[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Come on...you're just angry that I pointed out how your very own software doesn't support early Mac OS X users.

No, I'm just upset that you're turning the thread into a flame war. Using words like "idiot", "moron", and "retarded" just highlights the fact that you don't have a point.

And your example is horsepoo (Ha! Ha!) anyway. One encourages you to upgrade your OS and hardware. The other forces you to stick with ancient software and hardware until the end of time. If Mac OS X had been discontinued after 10.1 and I still required a nonexistent later version of the OS so there was no way to run the app, then you might have a point.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

When I bought my B/W G3 tower Apple was touting it as "OS X ready" By the time OS X shipped, some of the OpenGL features weren't really supported.

They also never told me I'd not be able to stick a second hard drive in it. (rev a B/W tower)

Bummer to me back then.

I don't think that's true. I had a B/W G3 and everything was supported. Some of the Powerbook G3's got shafted in the OpenGL department though.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

And your example is horsepoo (Ha! Ha!) anyway. One encourages you to upgrade your OS and hardware. The other forces you to stick with ancient software and hardware until the end of time.

And both are decisions that disappoint a small number of users. In the end, you're just as bad (or as good) as Apple (and Big Mac it seems...wow, welcome to the children group Charles.)

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

You'd think so, but the guy's solution is to just get rid of the damn Mac and get a PC instead (and yes, we've played with options to run Windows software on Intel Macs - it kind of "works" but with a bunch of hassles. The best solution would be Boot Camp, which is a PITA).

Wow...you must have taken Extreme Solutions 101 classes or something. How about just having a 10.4 partition and a 10.5 partition. It'll cost 10 times less (read infinitely less) than your solution and will be the same hassle as booting into Windows...you'd be booting into 10.4 instead.

People complaining about Classic's demise should realize that 10.4 won't magically disappear. You can stay with 10.4 all your life if you really want your Classic app to run...and you can also have a 10.5 (and beyond) partition if you feel like your missing out on all the modern OS fun with the small hassle of rebooting to switch from one OS to the other.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

And both are decisions that disappoint a small number of users. In the end, you're just as bad (or as good) as Apple

I think most people reading this thread should be able to tell the difference.

welcome to the children group Charles.

A little ironic, don't you think?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Wow...you must have taken Extreme Solutions 101 classes or something. How about just having a 10.4 partition and a 10.5 partition. It'll cost 10 times less (read infinitely less) than your solution and will be the same hassle as booting into Windows...you'd be booting into 10.4 instead.

Because the whole reason we don't like Boot Camp as a solution is that it forces you to reboot all the time?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Because the whole reason we don't like Boot Camp as a solution is that it forces you to reboot all the time?

If that really is a problem, you can get super cheap PPC Macs that run Classic. You can have a dedicated Classic machine. Cool huh?

Oh, you guys don't feel like having a second computer? You guys feel entitled to Classic on Leopard? If you're unwilling to at least consider the suggested solutions, then you're on your own. I feel no pity for your parents or for the OP's problem.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I think most people reading this thread should be able to tell the difference.

No, what I think most is people won't even read this thread because they don't give two shits about your problem or the OP's problem considering most of them have found OS X equivalents.

I provided 3 solutions:
Sheepshaver
Getting a dedicated OS 9 or 10.4 machine running Classic
Having a 10.4 partition

I tried to contribute and help. Now I'm gonna bow out because I don't care about Classic users that don't want to even try alternative solution. And neither does Apple. Are you mad? Are your parents mad? EXCELLENT! Bye-eeeee!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Trust me, there are no alternatives, free or otherwise, to the app my parents need for their work. And it's unlikely that there will be, because I believe the file format is patented.

Have you looked into Octave? I have friends and colleagues working with it instead of Matlab. Octave was specifically designed to be a reverse-engineered Matlab.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

"Gentle migration" just means that when you switch to OS X, it won't be a huge PITA. It doesn't mean there's going to be a chopping-off later on.

