Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Enthusiast Zone > Classic Macs and Mac OS > Future of OS 9.X.....

Future of OS 9.X.....
Thread Tools
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2002, 03:10 PM
 
Hi.

Sorry if this already had been covered, but since OS9.X is no longer "supported"....could this mean that the current revision of Towers are the last ones which will ship with OS 9.X?

If so....i guess i`ll need one of the current towers to run OS.9.X since OS`s are not backward compatible?!

Tom.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2002, 03:15 PM
 
To quote Star Trek - "It's Dead Jim"
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2002, 03:19 PM
 
More regarding your question:

Officially the OS is supported. Steve Jobs simply said -to developers- that OS 9 is dead. Basically indicating that Apple has no plans to update or fix ANY issues that the OS has.

Steve didn't say that Classic was dead.

The next computers will have OSX and Classic, but no OS 9... But that is still some time off. Education and graphics people will take at least two years before the transformation is complete. Remember that there are still people out there running Windows 95!
     
tomra  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2002, 04:48 PM
 
Hi.

Thanks for your reply...very helpful

Eh...what`s the difference between "classic" and "OS9"?
Does it mean you can only access "classic" in...well, classic mode?
Will i be unable to boot and use it as i`m using OS.9.X today?
Is this the case wth today`s OS.9.2....something?

Sorry for what might be dumb question, but i`m still in OS.9.1 and have yet to find a real practical reason to upgrade

Tom.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Massachoosetts
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2002, 05:46 PM
 
I'm sort of in the same boat... I have to use 9.x a lot due to audio work and some graphic stuff. Hopefully my programs will be upgraded soon so I have no reason to boot into 9.


They laughed at my Mac, it had no CLI. They laughed at Linux, it had no GUI. I installed MacOS X, and shut them up.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2002, 06:03 PM
 
audio has a bit of work on OSX... I hope to see more X apps in this area later this year...

I hear that 10.2 will fix some of the issues that the developers are having...
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2002, 11:32 PM
 
Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
<STRONG>More regarding your question:

Officially the OS is supported. Steve Jobs simply said -to developers- that OS 9 is dead. Basically indicating that Apple has no plans to update or fix ANY issues that the OS has.

Steve didn't say that Classic was dead.

The next computers will have OSX and Classic, but no OS 9... But that is still some time off. Education and graphics people will take at least two years before the transformation is complete. Remember that there are still people out there running Windows 95!</STRONG>
I'm a little confused here. Where did you get information that "The next computers will have OS X and Classic, but no OS 9....?" Apple is very secretive about product release and I don't remember any official statement from Apple to this effect. I also was under the belief that if you don't have OS 9 loaded on your machine, you don't have Classic! If you launch Classic from System Preferences, OS 9 launches. Could someone clarify this for me? I've not tried my machine without OS 9 on it, so I don't know for sure if Classic can be run without OS 9.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Mos Eisley Cantina
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2002, 03:36 AM
 
Could someone clarify this for me? I've not tried my machine without OS 9 on it, so I don't know for sure if Classic can be run without OS 9.
As a former developer on the Mac OS X Classic team at Apple, I can tell you that the Classic environment will most certainly NOT run without Mac OS 9 installed.

Without your Mac OS 9 System Folder, Classic (as you know it) does not exist. There are a few components that enable Classic to run, that aren't part of the traditional Mac OS 9. These include the "Classic" enabler in your System Folder (though this is active when 9 is running natively), the MacOSROM file (acts as the traditional Mac OS ROM file), and the TruBlueEnvironment application which acts as a proxy between the virtual environment and the host environment.

While these components augment or replace key parts of Mac OS 9, the rest of the Mac OS 9 System Folder is required (such as the System File, the extensions, etc) as well.

[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: PipelineStall ]
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2002, 04:14 AM
 
What's ProxyApp for? It's one of the items OS X installs in the Classic System Folder. Also, consider these points:

1. Firmware updates require you to boot into Mac OS 9.
2. The software restore CDs that come with new Macs boot you into 9.
3. In case of emergency, you may need to boot into 9, because OS X takes up too much space to fit on a CD-ROM uncompressed. The OS X install CD does not have a Finder.
4. OS 9 is easier to work with if you realise you are missing a component. For example, if you didn't install CloseView with 9.1 and are now running 9.22, you can use TomeViewer to extract the file(A few minutes). If you forgot to install something with 10.1 and are now running 10.14, Apple says to erase the partition and start over(Several hours).

(155)
     
Senior User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2002, 06:48 AM
 
Originally posted by AppleScript:
[QB]
3. In case of emergency, you may need to boot into 9, because OS X takes up too much space to fit on a CD-ROM uncompressed. The OS X install CD does not have a Finder.
This is untrue. The OS X install CD boots into X, and it has other stuff on it. There are third party utilities that will let you make OSX boot discs with whatever you want on them. I think OSX comes out to only a few hundred megs.
Dual 800 - GF3 - 1.5GB
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2002, 01:10 PM
 
Originally posted by benh57:
<STRONG>

This is untrue. The OS X install CD boots into X, and it has other stuff on it. There are third party utilities that will let you make OSX boot discs with whatever you want on them. I think OSX comes out to only a few hundred megs.</STRONG>
Yeah, that should be the case. It's a bit of a far cry from OS9 though, where the DiskWarrior booting CD takes roundabout 100Megs...
Who dares wins

(aka minkinen at MacCentral)
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2002, 01:17 PM
 
Originally posted by benh57:
<STRONG>

This is untrue. The OS X install CD boots into X, and it has other stuff on it. There are third party utilities that will let you make OSX boot discs with whatever you want on them. I think OSX comes out to only a few hundred megs.</STRONG>
I didn't say that the OS X install didn't boot into X. I said that it doesn't have a Finder. Try to get access to the Finder when booted off the install CD. My OS X install comes to 1.23GB.

(156)
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Southfield, MI, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2002, 01:19 PM
 
I expect Apple to eventually design Macs that have OS9 in the form of "classic" (runs from within OSX) but are not capable of booting into OS9 by itself.

My guess is about a year from now...
Dan
"I guarantee that I am correct."
(not a guarantee)
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bristol, UK, living in Melbourne, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 20, 2002, 01:42 PM
 
Originally posted by AppleScript:
<STRONG>

I didn't say that the OS X install didn't boot into X. I said that it doesn't have a Finder. Try to get access to the Finder when booted off the install CD. My OS X install comes to 1.23GB.

(156)</STRONG>
Read his post:
There are third party utilities that will let you make OSX boot discs with whatever you want on them
the one I know of was written by one of the guys at these forums. Charles_S? Am not sure. Someone will point you in the right direction I am sure. I have a bootable osx disc somewhere with Finder, Terminal and a few other Utilities.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:13 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2