[kovacs]

Starting in January, 2003, all new Mac models will only boot into Mac OS X as the start-up operating system, though they will retain the ability to run most Mac OS 9 applications through Apple�s bundled �Classic� software.

[Cipher13]

Well, there goes any chance of my getting a new Apple system.

[kovacs]

Exactly, there is no way I will buy a new mac if it can not run OS9, I need OS9 because my printer ( A2 ), my scanner and some of my photoshop plug-ins do not work in OSX or in classic. I love OSX but I still need OS9 for my work.

[Zimphire]

Not to mention all my legacy games that don't work in Classic, are now useless.

I can see how not booting into OS 9 is a good way to beef up security, but I have my doubts as why Apple is doing this.

[chris v]

Apple had better know something about Quark, ProTools and Disk Warrior that I don't.

But is this just a ham-fisted marketing push, or a sign of a new proccessor?

CV

[JohnD]

Originally posted by chris v:
Apple had better know something about Quark, ProTools and Disk Warrior that I don't.

But is this just a ham-fisted marketing push, or a sign of a new proccessor?

CV

It says that you can buy machines that run OS9 until the end of December.
This hardware can lead you through the transition years ahead.
Januari at the next EXPO new harware will be introduced which doesn't support OS9 booting anymore.
Why? Because a new processor is used? Intel maybe?

[voodoo]

A processor that can't run OS9? Naw, that would mean Classic wouldn't run either. Unless Apple would write an OS9 emulator for Intel... (sounds farsical) and it would be dog slow too. Useless.

[snerdini]

Before we condemn Apple, shouldn't we find out the full story?

[dfiler]

This seems to indicative of a major hardware shift. I'm guessing we'll be seing a new motherboard or perhaps the quickFanVent cases with all the hardware they were originally designed for. My reasoning is that Apple wouldn't simply disable OS9 compatability. Rather, they chose not to continue OS9 developement on the new platform due to prohibatively expensive porting costs.

[- - e r i k - -]

This is an excellent and logical move! Just like Logic has stopped supporting VST-plugs in the latest version. (I was miffed at first, but decided it was best in the long term)

It's an intencive for developers to move on to a better technology while at the same time eliminating support for the old. This is done all the time.


You should note that Apple is not coming to your house or even forcing you to install a firmware in your Mac preventing OS 9 bootup.

How long were you really expecting Apple to support their old Operating System? Indefinitly? 2004? 2005?

One way or another you will upgrade in time. Wether it's your aging printer or what-not. Old games are for old computers or running on emulators. And yes, there are already emulators for old macs running on Mac OS X.

[CarpetFluff]

Surely if you bought say a powermac now for running OS 9 you'd be getting poor value as they're all dual processor models and OS 9 doesn't get the best out of them. I only bought my Dual 533 thinking that pretty soon I'd be using X otherwise I would have bought a single processor Mac.

I can understand that some people feel they will need to boot in 9 still if they buy a Mac after January but I would imagine it's very few and I think Apple are just trying to give the final kick up the ar*se to any developers who still haven't written drivers for X yet. Lets face it,some companies just won't take X seriously until it's the defacto Mac operating system.

[typoon]

Originally posted by chris v:
Apple had better know something about Quark, ProTools and Disk Warrior that I don't.

But is this just a ham-fisted marketing push, or a sign of a new proccessor?

CV

Well DiskWarrior that will be native for OS X should be out by the end of the year according to Alsoft at MWNY. Same with TechTool Pro 4.0

[typoon]

I think this is a GREAT move. This will compel and push developers to Move stuff to OS X.

[benh57]

Haven't booted 9 in at least 6 months+. No need at all. Classic in jaguar is even better. Speedy.

Your old games are not "now worthless" since they still work just fine. How about: (Will be) worthless (on a new mac bought after Jan 2003)? Maybe. The same is true for some old software that won't run on OS 9 and later.

-Ben

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by CarpetFluff:
Surely if you bought say a powermac now for running OS 9 you'd be getting poor value as they're all dual processor models and OS 9 doesn't get the best out of them. I only bought my Dual 533 thinking that pretty soon I'd be using X otherwise I would have bought a single processor Mac.

I can understand that some people feel they will need to boot in 9 still if they buy a Mac after January but I would imagine it's very few and I think Apple are just trying to give the final kick up the ar*se to any developers who still haven't written drivers for X yet. Lets face it,some companies just won't take X seriously until it's the defacto Mac operating system.

