Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Phasing out OS 9, Here Comes Jaguar
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I hope the pros on the board understand just how disquieting stuff like this press release (today) is to the casual user like me:
That's from MacCentral today. A BRAND NEW GAME coming out in September FOR THE MAC that doesn't do X.
I can do without the latest and greatest games for myself. But if I have to worry about whether the stuff from Reader Rabbit, Jumpstart, Humungous, etc. is going to run on my brand new eMac I just can't buy it.
Just looking for some hand-holding and assurance I can go ahead and send a few thousand bucks to Cupertino without regretting it later.
That's from MacCentral today. A BRAND NEW GAME coming out in September FOR THE MAC that doesn't do X.
I can do without the latest and greatest games for myself. But if I have to worry about whether the stuff from Reader Rabbit, Jumpstart, Humungous, etc. is going to run on my brand new eMac I just can't buy it.
Just looking for some hand-holding and assurance I can go ahead and send a few thousand bucks to Cupertino without regretting it later.
Now how do you come to that conclusion? They're still using the G3 for goshsakes, and according to Apple they will still be for a while longer, maybe even at least a year. I guess I don't get why the death of bootable OS 9 software and computers would have anything to do with moving away from the G4.
In addition to that...
...there's already a Mac that won't boot 9 (without a hack), and it uses G4s. It's called the XServe. I would imagine that anything that uses the new uni-north northbridge won't accept a standard OS9 install.Originally posted by Hemingray
Now how do you come to that conclusion? They're still using the G3 for goshsakes, and according to Apple they will still be for a while longer, maybe even at least a year. I guess I don't get why the death of bootable OS 9 software and computers would have anything to do with moving away from the G4.
Re: putting on my asbestos suit...
On my PowerMac G3/400 with 768MB, VPC 4 and 5 run, but startup in uncomfortable. After that they both run reasonably well. VPC 5 has better response from the menus...some optimization. I haven't noticed any degradation under Mac OS X but it may be that there's enough memory to run it well. Of course, on my newer dp 800, it runs much better.
On my PowerMac G3/400 with 768MB, VPC 4 and 5 run, but startup in uncomfortable. After that they both run reasonably well. VPC 5 has better response from the menus...some optimization. I haven't noticed any degradation under Mac OS X but it may be that there's enough memory to run it well. Of course, on my newer dp 800, it runs much better.
Question about OS 9-booting
If Apple decides to make new Macs unable to boot into OS 9, how would they do this?
I see three ways:
1. Apple makes some kind of new hardware that OS 9 does not support (which is more than likely, but someone is bound to come up with a patch or something).
2. Apple rewrites the ROM (or something like that) to make the machine figure out that it is trying to boot into 9, and then stop it.
3. Apple rewrites the ROM so that it will not recognise the OS 9 "blessed" System Folder.
Two of theese methods suggests that Apple will unable the user from booting into OS 9. If the reason why you could not boot into OS 9 was a hardware incompatibility, fine with me. But if Apple actively unabled you to boot into 9 (but the system itself would support it) then... it seems kind of stupid to me.
And another thing I've noticed ... we Mac users are rather touchy about the MacOS X vs. MacOS 9 thingy, aren't we?
If Apple decides to make new Macs unable to boot into OS 9, how would they do this?
I see three ways:
1. Apple makes some kind of new hardware that OS 9 does not support (which is more than likely, but someone is bound to come up with a patch or something).
2. Apple rewrites the ROM (or something like that) to make the machine figure out that it is trying to boot into 9, and then stop it.
3. Apple rewrites the ROM so that it will not recognise the OS 9 "blessed" System Folder.
Two of theese methods suggests that Apple will unable the user from booting into OS 9. If the reason why you could not boot into OS 9 was a hardware incompatibility, fine with me. But if Apple actively unabled you to boot into 9 (but the system itself would support it) then... it seems kind of stupid to me.
And another thing I've noticed ... we Mac users are rather touchy about the MacOS X vs. MacOS 9 thingy, aren't we?
