Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ebolla · Mar 27, 2003, 01:12 AM

i've seen so many posts lately about how to better integrate or revive classic into OSX.3

Apple seems to be hardcore about moving forward and ditching OS9 and its reminants
in the far future i see Apple trying to move to an all Cocoa OSX even

So really why should they even bother to develop classic anymore?
I doubt if Panther even ships with the Classic OS installed

What need is there for Classic anymore?
are there any major apps that have yet to be ported by aug/sept 2003?
adobe- logic - protools - macromedia -Quark - etc have all been ported to OSX

yes i'm sure there are several little people who will complain about how their version of photoshop 6 doesnt run on OSX and they dont wanna buy an upgrade
but a person or office who is wanting to buy a new mac and a new OSX.3 operating system will also probably be looking into purchasing software upgrades to go with a new machine

i see 10.2 as the transition from os9 and i see 10.3 as apples first 100% OSX release
they cant keep wasting time and money on a dead system...

CharlesS · Mar 27, 2003, 01:54 AM

Because a lot of us still have some apps here and there that may have been made back in the 20th Century, but which are still nice to have. Old games, apps that haven't been updated yet, stuff that's not being updated anymore, etc.

Remove Classic and a whole bunch of us will be forced not to upgrade.

I don't get why the Anti-Classic zealots can't seem to understand this. If you don't want Classic, don't install it on your machine. Leave the rest of us alone.

juanvaldes · Mar 27, 2003, 04:23 AM

To add, without classic you can not install a number of native games as you then download a patch. And really the copule hundred megs is a drop in the bucket, even for most laptops.

ShotgunEd · Mar 27, 2003, 04:25 AM

I was about ten minutes away from deleting my OS9 system folder when my iBook crashed and thus far, the only way to get into my mac is to boot into OS9. I don't think I'll be ditching classic any time soon. Not to mention wanting to play Deus Ex.

Appleman · Mar 27, 2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by ShotgunEd:
I was about ten minutes away from deleting my OS9 system folder when my iBook crashed and thus far, the only way to get into my mac is to boot into OS9. I don't think I'll be ditching classic any time soon. Not to mention wanting to play Deus Ex.

You can always boot from your cd, isn't it?

I do not have OS 9 installed anymore, and actually don't really miss it, but indeed, those minor megs won't even hurt laptop people, and indeed, you don't have to install it, it's an option, like there are so many options in life: nobody is forcing you.

moonmonkey · Mar 27, 2003, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by ebolla:

I doubt if Panther even ships with the Classic OS installed

Very possible, Jaguar didn't ship with a copy OS9.

Classic is only there for people who have the Classic os installed and therefore probably have classic apps.

Classic is usefull if you want to play your old Soundedit 16 files (as happened to me today)

moonmonkey · Mar 27, 2003, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by ShotgunEd:
I was about ten minutes away from deleting my OS9 system folder when my iBook crashed and thus far, the only way to get into my mac is to boot into OS9. I don't think I'll be ditching classic any time soon. Not to mention wanting to play Deus Ex.

Mine plays ok in Classic.

moonmonkey · Mar 27, 2003, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by ebolla:

i see 10.2 as the transition from os9 and i see 10.3 as apples first 100% OSX release
they cant keep wasting time and money on a dead system...

Classic support is complete, Apple are not spending any money on it.

MojoRising022 · Mar 27, 2003, 05:10 AM

The entire publsihing industry is completely dependant on Classic right now...those people NEED to have not only Classic, but need to boot to OS 9.

Quark is the major hold-up....and that has NOT been ported yet...it's been announced, but knowing Quark, it could be 2004 before the product is released and even then, I'm sure it'll be loaded with bugs. People just aren't switching to InDesign in droves either.

Phasing 9 out is all fine and good, but eliminating completely just wont work.

sniffer · Mar 27, 2003, 06:06 AM

BeOS wasn't dead before Be inc died. But even now there are still people using it.

ShotgunEd · Mar 27, 2003, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by Appleman:
You can always boot from your cd, isn't it?

My Jag Cds are at my parents house at the moment, so I couldn't do that.

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
Mine plays ok in Classic.

Not if you delete the OS9 System Folder

Wet Jimmy · Mar 27, 2003, 06:46 AM

So if I understand this correctly, if you perform a fresh install of 10.2.x you can choose not to install any Classic functionality?

Personally, I don't want anything to do with Classic for the following two reasons -

a) I'm new to OSX, and as such have no historic apps which require Classic to run, so I'd rather not be burdened with outdated software, and;

b) Coming from a PC background and being a bit of a "power user" I am always up to date with my software and hardware, and can't understand why some people refuse to upgrade to current standards.