Of course they did: it's for a gentle migration away from OS 9 to OS X apps. It doesn't mean OS 9 apps are supported indefinitely, quite the opposite. A migration is a slow, steady and permanent relocation from A to B -- away from OS 9.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Who cares about drivers? Of course drivers are going to need to be updated.

I do. Otherwise I couldn't use my photo printer (Olympus P11) anymore. So yes, I'm glad PowerPC drivers work on my ProBook. I don't even feel a difference Suffice to say, on 64 bit Vista, I'd be screwed.

On Leopard, you can run 32 bit apps alongside 64 bit apps -- that's something you can't do on Windows. So yes, it matters and things are different.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Again, Mac OS 9.2.2 was released after Windows XP. So an app written for XP when it was released is older than an app that required Mac OS 9.2.2. So don't act like they're not in the same ballpark just because Apple releases new OS updates more quickly.

Huh? XP is a platform that people actively develop software for -- something that cannot be said for OS 9. Hence, there is software that is released for XP today and it isn't (because it cannot be) compatible with all versions of Vista.

Also, OS X was a paradigm shift, something as fundamental as the invention of Windows NT 3 whereas Vista is based on XP.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

If that really is a problem, you can get super cheap PPC Macs that run Classic. You can have a dedicated Classic machine. Cool huh?

This introduces a host of new problems, such as not being able to copy and paste text from the app into a word processing document, which is kind of a basic need of theirs.

In this scenario, the Leopard machine would never get used.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

I provided 3 solutions:
Sheepshaver

I already mentioned that SheepShaver reproducibly crashes every time I try to launch the app that my parents need. Do keep up.

Getting a dedicated OS 9 or 10.4 machine running Classic

Already addressed that one

Having a 10.4 partition

Already addressed that one, too.

I tried to contribute and help. Now I'm gonna bow out

THANK YOU.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Have you looked into Octave? I have friends and colleagues working with it instead of Matlab. Octave was specifically designed to be a reverse-engineered Matlab.

I'm not the one asking about Matlab - my parents need to use Folio Views. The files they have to work with are in Folio Views format, and there is no third-party reader for these files (and I believe this is because the format is patented).

Of course they did: it's for a gentle migration away from OS 9 to OS X apps. It doesn't mean OS 9 apps are supported indefinitely, quite the opposite. A migration is a slow, steady and permanent relocation from A to B -- away from OS 9.

There was a gentle migration from 680x0 to PPC. But that didn't mean that the 680x0 emulator got yanked from the classic OS at any point.

I do. Otherwise I couldn't use my photo printer (Olympus P11) anymore. So yes, I'm glad PowerPC drivers work on my ProBook. I don't even feel a difference Suffice to say, on 64 bit Vista, I'd be screwed.

You wouldn't be able to run OS 9 drivers on any version of OS X.

Huh? XP is a platform that people actively develop software for -- something that cannot be said for OS 9. Hence, there is software that is released for XP today and it isn't (because it cannot be) compatible with all versions of Vista.

People were most definitely actively developing for OS 9 well into the 10.2 era. Plenty of people were still using OS 9 during those days - 10.0 and 10.1 were not really useful enough to be much more than a novelty. That's why Steve did the coffin thing for OS 9 - to tell developers to stop it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

You wouldn't be able to run OS 9 drivers on any version of OS X.

Nope, but I don't need to anyway. Although most of the relevant devices (printers and scanners) were also supported on OS X (more `expensive' printers usually come with Postscript that simply works).

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

People were most definitely actively developing for OS 9 well into the 10.2 era. Plenty of people were still using OS 9 during those days - 10.0 and 10.1 were not really useful enough to be much more than a novelty. That's why Steve did the coffin thing for OS 9 - to tell developers to stop it.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Most people considered 10.3 to be the first flavor of OS X that was ready for everyone. Plus, at that time, all major OS 9 apps have been ported to OS X (not sure when Quark came to the party, they might have been a bit late). And 10.3 was also released a long while ago (2003). Also, the development of some apps has simply been canned (Framemaker for instance). In any case, Windows XP is more akin to 10.3 and not OS 9: it has a modern foundation (NT kernel) and is still the Windows of choice in most companies. OS 9 is perhaps the MacOS of choice of some people at thalo.net, but most Mac users have migrated successfully. Most of the apps they love have been ported. And the ones that haven't, development has stopped.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

And the ones that haven't, development has stopped.

