More on Phasing out OS 9, and Pinot (10.3)

[G4scott]

Re: Is Apple Crazy?

Originally posted by digitalbiker
This doen't make sense to me! Apple probably spent millions trying to get an "UNIX" OS environment that would be backwards compatible with Mac OS 9.

All total, they have probably spent over 3 years to finaly get to a first release of the OS that sounds like it will satisfy most users (gamers, business, graphics, audio, hackers) "Jaguar".

Immediately they announce that they are abandoning the bulk of their previous userbase considering that according to Apple only about 20 percent of the user base will be booting OS X 10.2 when Jaguar is released.

Sounds crazy!

My question is; Does anyone know for sure if classic will even start without OS 9 being installed somewhere on the system?

I thought that a bootable copy of OS 9 needed to be installed in either the same partition or another partition but somewhere on the disk with OS X.

If OS 9 is not installed, will classic run?

You know, this doesn't mean that older machines won't be able to boot into OS 9. It's only with the new machines. X.III, or Pinot, may not be able to run on machines that are now over 2 years old, and that wouldn't be bad. It just means that your hardware is outdated, and cant handle the new features. You wouldn't install photoshop 7 on a Mac Classic, would you?

Besides, that 20% of their user base includes older Macs. It could actuallly be that around 80% of the computers that are capable of running OS X are using it. Only about 30-20% of the computers made by Apple are capable of running OS X.

If you want OS 9, keep your dual Ghz G4, or your PowerMac 9600...

 

[zimv20]

Originally posted by tjwett
I hate OS X. After using it for almost a year now I've come to see that it is a slow, crashing, kernal panic-infested nighhtmare

wacky. it runs on my 266 MHz G3 just fine. a little pokey, but rock solid. it runs my webserver. i've edited movies. my band ftps huge SDII files to/from it. no problems whatsoever.

Atleast it is it's own OS, not a GUI for Unix. Much like Winpuke is a GUI for DOS.

oh come on. DOS can't hold a candle to Unix. yes, OS9 is its own OS, but not a very good one (multi-threading? memory partitioning?). I remember when they introduced Multi-Finder (now called Finder). previous to that, you could run exactly ONE app at a time. you'd have to quit the running one to launch a different app. the MacOS has overreached its expected lifespan.

I may be nuts but I'd trade all the throbbing, bouncing vector icons in the world to have some speed again. Oh well.

you can turn that off in the Dock preference panel.

you don't like change, eh?

 

[barkmonster]

M$ didn't kill DOS with windows 95, hide it and hope it goes way was their approach.

The difference between DOS and windows 95 from a usability point of view is not comparable to OS 9 and OS X.

They're both fully graphical interfaces with no ties to each other, they can both multitask either cooperatively or pre-emptively and they even look similar.

DOS is joke to anyone, windows 95 is just a joke to anyone who's ever used a mac, Atari ST or an Amiga. For most PC people windows 95 was some miracle cure for they're compex comandline headaches and NT was the more stable version for people with deeper pockets.

As far as the mac goes, there's a huge established base of classic applications, if the concept of plug-ins hadn't been invented by the likes of Digidesign and Adobe it wouldn't be a huge problem if only the main applications from the big companies were OS X native but there's loads of audio and graphics plug-ins from small companies that might not have the budget to port all their products to OS X for quite a while even if the host application exists for it.

This alone means OS 9 should remain as a fully bootable OS. Till OS X has a massive library of software in all categories a mac won't truly be a mac without the Mac OS it's gained it's reputation and fanatical userbase from.

I imagine by early 2004 we'll all be looking back at the transition from OS 9 as a long gone memory and we'll all be using plenty of OS X software in our areas of interest.

There's still loads of PC software that only works in WinME or Win95/98, I can't see the mac being any different for the next year or so. I'm just glad I don't have to stare at some flavour of windows everytime I boot up while I'm waiting for more progress from software developers. OS 9 will do for now till things change.

 

[Rocketman]

Re: This all reminds me of...

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
... when MS released Windows 95. They anounced right afterwords that support for MSDOS was ending. People were up-in-arms all over the place. So many legacy applications in the workplace would be orphaned, blah, blah, blah.

.

Correct me if I am wrong please.

DOS applications ran under DOS under windows (all versions) for many years after windows was released. Maybe still does. I am not a windows user, just a former DOS user.

