Mac OS X Intel Developer Box Feedback

[nagromme]

The speed test I want to see, is Photoshop on Windoze against Photoshop Mac, using the same machine.

Will Mac apps run faster on Intel than Windoze ones?

I doubt there will ever be a real answer for that. At most, there may be a general trend, but probably not a big one, and probably not one that stays the same over time, as OS's and apps go through different versions.

So it will be the same story as always: Macs are faster at some specific tasks, PCs are faster at others, and the overall functionality/usability per dollar is better on a Mac.

The "same" app won't REALLY be quite the same--unless it hasn't been written to truly take advantage of both OS's. And the two OS's are very different animals. It's not like they're doing the exact same things in the same ways, and one does them faster.

So the way Macs do things will have some advantages, and the way Windows does things will have some advantages. SOME of those advantages will be speed. Sometimes speed will be sacrificed, for very good reasons.

For instance OpenGL in OS X is a separate layer from the video drivers. Games cannot bypass the OS and go directly to the hardware to bleed additional frames per second. That's GOOD OS design. It means ALL apps in OS X can use OpenGL simultaneously. It means the entire screen in OS X is an OpenGL scene, with all the animated visual cues that allows. It means game programmers can't use Windows-style hacks that talk directly to the hardware and may break in future.

Disallowing those hacks is a good thing--but it makes games run just a bit slower. (Not the only factor.) So does that mean "Windows is better than Mac?" No.

So when comparing Intel Macs to Intel PCs, a few % points of speed on certain tasks is not a rational basis to judge. The slower machine at a given task may be slower--slightly--for a very good reason with real benefits!

 

[Jon the Heretic]

Emulation as a compatibility solution

Running DOS on windows XP should be damn fast. Of course it should. The last few machines to run only DOS were about 100mhz 486s right? So now if you get even a 2ghz Pentium 3, if the emulation only runs at 10% efficiency, it still won't be any slower than what a 100mhz 486 would manage.

I haven't ever needed to, but just out of intrest, can we run old Mac OS 3, 5, 7, 8 programs in OS X? In OS 9? Anyone ever tried?

One of the wonderful things about running older software in emulation is that it generally runs as fast or faster than on the original hardware. Even with a huge speed penalty, the tendency of software is to get slower, more complex and memory demanding...in a word, bloated. Tight, efficient programming is a lost art. There is no hardware which can be envisioned that bloatware and inefficient programming can't bring it to its knees.

Yesterday's bloatware, oddly enough, can be oddly efficient and speedy in emulation on today's fast hardware, and faster sometimes than new software which is ever more bloated and inefficient.

Win16s and DOS are very fast on modern XP boxes (x86 isn't emulated though the DOS and Win16 environments are "virtual"), and 68K Mac programs are super fast under Classic on my MacOS X machine. (I have run programs as old as 1983 under Classic and had it work---that is a Mac program so old it was compiled on a Lisa.)

Emulation is a fine solution for older software, especially if you want a "Clean start", since if you have any programmers with any brains at all, they'd create a compatibility environment that exists at an abstracted level where it can't do any harm to other programs or to the OS. Classic does this and so does XP with its DOS and Win16 environments.

Stability isues can occur with an OS when trying to retain support for "supported" older software when the newer OS and the APIs have drifted apart from what the older software presumed (especially if the software used undocumented calls or used tricks that are no longer supported by the newer version of the OS, and hacks to the OS have to be made to support it.) This situation could occur with Carbon PPC apps, but not with Classic apps which can't even talk directly to the hardware. Emulation does not bog down or slow down the core OS (unless you are actually emulating part of your OS!); it is retaining compatibility with the UNemulated software that causes problems.

 

[louis_sx]

So many people have commented on the fact that they feel lied to - about what? At the time they were making the statements, the statements were true. Guess what? Technology changes, so what may have been true a couple of years ago is no longer true.

Geez - its like saying Atari has been screwing us all this time because they once claimed that the 2600 was the most powerful home video game console, and now even Atari has admitted that the XBox is faster! Those lying bastards!

Suck it up - Intel started making faster chips. Really we don't even have any solid evidence that the OS X Intel boxes are beating top of the line G5s, and anyone who was foolish enough to think that the G4s in powerbooks were the fastest mobile chip out there is an idiot. Maybe someone can produce some benchmark showing the Intel Macs are faster - that proves nothing other than 'they are faster now'. It doesn't discredit the entire history of PPC.

There still is a MHz myth - otherwise my 3 GHz P4 would be faster than a 2 GHz Opteron - guess what, its not.

