Year 2003 Bug!??? Mac OS 9 to Stop working?

frescies

macrumors regular
Original poster
Dec 9, 2002
225
0
Los Angeles, CA
I read an article on the apple pr database that specifically states that as of this January New macs will no longer boot in OS 9. Assuming the worst I figure that means that New macs are endowed with hardware that will refuse to boot in 9.

I have a lot of classic aps that don't like running in "classic" and was quite rejoiced at having just bought an imac that still runs OS9 (which I had previously thought was a bad move, planning on waiting for some updated hardware).

Then I came across a thread somewhere in here that states ALL macs running OS 10.2 are programmed to refuse to boot in OS 9 after the first of the new year!!! Is this true?? Did Apple sneak that in the 10.2 system somewhere? Will I NEVER be able to boot OS 9 again come Jan 1?

Troubled,
David
 

strider42

macrumors 65816
Feb 1, 2002
1,460
6
thats a load of bull. Apple would never do that. There's no reason for them to do that. Any mac that can curently boot to OS 9 will be able to. Any mac bought after january will only boot to OS X, which is all apple has ever said. People like to read into things when its just not there. You will not have a problem booting into OS 9. I suppose its possible that apple could program a firmware update to do prevent older machines from booting into 9, but like I said, why would they do that. They'd have to write firmware updaters for each type of machine just to accomplish something their customers obviously wouldn't want.
 

FattyMembrane

macrumors 6502a
Apr 14, 2002
966
154
bat country
apple is not allowing new machines to boot into os9 so that the new mobos and chipsets will not have to support it's rom and stuff like that. if apple really wanted to force slacker software companies to make their products osx compatable, or force users to upgrade, they could make an osx update that prevented os9 booting, but they would not sink that low. it would be more trouble to prevent os9 booting on machines that origionally supported it than not to do it.
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,859
57
Originally posted by FattyMembrane
apple is not allowing new machines to boot into os9 so that the new mobos and chipsets will not have to support it's rom and stuff like that. if apple really wanted to force slacker software companies to make their products osx compatable, or force users to upgrade, they could make an osx update that prevented os9 booting, but they would not sink that low. it would be more trouble to prevent os9 booting on machines that origionally supported it than not to do it.
For years every time Apple changed the motherboard and chipsets, changes were required in the MacOSROM file and a bunch of other files to maintain functionality and add new ones.

Since Apple froze OS 9 they've done a good job of keeping the new machines working with the frozen system, but any major changes would have broken the OS.

Coming Jan 1st Apple has warned developers and users that new machines will no longer support booting into OS 9 - meaning they can move forward in hardware design without the corpse of OS 9 holding them back.

It's doubtful that Apple would sabotage shipping current machine designs, but don't expect any "new" machines to boot into OS 9 - at least until somebody comes out with a 3rd party ROM file patch or an enabler file for the new machines (in other words don't expect Apple to do it for you).
 

beez7777

macrumors 6502a
Aug 5, 2002
757
0
Notre Dame
Originally posted by ezkimo
Why dont you change the date to Jan. 1st and see what happens?
nothing happens. in fact, its quite funny. you can extend the date infinitely in both directions. i stopped trying to go back after i got to the year -150, and stopped going forward after 2650. :)
 

mymemory

macrumors 68020
May 9, 2001
2,495
0
Miami
Listen!!!!!!!

This is the same scenario with the OS 7.1, there is just no more suppurt but they still running. Just investigate what happend then and make your own conclutions.

I do expect not finding mor OS 9 support in future macs, it can be in the 2003 or later but is something that is gonna happen.

About the os9 native aplications... would be only good having a OS9 compatible system around, they are good today and they would be good for later on too.
 

Mr. Dibbs

macrumors newbie
Nov 21, 2002
16
0
USA
I just cleared this up in another thread...

for anyone wanting official answers, this was addressed in the jobs keynote a long time ago at some expo, I forget which one. I'm gonna quote my post cause I don't feel like linking it.. but the original is in the thread attached to the ichat and panther rumor on the macrumors.com homepage.

::Slaps his forehead:: OY! NO NO no.... you got it all mixed up. being a person who watches every Jobs keynote webcast, I can speak from the mouth of the horse on this matter. first, to paraphrase Jobs, the reason macs will not boot into OS9 starting 2003 is simply the fact that apple is likely [radically perhaps, a la gigawire, etc...] to change/upgrade the hardware for all mac computers, and Jobs' executive decision, he said himself that apple will stop developing drivers for the classic OS for the new computers which will be released post 2002. for anyone who knows about the option key boot up, they will recognize that if they have a hard disk with only os 9 on it, they can boot into that os on that disk without messing with any software. the real key is in the firmware. Jobs also made rather redundant assurances that for all the classic and quark users "your old macs will boot into classic just fine." because the classic OS has drivers which will allegedly run any machine shipped until 2003, excluding the educational boxes...any machine shipped pree '03 will run nine.