Macs run DOS under VPC both under OS9 and OSX and seemingly will do so for decades to come as VPC seems to be likely to be an OSX early adopter for the forseeable future. Incidentally it also runs DR-DOS, linux, SCO unix and several other things IIRC.

Now the issue I see for OSX/Classic is if it runs software originally compiled for OS (4-9). I have a copy of Mac Draw II which the file format is NOT exportable to editable EPS or any resolution independent format (they offer crappy-pict) so I keep using it because of alot of legacy files. It is used to create files suitable for web and documents suitable for high resolution printing (even linotype).

It runs under OS9 (as do almost all of my OS (4-9) applications. All I really care about is if it still runs under classic.

Heck I could install VCP, DOS, Wordstar and I bet I could still flip text faster then two of you.

I understand it will run on x-serve too. (most advanced DDR/G4/MP MOTHERBOARD)

I want the ability to read and even write old files preferably with old apps, if I want. The ability to read and write Mac Draw II files as crude as that is, justifies the entire cost of 3 computers and a network and 2 printers in my shop.

I cannot believe I am the only one occasionally dipping my toes in the stone-age.

Rocketman

 

[bretm]

Originally posted by rugby
they're talking about 10.3, which won't be out for a year or two. Give them a break and don't start wild insane rantings yet. If your software hasn't been ported over to X 4 years after X has been out maybe it's time to look for different software.

They're explicitly talking about the new hardware. "Macs" won't boot in OS9. They'll still run classic.

Jaguar runs classic. It doesn't come with a copy of OS9 however is the prediction. The article theorizes that the next "macs" (hardware) won't boot OS9. In other words, the next line of computers. Whether you're running 10.1.5 or 10.2 or whatever will have motherboards that have no way of booting OS9. There are new computers scheduled for August, and of course MWSF. So, in a matter of weeks people might be bringing home computers without OS9 or the ability to boot OS9.

It further states that 10.3 will disallow it via software. In other words, 10.3 kills booting OS9 even if you're running it on a G4.

But hey thats what I read.

 

[bretm]

Re: Is Apple Crazy?

Originally posted by digitalbiker
This doen't make sense to me! Apple probably spent millions trying to get an "UNIX" OS environment that would be backwards compatible with Mac OS 9.

All total, they have probably spent over 3 years to finaly get to a first release of the OS that sounds like it will satisfy most users (gamers, business, graphics, audio, hackers) "Jaguar".

Immediately they announce that they are abandoning the bulk of their previous userbase considering that according to Apple only about 20 percent of the user base will be booting OS X 10.2 when Jaguar is released.

Sounds crazy!

My question is; Does anyone know for sure if classic will even start without OS 9 being installed somewhere on the system?

I thought that a bootable copy of OS 9 needed to be installed in either the same partition or another partition but somewhere on the disk with OS X.

If OS 9 is not installed, will classic run?

Actually, the "NEW" OS that was to become OSX was first scheduled to be released in beta in 1996. Then '97, then they changed formats to Rhapsody based on Next or something, after awhile Jobs decided it just wasn't strong enough and a lot of that technology fell into the original OSX server, OS9, etc. Then they switched to the full UNIX concept they have now, which I've been following for about 3 years. Chew on that.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Re: This all reminds me of...

Originally posted by Rocketman


Correct me if I am wrong please.

DOS applications ran under DOS under windows (all versions) for many years after windows was released. Maybe still does. I am not a windows user, just a former DOS user.

I didn't mean that DOS stuff wouldn't run (more-or-less) under Win95, I meant that MS said they were no longer supporting DOS. As in, if you have a DOS problem, you aren't able to call MS and ask for help.

If you had a problem running DOS app's under Win95, I'm sure they referred you to whomever wrote the app.

In a similar vein , I'll bet Apple moves to the same practice, where if you have a problem with an OS 9 or earlier app, call the app developer.

BTW, Have you noticed that OS 9 is nowhere to be found on http://store.apple.com OR on the http://www.apple.com/software sites?

The bell is tolling...

 

[G4scott]

Any guesses on how Jobs is going to pronounce "Pinot"?

 

[redAPPLE]

Re: Pinot?

Originally posted by StuPid QPid
Mmmm. Pinot Noir, a full bloodied, mature red wine. Let hope the same's true for the next revision of OS X

The following description I found is rather apt!