QFT (quoted for thruth)

 

[louis_sx]

Personally I don't want a Mac that runs programs 35% slower than they do on my current one. I think Apple has a ton of work to do and these new mactels are going to be a hard sell initially unless they are DP 5Ghz dual core chips or something. I'm in no hurry to ditch altivec or my classic apps. I think Apple should make sure these can run classic. I mean my G5 runs Commodore 64 software. OS9 will be a 7 year old OS by the time the PowerMac wintels ship.

How does your G5 run C64 software? Emulators. So how would an Intel Mac run OS9 software? Emulators - specifically, SheepShaver.

 

[Jon the Heretic]

Dangers of backwards compatibility and compatibility environments

Emulation does not bog down or slow down the core OS (unless you are actually emulating part of your OS!); it is retaining compatibility with the UNemulated software that causes problems.

One comment about my last post: Really, I am talking about Classic in the above sentence, which exists at a higher abstraction layer (the emulated environment). You can have many such environments supported on a given machine and not impact the stability of the core system at all. Basically, a compatibility environment is just an application that runs natively on the core system.

Alas, I doubt that emulation of Carbon PPC apps will have any of the same protections. Tradeoffs to stability and performance of MacOS X Intel Edition are quite possible if PPC apps are to be emulated similarly to the way 68K apps were under MacOS 9.x. I doubt Carbon apps will have a "compatibility environment" that protects the core system like Classic has, but will likely have deep hooks into the OS so that native x86 Carbon APIs can be called by PPC Carbon apps which have non-API calls emulated through dynamic recompilation. And there are going to be context switches from x86 to PPC and back again that can be more performance deterioriating than instruction translation. (We went through this once before...) One hopes that MacOS X being UNIX with lots of mechanisms to ensure everything will play nice together, that things will just work out just fine.

Curiously, including a Classic environment in Macintel has none of the "stability" downside that some folks here misattribute to it, but it is support of TODAY'S MacOS X PPC apps --- new and fully Carbon or Cocoa --- that presents the greatest challenge to a "clean slate" OS where hoary old code should be excommunicated and where OS stability starts to be undermined through doing backflips trying to stay compatible.

Maybe we should drop supporting ALL current Mac software (all PPC based) and do this big Intel thing right?? No takers? Didn't think so...

 

[nagromme]

I'm a huge fan of keeping old stuff running--I fully intend to get my VIC 20 stuff going again one of these days! I fully understand that desire--and sometimes, downright need.

I'm not sure if you're responding to this post of mine, but if so, you misunderstood it.

You originally called Classic pathetic (because it's optional instead of enabled by default) but still better than nothing, and expressed anger at Apple because they've said they won't sell machines that support Classic after 2007 (when PPC Macs last ship).

My response didn't advocate either extreme--I didn't advocate ALWAYS starting fresh with innovation, nor did I advocate ALWAYS making sure all legacy apps run unchanged forever. Rather, I defended the MIDDLE path Apple has chosen. And I defended Classic too.

Classic is a great solution, and this time around, support for PPC apps on Intel is vital. But sometimes moving forward is ALSO a good thing, and sometimes choices have to be made.

I didn't say Classic caused legacy bloat, nor that PPC on Intel wouldn't. I said that Microsoft's strategy, which you thought Apple should follow, carries that price. Apple pays SOME of that price, as they should, but they've generally chosen a different balance of legacy vs. innovation than Microsoft has. I like the balance they've chosen over time--but if you prefer Microsoft's choices, that's fine too.

Would I use Classic on my Intel Mac if it were available? Yes, sometimes I would. Would I seek third-party solutions instead someday, to access some of my really old data? Maybe that too.

But it is NOT vital for Apple, in 2008, to officially support apps for an 8-year-old OS. That's too extreme, and when you say it makes Apple "deserve the middle finger," I disagree. To keep supporting OS 9 in 2008 as you demand, they'd be spending money on something I suspect few people want. That's still frustrating for those few, I realize. But they have lots of Macs that WILL run OS 9/Classic, and those Macs will last for years.

If Classic lives on, that's great--I encourage you to ask Apple to stay with it--but if not, and you're in the minority who depends on OS 9 for something, then keep using your current Mac--or a PPC Mac from 2007 that runs Classic. Because Classic isn't going away this year, and it's not going away next. Not until Tiger is no longer available--and on PowerPC, Classic may even remain with Leopard too.

And then, as others have pointed out, third parties can step in to help resurrect those old apps, when you still need them years in the future. If it's not worth it for Apple to officially support OS 9 forever, that doesn't mean you're out of options.

 

[Policar]

I know people who still use OS9 and hate the fact that support for it is falling out under them. I swear, 90% of computer users would be happy if nothing was ever updated. I mean, email, word processing, etc. all work great on even the oldest machines. It's just because programmers are power users and companies want to make money on updates that computers need to get faster. It's planned obsolescence, like making cars that die at 60,000 miles (companies used to.) I don't care, though: I hate using classic now and I hate using Windows 98.