Re: not surprising
Why not play the OS X beta? It runs great even on older imacs etc.
Unless you like to hear music :\
Why not play the OS X beta? It runs great even on older imacs etc.
Unless you like to hear music :\
OSX stinks for FPS games tho!
The only reason I use OS9 is for gaming. First person shooters run crappy in OSX. First of all, they run slower and choppier. I think the FPS may be limited to 40FPS. Everything runs smoother in os9. Second the mouse drivers for OSX blow! I use USB overdrive, which works fine in the OS, but in a game it seems that mouse acceleration is on and the mouse seems really jumpy and innaccurate compared to OS9. Apple needs to improve the mouse suppport for OSX if it is going to be standalone and for the love of god make the games run better!
The only reason I use OS9 is for gaming. First person shooters run crappy in OSX. First of all, they run slower and choppier. I think the FPS may be limited to 40FPS. Everything runs smoother in os9. Second the mouse drivers for OSX blow! I use USB overdrive, which works fine in the OS, but in a game it seems that mouse acceleration is on and the mouse seems really jumpy and innaccurate compared to OS9. Apple needs to improve the mouse suppport for OSX if it is going to be standalone and for the love of god make the games run better!
If you guys want to play games, buy an Xbox or a PS2.
I mean, for the price of a videocard, you can have a gaming system! (and its far more comfortable on the couch than at your desk!) Im 24 and Im tired of trying to keep my computer up to spec for new games. Its just not worth it.
Now I have a PS2 and an Xbox for all that. Ive been enjoying Halo for 3 months now! (and its the best game Ive played in a along time). We own macs...the games are barely available anyway.
On top of that, Im sure all the gaming issues will be fixed as well, but Apple is targeting adult users and not kids who want to play games. We'll just have to wait it out a bit.
I mean, for the price of a videocard, you can have a gaming system! (and its far more comfortable on the couch than at your desk!) Im 24 and Im tired of trying to keep my computer up to spec for new games. Its just not worth it.
Now I have a PS2 and an Xbox for all that. Ive been enjoying Halo for 3 months now! (and its the best game Ive played in a along time). We own macs...the games are barely available anyway.
On top of that, Im sure all the gaming issues will be fixed as well, but Apple is targeting adult users and not kids who want to play games. We'll just have to wait it out a bit.
Re: Re: Re: Kids games on OS X
You shouldn't have any cable modem issues. The cable modem and the computer don't really interact in any way. The cable modem simply converts the signals present in your cable line into a standard ethernet signal.
Modems shipped with software for OS9 because OS9 didn't provide native networking for PPPoE (PPP over ethernet - instead of over analog dialup) but OS X supports PPPoE so no software should be neccessary from AT&T.
How did you get it to work? it is working now in OSX, right?
You shouldn't have any cable modem issues. The cable modem and the computer don't really interact in any way. The cable modem simply converts the signals present in your cable line into a standard ethernet signal.
Modems shipped with software for OS9 because OS9 didn't provide native networking for PPPoE (PPP over ethernet - instead of over analog dialup) but OS X supports PPPoE so no software should be neccessary from AT&T.
How did you get it to work? it is working now in OSX, right?
It's inevitable. Old computers won't run new OS's, and new computers won't run old OS's. End of story. It's bound to happen eventually.
My only gripe is timing. They seem to be jumping into complete X dominance too quickly IMO. The app/driver support is still not strong enough to completely say goodbye.
Eventually we'll only emulate 9 or run it on old hardware. X is the future.
My only gripe is timing. They seem to be jumping into complete X dominance too quickly IMO. The app/driver support is still not strong enough to completely say goodbye.
Eventually we'll only emulate 9 or run it on old hardware. X is the future.
Well untill I can open a Nuendo or DP song file in osX,and have every plugin,virtual instrument,and hardware interface I depend on daily be there exactly as if I were running os9,then osX and any machine limited to only osX,is completely useless to me.We're talking alot of money for upgrades,and al least two years from now before I see this being a likelyhood,so to dump users like me is just plain stupid!!!!It would be much easier for me to switch to a windoze system than an osX sysem right now.I think Apple would be biting themselves in the ass to not keep their machines os9 ready for at least two more years!