"Pinot Noir embodies complexity and delicacy at the same time, outpouring with elaborate flavors that may be simply ravishing. Yet the Pinot Noir grape is well-known for its fickleness and genetic changeability, making it a truly challenging varietal for winemakers to master."

Cheers

Remember SJ pronouncing "Jaguar" as "Jagwire"[/]?

Hope he does not pronounce "Pinot" as "PEANUT"...

 

[elgruga]

OS 9 wont go away

OS 9 is here to stay for at least another 5 years, and probably a lot longer.
many folks are happy doing what they do on their macs running 7, 8 and 9.
Thats just a fact.
Will they change? No, not for a long time.
They can DO their stuff and they dont give a rats ass about Operating Systems.
A woman I know bought a Wallstreet and now a LCD imac to run her Homeopathic software - which was designed around 7, but will run in 9 with a dongle and a floppy! her colleagues all bought Powerbooks too, when they knew they could run their special software on 9.
Thats her life and her many patients depend on it.
There are many like her in the Mac world.

Apple need to be a bit careful about leaving these folks behind - they are all true Apple fans and buy a lot fo stuff.

OSX will confuse them, and be useless if 9 isnt a boot option.

keep it. It only needs a little partition and it doesnt hurt anything.

 

[Q-bert]

OS 9 needs a noble burial!

Originally posted by tjwett
I hope this does not happen. I too work with pro-audio and I'm not expecting all my apps, synths and plug-ins to be ready till 2004. Plus, I hate OS X. After using it for almost a year now I've come to see that it is a slow, crashing, kernal panic-infested nighhtmare with a pretty face.

OS X has been running rock-solid for me for the last year, only ONE kernal panic in all that time when I plugged in a serial adapter under 10.0.2, and none since I upgraded to 10.1. I have two Macs at home, one of which is a pro audio workstation - that Mac runs OS 9 (but has X installed and unused), the other OS X. I don't know about you, but I treat my audio Mac like a hardware synth or rackmount recorder, once it is configured properly, there's no need to keep tweaking and upgrading it, as long as it continues to do its job. It's self-contained and doesn't need anything else.

If you hate OS X - don't run it. You certainly have a point when it comes to pro audio availability, I don't do pro audio on OS X by necessity, same as everybody else. But don't fault Apple for moving forward, I don't think they can keep sticking with OS 9 while simultaneously trying to develop hardware that advances well beyond the capabilities of OS 9. A good example is memory allocation, OS 9 apps can only allocate a MAXIMUM of 1GB of RAM (999MB). What if the next Apple hardware can handle 3 or 4GB max RAM, and no OS 9 application can support it? In that case, supporting OS 9 is actually crippling the hardware's capabilities! There are even other areas where OS 9 isn't up to the job of today's hardware from Apple, multi-threading being another one. That's TODAY'S hardware, what about the future? OS 9 isn't built for that, and they've already tried to hack it to make it work, it just can't.

We gotta move on from OS 9 eventually, it's not like nobody saw this coming. Jobs has been talking about this for the past year relentlessly. Technology marches on - even Microsoft stopped supporting DOS eventually.

 

[beatle888]

Originally posted by barkmonster
If the new powermacs won't boot into OS 9 then the mac is next to useless for audio till all the plug-in, sequencer and software synth companies port all their stuff to OS X!

they dont need to port to OSX, they just need to be able to
run in Classic Mode, since this will still be availabe for OS9 apps.

 

[barkmonster]

they dont need to port to OSX, they just need to be able to
run in Classic Mode, since this will still be availabe for OS9 apps.

True but there's no low level access to the hardware through classic mode, DAE won't work, No OMS, No drivers for any cards you have, it's just an empty shell of an OS with only the basic GUI. Classic Mode is not an option until apple find some way of allowing software complete access to the hardware.

On the the other hand, maybe some kind of driver for both OS X and OS 9 could allow these kinds of applications to work perfectly in classic while we wait for OS X native versions to come out.

People need OS 9 to run their current software as much as they need an OS X version in the future so they don't have to boot into OS 9 anymore. I can only imagine how stable and speedy a full working audio system would be under OS X with Coremidi and Coreaudio linking all the hardware and software together and Quartz Extreme handling the GUI so extra CPU time can be used to run even more plug-ins or tracks.