So as far as I'm concerned, the more people that get with the program and stop using Classic, the faster your old apps will appear in native OSX form.

It's the way Steve would want it

SMacTech · Mar 27, 2003, 06:53 AM

I have been using OS X fulltime for 2 years and I still use Classic. It may not be installed by default in future versions of OS X, but I bet it will always have interoperability with releases yet to come of OS X for many years.

Appleman · Mar 27, 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Wet Jimmy:
Coming from a PC background and being a bit of a "power user" I am always up to date with my software and hardware, and can't understand why some people refuse to upgrade to current standards.

If you consider the sometimes huge investments made in software, you understand it's different to buy every new update then f.i. update your free apps like icq.

Furthermore apps like Quark normally don't get updated that frequently by their customers, since new too often means bugs.

My bank here in The Netherlands still use Windows 3.11. Unbelievable but true.

SMacTech · Mar 27, 2003, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Appleman:

My bank here in The Netherlands still use Windows 3.11. Unbelievable but true.

That's got to hurt !
Additionally, it is rumored that 10.2.5 has some Classic updates, so that in it self shows Apple is still committed to improving it and not letting it die.

beb · Mar 27, 2003, 08:09 AM

Yes, unfortunately.

-Q- · Mar 27, 2003, 08:21 AM

Some people need it. I think Classic is a great in-between step for those people who can't go all OS X right now. And as mentioned earlier, if you don't need it don't install it.

But I think we're another year or two away from being able to say reliably that classic is dead. We're still missing reliable disk utilities that allow us to boot from CD and easily effect repairs. Again, the key word is relaible. Drive 10 was a beast and I've not heard good things about Norton at all.

And there are still some applications that bind people to classic. I haven't been one for quite awhile, but I don't have any trouble with Apple including classic as an option for those that require it. What's the big deal if it's there?

voodoo · Mar 27, 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
Mine plays ok in Classic.
__________________
LC475, 20 meg of Ram, 2Meg Vram Upgrade, Apple CD300 drive, Connectix Quickcam, Global village 33k modem.

That must be one *kickass* LC475 you got there

Coxy · Mar 27, 2003, 08:59 AM

Firstly, Classic is more about OS 9 being modified to work with OS X, rather than OS X being modified to run OS 9 apps. Therefore, there's no real advantage to be gained by removing the ability to run Classic apps at all.

Secondly, there won't be a Cocoa-only OS X far into the forseeable future. After all, there's currently *zero* major applications that have been rewritten into Cocoa, and I can't imagine many of them ever being rewritten in such a way.

eyreka · Mar 27, 2003, 09:13 AM

... there's currently *zero* major applications that have been rewritten into Cocoa, and I can't imagine many of them ever being rewritten in such a way.

--unfortunately all too true!

I find though that I'm using X11 apps now more than my remaining Classic ones.

ebolla · Mar 27, 2003, 10:38 AM

quote:
-----
b) Coming from a PC background and being a bit of a "power user" I am always up to date with my software and hardware, and can't understand why some people refuse to upgrade to current standards.

So as far as I'm concerned, the more people that get with the program and stop using Classic, the faster your old apps will appear in native OSX form.
---------

this is exactly apples position as well i think
apple doesnt care about people who just want to use old software and dont want to spend money on new software
those people arent helping to sell products because they are holding onto what they have
ditching os9 isnt happening overnight... they have been ditching os9 for years now and its due time they pulled the plug completely

as long as apple supports classic the longer it will take developers to be motivated to develop for OSX

there has been a rush of ported apps (ie protools-quark etc) in the past few months because apple said they would no longer sell systems booting os9
if apple hadnt said that then those developers would still be dragging on their ports

yeah OSX without carbon is far off if not nonexistent
but apple is motivating a trend to develop only for cocoa and use carbon just for os9 ports
i bet when adobe or someother developer comes out with their next big app developed from scratch it will be cocoa not carbon

and those print firms that are stuck because of quark arent buying OSX right now - but when they switch to osx or quark6 there will be no reason for them to continue with os9

the classic application may still exist but at most i see it as an optional download buried deep in apples website
and then you would still need to find a copy of os9 to install onto classic

Telusman · Mar 27, 2003, 10:51 AM

Many people cant afford to spend the money on the new applications. after I spent 5000 dollars on a new laptop, i couldnt afford another 3,000 to buy new Mac OS X Native Software.