So classic's not dead, but it should be. I applaud Apple for killing it off and look forward to running OS 10.5 and Longhorn on a Centrino laptop. Finally, 3D Studio Max and Final Cut Pro on one computer, and finally an Apple laptop as battery efficient as Thinkpads and Sonys.

 

[Jon the Heretic]

Classic is good food

I'm not sure if you're responding to this post of mine, but if so, you misunderstood it.

While my posts weren't specifically in response to yours, the fact is I just don't agree with it. Compatibility with older software of the sort that Apple does with Classic or Microsoft does with DOS or Win16s conveys no downside. Your position (echoed in your most recent post with that the statement "I didn't say Classic caused legacy bloat, nor that PPC on Intel wouldn't. I said that Microsoft's strategy, which you thought Apple should follow, carries that price") that compatibility environments of this sort causes bloat or instability and that we are best starting with a "clean slate" is simply not true of these environments anymore than having a Java VM installed is going to make your system worse off simply by its very presence. Frankly, there is no downside to these environments other than they take a small amount of disk space (my "iPhoto Update" to 5.0.3 took more room up on my harddrive than MacOS 9.x), which is hardly a reason to nuke them given today's large cheap hard drives and given the tons of wasteful things Apple installs that are substantially less useful than a compatibility environment (do you personally really need all of these language packs??)

The bloatware/stability argument, generally used to support the "clean slate" position you used, is relevant to Apple's support of native PPC MacOS X apps. They actually DO have the potential to misbehave. Classic, like the DOS and Win16 environments on XP, doesn't.

You originally called Classic pathetic (because it's optional instead of enabled by default) but still better than nothing...

I consider this a different discussion, but you seem amused by it, so here goes:

In a previous post you had made some statement about what a grand achievement Classic is. Having seen how well compatibility environments work on some other platforms (XP and OS/2 had really *good* compatibility environments), Classic is a pretty sad little beast:

* Not installed by default. Sure, "Classic" is but not MacOS 9.x is not. Apple even makes you go buy the 9.x CDs separately---for an obsolete OS that is vastly inferior to X? (Why not just post the code on the internet, like Bungie did with the old Marathon game. If it isn't a seller, it is good PR to give it away.) Both should be there preinstalled and with a pre-selected "classic" system folder. That is the user friendly thing to do; Apple is *supposed* to be good at that sort of thing. Power users can always throw out this environment, deinstall those language packs, whatever rocks their boats to save a few megs of disk space. But when my folks double-clicked on one of their existing Mac apps and had to call "Tech support" (me) that is poor usability. It should "just work". On MacOS X, running a classic app does NOT just work. On XP, DOS and Win16 apps DO just work and work well. Apple could learn a thing or two.

* A nit to be sure, but Apple didn't think this out: there shouldn't be a "separate" MacOS 9.x "System Folder". It confuses users to have a "System" folder and a "System folder". Apple could have placed MacOS 9.x in its own folder inside of "System". And this shouldn't have been a vanilla install of 9.x but a streamlined version of 9.x that redirected calls to X services. More on this later.

* Extensions/printers etc. Honestly, I don't expect these to work too well on Classic and many don't. I don't even care that other compatibility environments support low level drivers much better than Apple managed to. However, some basic X services from Classic should have been enabled but weren't. Big example of this is printing: Ever print from a Classic app? You need to install a printer driver for OS 9 and ANOTHER print driver for X. For the SAME printer. It is nice that you can but it is pathetic that you must---if you want to print from both Classic and X apps. Even VirtualPC has a Printer compatibility mode that allows you to select a generic priner from within VPC---without having to install another Windows printer driver unless you choose to---and the output is routed to a Mac printer driver. Apple could have done this and it would have made this a far superior environment.

I would like to have seen a lot more mappings between Classic calls and X services. Apple supports only cut and paste and a few Apple events. A truly great compatibility environment would have replaced most everything MacOS 9.x needs with things that MacOS X can do. But Classic isn't truly great, so let's move on...

* Lack of extensions management. A well-designed compatibility environment would have had integrated extensions management for the Classic environment, like the venerable MacOS 9.x Extensions Manager. With Classic, this was more important than ever because Apple could have provided Sets of their own MacOS 9.x extensions that *actually work* work in Classic. Trying to figure out what works and what doesn't is such voodoo and Apple could have done the right thing here, but didn't make the effort. No kudos for doing things halfway and on the cheap.

