Classic Support

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,824
7
But why? Has there been an official statement from Apple as to the reasoning behind this?
Not in writing, but they said as much at WWDC. Intel Macs couldn't run it anyway.

If you've got a PPC Mac, don't give up hope just yet. Someone will come up with a suitable hack before too long.
 

Butthead

macrumors 6502
Jan 10, 2006
440
19
Not in writing, but they said as much at WWDC. Intel Macs couldn't run it anyway.

If you've got a PPC Mac, don't give up hope just yet. Someone will come up with a suitable hack before too long.
You mean Apple just doesn't support it anymore, but that with some simple coding hacks everything that was there before can be 'unlocked' so it would work, kind of like XPF will allow older Mac's to run non-supported current versions of OSX on them?

I was wondering if there was some type of incompatibility with Leopard that Apple did not want to devote resources into working out all the bugs additional coding resources it would require, but if they just decided to not support it when it could easily work w/Leopard, then that sucks. They gave no reasoning at all for dropping Classic from Leopard???
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,824
7
They gave no reasoning at all for dropping Classic from Leopard???
It was always the intention that Classic was an interim environment to aid the transition from MacOS to OSX. Apple always said they would drop it at some point. I guess they think after four versions and a processor transition the time is right.
 

Butthead

macrumors 6502
Jan 10, 2006
440
19
It was always the intention that Classic was an interim environment to aid the transition from MacOS to OSX. Apple always said they would drop it at some point. I guess they think after four versions and a processor transition the time is right.
By that reasoning, they should have dropped support with Tiger. At any rate, via the same type of 'logic' :p in this similar thread on MacNN, Vista is just fine for all the apps that don't work on it, lol, no need to complain of diss Vista ;) . Vista is really not all that bad, you should upgrade to it for use with Parallels/BootCamp, lol. It is the same type of lame excuse. Although I will agree that the 3rd party software vendors that have suckier versions under OSX are more to blame. Then again, Apple did not support 3rd party software developers for years (probably still does not), in not giving out low level coding, making many things that were programed for OS9 possible (even if that meant the ugly possiblity of sys crashes, not like they still don't happen under OSX) not easily done by 3rd party vendors for their OSX versions. The age old transition from OS9 to OSX still rears it's ugly head of blame games


No Classic in 10.5?
http://forums.macnn.com/90/mac-os-x/351443/no-classic-in-10-5-a/
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,892
1,477
Palookaville
I'm not really ticked off at Apple for deciding to drop Classic support in Leopard, so much as I'm amazed by how they did it -- summarily, and without notice. Many unsuspecting Mac owners are bound to upgrade to Leopard without knowing that they're losing access to Classic at the same time, and they're going to be furious. Somebody over at Apple wasn't thinking.
 

psychofreak

Retired
May 16, 2006
9,064
4
London
This will definitely boost uptake of SheepShaver...it would be awesome if OS9 could be installed in Fusion or Parallels though...
 

QuarterSwede

macrumors G3
Oct 1, 2005
9,236
1,245
Colorado Springs, CO
It was always the intention that Classic was an interim environment to aid the transition from MacOS to OSX. Apple always said they would drop it at some point. I guess they think after four versions and a processor transition the time is right.
I agree. Personally, I think they gave everyone more than enough time.
 

sr5878

macrumors 6502a
Jun 5, 2007
772
0
what the hell are people doing in OS9?

whats one thing it can do that osx cant... it's been SIX YEARS... im baffled??? :confused::confused::confused::confused:
 

Veri

macrumors 6502a
Sep 23, 2007
618
0
This will definitely boost uptake of SheepShaver...it would be awesome if OS9 could be installed in Fusion or Parallels though...
Agreed re Sheepshaver, but OS9 wouldn't be feasible under Fusion/Parallels since they just virtualise supporting hardware to an Intel CPU, and OS9 was only built for PowerPC... hmm, unless the Intel version of Rhapsody DR2 (which ran under VMware) had a secret PowerPC emulator for running BlueBox.. but on a 1998 Pentium that'd've been as slow as Vista on, erm, a 2007 Pentium ;-).
 

sushi

Moderator emeritus
Jul 19, 2002
15,658
3
キャンプスワ&#
I agree. Personally, I think they gave everyone more than enough time.
Yes, Apple gave plenty of time.

Definitely. Mac OS X was introduced quite a while ago now, so excuses for still sitting around using OS 9 should be few and far between.
But, some of us want to continue using some OS9 apps.