Yes, but between Apple going OSX-only, and dev's realising "hey, Apple is X only", WE cop it.

Sorry, but Photoshop on OS9 on a single 400 G4 is still faster than Photoshop in OSX on a dual GHz G4... not on filters, but where it counts.

Very simply, therebecause, OSX isn't good enough for me yet.

[Nathan Adams]

you're willing to sacrifice stability in Photoshop for a minimal speed difference???

Whatever floats your boat I guess

[OldManMac]

Technology changes rapidly; either adapt or get out of the way! It is time for this move!

[Macrat]

I'm sure some enterprising person will hack the boot rom to allow booting in 9 again, since it is highly unlikely a major hardware change would occur across every single product line at once.

And for those of us with printers, scanners, audio stuff, etc. in a production environment that is not supported in X this is nothing to sneeze at, either somebody hacks the new systems or we go on ebay for old systems.

[dfiler]

Originally posted by Cipher13:

...
Sorry, but Photoshop on OS9 on a single 400 G4 is still faster than Photoshop in OSX on a dual GHz G4... not on filters, but where it counts.
...

While I sometimes find your comments a bit too negative cipher, you've got this one pegged.

Computer based artists don't value filter speed over tool fidelity. OSX's GUI is a bit sluggish and muddies the precise strokes which differentiate good painterse from bad painters. Its like trying to paint with a 1 foot paint brush handle made of limp linguini. Although, with each update to OS X, the handle seems to be getting stiffer.

[chabig]

Stop worrying. If you buy a new machine, it will only boot X. But that doesn't mean your current machine booting into OS 9 becomes worthless.

Everytime Microsoft releases a new OS, you lose the ability to buy new hardware with the old OS. Are PC users today whining because they can't buy machines with Windows ME?

I suspect that Apple has no choice in this matter. New hardware is coming in January, and OS 9 simply can't communicate/control it. Since Apple has stopped developing OS 9, it's only logical that the new hardware runs X only.

Chris

[VRL]

Stopped booting into 9 long ago. No big deal.

Third party developers need to get off their butts. The only reason I suspect some are not ... they are putting all resources into Microsoft compatibility. That is their shortcoming ... deliberate lack of customer service. (A good example is scanners. The existence of VueScan tells me compatibility CAN be achieved.)

Customers need to make their needs known, and do so often. IMO.

[JohnD]

Originally posted by chabig:
Stop worrying. If you buy a new machine, it will only boot X. But that doesn't mean your current machine booting into OS 9 becomes worthless.

Everytime Microsoft releases a new OS, you lose the ability to buy new hardware with the old OS. Are PC users today whining because they can't buy machines with Windows ME?

I suspect that Apple has no choice in this matter. New hardware is coming in January, and OS 9 simply can't communicate/control it. Since Apple has stopped developing OS 9, it's only logical that the new hardware runs X only.

Chris

Our RIP is running still System 8.6 today.
Some 9.1 workstations are still around.
As long as the APPS do not require OS X I can keep it that way because the setup is productive.
I use X all the time and classic only for Outlook, once thins goes X classic is done for me.
For the workstations the waiting is for Quark only...

[lookmark]

I don't see this as big a deal as some are making it out to be.

If you do plan to continue to use OS 9 for the immediate future, no one's going to stop you.

If you plan to be using OS 9 for the next 3-4 years (!), sometime before January may be a very good time to buy a new Mac.

By end of this year or early next, all the last major apps will be at last coming over to X (including Quark, DiskWarrior, and so forth). Current Carbon apps will be getting revisions, and continue to be tweaked for X and improve.

This is a bold move, but one that will help speed driver and software development for OS X. There might be a painful month or two (or three), but in the long run it'll make OS X much better -- faster.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Cipher13:


Yes, but between Apple going OSX-only, and dev's realising "hey, Apple is X only", WE cop it.

Sorry, but Photoshop on OS9 on a single 400 G4 is still faster than Photoshop in OSX on a dual GHz G4... not on filters, but where it counts.

Very simply, therebecause, OSX isn't good enough for me yet.

Oh come on, people, we all knew this would happen sooner or later. It saddens me somewhat as well, because I like having OS 9 around to play Marathon with (the original game still doesn't work very well at all in Classic or emulators), but it's an inevitable fact of life.

When System 7 came out, it broke a shitload of old games, but we all eventually got a new machine that only ran it, and moved on.

