Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

KarenE · Oct 22, 2005, 10:41 AM

Hi I'm considering buying a new PM (DC 2.3) for several reasons (some I mentioned in another thread).

One of the other reasons I'm considering buying now, even though the intel switch is coming, is that I have bunch of classic software that would be VERY expensive to replace AND that i only use every once in awhile, but I don't want to lose but would not be cost effective to replace. I don't think there is any chance that software will run on a MacTel.

I would be giving my existing G4 to someone else in the family to replace their 500 mHz G3 iMac so i would lose access to my current machine

So while i assume the new DC PM's can run classic, as I can't find confirmation of that on the apple website, I like to know if anyone knows for a fact that they do.

If not, I would consider picking up referb or the dual 2.7 (though I don't want to spend that much )

What ever i buy needs to last a long while.

Thanks,
- Karen

reader50 · Oct 22, 2005, 02:04 PM

They will run Classic, but will not boot into OS9. Check the specs page, Classic is listed as included.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html

newtech · Oct 22, 2005, 02:42 PM

Classic is part of OS X, hardware will support classic so long as Apple does not eliminate classic from OS X. Yes that means the Intel Mac's will run classic so long as the version of OS X on them supports classic.

Lateralus · Oct 22, 2005, 02:48 PM

I've been thinking that Apple sees the Intel transition as their best opportunitty to kill off Classic, since it is dependant on the PowerPC in a way that OS X never was. But after having seen Rosetta in action, you have to wonder if Apple will allow Classic to continue coasting along under emulation.

newtech · 03:36 PM

Discounting a RADICAL CHANGE in philosophy, classic ( I forget what color box it was called ) is a specified element of OS X and in therory should remain through 10.9.9

BTW

In my opion the code name for OS XI (11) ought to be Spinal Tap

andreas_g4 · Oct 22, 2005, 03:16 PM

^^^

Eriamjh · Oct 22, 2005, 03:53 PM

It is all but guaranteed that Classic will disappear when intel arrives. Rosetta cannot emulate OS9 environments and run classic apps.

Considering OS9 was last released in 2000 and last bootable in 2003, 2006 or 2007 to drop it is fine. Apple will possibly maintain a PPC mac model for a short time after all the Intels arrive to give everyone one last shot to get a Classic supported machine.

Classic users have had a decent support period. After that, they can continue to use the same macs they already have! Eventually, they will have to move on like everyone else. Are DOS people still complaining?

newtech · Oct 22, 2005, 04:09 PM

You are missing the point. Classic is a Hardware Abstraction Layer ( to borrow a windows term ) Classic therfore is not dependant on hardware, nor is it dependant on having a PPC processor any more than 68k code is dependant on a real 68k processor.

CatOne · Oct 22, 2005, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by newtech

You are missing the point. Classic is a Hardware Abstraction Layer ( to borrow a windows term ) Classic therfore is not dependant on hardware, nor is it dependant on having a PPC processor any more than 68k code is dependant on a real 68k processor.

Classic will not be supported on the net Intel hardware. Apple has said so themselves.

Goodbye OS 9 apps. Time to step up to OS X versions.

iDaver · Oct 22, 2005, 10:59 PM

I have one pretty pricey classic application I use about once or twice a month (Apple's QTVR Authoring Studio). It will probably keep me from buying an Intel Mac for quite some time.

It's silly that Apple's refusal to update QTVRAS will eventually cost them hardware sales, but I'm not the only one with this opinion.

If Apple decides to drop classic support from OS X with, say, version 10.6 or later, I'll have a decision to make; buy new panorama software or stick with the older OS.

Meanwhile, I just ordered a new Mac, so I'm set for a while.

newtech · Oct 22, 2005, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by CatOne

Classic will not be supported on the net Intel hardware. Apple has said so themselves.

Goodbye OS 9 apps. Time to step up to OS X versions.

Supported and operable are two distict things. Unless Apple guts OS X at a very basic level classic will function, weather Apple "supports" it or not.