* The hardware abstraction is somewhat severe. I have seen a number of apps which don't talk to the hardware fail to run simply because of Apple wrote the environment. They could have done better if they had created a *version* of 9.x just for Classic. Heck, they killed 9.x booting so what was the holdup?

* The transparency is pretty cool. Apple did a very clever hack by showing the app in the Dock and overlaying the Quickdraw layer. No downside to this, though when you use Classic enough you realize how superficial this is. Classic and X are not very well tied together beyond the Dock and cut/paste. Not a remarkable achievement however---Win16s are even more transparent under XP (actually can use more native XP services) than Classic is on MacOS X. Win16s ran great on OS/2 too, and transparently. Some OS/2 users were unaware their favorite apps weren't OS/2 apps! Classic is so clumsy to use I am very aware of it.

* Why isn't there a user configurable setting in the Classic control panel for when Classic goes to sleep? It should be very granular. Frankly, you don't expect most Classic apps to multitask when in the background and I would like to be able to set the sleep to less than a min or even seconds.

* Never understood why Apple chose to run a complete copy of MacOS 9. And a vanilla copy at that. It should have been modified to work well within X---given how fast they killed 9.x booting, nothing other than apathy was holding them back. Windows XP doesn't use a copy of Windows 3.1 or a full copy of DOS which are booted on the host computer. Microsoft actually thought about what needed to be emulated, and put these in a compatibility environment. Apple on the hand chose an approach more akin to VirtualPC, as if they didn't already own both OSes.

Classic IS better than nothing, which is why it should remain in MacOS X despite Apple's deliberate effort to marginalize it since the very first release of X (in Tiger, there isn't even a Classic control panel unless MacOS 9.x is actually installed!!! yIKES!!) And I think emulation is an acceptable solution to the dilemma...but is Classic a "remarkable achievement" (as you have stated in an earlier post)...*cough* Um, no. It is "better than nothing" to be sure, but not in the same league as similar solutions that the other guys have come up with. (And Apple actually DELAYED the original release of MacOS X a full year just to make their Blue Box environment "transparent"...yeah, they did Carbon too in that extra year.)

...expressed anger at Apple because they've said they won't sell machines that support Classic after 2007 (when PPC Macs last ship).

Yeah, consumer unfriendly policies piss me off.

But it is NOT vital for Apple, in 2008, to officially support apps for an 8-year-old OS. That's too extreme...

I don't give too flying hoots if it isn't "vital for Apple". It is important to a lot of Mac users, though I know many power users could care less. They must have money to burn and upgrade $oftware often.

But why it is "too extreme"? I think this is a silly statement. There is no downside to supporting it from the "bloatware/stability" point of view you used earlier. I think it is "too extreme" to terminate the ability to run over 20,000 Mac apps written prior to 2000 just because they might have to hire a summer intern to port some existing code. Oh right -- I forgot the "precious resources" argument. Apple would rather spend them on recreating Desk Accessories in the (for me anyway) useless Dashboard gimmick than in writing an OS that actually ran their own (older) software. People WANT Dashboard; no one WANTs to run their older software. Sure. Got it. I must not be people and what I actually want must not count.

As I wrote before, let Apple Open Source Classic and MacOS 9.x it if they don't have the balls to put an intern on it. Apple used the "tight resources" argument when it came to supporting older Macs with X, and as fate would have it a Canadian laywer, in his spare time, has managed to write support for all of those machines and for every release of MacOS X. Boy, I bet that was sure hard; I'm not sure Apple is to snuff to Canadian lawyer programming skill levels. But Ryan Rempel wouldn't have been able to write XPostFacto without opened sourced Darwin. Then Apple can reincorporate Classic for Intel and take credit for it later.

 

[ewinemiller]

But why it is "too extreme"? I think this is a silly statement. There is no downside to supporting it from the "bloatware/stability" point of view you used earlier. I think it is "too extreme" to terminate the ability to run over 20,000 Mac apps written prior to 2000 just because they might have to hire a summer intern to port some existing code. Oh right -- I forgot the "precious resources" argument. Apple would rather spend them on recreating Desk Accessories in the (for me anyway) useless Dashboard gimmick than in writing an OS that actually ran their own (older) software. People WANT Dashboard; no one WANTs to run their older software. Sure. Got it. I must not be people and what I actually want must not count.

I would actually hypothesize that this might be a part of the problem with Apple's lack of success in the business world (one of the other things being no onsite warranty). Every place I've worked has had probably a dozen or more applications written internally (or by a contractor) to support that company's business processes. I would guess that custom apps like that way outnumber your normal horizontal market apps.