And remember, it is only for new Macs coming out after January. It's slower on a dual 400 than on a single 400? Try comparing Photoshop on a dual 1.25 Ghz (or perhaps something even faster) Jaguar to a single 400 OS 9, because that's what the actual difference is.

[waffffffle]

I think Apple should have put this off another 6 months. January is just too soon. The app support really isn't there yet, and in many cases the OS 9 versions are superior to the OS X versions of the same application. I think apple should have definitely made the announcement today, but for a later switchover date.

[aaronfaby]

Oh my god! The new Macs won't have floppy drives anymore??

[Worst. Episode. Ever.]

Personally, I welcome the move.

I think this is only way to get certain developers (Quark, are you listening?) to get off their butts and port their products to OSX.

[kman42]

I can't believe the **** you people find to bitch about. If you like running Photoshop on a 400 Mhz machine with OS9, go ahead. Apple's not stopping you.

New machines won't boot OS9. Big deal. The number of people planning on buying a new machine after January and booting 9 is insignificantly small. Most people wanting to run 9 just won't buy a new machine: Apple's loss. But this number is so small as to probably not even make a dent in Apple's bottom line. Furthermore, the issues holding people back from using X will be taken care of soon enough after January. What are you waiting for? Quark, some scanner support? Fine, keep using your current machine until the middle of next year or upgrade before December. The sky is not falling.

kman

[IUJHJSDHE]

Can't you simply put Mac OS 9 back on the computer yourself?

In any case. Apple will soon die if it keeps making stupid moves!

[wataru]

Originally posted by aaronfaby:
Oh my god! The new Macs won't have floppy drives anymore??

Heyoooo!



and,

Originally posted by IUJHJSDHE:
Can't you simply put Mac OS 9 back on the computer yourself?

Umm, no, because the issue is that the new Macs won't boot OS 9, not that they won't come with it.

[Brass]

I think the only real problem here is that some people will have to re-organise their budget a bit (in the case of 3. below), and make sure that either:

1. They don't need to boot Mac OS 9 ever again.

2. They have new Macs that will last for a few years.

3. They buy enough new Macs before the end of this year to do what is needed in OS 9.

If you really need to boot into OS 9, Apple's not going to stop you. At least not for a few years yet. Buy a new machine now, and it will last you for 3 - 5 years (depending on your use). In fact, if you use is OS 9 oriented, I think the machine would last you even longer than that. And let's face it, do you really think you're going to be using OS 9 for any serious work in 5 years time? 3 years? 2 years?

[TheTraveller]

If as some say OS 9 is just soooo fast on your present hardware, and since there will be no new versions of OS 9, you will continue to enjoy just this very same amazing performance for years to come, on your existing hardware! And the best part is, you don't have to pay anything extra for the pleasure!

So for you the OS 9 camp, it comes as great news that Apple has made this move, since it will save you a ton of money. And for those of us in the "OS X rocks the socks off 9" camp, we all should be delighted, as the move will undoubtedly hurry developers along in their migration to Carbon, and hopefully Cocoa, too.

[mac freak]

I see the logic in this move, but it still pisses me off.
In the vast majority of Carbon apps, the OS 9 version is superior -- I don't know why, but it's the truth. Furthermore, every game I've tested except Black and White runs better under OS 9 than under OS X on my DUAL G4/450.

I'll be buying a new Power Mac in January. I've decided that. And I hope someone hacks the boot ROM, because Classic Mode functions like a heart with a bullet hole, and sadly I NEED OS 9. I don't want to have to pirate software upgrades for Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, and all the other apps I do not posess a Carbonized version of.

[Graymalkin]

Along the same meme. Why in the hell can't I boot into System 6 on my G3 Powerbook. I mean come on there's a ton of old System 6 apps that I NEED to run. I'll never buy another Apple product again? Do you hear me Apple? You've lost one customer because you refuse to update your out of date software to work on newer hardware!

Some of you people are complete morons.

[PowerMatt]

You guys don't think that Apple has done the research that indicates that this is the right time for the move. Apple's brass didn't just pull dates from a hat. They have probably been researching this since the introduction of OS X. I don't know all of the marketing crap, but I assure you, on paper, this is in Apple's best interest, and in the best interest of users who rely on software from deadbeat companies like Quark. QuarkXPress is a great program, but this might be what Apple needs to get them to port for X. Same goes from ProTools, which is keeping us from upgrading our Church's DUAL 533 to X.

