[timmerk]

Are the rumors on the net really true? Apple removed Classic from 10.5? If so, this will be a dealbreaker for one of my co-workers on getting 10.5. You might say "upgrade your app", or "stop using ancient programs", but the fact is the old Classic version of Matlab (I think he said it's version 4.x) is way faster then the current version for OS X, and my co-worker doesn't want to spend another $7k on some slower software.

[Horsepoo!!!]

I won't say "upgrade your app" or "stop using ancient programs" but I will say "use Sheepshaver." It'll make your co-workers feel good...almost alive.

[timmerk]

Sheepshaver used to crash all the time for me, but maybe it has gotten more stable lately?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by timmerk 

Sheepshaver used to crash all the time for me, but maybe it has gotten more stable lately?

Stays open for about five minutes at a time - if you're lucky.

If there's one particular app that you absolutely need SheepShaver for, odds that app will cause SheepShaver to crash every time on launching it.

Just browsing in the Finder is enough to make it lock up. SheepShaver sucks.

[Horsepoo!!!]

I guess you're out of luck then...I haven't experienced crashes with Sheepshaver but if it does crash a lot "upgrade your app" or "stop using ancient programs".

[CharlesS]

Which is not so easy to do for people like my parents, who need a certain app for their work, but that app has no Carbon version (and yes, that app reproducibly crashes SheepShaver, every time, no matter what you tweak the settings to).

[frdmfghtr]

Originally Posted by timmerk 

Are the rumors on the net really true? Apple removed Classic from 10.5? If so, this will be a dealbreaker for one of my co-workers on getting 10.5. You might say "upgrade your app", or "stop using ancient programs", but the fact is the old Classic version of Matlab (I think he said it's version 4.x) is way faster then the current version for OS X, and my co-worker doesn't want to spend another $7k on some slower software.

I'd say sticking with your current setup (I presume Tiger) is the best option for now. I have MATLAB r2007a on my MacBook C2D and I have no issues with speed (I have some issues with figure titles, and was fortunate to demonstrate them to a MathWorks engineer in person at a seminar this semester).

As a side note, I read in some other forums that some consider dropping Classic from Leopard to be a "slap in the face" for loyal Apple users who still use OS 9 apps. OS 9 development stopped six years ago; the last update, OS 9.2.2 was released in December 2001 (and you can still download the 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 updates, much to my surprise). My understanding of "Classic" was that it was a bridge between OS 9 and OS X to ease the transition, and not meant to be a permanent, backwards-compatibility solution.

If you need/want to stick with OS 9 applications, stick with OS 9 or OS X with Classic support, and I wish you the best. However, stop-gap measures can't be, and won't be, supported forever.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by frdmfghtr 

If you need/want to stick with OS 9 applications, stick with OS 9 or OS X with Classic support, and I wish you the best. However, stop-gap measures can't be, and won't be, supported forever.

I see no good reason why this one shouldn't be. In computing, everything is a stopgap measure. This one happens to be useful still.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I see no good reason why this one shouldn't be. In computing, everything is a stopgap measure. This one happens to be useful still.

Everyone seems to think that it's as simple as just leaving Classic in there for PPC users. Maybe it is, but maybe it's not.

People are saying that since there have been no changes to Classic in the last 6 years that there's no reason to leave it out.

But the Classic Environment (i.e. the hardware abstraction layer) that it runs in may need changes. Perhaps some underlying API or other low-level portions within the OS have changed enough to break the Classic Environment and making changes to the Classic Environment would drain enough resources away from the rest of the project. At this point it's not worth it to try to fix Classic for the tiny percentage of users still relying on the Classic environment.

If the components of the Tiger Classic Environment can be pulled out and placed into Leopard and still run, then one might have justification to whine and complain that Apple is being arbitrary. But if it doesn't work, then it may simply have come down to major work that would only benefit 1% of the people who could use Leopard vs. devoting resources to the other 99%.

Besides, by now, if you REALLY need Classic, either get a used machine that can boot it natively and run your dedicated app on that, or continue to use 10.4.x or dual boot 10.5/10.4.x.

