Apple upgrade madness

[demian64]

It seems like everytime an OS update or upgrade comes out you can't use a previous version on the newer hardware. Case in point: we just bought 2 new G4 iBooks and when I went to install Jaguar on it, it wouldn't work. When I called AppleCare they eventually figured out that you can't install Jaguar on the new iBooks, ONLY Panther. I told them all of our software doesn't work on Panther and we haven't had time to test it all. His response was to upgrade our other software.

Has anyone else run in to such issues with Apple and this forced upgrade scenario? It seems ridiculous for a new iteration and not a full version to lock out an OS that works fine on a Titanium. Not to mention, you could run OS 8, 9 and 10 on the same older G4's and suddenly iterative OS upgrades lockout each other. If this were a difference between OS 10.2 and say 12, I might see it but this is ridiculous.

 

[jxyama]

had no idea... that's very interesting. locking out OS 9 bootability (compromising X in the process, AFAIK) is understandable, but not being able to load jaguar on a panther preloaded machine is strange...

what the heck is going on..

 

[Sun Baked]

It's almost always been this way, since each new machine has required modifications to ROM, System Software, and ROM patches included in the OS for older machines for the machines to run.

Got a bit worse with the ROM in RAM machines, since the new ROMs were files on the HDs and the newest machines always required the newest OS/ROM files.

You were able to hack the older OSs, by copying the newest ROM file to the older OS. But quite a few of the older apps wouldn't work, since they didn't recognize the changes in the new machines hardware.

Wouldn't expect it to be much different under OS X than the older OSs, since each new machine does require minor/major ROM changes and tweaks to some apps. Stuff that is in the current OS but not in the older OSs.

 

[nuckinfutz]

There are multiple ways to look at this.

Apple had to develop the new iBooks and perhaps make hardware decisions that necessitated support for Panther and above. I don't think Apple expects many people to uninstall the current OS in favor of the former.

As for forced upgrades the question to ask is who exactly is forcing you to upgrade? It seems that the 3rd party developer that hasn't upgraded their apps to work with Panther are just as culpable in this scenario.

 

[mike czech]

Just wondering - what software that you were using in Jaguar doesn't work for you under Panther? The only program that required an upgrade for my day-to-day use was ProTools. All the rest seem to be working fine.

Once you start using Panther, you really won't miss Jag at all...

 

[jtown]

Originally posted by mike czech
Just wondering - what software that you were using in Jaguar doesn't work for you under Panther?

Mike, not every program is forward-compatible and even ones that are need to be tested thoroughly when used in critical environments/applications. I work for a lab and one of our applications is only certified to run in NT. If we ran that software on any other platform (2k, XP, etc.) the credibility of our data would take a serious hit and could even get thrown out of court. Doesn't matter whether it's accurate. And it turns out there were issues running the softare on win2k and winxp. We tried it on a test system and found some inconsistancies in the data. The same data processed on two different operating systems using the same software gave two different results.

We found and fixed the problem but we weren't about to try using anything but the certified OS on production systems. Who knows what other bugs we may have missed without a full test matrix for the software?

There are also little things that can cause problems. Upgrading our office machines from Win95 to Win2k was delayed by a bug in a print driver. Everything we printed from a particular application was shrunk and moved to the top-left of the page. We found that forcing 2k (and, eventually, XP) to use NT print drivers for that printer eliminated the problem. Strange but true.

Certifying critical applications for a new environment takes considerable time and effort and isn't to be taken lightly. It seems downright crazy that 10.2 can't be installed on a new machine. Apple made it very clear that classing/OS9 support is gone but I don't recall seeing anything about losing support for anything below 10.3.

Removing an existing OS and replacing it with an older one is quite common in the corporate world. Machines are set up to be as similar as possible. It's very difficult to support 5 or 6 versions of an operating system so everyone generally gets upgraded at the same time. If a company has two dozen G3 ibooks running 10.2.8, they're not going to want to add two running 10.3.1. They'll want to add two running 10.2.8. Once 10.3 has been evaluated for all platforms and applications in the company, then they'll consider upgrading all of the machines at once.

 

[demian64]

Originally posted by mike czech
Just wondering - what software that you were using in Jaguar doesn't work for you under Panther? The only program that required an upgrade for my day-to-day use was ProTools. All the rest seem to be working fine.

