Why I see no need to adopt OSX

[Thomas S. England]

OK, I stand corrected. Didn't know that.

Well, then, I agree that's a bad move since there are still some things you can do in 9 but not in X, such as OneClick. Users shouldn't lose the capability to make use of a great program like that.

[Bernie]

H**K! Even I'm finally moving up to Os X. Harv made me do it.    I know I know! It's about time. I'm only a year behind OS Wise

[kelly]

The best information I've seen on this yet.  

Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:28:04 -0500
From: Stavros Karatsoridis
Subject: Re: Mac OS 9 issues with new Power Macs

      Does anyone know of a way to get the new 17" G4 Imacs and/or the new Tower models, which are "not compatible" with OS9 to boot into OS9? I understand that there has been a change with the ROMs to prevent this and make them OSX bootable only, even though they have the "Classic" option. It seems to me that being able to boot these new machines into OS9 would be a great advantage, even if Apple doesn't think so.

It is a common misconception that Apple has "intentionally crippled the ROMs," and that a simple hack will magically enable Mac OS 9 to boot on the machines. This is absolutely NOT the case.

When Apple makes a new motherboard design (and that has been done with all the new 2003 macintosh models), they have to update the Mac OS with motherboard-specific drivers to be able to run the operating system on the machine. Without those drivers, the machine won't boot (this is similar to the System Enabler system Apple used to use back in the days of System 7.1). This is also why in Mac OS 9.2.2 there were updated versions of some files (like the Mac OS ROM file, for instance), and why a Mac OS 9.2.1 disk for an earlier macintosh won't boot a newer Macintosh that boots into Mac OS 9.2.2

Apple decided that in 2003, they would not spend the effort to keep updating Mac OS 9.2.2 to run on the new machines. This requires quite a bit of extra time and effort separate from getting Mac OS X to work on the machines, that could be better spent elsewhere. Therefore, since they're not updating the operating system to support the new hardware and motherboard designs, they have removed the Mac OS 9 boot code from the ROM as well (there's no need for it).

In short, to get Mac OS 9 to boot on the new machines, one would not only have to add Mac OS 9 boot code to the machine's boot ROM, but they would also have to figure out how to reverse engineer the operating system itself and the new motherboard designs to figure out how to write the low-level drivers necessary for them to talk to each other. Then they would need to figure out how to write drivers to support new features (Firewire 800, for example). They would need to "roll a new version" of the Mac OS ROM file, along with updating some of the control panels, extensions, and other code needed to run on the new machines. Needless to say, this is a major undertaking.

Some may attempt it, but I honestly don't think it will happen. Even if people should be able to do it, it won't run as well as it could, unless the people that do it are Apple engineers themselves with access to the necessary technical info and Mac OS 9 source code. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple tried to invoke the DMCA to prevent any such efforts either.

http://www.macintouch.com/g4-2003pt02.html#mar05

[Mayo]

Paddy, just which Oregon Loony are you referring to?  We have so many in this state!  Mabon?  Sizemore?  If it wasn't for Portland and the Willamette Valley Oregon would be a miserable, reactionary place indeed!

Getting back to OS X, I hadn't even considered all the neat shareware programs I have come to rely on in OS 8/9...  Where would I be without FinderPop?  How about Greg's Browser, a simple but effective way for navigating through myriad volumes and folders?  And I won't even get into the various control strip modules I have grown to love...

A question:  Didn't I read that Apple is dropping support for its LaserWriter printers?  Is that true or am I mistaken?  I have a barely-used LaserWriter 360 that I purchased in '95, hooked-up to my 7300.  It still runs like a champ and isn't anywhere near retirement, and I see no good reason for dumping it because it isn't supported in OS X.

Heck, Apple wouldn't even get a hardware purchase out of me if that is true...Apple doesn't make printers anymore!

[Roadguy]

Well the debate continues not only here but all over  the Macintosh community about OSX.

Many of us know the problems that have plagued Apple over the years (ie: Powerbook 5300).

