's next-generation operating system.
"Adoption of OS X has been somewhat slower than we'd hoped," the engineer said, "So the new Power Mac was designed to be OS X-only."
Lowering his voice, the engineer went on, "But certain elements within Apple have begun to make their pro-OS 9 leanings known. Frankly, it's a little frightening."
A hardware controller on the motherboard of the new machine was to check the operating system version before allowing a boot. Somewhere on the way from design to manufacture, the code for that operating system was changed from looking for OS X to looking for OS 9.
"It's very possible we forgot to carry a one," the engineer allowed. "There's a lot of integer math that goes on in the processors on the motherboard and it can get confusing."

more here:
http://www.crazyapplerumors.com

:D

robbymoog
Aug 9, 2002, 11:52 AM
Os 9 was meant to die years before 8 was released. We all knew it would happen as far back as Copland and Rhapsody. 32 bit audio and core midi (finally), not to mention Apple's interest in Emagic, will suffice the audio world. We will see great things there in time. Quark should have an X-able app in about five years and after that, what's left? A useless operating system...one that even Windoze had beat in a few ways. I say let the bitch die. We'll all be better people for it.

Except one small thing...Marathon:(

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 9, 2002, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by peterjhill


Well, the GM of Jaguar will not run classic without having preinstalled OS 9 first.

...

So, we have a quandry. If the new machines will not boot OS 9, how would one install OS 9, in order for 10.2 to run Classic?

Yikes!

There was a report that Steve Jobs sent an email reply to someone that wrote to complian about this and Jobs said it's a rumor, and it's not true.

So I guess until the new non-nine-booting Macs come out we dont have to worry... as long as we have a copy. I wonder if the retail version of Jaguar will come with OS 9?

hmw666
Aug 15, 2002, 03:43 PM
Schools invest in computers that will be around for years. So now you want to orphan their system 7.5 to system 9 software. Fine- you think we are going to actively publish system X only software as a forced upgrade? Think again. It will be full price and that is even if we bother. It use to be 75%Apple and 25% DOS/Win and now it is the reverse. So now we should look forward to even less of a market? This sounds like supporting Atari or Commodore 64.

The Apple 2e was a reasonable break from ProDos to MacOS .

This is not.

Transition- keep classic support, but have the OSX.x be so compelling that developers and users will migrate up. The same path for 6.08 to 7.X to 8.X as the developer ups the minimum requirements.

oldMac
Aug 15, 2002, 04:50 PM
I don't think it's a bad idea for Apple to put OS 9 to rest. And, while it's unfortunate that developers have been slow to port to OS X, this will naturally happen over time.

The best way for Apple to make this happen is to keep bringing great features and cool frameworks to the Cocoa APIs. As a programmer, I know that's what really drives development. The easier it is and the more features that are "pre-written", the more people will write for it.

What I would love to see from Apple is "JavaScript Studio". That would be way better than AppleScript studio and open up Apple programming to a lot more people.

When all is said and done (after it becomes "silly" to write for OS 9), I'd like to see Apple make an instant-on version of Classic (similiar to what Virtual PC does). It would also be great if they could emulate some of the older hardware that certain apps (games and such) attempt to address. On future hardware, it should be fast enough and it will preserve the investments of many schools.

Wry Cooter
Aug 15, 2002, 05:26 PM
Its already silly to write for OS 9. Do you think its stuff being written now that is the problem? How much development do you think is taking place at this moment where at least Carbon is not the considered code platform?

That isn't the point... its that there is too much legacy stuff that is not about to be rewritten or recoded, that is important to daily work flow. Third Party Plug ins- PRINTER and other hardware DRIVERS, legacy code in huge apps cobbled together over a decade, dependant on code that can only load into a BOOT of OS 9, by companies not even in business anymore.

Cutting off the client base ability to use an App isn't going to kick developers in the pants as much as it is going to give them a reason not to develop for the platform at all.

oldMac
Aug 15, 2002, 06:13 PM
Yes! It is silly to write for OS 9 at this point. That's why Apple's driver engineers are considering no longer writing for it! It's not like the Apple hardware team makes a box and then OS 9 magically runs on it.