Once you start using Panther, you really won't miss Jag at all...

Well jtown summed it up quite nicely. Even working for a small marketing agency like I do, we try to keep everything standard, a heterogeneous ad hoc mix of OS's is a nightmare to a administer. I would personally LOVE to go to Panther but we need to test how it runs in our current environment with our hardware and software.

To answer someone else's question up above, if Apple is not going to give it's customers the flexibility to run the OS's of their choice (within reason) then it's Apple who is forcing our hand. To come out with hardware at the same time a new OS comes that will only run that OS is an incredibly bold and alienating move on their part and sends out a very disturbing message to it's customer-base, particularly the segment that is made up of small shops who don't have the resources to keep up in such a breakkneck fashion. From a business perspective an iBook g4 makes a whole lore more sense than the G3 I'm going to have to buy now because the G4 won't run an OS that is still pretty young. Buying new hardware should not be a guessing game period. You should be able to buy a new unit and be sure that it will support the previous iteration. When you bought a box that ran 9 you sure as hell knew it would run 9.2. It appears Apple is drastically changing their iteration standards though

 

[bousozoku]

Apple did the same thing with System 7. It used System Enablers to allow new hardware to work. If you got new hardware, it worked with the latest version of the operating system. You also couldn't take the new System Enablers and put them on an old system--they were incompatible.

It's only in that System 7 languished so long that the problem of application compatibility was deferred.

 

[szark]

Originally posted by jtown
Removing an existing OS and replacing it with an older one is quite common in the corporate world. Machines are set up to be as similar as possible. It's very difficult to support 5 or 6 versions of an operating system so everyone generally gets upgraded at the same time. If a company has two dozen G3 ibooks running 10.2.8, they're not going to want to add two running 10.3.1. They'll want to add two running 10.2.8. Once 10.3 has been evaluated for all platforms and applications in the company, then they'll consider upgrading all of the machines at once.

Yet another lesson that Apple will have to learn if it expects to make inroads into the corporate world.

 

[jxyama]

Originally posted by demian64
When you bought a box that ran 9 you sure as hell knew it would run 9.2. It appears Apple is drastically changing their iteration standards though

your points are valid, but i wanted to clarify... moving from 10.2 to 10.3 is not really comparable to moving from 9 to 9.2.

apple has established its own version number scheme and jaguar to panther is not really a ".1" upgrade in the traditional sense. it would almost be better if they renamed and said jaguar = OS X 2.0 and panther = OS X 3.0.

that said, i whole heartedly agree that the hardware should be left as that, hardware and not to be tied to a specific OS that it came with.

there was an interesting discussion going on slashdot japan about apple's OS support policy. as far as i know, none exists in a published form. there's a problem with publishing panther's security fixes over jaguar, but leaving jaguar practically unsupported. it's akin to advertizing holes in jaguar and doing nothing about them...

 

[demian64]

Actually I had meant to state a unit that would support 9.2 would support 9.0 indicating that there is some backwards compatibility support

 

[jxyama]

Originally posted by demian64
Actually I had meant to state a unit that would support 9.2 would support 9.0 indicating that there is some backwards compatibility support

right, i know. but i was basically saying it would be like trying to put 8.0 on a machine sold with 9.0. (which, of course, should absolutely be possible.)

regardless, this issue needs to be raised with apple. it's quite a ridiculous policy, if you ask me.

 

[demian64]

regardless, this issue needs to be raised with apple. it's quite a ridiculous policy, if you ask me.

absolutely! The amount of time it took me to determine that jaguar was the only disk that wouldn't run, then having to call Apple and talk through it with a tech who wasn't initially aware Jaguar wouldn't run on the iBook G4 (or a FW 800 Mirror Door for that matter) is an ENORMOUS waste of time. That's time I could've spent planning our Jaguar rollout, doing some client-oriented analysis, helping out teammates. And is Apple going to pay for that? Of course not.

 

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by jxyama
right, i know. but i was basically saying it would be like trying to put 8.0 on a machine sold with 9.0. (which, of course, should absolutely be possible.)

regardless, this issue needs to be raised with apple. it's quite a ridiculous policy, if you ask me.

