Why Classic 9?

[Peyton]

Hi, I'm 20, and relatively new fan of Apple's but I was around for Classic 9 and was wondering why people still hold on to it? The UI, stability, just everything is better in OSX 10.4 and beyond, what is it that keeps people back? Nostagia? Just wondering... I am a Moby fan also and he mentioned in one of his blos that he still uses 9 on his thinkpad. Interesting choice for a wealthy artist who works a lot on comps to design sounds for music.
Do you think that it will be available in 10.5?

Thanks

 

[mduser63]

Some people just don't see a need to upgrade. OS 9 does everything they need to do, and rather than pay for OS X (and possibly a new Mac) and learn a new OS, they prefer to stick with what they have.

BTW, I highly doubt Moby uses OS 9 on his ThinkPad. I have a feeling you meant to type PowerBook.

 

[Duff-Man]

Duff-Man says...another reason is the hardware - OS 9 (or older) runs pretty well still on some of the older hardware and if the software you are using still works and the OS still works then why upgrade?...oh yeah!

 

[rendezvouscp]

Before I got a new Mac, because of the death of my older Mac, I was perfectly content with Mac OS 9. Sure there were some things that were released for only Mac OS X (like, back then, iTunes 3) but I got fine without it. It's pretty easy to stay in the old OS if you don't need to move to Mac OS X, even though it's infinitely times better and cooler.

Duff-Man, it's been a while!
-Chasen

 

[Duff-Man]

Duff-Man, it's been a while!
-Chasen

Duff-Man says....yes...it has...I have been otherwise occupied...I hope that other stuff it done with now and I can resume my regular programming...oh yeah!

 

[Coolnat2004]

It is most definitely not going to be available in OS 10.5. Note that it's not even available in 10.4.4 on Intel, and by the time 10.5 comes out, all of the new macs will be Intel, and thus not have classic.

 

[RacerX]

It is most definitely not going to be available in OS 10.5. Note that it's not even available in 10.4.4 on Intel, and by the time 10.5 comes out, all of the new macs will be Intel, and thus not have classic.

But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't still be there in the PowerPC version of 10.5. Classic currently requires no additional development from Apple, and keeping it in Mac OS X for PowerPC doesn't require anything of Apple.

I'm sure Apple will continue to offer the Classic environment for as long as they offer a PowerPC version of Mac OS X. The environment itself doesn't detract from Mac OS X and hardly takes up any space for those who don't use it (it is the Mac OS 9 system folder that is the space hog). There is no benefit to users by not including it and plenty of benefits by leaving it in.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Hunting down extension conflicts and programs occasionally bringing the entire Mac to a shuddering halt?

Thanks for the memories... but no thanks.

 

[steve_hill4]

But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't still be there in the PowerPC version of 10.5. Classic currently requires no additional development from Apple, and keeping it in Mac OS X for PowerPC doesn't require anything of Apple.

I'm sure Apple will continue to offer the Classic environment for as long as they offer a PowerPC version of Mac OS X. The environment itself doesn't detract from Mac OS X and hardly takes up any space for those who don't use it (it is the Mac OS 9 system folder that is the space hog). There is no benefit to users by not including it and plenty of benefits by leaving it in.

True, but I think Apple stated in launching both Leopard and the Intel transition at WWDC 2005 that 10.5 would no longer have Classic support. In many ways, it's not that bad anyway. Would other OSs support an operating system that was that different to it's current one, (which was for years cheap enough to upgrade to), for so long?

If you see OS 9 as the Windows ME of the Mac, (in age, that it was based on earlier versions of the OS and difference to its current and future OSs), Microsoft does not support ME and hasn't for quite a while. Most software for well over a year or two now has stated Windows 2000 or XP, so if you want it, you upgrade. Apple has supported Classic much better than this for longer, so losing it now wouldn't be a major loss, especially when the hardware has changed from G3 to G4 to Intel in some and G4 to G5 to Intel in others. That's a major change over the time of Classic support thus far and those still needing it mostly tend to use the real thing.

 

[Peyton]

Thanks you all, good points, but I was also thinking, it seems if you're going to spend the money to upgrade, there's no point in going back to classic through the new verison. Besides, the amount of people wanting to do that is probably not worth Apple's time. I tend to be an out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new, but I respect that others arent.

regards

Peyton

 

[whocares]

Hunting down extension conflicts and programs occasionally bringing the entire Mac to a shuddering halt?

There used to be a useful key for booting-up w/o extensions. I haven't needed to use it in 3-4 years.


There was also a neat force-quite key combo that work about one time in a million and otherwise brought the whole system down.

 

[MisterMe]

True, but I think Apple stated in launching both Leopard and the Intel transition at WWDC 2005 that 10.5 would no longer have Classic support....

I follow Mac developments fairly closely. I have never heard this or seen it reported anywhere. Perhaps, you have an authority for your statement. If you do, then please give us the link.

... Microsoft does not support ME and hasn't for quite a while....

Perhaps we define support differently. To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft still provides security updates for Windows 98 and its new sibling, Windows Me.

 

[FFTT]

I was never so glad to kiss Conflict Catcher goodbye.

The only use I have now for OS9 at all is to play a few old games like
Star Wars Racer.

 

[RacerX]

True, but I think Apple stated in launching both Leopard and the Intel transition at WWDC 2005 that 10.5 would no longer have Classic support.

The only thing I heard was that Classic was not going to be supported on the Intel platform. They stated that they had no intention of developing Classic for the Intel platform... that is not a statement about it being in the PowerPC version of 10.5.

I don't think Classic itself has been much a part of internal Mac OS X development (much less a subject for discussion at WWDC with third party developers) since 2002. Apple was only addressing hurdles that faced the move to the Intel platform. And Classic on Intel Mac is a hurdle Apple has stated they are going to avoid.

In many ways, it's not that bad anyway.

It requires nothing of Apple to leave it in in the PowerPC version of Mac OS X, it doesn't hurt Mac OS X for it being there... but removing it hurts users.



How is it not that bad anyway?

My understanding is that it'll be in Mac OS X for PowerPC as long as there is a version of Mac OS X for PowerPC.

And I think I have a pretty good track record for reading Apple's intentions in these types of things.

Would other OSs support an operating system that was that different to it's current one, (which was for years cheap enough to upgrade to), for so long?

Price was never a factor in Classic support. Legacy apps that will never be upgraded to Mac OS X was the driving factor.

One need only remember that Apple continued to sell PowerMac Dual G4 1.25 GHz systems (a summer of 2002 model system) for more than a year after all other Apple hardware had become Mac OS X only.

Why? Because enough people still needed to boot into Mac OS 9 and were willing to pay Apple for out of date systems to continued to do so.

But like I said, Apple has no reason to cut off users of Classic any sooner than it has to cut off users of PowerPC hardware. It requires nothing of them and it keeps users happy. And Apple rarely misses doing a good thing to keep users happy when it requires nothing of them.