A related tech support question...
I received a tech support question related to this from a switcher friend. His computer did a nasty crash (the blinking questionmark kind) and then boot up into some strange operating system he's never used. He couldn't get OS X up to sync his iPod.
I walked him through how to use the apple menu->control panel->startup disk to set it back to OS X. Since he's a switcher, he never used OS 9.
Perhaps Apple needs a little card to include with their computers. "What to do in the event you boot into OS 9."
I received a tech support question related to this from a switcher friend. His computer did a nasty crash (the blinking questionmark kind) and then boot up into some strange operating system he's never used. He couldn't get OS X up to sync his iPod.
I walked him through how to use the apple menu->control panel->startup disk to set it back to OS X. Since he's a switcher, he never used OS 9.
Perhaps Apple needs a little card to include with their computers. "What to do in the event you boot into OS 9."
Anyone who runs audio apps knows all too well the current lack of software support for OS X, as well as OS X's severe audio shortcomings (look under the "Audio" section of the OS X forum at the Apple site and read all 200 posts of "List your OS X audio problems here"). Jaguar is promised to fix this, and indeed I hope it does, but I'll believe it when I hear it. I remember Apple tech support promising me that 10.1.5 would magically solve all audio problems and present us with so many dazzling new features. That, of course, never transpired. For now, the fact remains that, thus far, OS X has been absolutely useless for audio - it cannot even playback a simple file without producing unacceptable distortions in the signal path.
Believe me, absolutely no one who is producing serious audio work is using OS X - the software just doesn't exist and the OS itself is not up to snuff. Although Jaguar will be released this month, Emagic (Apple) has not given any timetable for the release of Logic for X, Steinberg has not said when they will release an X version of Cubase, etc., etc. EVERYONE using Macs around the world for audio is using OS 9 (some still prefer 8, though) - they have no choice. BTW, Logic, Cubase and Prosoniq software will not run in classic at all.
I think Apple has made some very questionable decisions in their software releases lately. I guess it is the rush to get them out as fast as possible, but I really wish they would wait until they have gotten them to work properly before releasing them. For example, QT 6 is not compatible with FCP 3 - and Apple has given no indication when a fix for either (does it require an FCP update or a QT update? Who Knows?) will be available, and iTunes 3 does not really support AAC audio. These inconsistencies only serve to confuse and anger consumers, and are clear indications that Apple is now most concerned with getting products out as quickly as possible, never mind the bugs - "we'll fix it later, when we get around to it."
That is quite disappointing, I think, as this is precisely the sloppy, cynical tactic most associated with Microsoft, and one of the big reasons why most of us here are using Macs instead, correct? I can't think of a time when Apple was operating in this manner, and it's sad to see their famous quality control and software/hardware integration fall by the wayside in order to make room for the ubiquitous bottom line. I would much prefer to wait some extra months, for properly functioning and integrated software than getting half-finished, half-baked goods, which seems to be Apple's new business practice.
I will not be buying Jaguar when it is released. Since the introduction of OS X, Apple has proved time and again that each release is flawed in some major ways, requiring one to wait patiently for updates. I am sure that 10.2 will be an improvement over 10.1.5, but experience has taught me that it is perhaps best to wait for 10.2.3 or thereabouts - and that is what I will do. Besides, I am in no hurry. If the pro audio apps I need are still not available, what good does it do me to install Jaguar?
Meanwhile, I'm still forced to boot into OS 9 for audio work.
Believe me, absolutely no one who is producing serious audio work is using OS X - the software just doesn't exist and the OS itself is not up to snuff. Although Jaguar will be released this month, Emagic (Apple) has not given any timetable for the release of Logic for X, Steinberg has not said when they will release an X version of Cubase, etc., etc. EVERYONE using Macs around the world for audio is using OS 9 (some still prefer 8, though) - they have no choice. BTW, Logic, Cubase and Prosoniq software will not run in classic at all.