Another Point of consideration:

If I'm Adobe or Microsoft and I just spent gonzo dollars porting my software to OS X, I'm going to be PO'd if a lot of people aren't upgrading. In fact, I would be screaming bloody murder if Apple did "ANYTHING" that didn't encourage the upgrade to OS X.

Apple's got a tight line to walk right now.

Ironically, we'll likely see more OS 9 support after the last major software companies get their OS X port out the door. We should all be really p*ssed at Quark. But even then, don't expect Apple to waste energy on writing OS 9 drivers for new machines.

Instead, watch for Apple to make the following improvements to Classic for version 10.3.

1) Instant-on booting
- This would be fairly trivial to do
- This will make running the occasional legacy app less of a pain

2) Create the ability to "pipe" print jobs to Classic
- Allows printers without OS X drivers to work under X
- This can be done using various "tricks", but it should be user-friendly

3) Provide additional drivers?
- Some kind of generic scanner support would be nice
- Not as likely as the other items

4) Limited hardware emulation
- Limited hardware emulation so that more OS 9 software runs under Classic
- Possible, but not likely to happen

Dominique
Aug 16, 2002, 03:17 AM
I have a new i.book 700 combo for about a month, I had a problem with the graphic card so I shipped it back to Apple care and they changed the Mother Board. I have got it back for couple of days now and guess what it does not work under os9. I can't either boot at all (error 10 or Bus error) or it hang as soon as I open any app. I tried to boot from the install CD(OS9) same even after reinstalling OS9. Under OSX it is working very fine even when running classic no hang no freeze no crash. I don't mind too much running OSX only but it seems really a strange way of influencing cutomer choice...

Wry Cooter
Aug 16, 2002, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by oldMac


Ironically, we'll likely see more OS 9 support after the last major software companies get their OS X port out the door. We should all be really p*ssed at Quark. But even then, don't expect Apple to waste energy on writing OS 9 drivers for new machines.



You know, I don't think even the most deluded OS 9 luddite is expecting that from Apple. I'm fairly sure every single change to OS 9 since 9.1 has been merely to make it mesh more cleanly as the classic layer in OS X. In fact no new drivers NEED to be written for 9- they already exist and work. It is drivers for OS X that need the attention obviously.

Unfortunately- not everything works so smoothly in classic, which is why many have to actually BOOT in OS 9 to produce work.

Perhaps we should examine why people still boot in OS 9 instead (if all the reasons could truly be addressed in the classic layer of OS X itself, people would not be crying over not being able to boot into 9, so in the list below Classic is not considered identical to OS 9; OS 9s mention means that the Mac must BOOT from 9)

Six figure or more imagesetter, scanner, direct to press, does not recognize OS X or Classic, only a boot into 9. Six figure or more Audio or Video Workstation peripherals do not recognize OS X or Classic, only a boot into 9.

PDF creation a horse of different color depending on Application used, OS used, not a cross platform miracle.

Font management a quagmire in OS X.

Third Party Plug Ins for daily production purposes, from print to multimedia, not OS X or Classic compatible- not likely to be rewritten.

Terabytes of storage not addressable via classic or OS X.

Network security at schools, custom courseware, doesn't run in classic layer or X.

Custom business app, creator long gone, doesn't work in OS X or classic layer.

Cut and Paste does not work between Classic layer and OS X applications.

Java web apps, browser plug ins, not available for OS X browsers.

and so on.

I like Classic fine, but it is not addressing all my needs. I'd rather not use it at all. But sometimes about once a month, I do find it absolutely necessary to be able to boot my Mac from OS 9. I do not see this as holding back development as much as biding time for proper development. Personally I cannot wait never to see the classic layer or OS 9 ever again, but even for every app that is OS X native, it will be a slow upgrade process, I tend to only budget in thousand dollar lumps.

Apple needs to address the lag in OS X adaption among those that are not using it merely out of discomfort- I have friends whos macs shipped with OS X that are using 9 due to familiarity. And they are doing this in good ways- iApps, and other features making OS X a must have.

Apple does not need to cut off the hands of those who must for some reason still boot into 9, but I imagine they should have an old mac around that can do that if they have that need, huh? Or maybe they bought a Dell to assign to that task...

But keeping a new mac from being able to boot in 9, if necessary, is not going to make that new mac more attractive.

hmw666
Aug 16, 2002, 10:13 AM
Wry Cooter seems to understand.

