Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac OS 9 and Powerbooks

Re: Upgrade path....

Originally posted by Kheraha
I too admire the stance taken by Apple as far as booting only into X goes, however, there is a little problem with that for some of us. I, along with many others upgraded to X from 9 and with that ugrade, I also upgraded many of my apps. Sadly, many of these X upgrades (apps) need the original 9 version to be on the drive before they will load etc - now I realise that some can be loaded through Classic and that Office X has a workaround for this, but what about those apps that need the full 9 version and cant be loaded through Classic - I'm thinking of FCP for a start and DVD SP. FCP3 upgrade needs you to have FCP2 installed fully in order to load - however, this cant be done through Classic - so where does that leave the likes of me? I've actually just ordered the 17 inch PowerBook, does it mean I now need to buy a full verson of FCP (or Express) as well as have my upgrades? Are there any workarounds for this? I also have a full suite of Adobe apps that are the upgrades (PS7, ID2, Ill10 etc). Anybody have any views on this?

Kheraha
Click to expand...

I only have OS X on my iBook and this is how I did the FCP3 upgrade:

I installed OS9 on my iPod and then installed FCP1.2.5 on my iPod as well. Obviously a older computer will be needed to do this step, but that should not be a problem.

Since the FCP3 upgrade only looks to see whether you have a valid older version of FCP installed, it works. The FCP3 installer will find it on the iPod and do the install.

It is a major pain in the butt, but it works. I have been OS9 free on my iBook for almost a year, in fact the first thing I did was re-partition the HD and start over from scratch.

-mark
 
Upgrade Path

I'm thinking of FCP for a start and DVD SP. FCP3 upgrade needs you to have FCP2 installed fully in order to load - however, this cant be done through Classic - so where does that leave the likes of me? I've actually just ordered the 17 inch PowerBook, does it mean I now need to buy a full verson of FCP (or Express) as well as have my upgrades?
Click to expand...

I had been holding off on buying a new PowerBook until I found out through Apple Support that you can order a full install version of FCP 3 for OS X for $20. All you need to do is fax Apple proof of purchase of your original full install CD. I also got the 1.5 upgrade of DVD SP, albeit for $200, but it is also a full install CD. Apple has thought about this, but they just don't promote it much. For a mere $220, I can now put all my video production apps on my new 17" PB when it arrives. Not too bad.

bbarker
 
This is a smart move for Apple, and like it or not if you want to use and support Apple in the future it's going to be through OS X, developers need to get on the ball already and finish porting software over, I mean where the hell is Xpress already....
 
We all knew this was going to happen. The sad part is that OS 9 was so young when OS X began to steal its thunder. I'll admit that I upgraded to ten about a month after 10.0 was released (although I was ignorant enough to not realize that it would kill my Cable internet), but I also think that OS 9 is unjustly being killed.

It was really unfortunate that 10.0 had to come out when OS 9.1 was the major Mac OS. This made sure that 9 wouldn't have the chance to die of old age, but would surely be killed by SJ. I know this isn't as simple as 8.6 to 9.0, but OS 9 had a very short life, and that's why Apple has had such a hard time killing it.

I also want to point out that I've seen three different schools, in two different districts, all running OS 9.1 or earlier on their Macs. One of those Schools (which happens to be its own district), primarily uses PCs (lots of Dells... :mad: ), but recently purchased two new eMacs, which they have operating on OS 9, not Jaguar.
The problem with the schools is simple. The people who manage the computers generally don't know Macs, so it's a stretch for them to keep OS 9 in working order. The thought of a new OS is strange to these people (I'm guessing on that one), so they avoid it at all costs.

It's a bold move to kill OS 9 like this, but I can't say that I blame SJ for doing so. There are many good reasons (many of which have already been brought up in this thread), but there are still some reasons not to, especially in the education area. But I don't know any schools buying Powerbooks. So it isn't a problem there, yet.
 
I am the Technology Director on a K-8 school where we run all Macs. I would switch to OS X school wide in half a heart beat if it weren't for one thing...a lot of the software elementary schools use have not been ported to X yet. Yes we have AppleWorks, etc., but two of the most popular pieces of software for elementary schools have not made the switch yet (Hyperstudio and KidPix). I will not run X and classic. So, I am waiting. Once those two switch over, I'll be jumping on the X transition.
 
Problems with cable modem and DHCP?

Originally posted by pyrotoaster
We all knew this was going to happen. The sad part is that OS 9 was so young when OS X began to steal its thunder. I'll admit that I upgraded to ten about a month after 10.0 was released (although I was ignorant enough to not realize that it would kill my Cable internet), but I also think that OS 9 is unjustly being killed.