I think Apple has made some very questionable decisions in their software releases lately. I guess it is the rush to get them out as fast as possible, but I really wish they would wait until they have gotten them to work properly before releasing them. For example, QT 6 is not compatible with FCP 3 - and Apple has given no indication when a fix for either (does it require an FCP update or a QT update? Who Knows?) will be available, and iTunes 3 does not really support AAC audio. These inconsistencies only serve to confuse and anger consumers, and are clear indications that Apple is now most concerned with getting products out as quickly as possible, never mind the bugs - "we'll fix it later, when we get around to it."
That is quite disappointing, I think, as this is precisely the sloppy, cynical tactic most associated with Microsoft, and one of the big reasons why most of us here are using Macs instead, correct? I can't think of a time when Apple was operating in this manner, and it's sad to see their famous quality control and software/hardware integration fall by the wayside in order to make room for the ubiquitous bottom line. I would much prefer to wait some extra months, for properly functioning and integrated software than getting half-finished, half-baked goods, which seems to be Apple's new business practice.
I will not be buying Jaguar when it is released. Since the introduction of OS X, Apple has proved time and again that each release is flawed in some major ways, requiring one to wait patiently for updates. I am sure that 10.2 will be an improvement over 10.1.5, but experience has taught me that it is perhaps best to wait for 10.2.3 or thereabouts - and that is what I will do. Besides, I am in no hurry. If the pro audio apps I need are still not available, what good does it do me to install Jaguar?
Meanwhile, I'm still forced to boot into OS 9 for audio work.
Its a bit like being encouraged to dance by having to dodge bullets aimed at your feet, or being encouraged to sit down by having your leg shot off.
Not being able to boot into OS9 is going to KILL new hardware sales. It really doesn't matter how much it might encourage development, there is too much legacy hardware and softwarefor which OS 9 use, booting actually, that still is a daily necessity.
I hardly even use classic, I have been using OS X, but sometimes, I boot into 9.
Games are STILL important
Azzy, you are inncorrect to assume that only "kids" are gamers. I am 21 and am an avid gamer. There are tons of adults who play games...maybe even obsessively... Anyway, about your comment, I DO own an XBOX and Halo as well as other games. What you dont understand is that Console gaming and computer gaming are in 2 different leagues. The thing is, i CANT STAND FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS FOR CONSOLES!!! Trying to aim something with 2 joysticks is a very stupid idea and ever though I can do it, it will NEVER match a mouse and keyboard! If you tried to put a game like Tactical Ops on the Xbox it would be ruined. That is because it is all about fast reflexes and turning around and chekcing corners and aiming with precision. Can't do that with 2 fat joysticks im sorry. I love consoles for adventure games but for first person shooters they just dont cut it. So my concern is gaming in OSX.
Azzy, you are inncorrect to assume that only "kids" are gamers. I am 21 and am an avid gamer. There are tons of adults who play games...maybe even obsessively... Anyway, about your comment, I DO own an XBOX and Halo as well as other games. What you dont understand is that Console gaming and computer gaming are in 2 different leagues. The thing is, i CANT STAND FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS FOR CONSOLES!!! Trying to aim something with 2 joysticks is a very stupid idea and ever though I can do it, it will NEVER match a mouse and keyboard! If you tried to put a game like Tactical Ops on the Xbox it would be ruined. That is because it is all about fast reflexes and turning around and chekcing corners and aiming with precision. Can't do that with 2 fat joysticks im sorry. I love consoles for adventure games but for first person shooters they just dont cut it. So my concern is gaming in OSX.
beta testing
10.2 will be so great. I tested the beta and i was amazed about the progress that apple did. Amazing was that apple took this time bug reports seriousy and asked if reported problems were gone now.
This one is fast and kicking Love it.
10.2 will be so great. I tested the beta and i was amazed about the progress that apple did. Amazing was that apple took this time bug reports seriousy and asked if reported problems were gone now.
This one is fast and kicking
Love it.