[Cold Warrior]

Classic is old news, and it's horribly inefficient for Apple to devote resources to maintaining a system that is not needed by 99.9% of Intel Mac users. If you need Classic, stick with PPC and 10.4 After all, your Classic apps have been humming along all these years on non-Intel, non-Leopard hardware.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

But the Classic Environment (i.e. the hardware abstraction layer) that it runs in may need changes. Perhaps some underlying API or other low-level portions within the OS have changed enough to break the Classic Environment and making changes to the Classic Environment would drain enough resources away from the rest of the project. At this point it's not worth it to try to fix Classic for the tiny percentage of users still relying on the Classic environment.

If the components of the Tiger Classic Environment can be pulled out and placed into Leopard and still run, then one might have justification to whine and complain that Apple is being arbitrary. But if it doesn't work, then it may simply have come down to major work that would only benefit 1% of the people who could use Leopard vs. devoting resources to the other 99%.

Besides, by now, if you REALLY need Classic, either get a used machine that can boot it natively and run your dedicated app on that, or continue to use 10.4.x or dual boot 10.5/10.4.x.

Meanwhile, oddly enough, every other emulation environment that worked in 10.4 continues to work exactly the same in 10.5. Basilisk, SheepShaver, vMac, SNES9x, you name it, they all still magically seem to work at least as well as they did in Tiger.

People seem to think that these things have to be completely rewritten or something to support a new OS. I'm pretty sure that the reason to remove Classic would not be a technical one.

[stwain2003]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I see no good reason why this one shouldn't be. In computing, everything is a stopgap measure. This one happens to be useful still.

People's Macintosh 128k's are still useful to them, but that doesn't mean that Apple should support it.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Meanwhile, oddly enough, every other emulation environment that worked in 10.4 continues to work exactly the same in 10.5. Basilisk, SheepShaver, vMac, SNES9x, you name it, they all still magically seem to work at least as well as they did in Tiger.

Classic isn't emulation. It's a virtual machine with hooks into the OS.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

People seem to think that these things have to be completely rewritten or something to support a new OS. I'm pretty sure that the reason to remove Classic would not be a technical one.

Probably not, but support cost money and resources.

Really the easier option for Apple is to drop it from Leopard. The easier option for people who need classic is to run it on supported software and hardware.

[Brass]

Classic was built into Tiger. I believe Tiger will be supported for a few years to come. Therefore, Classic (in Tiger) will be supported by Apple for a few years to come whether it is in Leopard or not.

In total, Apple will be supporting Classic for about 10 years (at a guess) from the time that OS 9 stopped being updated.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Brass 

Classic was built into Tiger. I believe Tiger will be supported for a few years to come. Therefore, Classic (in Tiger) will be supported by Apple for a few years to come whether it is in Leopard or not.

You are correct. But if they had included it in Leopard as well, they'd have to support it for an additional 5 years on top of that

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Classic isn't emulation. It's a virtual machine with hooks into the OS.

I know, I know, I know, but it's the closest analogy I could use since there aren't really a cornucopia of virtual machines on the PPC platform. Did Parallels and VMWare break on x86 Leopard? I'd expect a virtual machine to be less complicated than a full-blown emulator, not more.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Probably not, but support cost money and resources.

Really the easier option for Apple is to drop it from Leopard. The easier option for people who need classic is to run it on supported software and hardware.

Meanwhile, the next time a report comes in of someone's app breaking in Vista, the members of this forum will be jumping at MS's throat...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stwain2003 

People's Macintosh 128k's are still useful to them, but that doesn't mean that Apple should support it.

Weak. You could use that argument against anything. Apple has also not issued an update to Macintoshes that causes them not to work anymore. (And seriously, to whom is a 128K Macintosh still useful?)

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Meanwhile, the next time a report comes in of someone's app breaking in Vista, the members of this forum will be jumping at MS's throat...

Are you seriously comparing Windows apps breaking in Vista to an emulation layer of a long dead operating system in OS X?

[Chuckit]

Comparing apps breaking in Vista to apps breaking in 10.5 seems very fair. The emulation layer is just an implementation detail used as an excuse.