And therein lies the problem...

[SpaceMonkey]

CharlesS, it sounds like your parents are in an extremely rare, absurd situation in which they will have to keep using OS 9/Classic indefinitely. That's a shame. But I don't see how it alters the logic of Apple needing to drop support for Classic eventually, unless you think that companies need to support all of their products for eternity.

[CharlesS]

Well, it's a situation that's never existed before on the Mac platform. Before lately, the Mac OS supported software going all the way back to 1984. Yes, it's true that programs sometimes broke, but that was usually due to "shortcuts" or bad assumptions on the program's part (notably, a lot of apps broke under System 7 if 32-bit addressing was turned on, most likely due to the apps making bad assumptions about the size of a pointer). When Apple introduced the 680x0 emulator for the PPC Mac OS, they didn't drop it five years later. Even apps written in 68k assembler continued to work all the way through Tiger on PPC. Microsoft, too, does not do this (although again, it's possible for apps to break incidentally - but MS didn't chop them off on purpose).

[CatOne]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

And therein lies the problem...

Yep. So there is some subset of users (probably in the thousands, maybe in the tens of thousands) who have a real reliance on an application that is dead, and which will never make its way to an OS X native version.

Those people are pretty much tied to 10.4 (or earlier) on PPC hardware. Intel hardware is a dead end, as is 10.5.

However, Apple just had their quarterly call and sold 400,000 MORE Macs this quarter than in any other Q4 in their history. Something like 2.1 million systems in 3 months. So we're talking about a run rate of millions of new customers per year, and a few thousand (or maybe ten thousand-ish) who can't upgrade. It's a trade-off, but given the ability to sell 400,000 (net) new systems by cutting some legacy bait, I had to happen sometime. OS X first shipped in 2001, so a > 6.5 year hall pass is pretty generous.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, it's a situation that's never existed before on the Mac platform. Before lately, the Mac OS supported software going all the way back to 1984.

But surely in today's day and age, one cannot presume they can continue using 23 year old software and have their livelihood successfully dependent on it.

The choices of either not upgrading, using a separate machine or setting up a dual boot are the only three available. And I personally do not fault Apple for dropping support for OS9. It is likely there is only a handful of users that require this function, and since Apple is a company who's goal is to turn a profit, it holds likely that supporting Classic was not a financially rewarding effort.

Just like major corporations who stay locked into a specific build of Windows XP for years because they need to maintain a certain level of legacy support, your parents are going to have to decide if upgrading to Leopard is going to be worth it. And if modern versions of MatLab are not sufficient, than it sounds like staying with Tiger is the only choice. And its not really a bad choice you know. If they get their work done, then there really isn't a reason to switch (which of course is the root of the whole problem to begin with, isn't it - not switching from antique software when it was possible, and now they're locked in).

[CharlesS]

I already said that they aren't using Matlab. That was timmerk.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I already said that they aren't using Matlab. That was timmerk.

My opinion still stands.

[Brass]

For those who think Classic should be included and supported in Leopard, please explain how many years after the demise of OS 9 you think Apple should support it, and please explain how you calculated that number of years. I'm just curious.

For those who claim there are not OS X equivalents to their Classic apps, please specify what these applications are, in detail. Already this has shown to be not the case for Matlab. For FolioView, I'm not familiar with this... is there a Windows version? If so, you could run the free 'VirtualBox' virtualisation application and run the windows version. No rebooting required, then. Not as fully integrated as Classic, but does work very nicely (and quicker than Parallels for me). It really sounds to me like this is the fault of the FolioView developers (ie, not keeping up) rather than Apple, and Apple is being made the scape goat here.