Personal choice.

what the hell are people doing in OS9?

whats one thing it can do that osx cant... it's been SIX YEARS... im baffled??? :confused::confused::confused::confused:
Some of us prefer some older applications that are not available today, such as:

- Word processors
- Communication apps
- Utilities
- Games

Or we have older peripheral hardware that only has Mac OS 9 drivers that we want to keep using.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,892
1,477
Palookaville
am i missing something there?
Apparently. I don't see why anyone would expect "excuses" from someone who's still happily using some Classic applications, which would cost hundreds to replace, and some which are not replaceable at all. I happen to have years worth of documents written in a word processor which died long before OSX came out. I need to figure out a plan for these documents eventually but I'd prefer not to have the issue forced by Apple. And I'd have been especially peeved if I'd actually installed Leopard and discovered that access to these documents had been revoked by Apple without notice.
 

jrk07

macrumors regular
Oct 24, 2005
165
0
Apparently. I don't see why anyone would expect "excuses" from someone who's still happily using some Classic applications, which would cost hundreds to replace, and some which are not replaceable at all. I happen to have years worth of documents written in a word processor which died long before OSX came out. I need to figure out a plan for these documents eventually but I'd prefer not to have the issue forced by Apple. And I'd have been especially peeved if I'd actually installed Leopard and discovered that access to these documents had been revoked by Apple without notice.
And Apple has given you years worth of time to figure out a plan for transferring those documents to a current format. I'm pretty sure that the number of os9 classic users is pretty small, especially with the huge waves of new mac users coming on board every month. Apple wants to shift focus to the future. That said, I agree that it is strange for Apple to not make any sort of formal announcement of dropping classic support.
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,824
7
I get the personal choice thing. Considering Leopard now comes with a live disk partitioning utility, why don't those of you who wish to continue using Classic apps create a dedicated Tiger partition just for that purpose? It wouldn't need to take up too much space with iLife etc. accessible on your main Leopard partition, and since both disks will be HFS+ you'll be able to drag files between the two partitions whichever one you're booted into.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,400
12,510
I get the personal choice thing. Considering Leopard now comes with a live disk partitioning utility, why don't those of you who wish to continue using Classic apps create a dedicated Tiger partition just for that purpose? It wouldn't need to take up too much space with iLife etc. accessible on your main Leopard partition, and since both disks will be HFS+ you'll be able to drag files between the two partitions whichever one you're booted into.
Please stop posting rational solutions. Let the faithful bitch.
 

sushi

Moderator emeritus
Jul 19, 2002
15,658
3
キャンプスワ&#
I get the personal choice thing. Considering Leopard now comes with a live disk partitioning utility, why don't those of you who wish to continue using Classic apps create a dedicated Tiger partition just for that purpose? It wouldn't need to take up too much space with iLife etc. accessible on your main Leopard partition, and since both disks will be HFS+ you'll be able to drag files between the two partitions whichever one you're booted into.
Nice solution! :)

I wonder if you can set a Mac up to triple boot:
- Leopard
- Tiger (for Classic) as you suggested
- BootCamp with XP or Vista

Please stop posting rational solutions. Let the faithful bitch.
For some, it's more fun to bitch! :D :D :D
 

Dustman

macrumors 65816
Apr 17, 2007
1,275
50
Nice solution! :)

I wonder if you can set a Mac up to triple boot:
- Leopard
- Tiger (for Classic) as you suggested
- BootCamp with XP or Vista


For some, it's more fun to bitch! :D :D :D
Yes, infact you can.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,892
1,477
Palookaville
And Apple has given you years worth of time to figure out a plan for transferring those documents to a current format. I'm pretty sure that the number of os9 classic users is pretty small, especially with the huge waves of new mac users coming on board every month. Apple wants to shift focus to the future. That said, I agree that it is strange for Apple to not make any sort of formal announcement of dropping classic support.
As I said, the main issue for me was the lack of any announcement or warning. Some will undoubtedly install Leopard and be faced with an unpleasant surprise. This seems entirely unnecessary to me. And as I also said, the other issue is cost -- the Leopard update will cost me and everybody else in my situation substantially more than $129. And as I also said, some Classic applications simply cannot be replaced, so this is a very real problem for those of us who've been Mac users for over 20 years and endured the abandonment of the Mac platform by many key software developers over that time. Less so obviously to those who are much newer to the platform.

I get the personal choice thing. Considering Leopard now comes with a live disk partitioning utility, why don't those of you who wish to continue using Classic apps create a dedicated Tiger partition just for that purpose? It wouldn't need to take up too much space with iLife etc. accessible on your main Leopard partition, and since both disks will be HFS+ you'll be able to drag files between the two partitions whichever one you're booted into.
A good thought. As it happens my Cube is getting close to semiretirement anyway, so I'll probably not upgrade it to Leopard, and find another place for it in my office when I buy a new Mac. Another solution related to this one is to turn on Apple Remote Desktop on a Tiger-based Mac and access it via Leopard's new desktop sharing client.
 

Similar threads

  • elliottcable
25
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • Herbert123
0
Replies
0
Views
325
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.