The key to apple's strategy was said by jobs himself in that apple has been spread out way too thin because it has had to develop and fix problems on two entirely different platforms, X and 9, and that the company is one again going to focus it's rescources on the future, meaning Panther and X, and is leaving classic to have the dirt clods hit it's casket, which was rolled out in the WWDC a while ago. hope this helps. --Dibbs
there. i hope that kills this rumor...
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
Re: Year 2003 Bug!??? Mac OS 9 to Stop working?

Originally posted by frescies
I read an article on the apple pr database that specifically states that as of this January New macs will no longer boot in OS 9. Assuming the worst I figure that means that New macs are endowed with hardware that will refuse to boot in 9.

I have a lot of classic aps that don't like running in "classic" and was quite rejoiced at having just bought an imac that still runs OS9 (which I had previously thought was a bad move, planning on waiting for some updated hardware).

Then I came across a thread somewhere in here that states ALL macs running OS 10.2 are programmed to refuse to boot in OS 9 after the first of the new year!!! Is this true?? Did Apple sneak that in the 10.2 system somewhere? Will I NEVER be able to boot OS 9 again come Jan 1?

Troubled,
David
if apple did that, a lot of people would go buy a pc and use windows xp, which is a great and very stable operating system

all those mac users who hate ms and could point out examples of common hishaps in 95/98/me/nt 4.0 cannot say with equal fervor that xp toally sucks like those others

windows 2000, while not as multimedia friendly as xp, is a decent operating system, but still not as good as os 9, but close

apple will not cut off its few users that it has left...that would be sabotaging their own interests

os x is a product in the making...still...but by 2004, it will be "the" undisputed standard operating system for all macs...i think;)
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,684
1
LaLaLand, CA
Thanks Dibbs, but I doubt that info will kill the rumor. Some people still think the 1.25s are OC'ed. And some people think Steve said iTools was free for life ( he said iTools free, your e-mail for life ). And the fact that Apple BOUGHT the GUI from Xerox, then M$ stole it from Apple. We've tried rumor/myth dispelling threads, but that doesn't seem to work.

At least no one is panicking over something some web site no one's ever heard of pulled out of it's ***, merely a misunderstanding over what Steve said.

As far as WinXP being acceptable, I won't get it. I was offered it for free, I still said no thanks. Having played with it for awhile I was very disappointed. You should see how many times I've had to help my Mom with her Sony ( just the OS, hardware's fine ). I love how she keeps saying "we should've gotten a Mac". My friend's Dell had similar problems. But after I helped her Mom with a printer, her iMac hasn't had a problem.

My friends in Tacoma can't wait til I get there so I can troubleshoot their Compaq. Again. He keeps saying he's gonna go Linux. I have Win2000 on an old HP and it's okay. Yes, I do see your point Jef about bashing something you don't know, but just because it doesn't crash as much, doesn't make it good. Just, uh... better than bad ( there's M$s new slogan "at least were better than bad" ).

When I say M$, I'm talking about every OS from Dos & 3.1 to 2000 & XP/Pro, and Office, and IE, and the shady business practices...

Palladium anyone?

Can't wait to get OS X ( finally moving on the 2nd :D ).
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
Originally posted by solvs
Yes, I do see your point Jef about bashing something you don't know, but just because it doesn't crash as much, doesn't make it good. Just, uh... better than bad ( there's M$s new slogan "at least were better than bad" ).
i take it you don't like xp too much

with mit's kerberos v.5, larger hcl, built in firewalls that the user locks down in administrator mode, and a friendlier version of c2lvldodsec built in, XP has come a long way, from let's say nt 4.0
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,684
1
LaLaLand, CA
I was going to write some big, long thing about M$ and security and control over your settings and where to put things, but we've all heard it before. XP is better than older Windows OSs, but that isn't saying much. I'm sticking with 2000 for now, because it seems to be the best (again, not saying much).

And don't say I'm afraid of change.

I'll take X over 9 anyday (Quark be damned).

-

User of DOS, Windows 3.1, 95, 98, NT 4, SE, ME, etc. Still rather use OS 8 ( and we all remember how bad that was;) ).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.