 

[tjwett]

Re: OS 9 needs a noble burial!

Originally posted by Q-bert
OS X has been running rock-solid for me for the last year, only ONE kernal panic in all that time when I plugged in a serial adapter under 10.0.2, and none since I upgraded to 10.1. I have two Macs at home, one of which is a pro audio workstation - that Mac runs OS 9 (but has X installed and unused), the other OS X. I don't know about you, but I treat my audio Mac like a hardware synth or rackmount recorder, once it is configured properly, there's no need to keep tweaking and upgrading it, as long as it continues to do its job. It's self-contained and doesn't need anything else.

If you hate OS X - don't run it. You certainly have a point when it comes to pro audio availability, I don't do pro audio on OS X by necessity, same as everybody else. But don't fault Apple for moving forward, I don't think they can keep sticking with OS 9 while simultaneously trying to develop hardware that advances well beyond the capabilities of OS 9. A good example is memory allocation, OS 9 apps can only allocate a MAXIMUM of 1GB of RAM (999MB). What if the next Apple hardware can handle 3 or 4GB max RAM, and no OS 9 application can support it? In that case, supporting OS 9 is actually crippling the hardware's capabilities! There are even other areas where OS 9 isn't up to the job of today's hardware from Apple, multi-threading being another one. That's TODAY'S hardware, what about the future? OS 9 isn't built for that, and they've already tried to hack it to make it work, it just can't.

We gotta move on from OS 9 eventually, it's not like nobody saw this coming. Jobs has been talking about this for the past year relentlessly. Technology marches on - even Microsoft stopped supporting DOS eventually.

I realize OS9 is not going to be able to handle the future and I agree that it's not Apple's fault for the lack of software. I just feel that OSX is so hungry and flashy that it may be waisting DSP on the OS, which is supposed to "not get in the way".
I'd rather have a stripped-down gray OS instead of cartoonish minimizing windows and scalable vector images for icons if it is going to be eating valuable CPU. Regarding the audio apps, some people in the business have told me that more than one of the major audio sequencers(Logic included) have been completed for a few months now and are forced to hold back the release until 10.2 because they were built around the new Core Audio and MIDI unit(which I assume they had access to in advance)and may even need 10.2 as a minimum system requirement. Even if we get them soon, how long until Native Instruments and the rest get on it? The one I'm really concerned with is Metasynth, which I use ALOT. It was made by one dude(the guy who made Bryce)and no one has heard anything of OS X support. Wait and see, I guess.

 

[Roger1]

Netboot again

True the xserve supports Netboot, but some of the rumors on this site are saying that it will be a motherboard adjustment that prevents os9 from working. If that's the case, I'm curious how Netboot will work on new client machines (as we add them to the network).

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by barkmonster
If the new powermacs won't boot into OS 9 then the mac is next to useless for audio till all the plug-in, sequencer and software synth companies port all their stuff to OS X!

Not to mention all those hardware systems. Protools, Korg OASYS, Creamware... Anyone with any kind of DSP based system isn't going to be buying a new mac for quite some time.

and then there is video and the graphics people...a graphics friend of mine who has some really good gear can still only use it with os 9

apple does have to move forward, but os x as the sole os right now is still a bit early

now that i have had the chance to fool with it, os x is not bad but i wish there was more support for it...i always hear what supports it, but there is much more out there that still only works with os 9 when i go to the mac store or the college bookstore

 

[Rocketman]

Re: Re: Is Apple Crazy?

Originally posted by bretm


Actually, the "NEW" OS that was to become OSX was first scheduled to be released in beta in 1996. Then '97, then they changed formats to Rhapsody based on Next or something, after awhile Jobs decided it just wasn't strong enough and a lot of that technology fell into the original OSX server, OS9, etc. Then they switched to the full UNIX concept they have now, which I've been following for about 3 years. Chew on that.

The roadmap released for Rhapsody/whatever-they-called-the-alternate-view-at-the-time specifically addressed and proposed using Intel chips on low level OS basis by having a kernal to support that, and similar to PowerPC chips, and even addressed other chips such as alpha at the time.

Apple wrote and seeded an Intel based mac OS called Star Trek which many people called slow but maclike.

