Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

barbarian · Jul 24, 2002, 01:32 PM

Some folks around here with some close ties to Apple have been suggesting for weeks that Apple's new G4s will be unable to boot into OS 9. This rumor is now being reported on the web... While I know Apple's machines won't be able to boot into classic forever, I think it is much too early to kill classic booting. Especially when the majority of Mac users don't use OS X (I forget the exact number but OS X is booted as a primary OS by under 15% of the total Mac user base). If the rumor is true, I think this would be a major blunder. Every pro I know who uses OS X as a main OS still boots into classic regularly for a variety of reasons:

1. To run driverless hardware.

2. To run programs for which there is no OS X equiv or for which the price of upgrading is prohibitive.

3. To repair damaged OS X drives (OS X seems to corrupt HFS at a much faster rate than OS 9 ever did).

4. Because OS X is slow compared to native classic in certain apps. (and yes even under 10.2 it is a bit slower than native classic).

5. Because it's much easier to trash OS X files with screwed up permissions under OS 9 than it is to figure out what is going on in X.

6. Because customizing OS X (icons, extras.rsrc, and so on) is often easier if you are working in OS 9.

7.Because some legacy software (or copy protected software) only works under native 9.

8. Because some people just don't want to switch to X.

And so on. If Apple does kill classic booting on it's new round of machines it is going to be in the odd situation of releasing machines that everybody wants, but that few people (at least around here) will buy (I imagine they would instead look for cheap dual 1ghz machines). I'm in video/graphics. I imagine the situation in publishing would be much much worse (Quark is still the standard and OS X is still rare in print shops).

[ 07-24-2002, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: barbarian ]

fulmer · Jul 24, 2002, 01:59 PM

nah, I wouldn't worry. they'll let us keep booting into 9.x for some time yet.

SMacTech · Jul 24, 2002, 02:15 PM

If Apple wants to further cut off its nose to spite its face, they would do this. However, with only 10% of their user base migrated to OS X, this would be a BIG mistake. They would not lose much from keeping the ability to boot into OS9 and still use the stats of OS X installed base growing.

malvolio · Jul 24, 2002, 02:25 PM

I doubt that Apple is ready to go Classic-free any time in the next 3 or 4 years. But point 3 is no longer valid, what with Drive 10 and an OS X version of Norton Utilities available.

barbarian · Jul 24, 2002, 02:30 PM

But point 3 is no longer valid, what with Drive 10 and an OS X version of Norton Utilities available.

We trust Disk Warrior and nothing else. It is the only program that hasn't screwed us over the years.

[ 07-24-2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: barbarian ]

stuffedmonkey · Jul 24, 2002, 03:19 PM

I second that. Diskwarrior is indeed the best thing ever. I hear they have an OS X version slated for release the end of August.

lookmark · Jul 24, 2002, 03:37 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by barbarian:
[QB]Some folks around here with some close ties to Apple have been suggesting for weeks that Apple's new G4s will be unable to boot into OS 9...<hr /></blockquote>Oh, this will happen, but not yet.

I have a feeling it'll be arranged to come with Apple's next-generation chip, in mid-'03.

Rickster · Jul 24, 2002, 03:43 PM

The figure that's important to Apple's decision on this matter is that 10% of their user base has switched -- it's that 77% of the people who bought Macs which boot X by default keep it that way. And that number keeps rising. Looking at it that way, you can see how they could justify killing native Classic on the next generation of hardware. (After all, OS X uses less of the ROM-ware and ASICs on current Mac boards than OS 9 does, so they could save money by not producing that stuff.)

Of course, whether Apple does this sooner or later is anybody's guess.

King Kong · Jul 24, 2002, 05:59 PM

And that number keeps rising. Looking at it that way, you can see how they could justify killing native Classic on the next generation of hardware

I suppose, but my understanding of the Mac base is that most of it has only ever used a Mac and the vast majority of those folks use OS 9. The problem as I see it is twofold.

While switching to OS X might seem completly logical to most computery folk, there is huge resistance to switching from the casual OS 9 user based on simple inertia and habit. I know that in my own case I still find myself cursing at OS X for not doing things the way I want it to (finder weirdness and bad font rendering are my huge gripes) and will switch back to OS 9 for a while out of pure frustration just to get some work done... and I'm sort of a computer guy. My girlfriend won't go anywhere near X (she hates the "fuzzy" antialiased text , hates even more the "squished" unantialiased text and complains "I don't know where anything is"). I would argue that in many ways the switch from OS 9 to OS X is actually harder than switching from Windows to X. The thing I hear over and over again from OS 9 users who migrate is that X is mysterious while OS 9 is comprehensible. In OS 9 they know they can throw on a new system folder to a f&*^ed drive and it will boot. They have no idea what to do when X gets screwed up. They know in OS 9 that if they throw something in the trash it will go away. Documents open in the programs they are supposed to open in. Most importantly. they know where there documents are (basically anywhere they want). OS X seems much more mysterious to these users. While Apple has done an amazing job of taming Unix to make is seem simple, OS 9 imposed almost no rules and people have become used to the freedom and ease at which things can be repaired. Switching to X is harder than you would imagine. Trying to force change by not allowing classic to boot would be heavy handed at this point. The better approach, I believe, is to phase out X versions of apps so that in order to get the newest/coolest/latest you will want to switch.