In Apple's world your custom software development investment doesn't last so long, then you need to pay someone to upgrade it. I know companies using foxpro apps built in the early 1990's and they still run on XP. VB 3.0 released in what 1993 turned into the 90's cobol, there is an amazing amount of those apps running around and they still works great on XP. I haven't seen any DOS apps still in use on a regular basis for a while, but I'm sure there are some. When people talk about getting businesses to convert to Mac they probably don't think about those things, but they are way more important to the business than you think.

 

[treblah]

I don't give too flying hoots if it isn't "vital for Apple". It is important to a lot of Mac users, though I know many power users could care less. They must have money to burn and upgrade $oftware often.

I think it would be easy to say you are in a miniscule minority. Why argue for Apple to keep OS9 when you can just as easily keep your old hardware? Keep your G3/4/5 and run it into the ground until it is a paper weight. Hell, buy a few on eBay now so you can continue using them when they eventually fail. Keeping the same software for 8 years is insane. Do you think MS is still supporting Windows 95? They just dropped support for Windows 2000 and its only ~6 years old!

 

[Eric5h5]

* Not installed by default. Sure, "Classic" is but not MacOS 9.x is not. Apple even makes you go buy the 9.x CDs separately---for an obsolete OS that is vastly inferior to X?

What? No, they don't. You put in the "Additional Software" CD, install Classic, and OS 9.2 is installed. There certainly isn't the need to buy any extra CDs.

--Eric

 

[nagromme]

While my posts weren't specifically in response to yours, the fact is I just don't agree with it.

Again I think you misunderstood me. You took my position to be more radical than it is--which means we probably have some zone of agreement in fact

I never argued against Classic continuing--in fact, I said I'd use it if it did, and that I like keeping old stuff going. I also noted that it's an even bigger need for some people than it is for me.

Rather than arguing against Classic (I defended Classic actually), I argued against your stand that Apple should be more like MS in regards to legacy app support in new OS versions. MS's approach DOES have a price, which I personally don't want to pay without very good reason. (PPC apps on Intel is a good reason.) Classic is NOT an example of that price, and I never thought it was. Classic, as I've always said, is a great tool.

So in sum, I object to the Microsoft legacy approach that you wished Apple would also take. (Making sure ancient DOS apps are officially supported in XP and Longhorn.) But I do NOT object to specific moves such as supporting OS 9 on Intel. I certainly don't feel OS 9 on Intel is necessary, but I do NOT object to it if it happens. Just so it's optional, and doesn't clutter hard drives by default.

So as I said, I encourage you to ask Apple to keep OS 9 running after 2007 when the last PPC Macs are discontinued. I might like to run old OS 9 stuff on brand new Macs I buy in 2008 and beyond. I don't demand it though, if it's desired by too few people in 2008 to be worth Apple's while.

If enough people DO demand OS 9 in 2008 and beyond, THEN it becomes worth Apple's while. I doubt that will be the case, but you should definitely make your request: http://apple.com/feedback (And you should definitely ask people in these forums to do the same.)

 

[freiheit]

DOS apps most certainly do not (all) work well in XP. Lots of old DOS games either don't work at all or work without sound, etc. In order to play one of my old favorites (Eric The Unready) in Windows 2000 I actually had to install a DOS emulator (DOSBox). That's partly because Win2K and XP are not based on DOS (in fact they're more closely related to very old versions of OS/2 circa 1990). So while WordPerfect 5 or Lotus 1-2-3 version 3 may work well in WinXP out-of-the-box, there are many DOS programs that do not.

Microsoft hasn't officially supported DOS for many years, even though they shipped their last release of DOS in 2000 (as part of Windows ME). Apple dropping support for Classic is really no different. Maybe someday we'll have a ClassicBox emulator. Maybe it'll even run in Windows (why not -- DOSBox runs in MacOS X).

 

[Scottgfx]

I remember it, but that had nothing to do with endian issues. The Amiga graphics chips used a planar bit format. --Eric

Ahh, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Jon the Heretic]

No

Why argue for Apple to keep OS9 when you can just as easily keep your old hardware? <snip> Keeping the same software for 8 years is insane. Do you think MS is still supporting Windows 95? They just dropped support for Windows 2000 and its only ~6 years old!

Because Macs should run Mac software.

Insane? No.

MS did not drop support for apps that run under Windows 2000. Nor should Apple drop support for apps that ran under MacOS 9.x

 

[Jon the Heretic]

Still works

DOS apps most certainly do not (all) work well in XP.

In my experience, better than most Classic apps. Not all of the old Mac games have sound either.

Microsoft hasn't officially supported DOS for many years, even though they shipped their last release of DOS in 2000 (as part of Windows ME).

I doubt DOS APIs have changed aggressively in the few years. Other than keeping it running on XP, it is not a lot of work for MS. Fact is, it does, and surprisingly well.