I think it is fair to say there are a few stable running macs at Cupertino right now running on Intel chips. What clearly is not happening is a business decision to change over for a variety of reasons. Last I checked Intel chips were considerably more expensive than PowerPC in production quantities and this might be a driving factor for a niche supplier like Apple where margin matters.

Bottom line is if Apple wanted to release an Intel or AMD chip based computer next year, they could.

Rocketman

 

[mnkeybsness]

Re: Re: This all reminds me of...

Originally posted by Rocketman


Correct me if I am wrong please.

DOS applications ran under DOS under windows (all versions) for many years after windows was released. Maybe still does. I am not a windows user, just a former DOS user.

winblowz hexpee no longer uses DOS and is not DOS-based...and it seems all the important apps don't need DOS any longer...winblowz does have a little DOS terminal...and what a waste it is

 

[ibookin']

As I sit here and write this on a Winblows 2000 PC, I am reminded of all the software and hardware and software I had to give up to make the switch to Mac. Scanner, TV card, CD burner, printer and a ton of decent software for the PC were given up just to get the latest and greatest OS, Mac OS X. Even when I was running 10.0.3, I marveled about how good this OS was, how stable it was, etc. Leaving old hardware and software behind is part of the way computers evolve.

My 2 cents

 

[Jack Tenric]

Re: Re: OS 9 needs a noble burial!

Originally posted by tjwett
I'd rather have a stripped-down gray OS instead of cartoonish minimizing windows and scalable vector images for icons if it is going to be eating valuable CPU.

As valid as your point is, that is not the view of the majority of users. People have gotten used to seeing operating systems that look fancy like OS X or XP. To use anything else seems primative to them now. Besides, thos special effects that you mention are going to be handled by the 3D card more than CPU in 10.2.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by Billicus
What about all those OS 9 games I still have? What about them...

Unfortunately it's a normal thing to be left with software that wont run on new OS's. I have a box full of it!

It's also quite normal for new Macs to not run old OS's ... try booting a Quicksilver off a Mac OS 8.6 CD.

I had games that worked in System 7.5, that stopped working in OS 8, then started working again in OS 9, only to break in 9.1.

The only thing you can do is either don't upgrade to the new OS and/or Mac, keep an old Mac for those Games, or see if you can get updated versions.

The issue here is Mac OS 9 is discontinued, and Apple will not be putting any effort into getting it to run on new hardware. I think if the new OS really disables dual booting (and I don't think you can stop from being able to boot from a different partition) on machines that *can* still boot into OS 9, it's because Apple wants to send the message to the developers that are dragging their feet (cough*quark*cough) to get on the ball!

Either way, don't expect new hardware to be able to run OS 9, anymore than it would run System 7! New hardware = new motherboard chipsets.

I'm a musician and a graphic artist, so I'm waiting for CubaseSX in October, and Quark 6... although I think I like InDesign better.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by barkmonster
...No OMS...

OMS is more or less built into Jaguar now

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Re: Re: OS 9 needs a noble burial!

Originally posted by tjwett
I just feel that OSX is so hungry and flashy that it may be waisting DSP on the OS, which is supposed to "not get in the way".
I'd rather have a stripped-down gray OS instead of cartoonish minimizing windows and scalable vector images for icons if it is going to be eating valuable CPU.

How is drawing gray pixels any faster than drawing white and blue pixels? It's not. The thing that slows down X's GUI is the alpha masks and animations. That will be fixed in Jaguar.

Mac OS always had feedback as far as opening a window … with the zoom recs. it gives you a sense of where the window came from, or went.
Now they can draw the whole window moving, which I think is a very cool thing.

Also the GUI doesn't use much CPU time unless you are moving, or minimizing a window.

Also, I for one like Aqua much better than Platinum, and I've been using Macs since System 7.

Regarding the audio apps, some people in the business have told me that more than one of the major audio sequencers(Logic included) have been completed for a few months now and are forced to hold back the release until 10.2 because they were built around the new Core Audio and MIDI unit(which I assume they had access to in advance)and may even need 10.2 as a minimum system requirement. Even if we get them soon, how long until Native Instruments and the rest get on it? The one I'm really concerned with is Metasynth, which I use ALOT. It was made by one dude(the guy who made Bryce)and no one has heard anything of OS X support. Wait and see, I guess.