Emotionally there is a big difference between choosing to switch because you want to force something and being forced to switch if you want to use fast hardware. This is what has been happening recently, but Apple's latest moves (like it's all or nothing .Mac offer) indicate they might be moving in another direction soon.

The second major group of people who would feel screwed by a lack of classic booting are pros who have large investments in 9 compatible software/hardware. In our office for example, we will buy newer/faster G4s if they come in dual configs with clockspeeds greater than 1.2, but it would cost another $2000-$3000 per machine to upgrade all the software/hardware on these machines for X. That's not going to happen unless we pay out of our own pockets and we have an IT guy who is looking for an excuse to switch us to PCs.

Anyway... this all might be moot, it's just speculation, but Apple should know that forcing people to abandon OS 9 in favor of X will not be a simple as getting rid of serial ports for USB... The factors that lead to OS choice are emotional and sometimes irrational. We still have a receptionist who uses a MacSE with OS 6/Word 5/Filemaker on it. She has paid money out of her own pocket to keep it running. She simply won't switch to anything else, because her system works for her purposes. She likes it and she understands it. I'm not suggesting that current machines should grandfather OS 9 forever, but as long as the basic hardware remains unchanged (G4+PCI+firwire_USB) I think it would be insane for Apple to try to force the issue by failing to update OS 9 for the new hardware.

[ 07-25-2002, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: King Kong ]

booboo · Jul 24, 2002, 06:13 PM

Quark Xpress?

ANY pro-audio multi-track recording app: Cubase/Logic/ProTools/Digital Performer. Some of these aren't even in beta yet. These app's don't work in "Classic".

ProTools users have often invested quite heavily in harware. Are you going to deny them a new Mac? Doesn't make sense.

FileMaker printing problems persist.

Good enough reasons to keep Mac's 9-bootable?

And yes, Disk Warrior is the greatest...:-)

OreoCookie · Jul 25, 2002, 05:37 AM

Apple will kill OS 9 booting in newer machines, because they (intentionally) do not write the necessary drivers. That's a way to push for a faster transition to X.

Older machines will still be able to boot OS 9.

Got no problem with that, I have a X only system for about a year now.

hyperizer · Jul 25, 2002, 10:27 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rickster:
The figure that's important to Apple's decision on this matter is that 10% of their user base has switched -- it's that 77% of the people who bought Macs which boot X by default keep it that way. And that number keeps rising.<hr /></blockquote>Of course this could be because the average new Mac buyer isn't savvy enough to switch from what's booted by default...

lookmark · Jul 25, 2002, 10:51 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by booboo:
Quark Xpress?

ANY pro-audio multi-track recording app: Cubase/Logic/ProTools/Digital Performer. Some of these aren't even in beta yet. These app's don't work in "Classic".

ProTools users have often invested quite heavily in harware. Are you going to deny them a new Mac? Doesn't make sense.

FileMaker printing problems persist.

Good enough reasons to keep Mac's 9-bootable?
<hr /></blockquote>Yes, this is why it's likely Apple won't do it for about year or so.

Mid-'03 these apps will be native, bugs will be ironed out, and the only reason to run OS 9 on a new machine will be sheer stubornness.

Lo, the prophet speaks!

philzilla · Jul 25, 2002, 11:10 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by booboo:
ANY pro-audio multi-track recording app: Cubase/Logic/ProTools/Digital Performer. Some of these aren't even in beta yet. These app's don't work in "Classic". <hr /></blockquote>not true. i know for a hard fact that some of these apps are in beta stage. also, Apple bought Logic, so i think it's fair to say an OS X version just 'might' appear in less than 12 months.

you'd see these things too, if you didn't have your head stuck in the sand

el_humpo · Jul 25, 2002, 11:50 AM

Personally I would have no problem with Apple's new machines booting X only. I trashed Classic after 10.1 was released, & never looked back. I think that apps that are still OS 9 only need to get with the program or be left behind (so long, Quark). Besides, OS 9 can't take advantage of the newest hardware - at least one, if not all of the new PowerMacs will have dual procs. And do you really think ATI & NVidia want to waste their time writing obsolete OS 9 drivers for their brand new video cards? I think not (and I hope not; ATI has enough driver problems as it is).

The cost of upgrades is a fact of life when you depend on computers. And before someone says something stupid, allowing Windows XP to run DOS and Windows 3.1 programs is at the root of its bloated size & unreliability.

Oh and BTW my Pismo has only KP'd twice since I've had X on it, and each time a simple fsck -y fixed any errors that were on the drive.

lookmark · Jul 25, 2002, 11:53 AM

Well, it's certainly easier to say "so long, Quark" if you (and your industry) doesn't depend on it. Almost in a rather unhealthy way.

Using Quark in Classic isn't fun.

p.s. InDesign is excellent, btw. I use it. But Quark isn't going away.