I'm just wondering why you're asking this in the context of this thread. Surely any computer capable of running Classic apps is a PowerPC model and therefore incapable of running Bootcamp
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Classic Support
- Thread starter CubaTBird
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry, got sidetracked on another idea. That is why I listed Tiger without the Classic caveat in my follow on post.I'm just wondering why you're asking this in the context of this thread. Surely any computer capable of running Classic apps is a PowerPC model and therefore incapable of running Bootcamp
But back to your original suggestion, a partition for Leopard and a partition for Tiger (with Classic) on PPC Macs makes sense for those who want to use Classic apps, and still have Leopard as their primary.
However, still wondering about three partitions with Leopard, Tiger and Bootcamp on an a MBP or Intel iMac if anybody knows.
I'm interested to know if anyone has maintained useful access to Classic in Leopard by running it on a networked Tiger-based Mac accessed via Apple Remote Desktop.
Haven't tried yet, but I plan on installing Leopard only to my MacBook Pro. My G5 will remain a Tiger machine, mainly to retain Classic support. I'm already using Remote Desktop 3 and it's a wonderful product. Not sure how Leopard's version will differ.
My MacBook Pro has SheepShaver, but it's much more cumbersome than the integration that Classic Environment gives you. I'd love to find a hack that'd allow Classic Environment to run in Rosetta.
On a side note, when I first got the G5 I was a bit bummed that it couldn't boot OS 9 natively... I've got quite an extensive collection of nostalgia-invoking games, and some won't run under OS X even with Classic.
I think that there is an interesting question about an application like SheepShaver. PPC Macs are going to be around for quite a while, and Classic apps will only make them more valuable as the newer apps outclass their capabilities. So, the options would be to limit a PPC Mac to <10.5, or to have something like SheepShaver.
I, too, am curious about the use of a virtualization option like Parallels to access a Classic environment. But I doubt they'd jump at that option as they wouldn't have much of a market unless they created both virtualization and emulation modes (one for the PPCs out there and one for the MacIntels). And suddenly we're looking at a whole lot more work.
Now, what really has me curious is the whole question about PPC ROMs with SheepShaver. Okay, I have a Mac that could run Classic (before it was cut off), why do I need to try to track down a PPC ROM to be able run SheepShaver? This is what I see as the great impediment to SheepShaver being an effective option for those of us who want to run Leopard but still have access to our Classic apps. So, I'd see this as an issue that needs to be sorted out in order for SheepShaver to appeal to the masses more. Hopefully, with the dropping of Classic support from Leopard, some new blood will flow into the SheepShaver project.
Why? Because, as others have pointed out, there are apps out there that have no OS X version. Sure, with some of them there may be an equivalent program, but that means buying something new, learning something new and translating data. If the app in question is only rarely used, but still necessarily used, that's a pretty big investment to make if a simple means of gaining access to the old app can be found. Further, this only covers some of the apps. There are apps that simply don't exist for OS X. Perhaps most notably, games. You can't simply buy an upgrade of a fifteen year old favorite game. And keeping an extra computer around just to play it seems excessive if, again, there can be a simple way to maintain access to them.
I, too, am curious about the use of a virtualization option like Parallels to access a Classic environment. But I doubt they'd jump at that option as they wouldn't have much of a market unless they created both virtualization and emulation modes (one for the PPCs out there and one for the MacIntels). And suddenly we're looking at a whole lot more work.
Now, what really has me curious is the whole question about PPC ROMs with SheepShaver. Okay, I have a Mac that could run Classic (before it was cut off), why do I need to try to track down a PPC ROM to be able run SheepShaver? This is what I see as the great impediment to SheepShaver being an effective option for those of us who want to run Leopard but still have access to our Classic apps. So, I'd see this as an issue that needs to be sorted out in order for SheepShaver to appeal to the masses more. Hopefully, with the dropping of Classic support from Leopard, some new blood will flow into the SheepShaver project.
Why? Because, as others have pointed out, there are apps out there that have no OS X version. Sure, with some of them there may be an equivalent program, but that means buying something new, learning something new and translating data. If the app in question is only rarely used, but still necessarily used, that's a pretty big investment to make if a simple means of gaining access to the old app can be found. Further, this only covers some of the apps. There are apps that simply don't exist for OS X. Perhaps most notably, games. You can't simply buy an upgrade of a fifteen year old favorite game. And keeping an extra computer around just to play it seems excessive if, again, there can be a simple way to maintain access to them.
SheepShaver under PowerPC is virtualisation somewhat like Parallels, but without eg hairy MMU support.
Apple makes one available for download.
There's a simple answer to all this: Apple don't make computers that are capable of running Classic any more, so they dropped it. Supporting it for an ever diminishing set of computers and users isn't worth the effort. As some point you just have to cut those people lose so your can move on.
For those affected the answer is: If you need Classic, then don't upgrade to Leopard. Simple as that.
I don't see the "Apple didn't warn us" thing. I've known for well over a year that Classic would be gone in Leopard.
For those affected the answer is: If you need Classic, then don't upgrade to Leopard. Simple as that.
I don't see the "Apple didn't warn us" thing. I've known for well over a year that Classic would be gone in Leopard.
Where did you see this? I do a whole lot of reading and I never saw it. The solution, such as it is, is as you say to not upgrade to Leopard. But I think quite a few people who don't keep up with every scrap of Mac news (and a whole lot of people who do!) will upgrade to Leopard and be in for a very unpleasant surprise.
Maybe a year is an exaggeration, or at least me misremembering (or perhaps I just broke an NDA inadvertantly)! I have found postings about Classic being dropped from Leopard back in July though. E.g. http://lowendmac.com/mail/mb07/0716.html#2
BTW - it would be interesting to know what percentage of Mac users relied on Classic still. Even though in your post you mention that people will be "in for a very unpleasant surprise", apart from this thread I've heard very little moaning about it here.
And even this notice is very much after the fact, and only stumbled-upon by a user of the prerelease version. It would've been (I'd think) a simple matter for Apple to have announced this officially, and also provided a warning in the Leopard installer. No need to bury a mine out there just to see how many people step on it.
Mainly us old-timers, who've been with the Mac forever. I saw quite few complaints about this over at Macintouch, so the unceremonious departure of Classic hasn't gone completely unnoticed. I can't say that it wasn't time, but I think Apple could have handled it better.
Undoubtably, Apple's main issue is communication: They hold too much back, when they really should be talking to us a bit more.
They certainly like to play their cards close to the chest. In this case, I think they were just being a bit sloppy in their execution. I get the impression that Leopard wasn't so much released as it escaped.
would be nice but since those virtualize intel architecture it would require an emulator so that isn't going to happen.
You lose Classic integration with OS X but retain the ability to boot into OS 9 with an upgrade.
But then again, don't you think it's time that people who still use Classic apps find suitable OS X upgrades/replacements? Really, if you still need Classic nearly seven years after OS X, then maybe you shouldn't have bothered with OS X at all.