Lets face it, It will do nothing for Apple to further develop OS 9. OS 9 has nowhere left to go. Apple's doing this harshly and with no remorse because they want more developers to move to OS X more quickly. True, some software may be stuck in the OS 9 era, and won't make the transition to X, but I'm sure that there are alternatives... Now, If I can just get my umax astra 6400 to work with OS X without having to buy vue scan...
Pepzhez, Walking Contradiction?
Mr. Pepzhez, are you sure you were sober when you wrote your last message? On one hand, you're complaining about the lack of audio software; on the other, you complain about apple's rush to release unfinished software. Bug free programs require time to be tested, which is what Steinberg, Emagic, and MOTU are doing.
In one sentence, you say that you won't be buying Jaguar, which has those audio features you so crave, and which will allow manufacturers to release their audio packages. But a bit later, you complain about having to boot in OS 9 to do audio work. Which is it, pal? You want to wait for 10.2.3, eh? I guess booting into OS 9 isn't so bad for you after all.
And by the way, Steinberg has already made an announcement regarding Cubase SX.
http://www.steinberg.net/news/cubase_sx_mac.phtml?sid=06083444
Gosh, is this really my first post here?
--JBytes
Mr. Pepzhez, are you sure you were sober when you wrote your last message? On one hand, you're complaining about the lack of audio software; on the other, you complain about apple's rush to release unfinished software. Bug free programs require time to be tested, which is what Steinberg, Emagic, and MOTU are doing.
In one sentence, you say that you won't be buying Jaguar, which has those audio features you so crave, and which will allow manufacturers to release their audio packages. But a bit later, you complain about having to boot in OS 9 to do audio work. Which is it, pal? You want to wait for 10.2.3, eh? I guess booting into OS 9 isn't so bad for you after all.
And by the way, Steinberg has already made an announcement regarding Cubase SX.
http://www.steinberg.net/news/cubase_sx_mac.phtml?sid=06083444
Gosh, is this really my first post here?
--JBytes
VueScan
Just wanted to say that $40.00 for VueScan is a really good deal if you are unhappy with your scanner company's drivers. I was displeased with Nikon's software that drives my Coolscan III. The colors weren't very accurate and the quality was just terrible. I knew that the scanner was capable of more but the Nikon software wasn't up to it. Then I found VueScan and was very pleased with the results it gave me. The colors were vivid and reasonably accurate. The real bonus was the software also recognized my Linotype-Hell flatbed. The developer is constantly updating the software and is very reactive to customer issues.
My 2¢.
Just wanted to say that $40.00 for VueScan is a really good deal if you are unhappy with your scanner company's drivers. I was displeased with Nikon's software that drives my Coolscan III. The colors weren't very accurate and the quality was just terrible. I knew that the scanner was capable of more but the Nikon software wasn't up to it. Then I found VueScan and was very pleased with the results it gave me. The colors were vivid and reasonably accurate. The real bonus was the software also recognized my Linotype-Hell flatbed. The developer is constantly updating the software and is very reactive to customer issues.
My 2¢.
Well, I don't think anyone *wants* to stick with OS 9 - I don't think that they do. The frustrations everyone has concerns the fact that a properly functioning OS X and compatible apps have been lacking, and it does seem silly that so many of us are still forced to boot into OS 9 in order to do our work when OS X has been out for over a year now!
We were promised a modern OS, paid for it and found out that it was nowhere near finished. Free Linux handles audio - not user-friendly or intuitive, but works once you figure it out - a thousand times better than OS 10.1.5. But then Windows 95 handles it better than 10.1.5. So it is no wonder that many people are frustrated, having been beta testers for Apple, and are now being asked to pay for OS X all over again (and this Jaguar may or may not solve these serious problems.)
Apple has managed the migration to OS X horribly (understatement). No matter how much you may like the company, you have to admit that this whole affair has been handled so ineptly, confusedly and wretchedly, it makes you wonder what the hell is going on in Cupertino.