I haven't put OSX on any of my Macs.  The newest one I own is a Powerbook (Wallstreet 266), with some upgrades.  I've had no need, they do what I need them to do and they do it well.

As for Apple, someone mentioned it here, they are a hardware company, that's what they do.  They need to sell computers. How many of you out there still have older Macs that run as well as they did when you got them?  I know friends that do including myself, I still have a MacPlus that does exactly what it did some 16 years ago.  I'm not saying you would use one that old for everyday computer use now.  However there are many Macs that are 8 or 9 years old that will do the basic everyday things people need them to do.  How many old Windows machine will do that today? Most of the Windows machines that old won't even startup.

 My point is for the most part  Apple built computers that will work for years and years.  They know this.  So now they want you to buy a new OS.  How do they get you to buy it.  Market it as a must have and make new hardware that will only use this OS and not the older one you have now.  They also get other companies to make or upgrade apps that run only on this OS.  

This is what Apple wants.  Buy the new software but also buy a new Mac.  That's fine, they are a business and they need sales to survive.

So we, in the Mac community, have to face the fact that if Apple and the Macintosh is to survive, we will need to spend some money on a new OS and maybe some hardware down the road.

I know I want to see the Mac survive.  I would hate to have to switch to Windozes.  Oh wait....my  Macs run fine.  Never mind.

[tacit]

"My point is for the most part Apple built computers that will work for years and years. They know this. So now they want you to buy a new OS. How do they get you to buy it. Market it as a must have and make new hardware that will only use this OS and not the older one you have now. They also get other companies to make or upgrade apps that run only on this OS."

To be fair, it's not as simple as that.

Apple needed a new operating system because people kept asking for things that were almost impossible to do in the old operating system.

OS 9, and all the operating systems before it, had a lot of problems. OS 9 does not offer protected memory addressing, for example, which means that when a program crashes, it can kill the entire operating system--the #1 technical complaint of Mac users.

OS 9 is also built on OS 8, which is built on OS 7, and so on--meaning that some of the code in OS 9 is still 68K code, and some ofthe code is almost impossible to change.

Also, OS 9 is not really multiprocessor friendly. Programs in OS 9 must be specially written to use multiple processors or features like AltiVec; changing the architecture of the operating system so that programs automatically use multiple processors would so radically change the way the operating system handles processes that most existing programs would not work any more.

Trying to do a major overhaul of the system, bringing it up to date with regards to things like task handling and multiprocessor utilization and protected memory, involves such radical rewriting of the core of the operating system that you're basically starting from scratch anyway.

I remember when System 7 first came out. A lot of my System 6 software didn't like System 7, and it was slow, and it felt clumsy. The user interface totally sucked--opening folders took forever, emptying the Trash took forever. I swore I'd never use it, that I'd just keep using System 6.

Of course, Apple started releasing hardware that only ran System 7, and as the hardware got faster and System 7 was refined, it got better and better. Soon, I didn't miss System 6 any more at all.

OS X right now is where System 7 was when it first came out. But the fact is, OS X is Apple's new operating system. They can't keep supporting OS 9 for exactly the same reasons that they can't keep supporting System 6. It just makes no sense.

Apple created OS X because people today are using their computer to do things that are difficult or impossible to do in OS 9. OS 9, with its static memory addressing, non-protected memory space, and primitive task handler, is not suited to tasks like high-speed IO (think DVD creation here) or busy server environments or Web serving, and it will never be as stable as OS X can be.

You can still use your computer usefully in OS 9. But that will change.

Back in the day of System 6, nobody ever believed that people would use a home computer to do things like make a CD, much less make a movie. Nobody ever believed that people would connect their computer to a high-speed real-time worldwide network. Nobody could ever have imagined using a home computer as a file server or as a sound editing workstation or even to play games as sophisticated and complex as Age of Empires.

If we were still using System 6, guess what? We still would not be doing any of those things. System 6 is not capable of doing them.

Today, nobody can imagine what we will be using home computers for in 10 years. But I can tell you this: We will be using them to do things that OS 9 is simply not capable of doing.