[- - e r i k - -]

Seriously? We are talking about apps that haven't been updated since the operating system they ran under died 7 years ago. I loved the classic Mac OS, but it's time to face reality here people. Sheesh!

[reader50]

I use Classic frequently for some old games. Chances of them being reanimated and ported to OSX-native apps: zippo. They're all closed source.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Seriously? We are talking about apps that haven't been updated since the operating system they ran under died 7 years ago. I loved the classic Mac OS, but it's time to face reality here people. Sheesh!

Why does the fact that they haven't been updated in seven years matter? Software that didn't work on Vista was software that hadn't been updated for Vista too — somehow that excuse didn't cut it then. But more to the point, this software worked fine until an arbitrary point where Apple just decided it shouldn't. No explanation, no apology, not even an announcement — just a big "**** you" to anybody unlucky enough to buy Leopard who uses one of these apps. People speculate that it might have been technically necessary somehow to get rid of Classic, but that's no more reasonable than speculating that it was technically necessary for Vista to break things.

[- - e r i k - -]

Seriously people. It's time to stop sulking. "A big **** you"?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Classic is old news, and it's horribly inefficient for Apple to devote resources to maintaining a system that is not needed by 99.9% of Intel Mac users. If you need Classic, stick with PPC and 10.4 After all, your Classic apps have been humming along all these years on non-Intel, non-Leopard hardware.

I have a G3 machine with OS 9 on it that I run a old cool pinball machine game on it. And that's about all.

It ran like ass in Classic in OS X anyhow.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Are you seriously comparing Windows apps breaking in Vista to an emulation layer of a long dead operating system in OS X?

Actually, it's much worse in Apple's case, because at least Microsoft didn't make a conscious decision to break old apps on purpose.

Oh, and it's not 7 years ago, either. Mac OS 9.2.2 came out in December 2001, which is slightly less than 6 years ago... Windows XP was released in October of that same year. So XP is actually an older OS than 9.2.2 - yet people on this board will lambast Microsoft for every XP app that breaks in Vista. Furthermore, I'd be willing to venture a guess that a bunch of those apps that broke in Vista were in fact written not for XP, but for Windows 2000, or even (gasp!) Windows 98.

It's simply a hypocritical argument. Microsoft at least tries to maintain backward compatibility with older apps. Apple does not.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

It's simply a hypocritical argument. Microsoft at least tries to maintain backward compatibility with older apps. Apple does not.

Apps written for a dead OS. Should be supported indefinitely?

Apple does not owe you these things. Nor does Microsoft for that matter. The world moves on and it's time to deal with the facts of life, business and technology like grown up people.

Only on the internet will you see grown people act like emo teens over nostalgia not being compatible with progress.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

...
Only on the internet will you see grown people act like emo teens over nostalgia not being compatible with progress.

That point of view is not quite true. In the physical world (California anyway), consumer products are required to be supported for 7 years after they are last sold.

The car dealer can't declare in 4-5 years that you need to buy a new car if you want support. The free warranty service may have run out. But they have to be able to get parts on demand, and sell them for prices that are (somewhat) within reason. Until the 7 years are up, then they can charge what they want. Or discontinue parts & service.

[Chuckit]

I suppose "sulking" here has the meaning of "objecting to something that doesn't personally affect Erik."

Honestly, what would you consider it if a company intentionally rendered your system inoperable with no warning and for no good reason? I would never treat anyone I do business with that way.

(By the by, I didn't call you an emo teen when you made a thread complaining about how mean people treated your girlfriend on YouTube. You might extend the same courtesy.)

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Apps written for a dead OS. Should be supported indefinitely?

Apple does not owe you these things. Nor does Microsoft for that matter. The world moves on and it's time to deal with the facts of life, business and technology like grown up people.

Well then, you'd better not bitch when some random older app doesn't run in Vista.

Only on the internet will you see grown people act like emo teens over nostalgia not being compatible with progress.

As long as "nostalgia" is defined as "having to keep an older machine running an older OS indefinitely and never being able to upgrade your software or hardware because to do either would break an app that you need for your job which is never going to be updated for OS X, so in ten years you'll still be stuck with an ancient PowerBook G4 running Tiger even though OS XI or perhaps even XII is out."