....
Click to expand...
Just exactly how did MacOS X 10.0 "kill" your Cable internet? Most cable ISPs use DHCP to configure your system. Apple supports DHCP. My cable modem ISPs implementation of DHCP is actually superior to the implemention at work. I have used every shipping version of MacOS X from 10.0 to 10.2.3 to access the Internet via cable modem. I am using it now.
 
My Cable ISP was AT&T Broadband.
They told me that their service wasn't OS X compatable, and I couldn't get it to work myself.

It's alright, AT&T Cable Internet suffered major problems and reorganization a few months later. I have Earthlink DSL now, it isn't as fast, but the service is reliable.
 
AT&T discontinued support for their old modems and did not tell their customers. I had the same problem. Technicians were at my house at least once a week. One of them finally told me to get a new modem. Service has been good (not great) since then.
 
better classic needed

Apple must go OSX only, but we need a better classic mode.I'm a professional Photographer and just bought FinePixProS2 from fuji.The shooting software doesn't run in OSX nor does it work in classic mode. So I just had to go back to OS9 and remember ( with no nostalgy at all ) the days of constant crashes and out of memory messages.
Apple should build in 10.3 a better classic support, and maybe even share some of the aqua interface.They did a much better job, as someone stated before, with X11 then they did with classic.
 
Re: Upgrade path....

Originally posted by Kheraha
I too admire the stance taken by Apple as far as booting only into X goes, however, there is a little problem with that for some of us. I, along with many others upgraded to X from 9 and with that ugrade, I also upgraded many of my apps. Sadly, many of these X upgrades (apps) need the original 9 version to be on the drive before they will load etc - now I realise that some can be loaded through Classic and that Office X has a workaround for this, but what about those apps that need the full 9 version and cant be loaded through Classic - I'm thinking of FCP for a start and DVD SP. FCP3 upgrade needs you to have FCP2 installed fully in order to load - however, this cant be done through Classic - so where does that leave the likes of me? I've actually just ordered the 17 inch PowerBook, does it mean I now need to buy a full verson of FCP (or Express) as well as have my upgrades? Are there any workarounds for this? I also have a full suite of Adobe apps that are the upgrades (PS7, ID2, Ill10 etc). Anybody have any views on this?

Kheraha
Click to expand...

Adobe does not require that any of it's products be on the system to install an upgrade. Neither does Macromedia. When switching machines, I tried too to keep OS9 off teh system. The ONLY app that required the previous version to be installed was Final Cut Pro. Not the entinre Adobe Suite or Macromedia's Suite. Pretty ironic. I sympathize with you there on FCP.

I think I would call Apple Computer and ask them exactly how you're supposed to install your FCP upgrade on your new Powerbook. i'm going to guess that the issue can be resolved with some sort of installer patch which will most likely show up on the FCP page before the notebooks are shipped.
 
Originally posted by bmull
I am the Technology Director on a K-8 school where we run all Macs. I would switch to OS X school wide in half a heart beat if it weren't for one thing...a lot of the software elementary schools use have not been ported to X yet. Yes we have AppleWorks, etc., but two of the most popular pieces of software for elementary schools have not made the switch yet (Hyperstudio and KidPix). I will not run X and classic. So, I am waiting. Once those two switch over, I'll be jumping on the X transition.
Click to expand...

If those apps run in classic I'd make the switch. Less kids complaining that they had to reboot or that the system has frozen.

When OS9 apps lock up in classic, classic just reboots. You don't have to reboot X or the sytem. And on my new dual, classic boots in 10 seconds.
 
Originally posted by pyrotoaster
My Cable ISP was AT&T Broadband.
They told me that their service wasn't OS X compatable, and I couldn't get it to work myself.

It's alright, AT&T Cable Internet suffered major problems and reorganization a few months later. I have Earthlink DSL now, it isn't as fast, but the service is reliable.
Click to expand...
Congratulations on the switch to Earthlink. My ISP is Cox Internet. Cox switched to DOCSIS cable modems and introduced an issue with MacOS X. The workaround is to cut the power to the modem for 30 seconds and force it to get a new IP address. Then everything is kosher.

Cox now explicitly supports only versions of Windows. The company's web site states that it does not support the Mac or Linux. However, I don't care. I don't need its support. I need its connection. So long as it uses standard protocols like DHCP, then I will be fine.
 
Speed

Some of you say X is easier to use and understand than 9...I think it's the opposite, but I guess it's all about what you learned first and best.

My biggest beef with OS X is that it's noticeably slower. For the person who started in X and remained that way, I guess he/she has no real basis for comparison. But in everyday tasks -- especially pilfering around in the Finder -- 9 has X beat hands-down. Apple's advice, of course, would be to get the newest hardware, but all that does is speed up BOTH 9 and X. On my PB1Ghz/SD, 9 is still considerably faster than X, and that is the one thing that cools my jets on getting a 17" model for myself.
 