Apple does know that much, I am sure. Cutiing off OS 9 support at a time when OS X is still barely functional really would be cutting their own throats - and they should realize that. But maybe Jobs really is that insane now. This is, after all, the man who introduced flower power imacs and fostered onto the public an incomplete OS X that is less functional and much slower than any free Linux distro. I guess time will tell, but I think Apple really needs to get their bearings soon or I don't know what their future will be like.
We were promised a modern OS, paid for it and found out that it was nowhere near finished. Free Linux handles audio - not user-friendly or intuitive, but works once you figure it out - a thousand times better than OS 10.1.5. But then Windows 95 handles it better than 10.1.5. So it is no wonder that many people are frustrated, having been beta testers for Apple, and are now being asked to pay for OS X all over again (and this Jaguar may or may not solve these serious problems.)
Apple has managed the migration to OS X horribly (understatement). No matter how much you may like the company, you have to admit that this whole affair has been handled so ineptly, confusedly and wretchedly, it makes you wonder what the hell is going on in Cupertino.
Apple does know that much, I am sure. Cutiing off OS 9 support at a time when OS X is still barely functional really would be cutting their own throats - and they should realize that. But maybe Jobs really is that insane now. This is, after all, the man who introduced flower power imacs and fostered onto the public an incomplete OS X that is less functional and much slower than any free Linux distro. I guess time will tell, but I think Apple really needs to get their bearings soon or I don't know what their future will be like.
JBytes, I said that I will believe Jaguar's audio promise when I hear it. I do not have Jaguar, have never tested any of the betas, know no one who has. I base my assessments on experience, and not what is promised on the Apple product pages. Now read what I wrote: Apple had promised that 10.1.5 would fix the problems and it didn't; now they say Jaguar will fix it. I hope it DOES fix the problem (and didn't I write that as well?), but meanwhile I retain a healthy skepticism. And why shouldn't I?
So what is contractictory about that? I would much rather be using OS X - I don't want to have to be booting into OS 9 for anything.
And I agree with you 100% on bug free apps. Again, read what I wrote. I said that I would rather wait for a functioning app instead of getting a rush-released, untested beta - which is what Apple has in fact released several times lately: OS X 1.0-1.5, FCP 3 for OS X (miserable performance in OS X - which Apple themselves admit to, advising you to run it in OS 9 if you are doing serious work).
Emagic, Steinberg, et al. were all too aware of OS 10.0-10.1.5's uselessness as an audio engine, which is why they didn't toss out carbonized versions of their apps right away. And I am happy they had the integrity to wait until they felt they could do it right. Let's hope that Jaguar is truly the solution Apple says it is.
So what is contractictory about that? I would much rather be using OS X - I don't want to have to be booting into OS 9 for anything.
And I agree with you 100% on bug free apps. Again, read what I wrote. I said that I would rather wait for a functioning app instead of getting a rush-released, untested beta - which is what Apple has in fact released several times lately: OS X 1.0-1.5, FCP 3 for OS X (miserable performance in OS X - which Apple themselves admit to, advising you to run it in OS 9 if you are doing serious work).
Emagic, Steinberg, et al. were all too aware of OS 10.0-10.1.5's uselessness as an audio engine, which is why they didn't toss out carbonized versions of their apps right away. And I am happy they had the integrity to wait until they felt they could do it right. Let's hope that Jaguar is truly the solution Apple says it is.
I have to seriously question this statement.
Anyone who thought 10.0 was to be a finished system was dreaming. Apple brought it out as way of showing that they were actually working on a serious product. 10.1 was a great improvement and I expect 10.2 to be even better.
Apple has not abandoned OS 9 they have basically said "that's it," they're not doing any more work on it and the market (yes they're driven by the market) is not big enoughto make it worth making new hardware to support booting into OS 9.
Look, this isn't personal but some people need to wake up. Stop acting so surprised, OS X is not new. Apple has not just sprung this on us. We have been given a brand spanking new idustrial strength operating system at a pretty low price.
I personally love it. If you have apps that only run well in OS 9 stick with them. No one is going to make you upgrade your system.
josh
out