People who have the "get with the picture and update your stuff" obviously hasnt had to buy lisences for 300 or so machines that run photoshop, or Microsoft office. Classic is still a major part of OS X and will be for some time. I wish however there was an option in the 10.2 installer to not install the classic environment at all. (My laptop is classic - free)

-Telusman

Originally posted by Wet Jimmy:
So if I understand this correctly, if you perform a fresh install of 10.2.x you can choose not to install any Classic functionality?

Personally, I don't want anything to do with Classic for the following two reasons -

a) I'm new to OSX, and as such have no historic apps which require Classic to run, so I'd rather not be burdened with outdated software, and;

b) Coming from a PC background and being a bit of a "power user" I am always up to date with my software and hardware, and can't understand why some people refuse to upgrade to current standards.

So as far as I'm concerned, the more people that get with the program and stop using Classic, the faster your old apps will appear in native OSX form.

It's the way Steve would want it

Nai no Kami · Mar 27, 2003, 11:15 AM

why not to ditch OS 9?. Because we, Rage Pro users, can�t use any 3D app natively!!!!
BTW, rebooting is a pain in the ass...

kndonlee · Mar 27, 2003, 11:33 AM

I'm not quite sure about programming, but is it feasible for Carbon and Cocoa to merge in years to come?

Reason I ask is that, the flagship apps are all carbon, and lots of new apps are cocoa, but in near future wouldn't it be draining on Apple to support two programming architectures?

Most developers wouldn't really want to rewrite their code from ground up for cocoa, as carbon is available.. and Apple can not just take carbon away...

As for classic, eventually the need for it will die, but Apple will keep it around till the need is gone.

Maybe by 10.6 10.7 ish.. like 4~5 years from now, classic will be eliminated, carbon+cocoa.. maybe called cobon or something will be... then everyone will be happy.

JLL · Mar 27, 2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by kndonlee:
Most developers wouldn't really want to rewrite their code from ground up for cocoa, as carbon is available.. and Apple can not just take carbon away...

It has never been Apple's plan to ditch Carbon.

Maflynn · Mar 27, 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by ebolla:
quote:
-----
b) Coming from a PC background and being a bit of a "power user" I am always up to date with my software and hardware, and can't understand why some people refuse to upgrade to current standards.

Well most of us don't have cash to burn through. You mentioned in your first post about photoshop 6 maybe I can't afford to purchase the upgrade and thus stuck with that version. Besides if a version of software does what I want why should I be forced to upgrade it.

One size does not fit all, as stated by others there's plenty of good reasons to keep classic if any of those reasons don't mean anyhting to you then delete it but for others its a necessity is that soo bad.

Mike

real · Mar 27, 2003, 03:04 PM

It not just Quark that is taking a forever it's also codecs for video, fonts, all the little stuff that design firms and broadcast design, VFX, etc, are useing that they cant live without. the other day I got some video footage to work on but it came in some sphere codec that isn't OS X ready So I needed classic to convert the files(bummer yes but had to)without classic I'd be dead in the water, I wish everything was OSX native but til it is OS 9 will be around. Til people say OS 9 whats that, or I REMEMBER OS 9 we will see classic, You dont have to install it but if you need it its great. It also fun to be in classic and get frustrated with the way it works and how OS X is so much better.
REAL

bstad · Mar 27, 2003, 03:33 PM

I use image catalog software that only runs in 9. The company that created it sold out, and the new company chose to abandon the home market (such as it was - cost me $200). Their only software now sells for over $1,000 - but it does run in X!
Portfolio doesn't do as much (by a long shot), so that's not an option, so that's why I still use 9. Matter of fact, this is the ONLY thing I use 9 for, and thankfully it works fine in Classic.

sniffer · Mar 27, 2003, 03:43 PM

Another factor that hasn't been pointed out to much is that os 9 still perform better on a huge percent of the machines out there. Let us say macs have three years life span, and second only resent macs performs very well with os ten. With this in mind it wouldn't be unthinkable that we have to live with classic at least another three years. As long as os 9 and OS9/classic apps are in major use, I doubt we get rid of classic any time soon.

moggy · Mar 27, 2003, 03:57 PM

Because I still need to run Adobe Streamline on occasion.

moggy · Mar 27, 2003, 04:10 PM

Because I still need to run Adobe Streamline on occasion.

calumr · Mar 27, 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Coxy:
Secondly, there won't be a Cocoa-only OS X far into the forseeable future. After all, there's currently *zero* major applications that have been rewritten into Cocoa, and I can't imagine many of them ever being rewritten in such a way.

It's true that they probably won't be re-written to use Cocoa 100% in one step, but with the merging of Carbon and Cocoa it would be feasible for developers to do a little bit at a time, until they are eventually all Cocoa.