We like lots of others are not Microsoft nor Adobe. We represent over 100 titles that collectively bring in a shadow of the above in sales.

We were quick to go to ProDos we waited until Mac became color (LC) then went in. We did not rush into ProDos 16 (remember that?)

Programmers want a fair return on investment- Unless it is games or industry tools- the education market will be face will horrible stuff because it runs on both Mac and Win.(not to say that is true with all programs)Some of the stuff I have seen, the Apple 2 would smoke it. We have Mac only as well as Win only software because of the fine programming.

I did not say we would not publish system X. It is the past software as well as the users computers who both need a fair return on investment.

Keeping an emulator is fine.

That is why I bought volvos for years since Detroit just did not get it.Who wants a car that rusts out or engine goes before 100,000 miles?

We are still Apple's biggest supporters even though Apple likes to shoot itself in the foot time and time again.

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 16, 2002, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by robbymoog

Except one small thing...Marathon:(


Hey, I was playing Marathon Infinity in OS X just the other day... NATIVE. ;)

How?

Marathon: Aleph One (http://source.bungie.org/)


:D

DavidRavenMoon
Aug 16, 2002, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Dominique
I have a new i.book 700 combo for about a month, I had a problem with the graphic card so I shipped it back to Apple care and they changed the Mother Board. I have got it back for couple of days now and guess what it does not work under os9. I can't either boot at all (error 10 or Bus error) or it hang as soon as I open any app. I tried to boot from the install CD(OS9) same even after reinstalling OS9. Under OSX it is working very fine even when running classic no hang no freeze no crash. I don't mind too much running OSX only but it seems really a strange way of influencing cutomer choice...

That sounds like a software problem ... maybe an incompatible extension?

If the machine wouldn't boot from OS 9 you would get a dialog saying this machine cannot boot from this OS.

I use ConflictCatcher in OS 9 to start up in X with most of the OS 9 extensions and control panels turned off. That was the only way I could get classic to run without crashing. You could do the same in the Extensions Manager. That's for Classic though. I have no problems booting into OS 9 by itself.

You might want to try reinstalling OS 9.

oldMac
Aug 16, 2002, 09:05 PM
As a software developer, I understand that it can be annoying when your software breaks as an operating system gets updated. (ie, if your stuff won't run under Classic)

I also understand that the world doesn't stand still after you release a title.

Apple has provided the following to developers:

1) A very good Classic environment that you can run under while you work to produce an updated version of your app. (95% of old apps will run under this as-is) And, yes, I agree that Apple should make this environment even better to continue supporting legacy software.

2) A Carbon API that takes much of the work out of porting an Application to Mac OS X.

3) Free development tools that allow you to create applications in Carbon and Cocoa.

It's not Apple's problem if you try to hang onto your old titles and make more money off of them without investing in the future. Arguably, they wouldn't have even broken if you'd followed the guidelines in creating them. (But, yes, as a developer I know that's more difficult than it sounds.)

Personally, I would rather Apple spend money on making OS X better than writing drivers so that people can run 5 year old software on a brand new computer. Seriously... how much horsepower do you need to run that old software anyway? Just buy a couple old machines or something.

daveg5
Aug 16, 2002, 11:03 PM
As of this writing niether cubase, protools, logic, digital performer, and thousands of instruments and effect plug-ins and ASIO Sound CARDS {dspfactory anyone cost me $1000 and I love it} are available in OSX, and when the programs are, most of the sound cards and plug-ins wont work until re-wrote. There will be teething pains plus an enormous exspense to upgrade the software unless it is a free upgrade(yea right look at itools}
If Apple Wants To make sure Music people give up os9 and by new machines for OSX then they better get off thier unowhat and help these companies get it together so us musicians great investment dosent become worthless overnight on the new machines or the used and upgrade market will steal big sells from them. for music OS9 is still great and dosnt crash much if you use one app at a time. I make a full move to OSX when my apps and soundcard and plug-ins are available in OSX if the price is not outrageous/

daveg5
Aug 16, 2002, 11:10 PM
I Have tons of great games that are only playable in os9 and they look great on my voodoo 5500 FSAA which of course is not supported by nvida in OSX or Classic. When I get a new G4/G5 I want them to still work or I just wont buy a new G4/G5 I get a Used one Instead.