Please do not confuse Classic with true OS 9, Classic is A built-in emulation environment in OS X that would have to be specifically removed intentionally rather than Apple just saying they will no longer devolp or support it for Classic to no longer function.

I am no longer much of a fan of OS 9, but wht are some so intent on spreading disinformation that anything and everything OS 9 will disappear in any forseeably near time?

newtech · Oct 22, 2005, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by CatOne

Classic will not be supported on the net Intel hardware. Apple has said so themselves.

Goodbye OS 9 apps. Time to step up to OS X versions.

Supported and operable are two distict things. Unless Apple guts OS X at a very basic level classic will function, weather Apple "supports" it or not.

Please do not confuse Classic with true OS 9, Classic is A built-in emulation environment in OS X that would specifically removed intentionally rather than Apple just saying they will no longer develop or support it.

I am no longer much of a fan of OS 9, but why are some so intent on spreading disinformation that anything and everything OS 9 will disappear in any forseeably near time?

Classic is on the same footing as the GUI interface over the BSD kernal. One might as easily say the GUI interface cant be run on intel hardware, a known falacy.

andgarden · Oct 23, 2005, 01:05 AM

Chew on this: Classic does <i>not</i> run on the Dev Boxes.

newtech · Oct 23, 2005, 01:16 AM

I can easily see Apple disabling Classic on the DTK's as the focus for those machines is strictly on developing and testing new software. However it would be GROSSLY unwise for Apple to diable Classic on end user machines in the future. There is no good technical reason why Classic could not function on intel hardware.

Big Mac · 02:49 AM

newtech, you're wrong. Just plain wrong. Give it up. Classic is tied substantially to the PPC and has been since the discontinuation of 68K support. Apple is certainly not going to waste a dime creating an entire emulation layer for it. And it will not work through Rosetta. I don't understand why you won't believe the distinguished members of the forum who already explained it. Go read the Universal Binary PDF and take a look at what it says about OS 9 applications if you're still confused.

newtech · Oct 23, 2005, 02:50 AM

OK, I seem to be from a parallel universe where Classic is a software emulation internal to OS X. I guess MacMAME is an impossability as well as none of that software is meant to run on a PPC processor or Mac Hardware either.

Big Mac · 03:04 AM

Classic is not emulation. It is a virtual machine that runs exclusively on the PowerPC. You really should consider learning about a subject prior to arrogantly interjecting, in order to avoid looking moronic.

goMac · Oct 23, 2005, 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by newtech

You are missing the point. Classic is a Hardware Abstraction Layer ( to borrow a windows term ) Classic therfore is not dependant on hardware, nor is it dependant on having a PPC processor any more than 68k code is dependant on a real 68k processor.

Uh. Hardware abstraction layers are dependent on hardware. You contradicted yourself.

proton · Oct 23, 2005, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by newtech

OK, I seem to be from a parallel universe where Classic is a software emulation internal to OS X. I guess MacMAME is an impossability as well as none of that software is meant to run on a PPC processor or Mac Hardware either.

Perhaps you should read xnu-792.2.4/osfmk/ppc/hw_exception.s. Notice that there is a bunch of BlueBox support implemented in the PowerPC side of the kernel.

There is no emulation of a machine happening at all with Classic.

- proton

crooner · Oct 23, 2005, 08:05 AM

Hey, Gang.
This is a very cool thread and I enjoyed reading it. Some very interesting points made.
I just have to interject one thing...

We're all on the same team, here. So when there are disagreements, let's do away with the verbal attacks and try to be a bit more tactful. It doesn’t cost you anything and only helps spread the goodwill of the community that is us, the Mac faithful.

Sorry if I sound preachy, but I just hate to see a good thread derailed by a flame war, you know?
Thanks for listening. I'll shut up now.

Eriamjh · Oct 23, 2005, 09:20 AM

Regardless of how classic works, it wil be likely be dead and nonexistant on the Intel Machines from Apple. Apple has said so themselves. Is the market big enough to support some third party implementing something? I doubt it.

If you use classic today even rarely, just keep your old box around for those uses. It won't kill you. If you usually sell your old machine to help pay for the next one, consider it the cost of keeping classic.