Clearly Apple have got to drop Classic at some stage, it is just a matter of when. And people have differing opinions on this, depending on how it affects them, of course. However, it will have to be dropped eventually, and people will have to find an alternative eventually. If you've not been able to find an alternative in the last 6 years, then you just need to bite the bullet, and pick one of the alternatives that you dislike the least.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Brass 

For those who think Classic should be included and supported in Leopard, please explain how many years after the demise of OS 9 you think Apple should support it, and please explain how you calculated that number of years. I'm just curious.

It should be supported for as long as OS X is supported on PowerPC machines.

For those who claim there are not OS X equivalents to their Classic apps, please specify what these applications are, in detail. Already this has shown to be not the case for Matlab.

Fine, the app is Folio Views. Good luck finding an OS X equivalent, because I have already thoroughly searched for such a thing, and there is none.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't like arguing inane points, but I dislike blissful idiocy a great deal more.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Fine, the app is Folio Views. Good luck finding an OS X equivalent, because I have already thoroughly searched for such a thing, and there is none.

There is however a Windows equivalent. If your parents are dead set on using Leopard (which I really don't see as being a critical upgrade for them), then running it under Parallels or VMWare would be the solution they require.

And please direct your anger at whoever made the decision to use FolioView in the first place, or the manufacturers of that software for not providing a future-proof upgrade path. Being angry at Apple for making sound business decisions, again, is just whining for the sake of whining.

[peeb]

What is Folio View?

[Kevin]

You guys can't blame this one on me.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

It should be supported for as long as OS X is supported on PowerPC machines.

Apple disagrees and laughs vehemently at your parents. So do I.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

It should be supported for as long as OS X is supported on PowerPC machines.

Tiger is still supported on PPC machines, therefore Classic is still supported on PPC machines. Apple have not yet announced the date on which they're going to stop supporting Tiger, but I suspect that it will be a few years away yet. So Classic is likely to be supported on PPC machines for several years to come yet.

Fine, the app is Folio Views. Good luck finding an OS X equivalent, because I have already thoroughly searched for such a thing, and there is none.

If you really need Leopard (do you really?) then you have several options open to you, as already provided here by other posts.

Eg, you could run the Windows equivalent using 'Virtual Box', and it would cost you nothing. Or you could use one of the commercial VM applications which provide more integration. Have you looked at Virtual Box? It really is a very good VM application, especially considering it is free. They're working flat out at getting the OS X version up to the same level as the Linux and Windows versions, and have done very well at it so far. (You'd need an Intel Mac, though, of course).

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Brass 

Tiger is still supported on PPC machines, therefore Classic is still supported on PPC machines. Apple have not yet announced the date on which they're going to stop supporting Tiger, but I suspect that it will be a few years away yet. So Classic is likely to be supported on PPC machines for several years to come yet.

Awww come on...why did you go and tell him that? You're ruining the fun.

[- - e r i k - -]

Don't worry. He's not really interested in alternatives. He just wants to bitch about Apple not serving his every need on a silver plate.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Brass 

If you really need Leopard (do you really?) then you have several options open to you, as already provided here by other posts.

Well, I would like to put my parents on Leopard, because it would make it quite a bit easier for me to tech-support them with features like iChat screen sharing.

Eg, you could run the Windows equivalent using 'Virtual Box', and it would cost you nothing. Or you could use one of the commercial VM applications which provide more integration. Have you looked at Virtual Box? It really is a very good VM application, especially considering it is free. They're working flat out at getting the OS X version up to the same level as the Linux and Windows versions, and have done very well at it so far. (You'd need an Intel Mac, though, of course).

1. They'd have to buy a new Mac, which they are not going to do.

2. They'd have to install Windows into the virtual machine (my parents are not "tech-y" people). They'd also need to buy a copy of Windows.

3. They'd then have to deal with setting up anti-virus, anti-spyware, etc. apps on the Windows partition. This is a pain in the ass.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Awww come on...why did you go and tell him that? You're ruining the fun.