BIAS has Deck and Peak out now. I was a former DECK II user, but switched to Cubase. I use Peak DV, and it runs much better in OS X.

Developers had plenty of notice, about 2 years, that OS 9 was going bye-bye. I agree that I think they are waiting for Jaguar, but 10.1 has much of the same core audio and many audio apps run on it now.

It's frustrating to have to wait for the apps we use, but making music in OS X is (forgive the pun) gonna ROCK!

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Re: Re: Re: Is Apple Crazy?

Originally posted by Rocketman
The roadmap released for Rhapsody/whatever-they-called-the-alternate-view-at-the-time specifically addressed and proposed using Intel chips on low level OS basis by having a kernal to support that, and similar to PowerPC chips, and even addressed other chips such as alpha at the time.

Apple wrote and seeded an Intel based mac OS called Star Trek which many people called slow but maclike.

I think it is fair to say there are a few stable running macs at Cupertino right now running on Intel chips. What clearly is not happening is a business decision to change over for a variety of reasons. Last I checked Intel chips were considerably more expensive than PowerPC in production quantities and this might be a driving factor for a niche supplier like Apple where margin matters.

Bottom line is if Apple wanted to release an Intel or AMD chip based computer next year, they could.

Rocketman

Two things to consider here. Rhapsody is the OS based on NeXTSTEP, and NeXTSTEP did indeed run on Intel hardware.

Since OS X is descended from NeXT, it wouldn't be too hard to get it to run on Intel/AMD processors, and I'm sure it's been done already at Apple.

They used to call this "Yellow Box." However, just because the Mach kernel can run on a different CPU, the applications would still need recompiling. There was talk that true Cocoa apps only needed the Yellow Box API libraries to run on Windows, but they would have the Windows GUI.

Star Trek was a version of System 7 running on x86 hardware. So it's more closely related to OS 9 than OS X. Apple dropped that plan when a major PC maker said they would like to use it, but couldn't afford to pay for it, because MS has them paying a fee per every PC they sell, even if it had Star Trek on it instead of Windows.

The next version of the Mac System software would have been Copland, aka System 8 (not the same as OS 8, which was originally System 7.7), which was killed off in favor of buying outside technology. We did get a few things from Copland, such as the V-Twin search engine, later known as Sherlock, and the OS 8 Platinum look.

Darwin does run on x86 hardware of course. I don't think Apple will ever make a version of OS X that runs on other companies' PC hardware, since Apple makes most of its money on hardware sales, but they may use x86 processors.

Steve Jobs was quoted as saying this would have to wait until OS X is fully deployed. Apple already switched CPUs when going from 68k to PPC, but this will be a bit trickier. I think the PowerPC is still better than the Pentium and even the Athlon, but we really need to get the clock rates up.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Originally posted by ibookin'@mwny
As I sit here and write this on a Winblows 2000 PC, I am reminded of all the software and hardware and software I had to give up to make the switch to Mac. Scanner, TV card, CD burner, printer and a ton of decent software for the PC were given up just to get the latest and greatest OS, Mac OS X. Even when I was running 10.0.3, I marveled about how good this OS was, how stable it was, etc. Leaving old hardware and software behind is part of the way computers evolve.

My 2 cents

I agree with you about things getting left behind, been there, done that.

But I'm also puzzled.

Before I bought my G4, I had a Mac clone. It was getting harder to find new printers that had Mac serial ports, and ADB mice and keyboards, so I purchased a $50 USB card, and bought an MS Itellimouse Optical, and an Epson StylusPhoto 870.

I also had an old UMAX Astra 1220S SCSI scanner, a LaCie CD-RW drive, and an original SCSI Iomega Zip drive, circa 1995.

When I ordered my G4 (from Smalldog Electronics.. GREAT people to buy from!) I also got an OrangeMicro SCSI card.

When I first got OS X 10.0 the SCSI card didn't work due to lack of drivers, and there were also no drivers for the printer. I could print out of classic, however. But this changed after about 6 months, and now everything, including the scanner, works great in OS X. Even the LaCie burner works with the Finder's DiskBurner, as well as Toast. None of this stuff is new! The newest pieces being the three year old printer and LaCie burner.

I read that Jaguar has native support for scanners, enabling you to scan right from Image Capture, and it even comes with drivers for Canon scanners. More to follow I'm sure.

What peripherals do you have that don't work in OS X?