I thought we went through all these discussions when Apple dropped OS9 booting, but I guess people just can't let go.

chabig · Oct 23, 2005, 09:33 AM

Can anyone provide a link to documentation where Apple has said Classic won't run?

chabig · Oct 23, 2005, 09:39 AM

Never mind. Found it...

The Universal Binary Programming Guidelines say it on page 57:

"Rosetta is designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3
processor and that are built for Mac OS X. That includes CFM as well as Mach-O PowerPC applications.

Rosetta does not run the following:

■ Applications built for any version of the Mac OS earlier than Mac OS X—that means Mac OS 9,
Mac OS 8, Mac OS 7, and so forth

■ The Classic environment

..."

Chris

Bandit240 · Oct 23, 2005, 09:50 AM

WEll even if classic isnt supported by the new Macs, ill always be good to run OS9 stuff since ive got a few extra iMacs around.

dru · Oct 23, 2005, 08:36 PM

I wouldn't worry about it. Basilisk II, the open source 68K emulator is on Mac OS X as well as Windows. Shouldn't be much to run really old stuff on Mac OS 8 within Mactel X. With PearPC, it might be possible for an open source movement to create a Mac OS 8 or 9-compatible PowerMac emulator.

We we just continue to lose developers as we did in the attempt to goto PowerPC, then Copland, then to Rhapsody um... err Carbon, and Mac OS X and now to Intel. The Macintosh history is littered with the corpses of developers who have abandoned the platform at each shake-up. This isn't a *good* thing.

Catfish_Man · Oct 23, 2005, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by dru

We we just continue to lose developers as we did in the attempt to goto PowerPC, then Copland, then to Rhapsody um... err Carbon, and Mac OS X and now to Intel. The Macintosh history is littered with the corpses of developers who have abandoned the platform at each shake-up. This isn't a *good* thing.

Omnigroup and Stone Design are great examples of former next development houses that now produce great Mac apps, and that's not even counting the huge number of *nix developers now making OSX compatible stuff. Anecdotally speaking, I'd be running (and programming for) linux or windows if it weren't for OSX. Maybe you didn't notice Apple having their best quarter in history, recently? Sounds like a great way to attract developers to me.

chabig · Oct 23, 2005, 10:47 PM

I think at last summer's WWDC, Steve said they had more developers than ever. Something like 3500 developers attended the conference.

Chris

dru · 11:31 PM

Right. Apple... Rah, rah. The two NeXT developers mentioned are a tiny number and many fine NeXT apps never even got moved up to the OpenStep APIs, while others were burried like the productivity apps from Lighthouse which Sun purchased and killed.

Open Source developers are not producing *Macintosh* apps. They're producing Linux apps which are ported to Windows and Mac OS X. This isn't the same thing as having a great native app designed with the system in mind. Do you really see OpenOffice.org as equivalent to a native Macintosh office suite?

Now, let's talk about MACINTOSH developers which is what I was talking about. How many apps died off in the transitions? How much competition is there in each area compared to 5, 8 years ago? How many unique apps are being developed?

Adobe's cut back the apps they have on Mac OS X. Corel shelved all but Painter. Microsoft's Mac BU produces 3rd rate work in Windows Media Player and MSN Messenger. IE was axed. Outlook and other Office apps never made it to Macintosh.

Apple's not exactly been a first class citizen. They've been buying or competing with Mac ISVs (Watson, Konfabulator). They've basically killed some classes of apps.

Appleworks was and still is a poor Carbon app. iWork is a pathetic substitute.

I want to see well designed *Macintosh* apps. Instead the tree gets shaken time and again with less and less genuine fruit available.

Look at your docks and ~/Applications. How many of those are great Mac apps first and how many came from Windows or Linux or another UNIX?

chabig · Oct 23, 2005, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by dru

Right. Apple... Rah, rah. The two NeXT developers mentioned are a tiny number and many fine NeXT apps never even got moved up to the OpenStep APIs, while others were burried like the productivity apps from Lighthouse which Sun purchased and killed.