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I know, I know, I know, but it's the closest analogy I could use since there aren't really a cornucopia of virtual machines on the PPC platform. Did Parallels and VMWare break on x86 Leopard? I'd expect a virtual machine to be less complicated than a full-blown emulator, not more.

Well, you and I both know we can't talk about what broke on Leopard , but there were a few updates issued for each that had Leopard fixes.

Classic is much more complex than VMWare because it has to share the same network sockets, the same window manager, drag and drop, pasteboard, and a lot of other things.

[Chuckit]

Doesn't having to implement less stuff usually make software less complex?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by reader50 

That point of view is not quite true. In the physical world (California anyway), consumer products are required to be supported for 7 years after they are last sold.

That must be some special law pertaining to California, as I've never heard of anything similar in the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I suppose "sulking" here has the meaning of "objecting to something that doesn't personally affect Erik."

Honestly, what would you consider it if a company intentionally rendered your system inoperable with no warning and for no good reason? I would never treat anyone I do business with that way.

Nice straw men there Chuckit. The two situations aren't remotely comparable. Is your current system being rendered inoperable?

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well then, you'd better not bitch when some random older app doesn't run in Vista.

Did I ever?

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

As long as "nostalgia" is defined as "having to keep an older machine running an older OS indefinitely and never being able to upgrade your software or hardware because to do either would break an app that you need for your job, so in ten years you'll still be stuck with an ancient PowerBook G4."

Oh how I love this argument! Blame Apple for your own poor software choices!

At least blame the software manufacturer of the app in question for not upgrading their product before you start blaming Apple for - NOT rendering your software inoperable - but for actually making the business decision that supporting legacy software simply does not make sense any longer.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Doesn't having to implement less stuff usually make software less complex?

I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but you're right, implementing less stuff makes stuff less complex.

The issue is that Classic has to implement more than a traditional virtualizer. In VMWare, Windows can live in it's own little world, running it's own network interfaces (that may or may not be nated to the host OS, with it's own drag and drop implementation.

Classic has to tie more closely to OS X, meaning more code has to be written, meaning it is more complex to maintain. Regardless, the idea of Apple having to maintain something on the scale of VMWare alone is absurd. Can you imagine them employing people just to keep Classic running?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Nice straw men there Chuckit. The two situations aren't remotely comparable. Is your current system being rendered inoperable?

It's not a comparison — it's the actual situation. If somebody has a piece of software (say, Framemaker) that they use extensively and they install Leopard on their system, they have just rendered their current system inoperable. Less emoticons and more thinking would be good, Erik.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

At least blame the software manufacturer of the app in question for not upgrading their product before you start blaming Apple

In cases where they're still around, of course I blame them as well. Sharing the blame is still sharing the blame.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

supporting legacy software simply does not make sense any longer.

No, that statement is what simply doesn't make sense. Judging from the condescending-snipes-to-actual-facts ratio of your posts, I really doubt you could support this idea.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Classic is much more complex than VMWare because it has to share the same network sockets, the same window manager, drag and drop, pasteboard, and a lot of other things.

Most emulators/virtual machines I know can access the network, and a surprising number support drag and drop. VMWare and Parallels, as I understand things, both have the ability to open separate windows for the emulated environment. Drag and drop uses standard APIs and is not going to break between OS releases. I don't see any differences at all in that list you just posted.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Oh how I love this argument! Blame Apple for your own poor software choices!

Sometimes you're not the one responsible for the software choices.

Of course, I'm not even talking about cases where business have developed custom apps.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Most emulators/virtual machines I know can access the network, and a surprising number support drag and drop.

Right, but Classic's drag and drop is more complex than what you'd find in VMWare. VMWare just implements dragging files into the Window's desktop. Classic has to worry about a more complete drag and drop implementation, with clippings and the other sorts of things that come with.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

VMWare and Parallels, as I understand things, both have the ability to open separate windows for the emulated environment.