I don't see all developers doing this, though. Carbon will always have a place as an API on OSX when Cocoa is too high-level.

Superchicken · Mar 27, 2003, 07:10 PM

My parents spent 500 Canadian to buy my copies of Fireworks,Flash, FreeHand and Dreamweaver. And you're telling me when I want to buy a new power book, that even though I"m going to college and won't have much money at all barely enough for food, that if I wanna keep up with using apps that I've been able to use for the last two years I have to pay anohter 500 on top of what I paid for my laptop? Hi, yeah for those of us who don't find the platnum interface ugly your comments are incredibly ignorant. Just cause you don't have a need for classic doesn't mean the rest of the mac community doesn't! So please shut your trup until you get a clue what the heck you're talking about.

I like OS X and all but I don't have a whole ton of cash to throw at Macromedia to get teh newer slower software that they're comming out with.

Coxy · Mar 27, 2003, 07:18 PM

No major application with a Windows version will be written to Cocoa as it stands now.

The only one I can think of would be Final Cut Pro, although I can't think of a reason why.

ebolla · Mar 27, 2003, 11:51 PM

adobe streamline hasnt been ported yet? - that is just another reason why apple needs to drop classic support - to force then to update their software otherwise you will be running classic for years

i personnally run classic on a daily basis because my #1 application, formZ, has yet to release an OSX version
and i'm sick of them taking so long - if there was no more classic developers would have to port their applications and do it faster

you all are forgetting that apple needs to lead its market
apple cant progress if it just follows behind the feet of its 3rd party developers and its non-money-spending customers
apple will lead its customers and developers to an all OSX environment and the sooner apple does this the better it will be for apple

quote:
-----------
My parents spent 500 Canadian to buy my copies of Fireworks,Flash, FreeHand and Dreamweaver
--------
to save a few bucks next time you should really look into buying educational discounts
for i think only $199 you can get macromedia's entire MX suite(flash-fireworks-dreamweaver-freehand)
and i beleive it can be bought in apple.com's educational store

Superchicken · Mar 28, 2003, 01:12 AM

Canadian, buddy, they might have dropped the prices since then but when they bought it it was just under 500 with shipping and an Edu discount. My sister got it from the U of Alberta. PS Elements however was only 65 bucks Canadian with an Edu discount a nice bit of software too.

I got PS Elements so it would be a native image editor.

The point is however that apple is more likely to get people to not spend money on it's own products if it drops classic. It's not like they have more development costs in keeping classic, and they're less likely to get people to upgrade their machines if their old software isn't compatable.

I know if we didn't have a PC already and I had to upgrade all my apps anyway, I'd probably just buy a Centrino laptop for college... he problem is I just used windows tonight again... and remembered all the reasons I love my Mac

drmcnutt · Mar 28, 2003, 02:20 AM

Anyone on a PDF workflow would still need Classic for Distiller.

DRM

JLL · Mar 28, 2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by ebolla:
adobe streamline hasnt been ported yet? - that is just another reason why apple needs to drop classic support - to force then to update their software otherwise you will be running classic for years

That doesn't help if the app is discontinued, which Streamline seems to be - it hasn't been updated for years.

pmcd · Mar 28, 2003, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by ebolla:

What need is there for Classic anymore?
are there any major apps that have yet to be ported by aug/sept 2003?
adobe- logic - protools - macromedia -Quark - etc have all been ported to OSX

[ ]

i see 10.2 as the transition from os9 and i see 10.3 as apples first 100% OSX release
they cant keep wasting time and money on a dead system...

Well I use Textures which is Classic only (but will be native one day, so they say) and MathWriter for WYSIWYG math typing. MathWriter runs great in Classic. It will never be native OSX . I realize though that this is a small market (in the case of MathWriter you have a very small market, but it is a great math word processor - no equation editors for one thing). I realize that TeXShop is there in OSX and I am slowly moving to that but I will still need MathWriter.

Classic is not bothering anyone. It probably holds back OSX far less than Carbon and I don't see any strong move away from that.

philip

sniffer · Mar 28, 2003, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
[snip] Hi, yeah for those of us who don't find the platnum interface ugly your comments are incredibly ignorant.

Also, OS 9 have just the coolest themes..

rmendis · Mar 29, 2003, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by calumr:
but with the merging of Carbon and Cocoa...

Carbon and Cocoa are *not* going to merge.
They can't.
They are first and foremost APIs.

What is happening is that Apple are factoring out common functionality and sharing it between the environments.
These are the Core* stuff: CoreFoundation, Core Application Services, etc..