Open Source developers are not producing *Macintosh* apps. They're producing Linux apps which are ported to Windows and Mac OS X. This isn't the same thing as having a great native app designed with the system in mind. Do you really see OpenOffice.org as equivalent to a native Macintosh office suite?

Now, let's talk about MACINTOSH developers which is what I was talking about. How many apps died off in the transitions? How much competition is there in each area compared to 5, 8 years ago? How many unique apps are being developed?

Adobe's cut back the apps they have on Mac OS X. Corel shelved all but Painter. Microsoft's Mac BU produces 3rd rate work in Windows Media Player and MSN Messenger. IE was axed. Outlook and other Office apps never made it to Macintosh.

Apple's not exactly been a first class citizen. They've been buying or competing with Mac ISVs (Watson, Konfabulator). They've basically killed some classes of apps.

Appleworks was and still is a poor Carbon app. iWork is a pathetic substitute.

I want to see well designed *Macintosh* apps. Instead the tree gets shaken time and again with less and less genuine fruit available.

Look at your docks and ~/Applications. How many of those are great Mac apps first and how many came from Windows or Linux or another UNIX?

I disagree with you. Some shortsighted developers may have left the Mac with the OS X transition but that was probably because they didn't believe Apple could make it work. They did, and those developers lost out. You asked how many apps died off in the OS X transition. I can't think of any good ones that did. Maybe Final Cut killed Premiere but Adobe was never very loyal to the Mac anyway. It took Apple to make a great app before Adobe decided they didn't want to compete.

Corel never made any good Mac apps. Microsoft's neglect of Media Player has nothing to do with platform transitions and everything to do with their business model. IE was axed because it didn't provide Microsoft any revenue or business advantage. I think Outlook hasn't been ported for the same reason--Microsoft considers it strategic.

I also don't think that Apple's competition hurts the software market. Look, Microsoft competes with their developers AND their customers but it hasn't hurt them. As you stated, Appleworks is poor and iWork is not there yet. That leaves plenty of room for third-party developers. You can't complain that Apple is freezing out developers and then say that Apple's software efforts are poor. That makes no sense.

I think the Mac has a few great apps in each category, whereas on Windows there is lot of crap in each category. Which is the better ecosystem, I think the Mac is?

Chris

Catfish_Man · Oct 24, 2005, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by dru

Open Source developers are not producing *Macintosh* apps.

As an open source developer working on a Cocoa app based on *nix/win code (Adium, and libgaim respectively), I have issues with this statement

CatOne · Oct 24, 2005, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by dru

...

I want to see well designed *Macintosh* apps. Instead the tree gets shaken time and again with less and less genuine fruit available.

Look at your docks and ~/Applications. How many of those are great Mac apps first and how many came from Windows or Linux or another UNIX?

Well, since you asked...

Okay, my ENTIRE dock:
* Mail (Apple App)
* Safari (Apple App)
* iChat (Apple App)
* NetNewsWire -- MAC ONLY COCOA APP
* Address Book (Apple App)
* iCal (Apple App)
* MeetingMaker (Not sure if it was Mac or PC first -- but the only real good cross-platform calendar app)
* iTunes (Apple App)
* BBEdit (Apple App -- Carbon -- MAC FIRST APP)
* Circus Ponies Notebook -- MAC ONLY COCOA APP
* DEVONthink Pro -- MAC ONLY COCOA APP
* OmniGraffle Pro 4.0 -- MAC ONLY COCOA APP
* Dictionary (Apple App)
* Keynote 2 (Apple Cocoa App)
* Pages (Apple Cocoa App)
* Adobe Bridge (Mac first, cross platform Carbon app)
* Delicious Library (MAC ONLY COCOA APP)
* Unison (MAC ONLY COCOA APP)
* Transmit 3.x (MAC ONLY COCOA APP)
* Apple Remote Desktop (Apple Cocoa App)
* Launchbar -- MAC ONLY COCOA APP -- been around since NeXTStep days

So... mine looks pretty compelling for ISVs. Sure, I also have Microsoft Office on the machine, but it's not in the doc as I only use it for opening Office docs that people send over.

Happy?