True, but it's really a big hack. The windows don't actually live under OS X's window manager. VMWare and Parallels just turn the windows wallpaper transparent.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Drag and drop uses standard APIs and is not going to break between OS releases. I don't see any differences at all in that list you just posted.

Yes, they use standard API's for public implementation. But the private implementation for many things in OS X can change from release to release.

In traditional virtual machine programs, such as VMWare, it's assumed that Windows is going to manage itself and manage most of it's functionality. Classic demands more because it's expected that Classic will integrate cleaner into the OS and share as much functionality as possible.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Right, but Classic's drag and drop is more complex than what you'd find in VMWare. VMWare just implements dragging files into the Window's desktop. Classic has to worry about a more complete drag and drop implementation, with clippings and the other sorts of things that come with.

If you implement drag and drop for your app (including a virtual machine), you get the data on the dragging pasteboard. You don't have to know where that data came from. The only way I can see this becoming a problem is if some new drag type got added that you didn't know about, but it seems that a new drag type would probably be something that it wouldn't make sense to pass to OS 9 in the virtual machine anyway.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Right, but Classic's drag and drop is more complex than what you'd find in VMWare. VMWare just implements dragging files into the Window's desktop. Classic has to worry about a more complete drag and drop implementation, with clippings and the other sorts of things that come with.



True, but it's really a big hack. The windows don't actually live under OS X's window manager. VMWare and Parallels just turn the windows wallpaper transparent.

Did the VMWare Unity demo lie? Because it shows pasteboard sharing, Windows apps interleaved seamlessly with Mac apps and Windows windows (eep, y'know what I mean) being minimized to the Dock.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Yes, they use standard API's for public implementation. But the private implementation for many things in OS X can change from release to release.

The private implementation shouldn't really matter. Drag-and-drop is a public API and if Apple breaks that, it will affect a lot more than just Classic.

Originally Posted by goMac 

In traditional virtual machine programs, such as VMWare, it's assumed that Windows is going to manage itself and manage most of it's functionality. Classic demands more because it's expected that Classic will integrate cleaner into the OS and share as much functionality as possible.

Not really. Classic has always been an odd duck. VMWare already integrates more seamlessly than Classic did.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Did the VMWare Unity demo lie? Because it shows pasteboard sharing, Windows apps interleaved seamlessly with Mac apps and Windows windows (eep, y'know what I mean) being minimized to the Dock.

I own VMWare, and you can every once in a while see the Windows wallpaper when VMWare fails to clean it up.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The private implementation shouldn't really matter. Drag-and-drop is a public API and if Apple breaks that, it will affect a lot more than just Classic.

Yes, it's a public API to Carbon and Cocoa programs running under OS X. OS 9 programs run in a virtual machine, and they aren't Cocoa or Carbon. I'll admit I don't know toolbox, so I'm not sure how close the Carbon drag and drop routines are to toolbox's, but still...

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Not really. Classic has always been an odd duck. VMWare already integrates more seamlessly than Classic did.

I don't think it does. VMWare tries to emulate Classic's integration, but it doesn't come nearly as close. And I'm a huge VMWare fan.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's not a comparison — it's the actual situation. If somebody has a piece of software (say, Framemaker) that they use extensively and they install Leopard on their system, they have just rendered their current system inoperable. Less emoticons and more thinking would be good, Erik.

Indeed. THEY, meaning YOU, not Apple render their systems inoperable. What was it about thinking you said again?

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

In cases where they're still around, of course I blame them as well. Sharing the blame is still sharing the blame.

No. The blame is on yourself for making
a) Poor software choices to begin with
b) Not seeking alternatives
c) Expecting your software to be supported indefinitely

[OreoCookie]

Tell your colleague to try Octave which is an Open Source replacement for Matlab that is supposed to be pretty compatible (i. e. it uses Matlab's syntax and can run Matlab apps). I'm sure he'll moan, just because `it's not the real thing' much like many other of my less computer-literate friends don't want to use Open Office since it `isn't Microsoft Office which everybody uses'; besides, `it behaves differently sometimes'

A friend of mine uses it for her dissertation now, because she didn't want to use a cracked version of Matlab. Since your colleague is stuck in 2001, I guess that Octave might be `good enough' to replace his Matlab (don't bother building Octave from scratch, simply use Fink which is straight-forward and usually works out-of-the-box; you can download pre-compiled binaries as well). As for performance, I doubt his claim that his older version is faster. All the tools I use (mainly Maple) have gotten significantly faster over time.