Education vs. Mac OS X

I'v heard a lot about hostility and resentment towards Apple over the dropping of support of OS 9 on new hardware.

I think there are a few points people that are complaining need to realize:

You can continue to run OS 9 on your systems already running OS 9. Apple is never going to disable this. If you don't want to switch your existing systems to OS X, don't. Nobody, especially Apple, is going to force you to do this.

Mac OS X is simply a natural evolution in the life of operating systems on the Mac platform. Why didn't you write and complain to Apple that your G3 systems didn't run OS 7? What about OS 6?

Try installing a Microsoft OS like Windows 95 on current PC hardware. It will NOT work. It is a simple issue of driver support. Why waste resources upgradiing an OS that has been declared dead for some time now?

If you have legacy applications that require OS 9, you can either run them in classic, or pressure the manufacturer to update their software for OS X, as most responsible companies have already done. If software is not availble in OS X, try looking for alternatives rather than giving up and blaming Apple. Software companies should realize by now that they are going to lose customers if they don't support OS X.

I've been using OS X for nearly 2 years now as my full time OS, and I could never go back to OS 9. It would not only kill my productivity, but it would probably have forced me to buy a Windows system if I had to continue using OS 9.

Technology changes. OS X is in, and OS 9 is on its way out. Apple is doing the right thing here. If you're not on the OS X bandwagon, you're the one that is going to miss out, not Apple.
 
Re: Education vs. Mac OS X

Originally posted by HalimC
Try installing a Microsoft OS like Windows 95 on current PC hardware. It will NOT work. It is a simple issue of driver support. Why waste resources upgradiing an OS that has been declared dead for some time now?
Click to expand...

Not true. It will install. You may not have accellerated drivers, but the default drivers will still work. If I wanted to, I can install Windows 3.1 and Dos 6.2 on a brand new Dell and nobody would care.

The issue is not that Apple has declared OS 9 dead. It's that they've artificially made new systems unable to run it. Everyone would be understanding if, when the new 970s come out, OS 9 was physically unable to run on them (which wouldn't happen hypothetically, because the 970 will run 32bit code natively). If a super large company wants the newest hardware and still run OS 9, if they're willing to write or adapt drivers to support the new GeForce FXs, Airport Extreme, etc., I say go for it. But nobody can have that opportunity because Apple artificially limited it instead of letting it die on its own.
 
Originally posted by insidedanshead
It is going to need to happen sometime though.. but I know as a design professional there are some things we still need to boot into 9 for... (i.e. printing)
Click to expand...

quark express isn't osx compatible yet, right?

and how about os x and scanner support?

os x still has a ways to go to become apple's only os...but then again, windows xp hasn't exactly replaced windows 98/ME/or 2000
 
Switching from SCSI to IDE and USB the smartest thing that Apple could have done at the time...

1) SCSI cost more (both hard disks and controllers) -- better profit margin.
2) IDE is more reliable (less drive failures) -- which meant less Applecare repairs.
3) IDE was faster than standard SCSI. At that time IDE was overtaking SCSI speeds except for the even more expensive Ultra40/80 SCSI. Controllers for that were over $300, and you could not justify the cost in including it in a machine (except as an add-on option).

Being that this was one of the first things that Steve Jobs did (besides the iMac), this was one of the major ways that Apple started recovering financially. Now, we have OS9 in the same position, and when it is completely dead (in Apples eyes) when the June contract with older machines is finished...

1) 90 days after last machine ships, Apple Support will no longer support OS9 with free support calls (paying support only). Less training required for support staff, etc...
2) No more development (as of I think 6 months ago) of OS9 -- all eggs in the OSX basket.
3) Cool new hardware that does not need to support two OS's. For example, the backlit keyboard controls and ambient light sensor only needs to be added the the OSX controls.
4) All new software will only run in OSX... for example Appleworks or the rumored Microsoft Office competition -- a majorly upgraded Office suite (with Keynote included).
5) Removes the hardware limits of the computers... especially when the 64bit IBM 970 comes out, it will allow larger hard drives are more main system memory... OS9 was limited to 1.5gb of memory (2gb theoritical) and would remain that way until for all 32bit systems.

I see it as all good... and refering back to the car analogy, the MacOSX is a new type of engine that runs on a new type of fuel. Apple developed engines that would support the old fuel and the new, but now that the resources are in place to support the new fuel has decided that it is FINANCIALLY more sound to support only the new fuel in future models.
 
Win95 on new PC's and Job's outsing SCSI

To the person who said you can install Win95 on a new PC:

Yes, you might be able to, but if you will not be able to use USB and probably will have a 640x480x256 screen resolution and no sound. (Same with NT 4)

And I think Apple had gone to IDE hard drives before Job's came on, didn't they?
 