I gave up long ago on the hope that Apple would realize a really good version of Classic that did some of the things I listed in a previous note. To take away even this little bit of backwards compatibility is very shortsighted and consumer unfriendly. It benefits no one.

 

[Jon the Heretic]

You keep repeating it

Again I think you misunderstood me. You took my position to be more radical than it is--which means we probably have some zone of agreement in fact

<snip>

Rather than arguing against Classic (I defended Classic actually), I argued against your stand that Apple should be more like MS in regards to legacy app support in new OS versions. MS's approach DOES have a price, which I personally don't want to pay without very good reason. (PPC apps on Intel is a good reason.) Classic is NOT an example of that price, and I never thought it was. Classic, as I've always said, is a great tool.

Because you keep arguing that MS' support of DOS and Win16's has a "price", I think we have a disconnect. Like Classic, they run in virtual environments. Unlike Classic, they are virtual environments done right. The only "price" of a a Virtual environment is creating it. It exacts no more of a "price" on the system integrity than having iPhoto or iMovie installed. Virtual environments are applications from the perspective of the OS. Your statement, with all due respect, about MS's backwards compatibility model, is simply not true.

It is full compatibility with non-virtualized apps that may lead to instability/bloatware. Support of current MacOS X PPC apps on Intel is an example of this. If Microsoft were to provide non-virtualized support for older applications --- which like Apple they do with every new release of their OS --- that can present bloatware issues with the stability of the APIs.

Both MacOS X and XP/2000/NT are fully modern OSes and even if the APIs become crapped up in support of backwards compatibility, a well written modern OS should keep this from being too much of a real world problem. Certainly, XP is ***far*** superior in stability to the decidedly UNmodern Windows 98/95/ME variants. The APIs exist in their own abstraction layer and speak to the kernel in predefined (usually safe) ways. I am not sure if the instability I have witnessed on XP systems is due to backwards compatibility for non-virtualized apps (it clearly isn't due to DOS or Win16 support!); if it is, then Apple may want to rethink direct support of PPC apps on the new Intel system and go with a virtualized solution, which like Classic, would be much safer but far from satisfactory.

 

[Jon the Heretic]

Thanks

What? No, they don't. You put in the "Additional Software" CD, install Classic, and OS 9.2 is installed. There certainly isn't the need to buy any extra CDs.

Thanks Eric for clarifiying this. I have always used my old System 9.2 folder and have never had to hunt for the CD. I have however been on a lot of Mac forums where many people have wondered where the heck System 9.2 installer went. I believe it was included in a very early version of MacOS X but according to what I have read, it completely went away. The "mac experts" on that forum were sending folks back to Apple to buy MacOS 9.x CDs.

If Apple still does include it with X, it is a sort of open secret and an example of pretty poor usability. My folks still had to wait for me to travel 700 miles to install Classic for them so that they could run the 70-80% of their software which depends on Classic.

I just got my Tiger DVD. Is it on that DVD? I haven't installed Tiger yet. I didn't get an "Additional Software" CD with this release.

 

[Jon the Heretic]

The real world

I would actually hypothesize that this might be a part of the problem with Apple's lack of success in the business world (one of the other things being no onsite warranty). Every place I've worked has had probably a dozen or more applications written internally (or by a contractor) to support that company's business processes. I would guess that custom apps like that way outnumber your normal horizontal market apps.

In Apple's world your custom software development investment doesn't last so long, then you need to pay someone to upgrade it. I know companies using foxpro apps built in the early 1990's and they still run on XP. VB 3.0 released in what 1993 turned into the 90's cobol, there is an amazing amount <snip>
When people talk about getting businesses to convert to Mac they probably don't think about those things, but they are way more important to the business than you think.

Yes, this is a huge issue in the business world where cost in today's competitive market is sometimes the end and be all. If something works, you don't reinvent it just for the heck of it. Backwards compatibility with all levels of software is very important. Apple never "got" the business world and still doesn't get it.

Under Jobs, Apple has a long history of abandoning software support at a whim. Education was really burnt by the transition from Apple // to the Mac, keeping their old //s around for over 20 years because newer Macs wouldn't run any of their software. They lost marketshare with this, and frankly, they could have taken steps to stem the loss quite simply if they hadn't been so arrogant (for example, bought or bundled "// in a Mac" --emulation that worked on even a 512Ke Mac -- which existed under Jobs part I; much later Apple had special Mac models with 6502 cards that could run // apps --- after Jobs left --- but it was too little too late, alas. I will NOT discuss the //GS...oy...great, a THIRD platform---brilliant...).