[Targon]

Jan 2004 is more realistic.

For us Pro Tools still isnt even on OS X, and it has proven to be a very difficult project taking into account the app needs to be significantly redesigned and also considering there are like 7 hardware product lines that MUST work correctly with the software and operate seemlessly with each other. There are many smaller auxillary applications that must move to X as well that are used in conjunction with Pro Tools.
We are not expecting Pro Tools until maybe november at the earliest. However, it will take easily atleast another 6 months after Pro Tools ships for ALL of our plugins to come across to X. Remembering each of these must be completely rewritten to talk with the DSP hardware.

So Jan 2003 is very premature. I guess if Apple are willing to risk a hardware sales slump for most of next year then thats their call.

[Gee4orce]

I think the reason behind this could well be that it's Mac OS 9 that's been holding up new Mac hardware. Apple can't afford to dally any longer - it needs to push some serious pro hardware out of the door.

This could even portend a shift to Intel chips, god forbid.

[MindFad]

I didn't bother checking if anyone thought this, but this could mean Apple has some new bad-ass hardware for 2003. And I think mid-2003 would be better, but if there's bad-ass hardware around the corner, I can dig it. And I love Jaguar too much to be worried. I'm about to switch over to X full-time. I save a lot more not crashing.

Of course someone had that idea. Never mind.

[drjoe]

Originally posted by mac freak:
I see the logic in this move, but it still pisses me off.
In the vast majority of Carbon apps, the OS 9 version is superior -- I don't know why, but it's the truth. Furthermore, every game I've tested except Black and White runs better under OS 9 than under OS X on my DUAL G4/450.

I'll be buying a new Power Mac in January. I've decided that. And I hope someone hacks the boot ROM, because Classic Mode functions like a heart with a bullet hole, and sadly I NEED OS 9. I don't want to have to pirate software upgrades for Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, and all the other apps I do not posess a Carbonized version of.

There are simple answers to the problems you raise but you wont like them. Here goes:

1.)In the vast majority of Carbon apps, the OS 9 version is superior -- I don't know why, but it's the truth.
Perhaps the reason you don't know why is because it isn't so. It's not the truth. They don't run better under 9 than under classic. If you really had any apps to run and if you really had a Mac to run them you wouldn't make irresponsible statements like that.

2.)Furthermore, every game I've tested except Black and White runs better under OS 9 than under OS X on my DUAL G4/450
Aha, you are a software tester - you test software. How fortunate we are to have your presence. Phooey, except I don't believe you.. By and large the Mac is not a gaming platform. If that is really that important to you then buy a game console or a cheap PC.

3.) Classic Mode functions like a heart with a bullet hole, and sadly I NEED OS 9.

What the h**l does that mean. Classic works fine for the occasional use of those few programs that aren't OSX compliant. To say otherwise exposes you for what you are. Need I say troll?

4.)I don't want to have to pirate software upgrades for Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, and all the other apps I do not posess a Carbonized version of.

Fine then don't. Maybe getting a job to afford them might be a strategy you might try out. And it's very virtuous of you. By the way, try not to end sentences with a preposition 'cause your junior high school English teacher will be upset with you.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by CharlesS:

Oh come on, people, we all knew this would happen sooner or later. It saddens me somewhat as well, because I like having OS 9 around to play Marathon with (the original game still doesn't work very well at all in Classic or emulators), but it's an inevitable fact of life.

When System 7 came out, it broke a shitload of old games, but we all eventually got a new machine that only ran it, and moved on.

And remember, it is only for new Macs coming out after January. It's slower on a dual 400 than on a single 400? Try comparing Photoshop on a dual 1.25 Ghz (or perhaps something even faster) Jaguar to a single 400 OS 9, because that's what the actual difference is.

Uh, dude, I just *said* I compared the two. I have a G4 400/704 to my left, and a dual 1GHz G4 (old top-of-the-range)/1 gig to my right. The 400 in OS9 *is* faster. Not at filters, as I said, but that means very, very little... I don't care how long my filters take. They don't slow down my production speed nearly as much as waiting a second or two every time I switch a tool...

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
Along the same meme. Why in the hell can't I boot into System 6 on my G3 Powerbook. I mean come on there's a ton of old System 6 apps that I NEED to run. I'll never buy another Apple product again? Do you hear me Apple? You've lost one customer because you refuse to update your out of date software to work on newer hardware!