Re: Win95 on new PC's and Job's outsing SCSI

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
And I think Apple had gone to IDE hard drives before Job's came on, didn't they? [/B]
Click to expand...

They have had internal IDE hard drives in their consumer line (Performa) for a few years (although even they had external SCSI support). It wasn't until the Blue & White G3 tower came out that the pro machines had IDE and completely removed SCSI support from the motherboard.
 
Re: Win95 on new PC's and Job's outsing SCSI

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
To the person who said you can install Win95 on a new PC:

Yes, you might be able to, but if you will not be able to use USB and probably will have a 640x480x256 screen resolution and no sound. (Same with NT 4)

And I think Apple had gone to IDE hard drives before Job's came on, didn't they?
Click to expand...

actually you can use windows 95/revision C with usb 1.0 and code the rest to make it compatible with usb 1.1

i am an MCP for windows nt so i don't know 95 perfectly, but there are hacks on the internet that can make windows 95 work with a 900 mhz PIII (rather recent pc) from what i know from a friend of mine who had his CIO of his company make that machine work with windows 95/revision C

sure, it's not easy and it takes an expert (in this case an mcse who is also a great programmer) but it is, in a sense, do-able

but in most instances, windows 95, or 95 revision A, will not work with most pentium 4 class pcs...there will be issues if you know what i mean:p
 
Re: Win95 on new PC's and Job's outsing SCSI

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
To the person who said you can install Win95 on a new PC:

Yes, you might be able to, but if you will not be able to use USB and probably will have a 640x480x256 screen resolution and no sound. (Same with NT 4)
Click to expand...

Yes, you've proven my point. You can do it. You can't install OS 9 on a new powerbook. Nobody is debating that Windows wouldn't be running ideally on a 2003 Dell. OS 9 may not run ideally on a PPC 970, but it is technically possible. Apple, in their quest to be the hand of god and control everything, artificially disabled support for OS 9 on powerbooks. That is why people are upset. Not because OS 9 became naturally obsolete due to developer support or a major hardware change, but because Apple just decided it was so.

(and Nvidia still supports windows 95 and NT 4. SB Live drivers exist for both 95 and NT. But that's not the point here)
 
Apple is not "artifically disabling" support for Mac OS 9. They're removing extraneous OS 9 support from the firmware and the ROMs so that everything's more efficient.

We heard the same uproar when our beloved ADB, serial and SCSI was lacking in the original iMac. "Waah, my MacAlly Ergonomic Extended Keyboard won't work anymore! I can't use my old scanner or printer!" Get over it. Apple needs to push the envelope and innovate. If you want new hardware, get new software, and get on the damn boat already!
 
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Apple is not "artifically disabling" support for Mac OS 9. They're removing extraneous OS 9 support from the firmware and the ROMs so that everything's more efficient.

We heard the same uproar when our beloved ADB, serial and SCSI was lacking in the original iMac. "Waah, my MacAlly Ergonomic Extended Keyboard won't work anymore! I can't use my old scanner or printer!" Get over it. Apple needs to push the envelope and innovate. If you want new hardware, get new software, and get on the damn boat already!
Click to expand...

The ROM is about a 512 kb program that gets executed before the OS starts. All it does is initialize the hardware (indirectly or otherwise) and start the OS. That's it. There's very little that would be specific to OS 9 in there- perhaps maybe where it looked for the OS, but I guarantee you that there will not be any kind of speed gain that is noticeable by it.

On top of that, the OS 9 support in the rom did nothing to make X work any less efficient. The rom has no effect on the OS after execution. It just sits there. Go ahead, accept that Apple did it to make Macs better. It does nothing to improve performance. It's like Apple taking their Senior in college and throwing them out on the street when they're only home for 3 weeks in the year. They're going to leave on their own in a year and a half or so, but Apple feels the need to be all powerful and do it themselves.
 
Re: Education vs. Mac OS X

Originally posted by HalimC

Mac OS X is simply a natural evolution in the life of operating systems on the Mac platform. Why didn't you write and complain to Apple that your G3 systems didn't run OS 7? What about OS 6?

...

If software is not availble in OS X, try looking for alternatives rather than giving up and blaming Apple. Software companies should realize by now that they are going to lose customers if they don't support OS X.
Click to expand...


(1) It's not the "natural evolution." 7, 8, and 9 were all built on the core of the preceding OS. X was not. X was the culmination of Rhapsody and several other projects. If you don't know what Rhapsody was, then you have no business commenting on this stuff in the first place.

(2) It'snot about software availability for me. It's about speed.

(3) It's Apple that loses. Specifically, my money that I would otherwise spend on a new Apple machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back