Can't remember when the (New World ROM) RAM in ROM machines came out, but if the machine was built when OS 9 was rolling out and you tried to load you trusty old OS 8 onto the machine -- the computer would be looking for a ROM file "new" enough to continue the boot process, and wouldn't find it of the with your older OS.

Remember with these New World ROM machines, the ROM doesn't include enough info to boot. But just enough to load the ROM file to continue the boot process.

Each machine needs a ROM file made on/or after the machine was produced.

When Apple locked the ROM file for OS 9.2, they basically could not make any hardware changes that would break the ROM -- which stagnated our hardware design for so long.

Now that Apple has gotten rid of OS 9 bootability, they can once again make changes with each revision of the machine. Since each machine would come with a maint. edition of the OS that includes the hardware changes in the OS.

Of course you'll probably see Apple once again EOL machines they'll support as the OS moves along -- like they did for Panther this time.

---

Though I haven't really tried to find out which file the bootROM is looking for and loading to bootstrap the Unix Boot process.

 

[jtown]

Generally, we expect to see some overlap, tho. The release of the new ibooks and Panther was nearly simultaneous. We're not talking about wanting to run a 3 year old OS on current hardware. This is about the need to run last month's OS on last week's hardware.

This is especially odd considering how we can run Panther on pretty much any G3 or better mac with built-in USB. Clamshell ibooks, Bondi imacs, B/W, etc. It's pretty much expected that we should have some forward compatability as well.

I honestly hope that this is a "whoops" which will be rectified. It's one thing to make the upgrade an option for older equipment but quite another to force it for new equipment. Apple should have been content to just get rid of classic/9 support in this round and keep 10.1 and 10.2 around for at least a little while longer.

Heck, I know people who still use 9.2 and think dropping classic support is blasphemy.

 

[stuepfnick]

this is old...

this is old and has not changed! With pre OS X systems there was no difference. When I had the ibook with 9.1 shipped, the 9.0 install CD didn't work... same for the 9.2 Powermac G4. Same for iMac with 9.0, was not able to load 8.6, etc.
And 10.2 to 10.3 is even a majour upgrade like Mac OS 8.6 to 9.0, or 7.5 to 8.0

The only idiots out there, who have panther incompatible apps are from Avid. We are forced to use the XPress PRO with Mojo, and it's really bad. Very slow, not much realtime (it begins to stutter with just two layers! 1 video + 1graphics after some seconds) on a Dual 1.25 G4 with 1 GB RAM. And not compatible with Panther, so we have to stick with Jaguar *grr*A slow interface and very circumstancial. FCP is MUCH better. 10.3 support, G5 optimized, easy and fast to use in many ways, very powerful, much realtime (RT extreme 2 layers in safe mode without hardware: no problem at all, 3 layers still full quality, no dropped frames!).

cya,
Stefan

 

[yamabushi]

Don't the new iBooks use the 7457 CPU? This may be the problem if true. I heard that these new low power G4 chips require OS9.2.2, 10.2.8, or 10.3.1. If you have the last Jaguar developer build available you might be able to install it on the new iBook.

 

[amnesiac1984]

Originally posted by demian64
absolutely! The amount of time it took me to determine that jaguar was the only disk that wouldn't run, then having to call Apple and talk through it with a tech who wasn't initially aware Jaguar wouldn't run on the iBook G4 (or a FW 800 Mirror Door for that matter) is an ENORMOUS waste of time. That's time I could've spent planning our Jaguar rollout, doing some client-oriented analysis, helping out teammates. And is Apple going to pay for that? Of course not.

How can a FW800 MDD not work with jaguar? Panther wasn;t our when they shipped and jaguar was the current OS version? Must be either a problem with the disc or something else on the machine.

 

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by yamabushi
Don't the new iBooks use the 7457 CPU? This may be the problem if true. I heard that these new low power G4 chips require OS9.2.2, 10.2.8, or 10.3.1. If you have the last Jaguar developer build available you might be able to install it on the new iBook.

The new iBook G4s are 7455 CPUs and require 10.2.8 or Panther, but a lot of the old boxed Jaguar install discs from the stores are older builds than that.

You'd probably need to install off a Jaguar disk that came with the iBook.

Remember OS9.x was killed in any machine with DDR that's not a PowerMac, or on any FW800 PowerMac.