Some of you people are complete morons.

That's the most asinine "argument" I've ever heard re. this debate. Get a clue and come back later.

[Zadian]

I think it's a very good move for apple to go Mac OS X only.

a) For developers now there is now excuse to release a Mac OS 9 only app or to hold back the Mac OS X version of their app.

If they want to sell their apps they have to develop for Mac OS X (or move to an other platform - but there the competition is much harder).

b) Moving to Mac OS X only will free development resources at Apple - resources that can be used to improve Mac OS X.
Other software developer will benefit the same way. Supporting two different OSs results in more costs.

c) With every change in hardware design it will become harder for Apple to support OS 9 - without OS 9 Apple has more freedom in designing the hardware.
Apple could change OS 9 to support new hardware but in the end that will result in incompatibilities with older apps. I still remember how many apps needed to be updated for Mac OS 9.

The ony problem with the announcement is, that it should have happened earlier.
Apple should have made this announcement at the same time they announced 10.2.

[JohnD]

So it doesn't boot in Februari?

Hmmmm....

[noisefloor]

Originally posted by Targon:
Jan 2004 is more realistic.
For us Pro Tools still isnt even on OS X, and it has proven to be a very difficult project taking into account the app needs to be significantly redesigned and also considering there are like 7 hardware product lines that MUST work correctly with the software and operate seemlessly with each other.

PT is supposed to be out by the end of the year on X (although no official announcement yet). I say it's about time Apple did this, I'm sick of companies like Digi dragging their feet, they could use a good swift kick in the arse to get them moving.

[Gul Banana]

This shouldn't really be a problem... for anybody who still needs OS 9, it's very fast on even a G4/400 and if you were to get a new dual 1.25GHz machine you'll never need faster [for 9]. The OS that needs the new hardware is X, and it's getting it... if you still want to use 9, do so on a machine bought before January! Not all that difficult.

[Nonsuch]

This leads me to strongly suspect that Quark for OS X will be released or at the very least announced at MWSF. I don't think the Pro Tools situation is analogous--Pro Tools isn't really a desktop program; nobody's going to upgrade an entire department of Pro Tools installations the way Quark gets upgraded. In other words, Apple can afford to let the high-end audio market wait a little longer. But I don't see how they can sell next-generation hardware that doesn't run OS 9 and expect any design shops to buy it, unless Quark is available.

[oharag]

Smart move Apple! Look at the Windows world. You have people still using Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, 2000 Pro, XP, XP Pro, ????. Imagine the nightmare on the PC side. Which operating system would you chose to write to? What are the incompatibilities between OS's?

Apple needs to push software companies and users to their more modern OS (MacOS X). Otherwise we'll waddle in incompatibilities which will stall progress towards the future. I have an iBook with MacOS X and MacOS 9.2 installed. I've seen Classsic boot a couple of times. Now I avoid Classic altogether. I never want to leave MacOS X. I will be trying to find applications that only work with X. The day I can finally remove 9.2 from my HD is the day I gain a couple more Megabytes of free space. I'll never look back. For those who complain about incompatible software (games) and hardware (I believe my Epson scanner is not supported under X) well go get new hardware, and throw your old games away. Donate the hardware to a charity and write it off your taxes. Or, keep an older system around to play old games.

[rtamesis]

I can't run my favorite car racing game Corvette (written for System 6) for System 7.5, Mac OS 8, 9 or X! I'll never buy an Apple computer again!

[hyperizer]

Originally posted by kman42:
I can't believe the **** you people find to bitch about. If you like running Photoshop on a 400 Mhz machine with OS9, go ahead. Apple's not stopping you.

They want to run Photoshop on Apple's next generation Macs with OS 9. That's the whole point. If X weren't so slow in so many areas, this wouldn't be an issue.

The number of people planning on buying a new machine after January and booting 9 is insignificantly small.

How do you know? According to Apple, the percentage of people buying a new machine now and booting into 9 is 25%.

Lets face it, the general public will probably work with whatever OS you give them. It's the schools and businesses which upgrade infrequently and have to deal with supporting large numbers of machines that generally standardize on an OS and software package.

On the other hand, I can understand Apple's side of it. Let's hope they put all the developers who were updating OS 9 with each new hardware release into making X speedier. ;-)

[hyperizer]

Never mind.

[rtamesis]

if new games run faster on OS 9? I still want my Corvette, you nitwit. Waaahhhhh!!!!