In any case, as soon as your colleague upgrades to an Intel-based Mac (which will eventually happen, give it two, three, four years), then he needs to replace his old copy of Matlab anyway. So I would give Octave a spin. Even if Octave doesn't suffice, there are other tools that can be used (Maple and Mathematica, for instance; I know that they have a different focus, but that doesn't mean they won't work).

Edit: The situation is different in case of Framemaker: this app has been canned for Mac OS whereas Matlab is actively being developed. The only thing stopping the OP from upgrading is the cost, not the availability.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I don't think it does. VMWare tries to emulate Classic's integration, but it doesn't come nearly as close. And I'm a huge VMWare fan.

Clearly you never used Quark 4 in Classic. Every time an OS X window came anywhere near a Classic window, the Classic window was forced to redraw, so just bringing up the Dock with Quark open would trigger about 50 slow redraws, several of which would come out wrong. From what little I've used Parallels and VMWare, neither of them seems to do that.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Sometimes you're not the one responsible for the software choices.

Of course, I'm not even talking about cases where business have developed custom apps.

You are always responsible for software choices.

I am sick of this whole blame-Apple mentality going around (just as much as I am sick of the thoughtless Apple-can-do-no-wrong attitude that some people exhibit). Personal responsibility mean nothing anymore?

If you invested in Software that didn't get upgraded along with the rest of the world - that's unlucky (at best). But expecting unrealistic things like ALWAYS being able to run the latest and greatest operating software with your discontinued software is just asinine.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Indeed. THEY, meaning YOU, not Apple render their systems inoperable.

How do you figure? Apple intentionally broke these apps and didn't tell me. How on earth is that my fault as the hypothetical innocent consumer? If Apple silently issued an update that made your computer stop working despite doing nothing that they told you was unsupported, would you blame yourself? At best, you can say you should have watched your back to make sure Apple wasn't trying to screw you over, but that still doesn't make it your fault.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Clearly you never used Quark 4 in Classic. Every time an OS X window came anywhere near a Classic window, the Classic window was forced to redraw, so just bringing up the Dock with Quark open would trigger about 50 slow redraws, several of which would come out wrong. From what little I've used Parallels and VMWare, neither of them seems to do that.

You're right. Windows apps running in VMWare don't receive dirty rect commands from OS X. This is yet another example of something implemented in Classic that makes Classic more complex than VMWare.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How do you figure? Apple intentionally broke these apps and didn't tell me.

They told you back in 2001 that they would eventually break your classic apps, and to move to OS X apps. In fact, they gave you 6 years to move to OS X apps. It's not like this is a surprise.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by goMac 

They told you back in 2001 that they would eventually break your classic apps, and to move to OS X apps. In fact, they gave you 6 years to move to OS X apps. It's not like this is a surprise.

Cite? (Also, as previously noted, there are not OS X substitutes for many Classic apps, so that's a totally unreasonable demand.)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You're right. Windows apps running in VMWare don't receive dirty rect commands from OS X. This is yet another example of something implemented in Classic that makes Classic more complex than VMWare.

Uh…I would be totally OK with them taking that out of Classic if it's too much trouble, seeing as how it didn't actually carry any benefits.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How do you figure? Apple intentionally broke these apps and didn't tell me. How on earth is that my fault as the hypothetical innocent consumer? If Apple silently issued an update that made your computer stop working despite doing nothing that they told you was unsupported, would you blame yourself? At best, you can say you should have watched your back to make sure Apple wasn't trying to screw you over, but that still doesn't make it your fault.

Your logic does not compute. The fallacy here is that the user is the one purchasing and installing an optional upgrade - and that upgrade does not include classic. Nothing rendered inoperable by Apple - purely by the consumer.

Apple is not trying to "screw you over". Again with the hyperbole. And yes, this emoticon is warranted for that comment alone: