Year 2003 Bug!??? Mac OS 9 to Stop working?

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by frescies, Dec 9, 2002.

  1. frescies macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #1
    I read an article on the apple pr database that specifically states that as of this January New macs will no longer boot in OS 9. Assuming the worst I figure that means that New macs are endowed with hardware that will refuse to boot in 9.

    I have a lot of classic aps that don't like running in "classic" and was quite rejoiced at having just bought an iMac that still runs OS9 (which I had previously thought was a bad move, planning on waiting for some updated hardware).

    Then I came across a thread somewhere in here that states ALL macs running OS 10.2 are programmed to refuse to boot in OS 9 after the first of the new year!!! Is this true?? Did Apple sneak that in the 10.2 system somewhere? Will I NEVER be able to boot OS 9 again come Jan 1?

    Troubled,
    David
     
  2. strider42 macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #2
    thats a load of bull. Apple would never do that. There's no reason for them to do that. Any mac that can curently boot to OS 9 will be able to. Any mac bought after january will only boot to OS X, which is all apple has ever said. People like to read into things when its just not there. You will not have a problem booting into OS 9. I suppose its possible that apple could program a firmware update to do prevent older machines from booting into 9, but like I said, why would they do that. They'd have to write firmware updaters for each type of machine just to accomplish something their customers obviously wouldn't want.
     
  3. Natron macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    #3
    I think you may be confusing Apple with Microsoft.:D

    -Natron
     
  4. ezkimo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    #4
    Why dont you change the date to Jan. 1st and see what happens?
     
  5. FattyMembrane macrumors 6502a

    FattyMembrane

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Location:
    bat country
    #5
    apple is not allowing new machines to boot into os9 so that the new mobos and chipsets will not have to support it's rom and stuff like that. if apple really wanted to force slacker software companies to make their products osx compatable, or force users to upgrade, they could make an osx update that prevented os9 booting, but they would not sink that low. it would be more trouble to prevent os9 booting on machines that origionally supported it than not to do it.
     
  6. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #6
    For years every time Apple changed the motherboard and chipsets, changes were required in the MacOSROM file and a bunch of other files to maintain functionality and add new ones.

    Since Apple froze OS 9 they've done a good job of keeping the new machines working with the frozen system, but any major changes would have broken the OS.

    Coming Jan 1st Apple has warned developers and users that new machines will no longer support booting into OS 9 - meaning they can move forward in hardware design without the corpse of OS 9 holding them back.

    It's doubtful that Apple would sabotage shipping current machine designs, but don't expect any "new" machines to boot into OS 9 - at least until somebody comes out with a 3rd party ROM file patch or an enabler file for the new machines (in other words don't expect Apple to do it for you).
     
  7. beez7777 macrumors 6502a

    beez7777

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2002
    Location:
    Notre Dame
    #7
    nothing happens. in fact, its quite funny. you can extend the date infinitely in both directions. i stopped trying to go back after i got to the year -150, and stopped going forward after 2650. :)
     
  8. mymemory macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
    #8
    Listen!!!!!!!

    This is the same scenario with the OS 7.1, there is just no more suppurt but they still running. Just investigate what happend then and make your own conclutions.

    I do expect not finding mor OS 9 support in future macs, it can be in the 2003 or later but is something that is gonna happen.

    About the os9 native aplications... would be only good having a OS9 compatible system around, they are good today and they would be good for later on too.
     
  9. Mr. Dibbs macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #9
    I just cleared this up in another thread...

    for anyone wanting official answers, this was addressed in the jobs keynote a long time ago at some expo, I forget which one. I'm gonna quote my post cause I don't feel like linking it.. but the original is in the thread attached to the ichat and panther rumor on the macrumors.com homepage.

    there. i hope that kills this rumor...
     
  10. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #10
    Re: Year 2003 Bug!??? Mac OS 9 to Stop working?

    if apple did that, a lot of people would go buy a pc and use windows xp, which is a great and very stable operating system

    all those mac users who hate ms and could point out examples of common hishaps in 95/98/me/nt 4.0 cannot say with equal fervor that xp toally sucks like those others

    windows 2000, while not as multimedia friendly as xp, is a decent operating system, but still not as good as os 9, but close

    apple will not cut off its few users that it has left...that would be sabotaging their own interests

    os x is a product in the making...still...but by 2004, it will be "the" undisputed standard operating system for all macs...i think;)
     
  11. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #11
    Thanks Dibbs, but I doubt that info will kill the rumor. Some people still think the 1.25s are OC'ed. And some people think Steve said iTools was free for life ( he said iTools free, your e-mail for life ). And the fact that Apple BOUGHT the GUI from Xerox, then M$ stole it from Apple. We've tried rumor/myth dispelling threads, but that doesn't seem to work.

    At least no one is panicking over something some web site no one's ever heard of pulled out of it's ***, merely a misunderstanding over what Steve said.

    As far as WinXP being acceptable, I won't get it. I was offered it for free, I still said no thanks. Having played with it for awhile I was very disappointed. You should see how many times I've had to help my Mom with her Sony ( just the OS, hardware's fine ). I love how she keeps saying "we should've gotten a Mac". My friend's Dell had similar problems. But after I helped her Mom with a printer, her iMac hasn't had a problem.

    My friends in Tacoma can't wait til I get there so I can troubleshoot their Compaq. Again. He keeps saying he's gonna go Linux. I have Win2000 on an old HP and it's okay. Yes, I do see your point Jef about bashing something you don't know, but just because it doesn't crash as much, doesn't make it good. Just, uh... better than bad ( there's M$s new slogan "at least were better than bad" ).

    When I say M$, I'm talking about every OS from Dos & 3.1 to 2000 & XP/Pro, and Office, and IE, and the shady business practices...

    Palladium anyone?

    Can't wait to get OS X ( finally moving on the 2nd :D ).
     
  12. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #12
    i take it you don't like xp too much

    with mit's kerberos v.5, larger hcl, built in firewalls that the user locks down in administrator mode, and a friendlier version of c2lvldodsec built in, XP has come a long way, from let's say nt 4.0
     
  13. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #13
    I was going to write some big, long thing about M$ and security and control over your settings and where to put things, but we've all heard it before. XP is better than older Windows OSs, but that isn't saying much. I'm sticking with 2000 for now, because it seems to be the best (again, not saying much).

    And don't say I'm afraid of change.

    I'll take X over 9 anyday (Quark be damned).

    -

    User of DOS, Windows 3.1, 95, 98, NT 4, SE, ME, etc. Still rather use OS 8 ( and we all remember how bad that was;) ).
     

Share This Page