(I am not and was not a // user. Never cared for the platform. Just some direct observations I saw when working with educators. Apple was *very* foolish in how they handled the Mac transition. Arrogant, stupid and consumer unfriendly. Just saying it was a "new platform" may work as an internal business justification but for the folks wondering how to load Arkanoid from their 5.25 inch disk, it just left them cold. I am surprised their education marketshare wasn't more eroded than it was. If I had been in their positions, I would have never looked back.)

Apple's most shining moment in backwards compatibility was between the two Jobs --- the 68K to PPC transition was brilliant and very consumer friendly. What an amazing achievement! In comparison, Classic is a sad little hack with a clever gimmick ("transparency") that unfortunately doesn't really fix the usability issues with Classic, most stemming from running an unmodified, vanilla copy of MacOS 9.x with only sparse mappings to the underlying MacOS X services. With the 68K effort, I stopped caring if the app was 68K or PPC --- it just worked. With Classic, it doesn't "just work". I dread seeing it launch in the foreground, thinking to myself everything "don't you think the company that actually owned every line of code of the original MacOS could have done a lot better than SheepShaver"? Guess not.

Dropping Classic for Intel is simply irresponsible. An OS that cannot run its own legacy software is incomplete. No, I am not surprised that power users could care less They live in an alternate universe where computers aren't simply tools (means) but Ends in their own rights.

Apple needs to hire more Canadian lawyers to do their programming. I've said it before and I'll say it again... ;-) Or just Open Source the things they care so little about that they can't justify hiring a summer intern (or Canadian lawyer) to do it for them. They are obviously poor stewards of the vast Mac software library that existed prior to MacOS X's launch. Let someone who cares take it over.

 

[Eric5h5]

Thanks Eric for clarifiying this. I have always used my old System 9.2 folder and have never had to hunt for the CD. I have however been on a lot of Mac forums where many people have wondered where the heck System 9.2 installer went. I believe it was included in a very early version of MacOS X but according to what I have read, it completely went away. The "mac experts" on that forum were sending folks back to Apple to buy MacOS 9.x CDs.

So much for the "experts". It certainly didn't go away, unless it was after the dual 2.5GHz Power Mac G5s with 10.3.5 from very late in 2004, which is what I got. Granted there isn't a huge flashing neon sign saying "Classic Here!", but surely it's not hard to: 1) Insert "Additional Software & Apple Hardware Test" CD, 2) Double-click on "Install Additional Software" icon, 3) Click "Install." When it's sitting there saying "processing Classic support" or something, it's actually writing an OS 9.2.2 folder to wherever you installed it. I'm sorry you had to drive 700 miles for that...maybe ask on MacRumors next time. And yes, this is mentioned in the manual that came with my computer...but we certainly wouldn't want people to actually read manuals; that's just wrong....

I just got my Tiger DVD. Is it on that DVD? I haven't installed Tiger yet. I didn't get an "Additional Software" CD with this release.

Good question. It doesn't seem to be on the Tiger retail DVD--no point in duplicating something everyone already has after all--but Tiger definitely supports it. (When I installed Tiger, it even specifically said at one point that it was updating some Classic files. Possibly when I launched Classic the first time under Tiger.) I'd guess computers that come with Tiger installed still have a separate "Additional Software & Hardware Test" CD, in addition to the Tiger install DVD. Anyone know?

(Oh, and before I forget again: Quote: "* Lack of extensions management. A well-designed compatibility environment would have had integrated extensions management for the Classic environment, like the venerable MacOS 9.x Extensions Manager." Hmm, I guess you never opened the Classic system preferences pane? Click on the "advanced" tab. There ya go!

Sorry, but I have to reply to this too: "They could have done better if they had created a *version* of 9.x just for Classic." They did. That's what 9.2.2 is: it even says so in the release notes--"increased compatibility under Classic." Some people made fun of it at the time--"Upgrading an OS so it works better under an emulator? WTF??" Actually, it seems to me that perhaps some of your problems with Classic are because you apparently used a generic 9.x install from somewhere, instead of installing it the "proper" way?)

--Eric

 

[treblah]

Because Macs should run Mac software.

Insane? No.

MS did not drop support for apps that run under Windows 2000. Nor should Apple drop support for apps that ran under MacOS 9.x

Are you mad that your Mac 512k wont run OS9 programs? Its still a Mac! Look, Apple announced OS X in 1998. If they dropped support for OS9 on March 24th 2001 I could see your point, but they didn't. You and everyone else will have had ~9 years to prepare/upgrade to X. You should be happy the transition has lasted this long. And again, you do not have to upgrade at all if you like your OS9 programs.

An OS that cannot run its own legacy software is incomplete.

Give me a break. The only thing OS9 and OSX have in common are Carbon and the letters O and S.

 

[pubwvj]

Are you mad that your Mac 512k wont run OS9 programs?