[Mayo]

Well, I have to say that I have learned a fair amount about the whys and wherefores regarding the booting issue.  So maybe Jobs and Company aren't being capricious after-all...

In the end I suppose that the easiest solution is to hang onto a legacy Mac to run the older printers, etc. and gradually make the switch to X when it comes time to get a new machine.

[swhitset]

For what it's worth, I haven't booted into OS 9 in a long time.  However, I am glad I bought my flat panl imac when I did.  I do still have a lot of software that I may not use often, but still needs OS 9.  My stupid Umax 200U  scanner will never be supported in X (although it does seem to work in classic).  For once, I feel like I have a more capable mac than those currently for sale by Apple    

Steve

[Paddy]

Mayo, I was thinking of Mabon.    Like a bad penny, that one...

[powermacg4_450]

not sure where your question is? but,

your wrong in many ways..... but you did bring up one good point. If OS 9 works for you and you like it, then by all means keep using it.

Eventually, if you want newer programs, there will come a day when you cant get them under OS 9, as all future stuff will be osX only.

You said os 9 rarely crashed.... it always crashed on me! In fact, ive used macs for over 11 years, running OS versions from 7.1 through 9.x, and the Mac OS has been buggy and crash prone for a LONG time.

I never thought I would admit that...But since moving to OS X, i've never looked back.

I cant even use 9 anymore.... yuk! Its so outdated and buggy. Ugly.

But to each his own... good luck.

[Bill]

I was one of the ones who did not want to completely switch over to X at the beginning because there were soooooo many apps and such that wouldn't work in X. Now days I find myself using X (Jaguar) a lot more.
Not just because some of the apps/programs NOW will work in Jag [as opposed to the earlier version] but because I like it.
There are a few things which I have to do differently and does take a bit more time but hey adapt. An example would be in 8 or 9 when uploading to a server,all I would have to do for saving the upload back to my DT with the url (say an image) would be open the image on the server and download. The url would be there with the image for me to put away in whatever folder. Not only a backup but also a quick access to the url.
Now in Jag one has to copy the url while in your servers domain and paste it in the "get info -comments". Just takes a bit longer is all. Sometimes with Safari you don't have to go through all that,yet sometimes you do. At first I thought it depended on the server host as to why Safari was a hit and miss but that's not the case. No matter.
That's just one small example.

Oh sure. I knew the change was a situation where Apple needed/had to do just to keep a float.
Or as Tacit (and a few others) put it, the old OS's rubberband is just stretched too far.  

I still work out of 9 for different task though because 9 gets the job done more effectively and faster. Whether that's due to my being used to doing things there or what,the bottom line is it gets done.

SO. Until I can learn to be quick-draw-Bill in Jag,I choose to have machines that can boot in 9 or Jag. As far as I'm concerned classic can take hike.

Maybe by the time I can run around in Jag where I don't have to stick my left arm out to make a left turn, Jag will be called zebra and you don't need to do zilch but talk to the box. <gr>
Can see it now ... computer:show me a picture of Dreambirds left toe. <gr>
Oh Wait! Already have that one.  

Hey. Once in another life time an employer wanted me to shave my beard off or else.
Told him to *()#@.

[Dreambird]

quote:Can see it now ... computer:show me a picture of Dreambirds left toe. <gr>

Wha' huh??    

Gawd! If you're talking about that picture of dog, Spencer with the feet in it... those are my sister's feet...    So you have a picture of her toe.

[neokm]

Well, I think Tacit did a great job explaining the situation all the while keeping his fingers on the 'option /control' keys.  I totally agree with him on the limited longevity (excuse the word), "window" of opportunity as it relates to progress.  I'm thankful also that when I ever do get on board with X+ all future improvements - you guys and gals on the TS site will have worked out all the bugs.

Mike  -$.02
 
 [ 03-07-2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: neokm ]

[WDL]

Tacit's posts are always must reading.

Helped me get a better understanding of what's
evolving and why.

WDL

[Highmac]

Thanks Tacit, for providing perspective. I'd forgotten how much things changed from 6 to 7 and so on. I'm sure I will get to X, but at the moment my set up does all I need.