Wow, you really have it all backwards. People are asking that future hardware and OS's continue to run existing software so that legacy data can still be used. They are not asking that older less powerful hardware run newer more demanding software. Newere hardware is that much better at doing the task because it is more powerful.

It is curious that you are so threatened by other people's desire to be able to continue to access their data files. We have gigabytes of data in old file formats for book and magazine publishing. The only software that accesses and manipulates only works under OS9 (Classic). There is no possibility of upgrades because the companies that made those programs no longer exist.

Legacy computing is a real issue. Don't feel so threatened by it that you need to make nasty comments. In ten or twenty years you may understand the issue better.

 

[treblah]

Wow, you really have it all backwards. People are asking that future hardware and OS's continue to run existing software so that legacy data can still be used. They are not asking that older less powerful hardware run newer more demanding software. Newere hardware is that much better at doing the task because it is more powerful.

It is curious that you are so threatened by other people's desire to be able to continue to access their data files. We have gigabytes of data in old file formats for book and magazine publishing. The only software that accesses and manipulates only works under OS9 (Classic). There is no possibility of upgrades because the companies that made those programs no longer exist.

Legacy computing is a real issue. Don't feel so threatened by it that you need to make nasty comments. In ten or twenty years you may understand the issue better.

I am not threatened by people wanting to access their old data but I don't understand why you couldn't use legacy hardware to be able to run legacy software. Wanting a huge architectural change in hardware to continue to support a small percentage of users that have no problems now is kinda of naive. I am sure a G5 could run all your programs for years and years to come. There is no reason that anyone has to use new hardware if you are going to be running apps that, at best, were released more than 5 years ago. The work was created on old hardware, no? I am not trying to be nasty but technology progresses and nothing lasts forever. Apple had to support OS9 when OSX was released. That is becoming no longer true.

 

[Scottgfx]

Yeah, consumer unfriendly policies piss me off.

I don't give too flying hoots if it isn't "vital for Apple". It is important to a lot of Mac users... ...Oh right -- I forgot the "precious resources" argument. Apple would rather spend them on recreating Desk Accessories in the (for me anyway) useless Dashboard gimmick...

You seem to be really attached to OS 9 for reasons that seem to be based more on emotion than logic. Here's my advice to you. I seem to remember a company that made a product that allowed Mac users to run the Windows operating system. Actually there were a couple of them at one time. Why not contract a programmer and develop a similar product for the Mac. If you really think there is a market for such a thing, then you shall reap the benefits and be made rich for your wisdom and insight. I'm sure if you make the case, you can buy from Apple, OEM versions of OS 9 and bundle that with your product.

You talk about not wanting to lose your software investment. I would ask; why then would you want to upgrade to a new machine? Obviously your current hardware is doing fine. If you see this burgeoning marketplace for running software without dynamic memory allocation, memory protection or proper multitasking in a virtual machine on an Intel based system, then go for it. If you are successful, we shall bow down to you and see the error of our silly OS X ways. Just remember that it was I who gave you that push in becoming a software entrepreneur.

 

[pubwvj]

I don't understand why you couldn't use legacy hardware to be able to run legacy software.

Two very simple reasons:
1) Hardware eventual breaks and can no longer be repaired.
2) Maintaining an extra set of hardware is cost inefficient.

It is better to simply have the new hardware run the old software. If everytime Apple brought out a new piece of hardware it required completely new software and would not run any of the old software you would be pretty pissed. Sure, they could say to you, just keep running the old hardware for the old software, but you would not find that an acceptible solution.

You might argue that 8 or 9 year old software shouldn't be supported but that is a very short time period. There is data associated with that software, that is not supported by any newer software and there are no options for updates.

To give you a small example, imagine if every time you bought a new audio player you had to rebuy all your music - oh, yeah! The RIAA is trying to make that a reality... Okay, how about movies, imagine every few years you have to repopulate your entire movie library in a new format. That would really piss me off if I could no longer play the 1,400 VHS movies I have. Again, Hollywood is trying to make that a reality. But it is not right and it is wasteful. Now apply the same idea to your personal data - nobody is going to resupply you with your own personal data in the new format. If it is in a file format or uses an application that isn't supported by the new hardware and OS you're out of luck. Bummer dude! Well I object to that. And, it is even worse for businesses.

Our business has GIGABYTES of data in older formats. Our customer datases, accounting system, billing system, books we have published, magazines we have published and a lot more. If Apple won't support Classic on their new hardware and OS then I won't be buying either. That loses sales for Apple and pisses off the customers. Apple is in the business of selling hardware and OSs. Losing sales of legacy customers is a bad move. There a huge number of people with legacy data and applications. This isn't some little problem that goes away - the data is needed for decades or longer.