I thought you said you were done with this thread.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Don't worry. He's not really interested in alternatives. He just wants to bitch about Apple not serving his every need on a silver plate.

Well, it appears I've won this argument, since you guys don't seem to be able to do much other than throw ad hominems around.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I thought you said you were done with this thread.

I'm amused that people with big hearts (bigger than mine) are still trying to help you...and you systematically shut them down.

Just admit that you're not interested in hearing about possible solutions to the problem. Leading people to think that they can provide an acceptable solution to your problem is mean-spirited.

Most of the solutions brought forward are acceptable (with the exception of Sheepshaver I suppose). They require a compromise (some bigger than others) of some sort but they *are* acceptable. If you don't want to create two partitions (one for 10.4 and Folio Views and the other for 10.5), too ****ing bad. Live with your problem and stop making people believe they can find the solution to your problem.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, it appears I've won this argument, since you guys don't seem to be able to do much other than throw ad hominems around.

Truth hurts, huh?

[Brass]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, it appears I've won this argument, since you guys don't seem to be able to do much other than throw ad hominems around.

I'm sorry if you think I was trying to argue (assuming I was included in 'you guys' since you quoted me). I was merely trying to assist.

It appears to me that you want the best of both worlds, when realistically, you are going to have to choose a compromise in one area or another. It's up to you which is worth the most to you. Apple gave notice 6 years ago that this was going to happen (and with the Intel switch, it was clearly going to become impossible to support it on new Macs), and I would have expected people to have made alternative arrangements by now.

You can't run your Classic apps forever, and expect them to keep working. You're going to have to make the leap into a different solution either now or in the future (one day there will be no classic-capable macs around). If Leopard is so important to you, then perhaps now is a good time for you to make the leap, but it is up to you to decide which way to jump... we can only offer so many suggestions.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, it appears I've won this argument, since you guys don't seem to be able to do much other than throw ad hominems around.

But you're left without an acceptable solution and you've made some enemies in the process. Congratz.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Brass 

I'm sorry if you think I was trying to argue (assuming I was included in 'you guys' since you quoted me). I was merely trying to assist.

I wasn't referring to you, my apologies if it sounded like I did. I was referring to Horsepoo!!! and erik. You've been polite, in stark contrast to the immature kids in here.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

But you're left without an acceptable solution and you've made some enemies in the process. Congratz.

Somehow, it doesn't bother me so much if a 12-year-old kid thinks I'm an "enemy". Suit yourself.

I am, however, quickly getting sick of this thread (and, frankly, this entire forum).

[Jonathan-Tanya]

Guys, the boss in this scenario, who just wants to buy a Windows Machine...is in the right.

As much as I love Mac's too, this software they are using, hasn't been updated for Mac in many years. It ran in Classic...may be a 68K program...may even predate PPC.

In that case, he can use Basilisk II, or something like that....but...

I agree with boss man....this software really runs on a PC (all recent versions), and they have heroically stayed with an older version on the Mac platform until now, but if you are sticking with this program...its a Windows program, and time to realize that. That is the only platform that company supports.

So either stick with the Mac and use Mac software...or, as this problem seems to be worded, the program is the requirement, not the OS...in which case, just go to Windows.

It's ashame, but hey... I use a Mac for my personal work, but for work work, its unix and windows, because thats the platforms required. It doesn't end the world.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Jonathan-Tanya 

Guys, the boss in this scenario, who just wants to buy a Windows Machine...is in the right.

As much as I love Mac's too, this software they are using, hasn't been updated for Mac in many years. It ran in Classic...may be a 68K program...may even predate PPC.

In that case, he can use Basilisk II, or something like that....but...

I agree with boss man....this software really runs on a PC (all recent versions), and they have heroically stayed with an older version on the Mac platform until now, but if you are sticking with this program...its a Windows program, and time to realize that. That is the only platform that company supports.

So either stick with the Mac and use Mac software...or, as this problem seems to be worded, the program is the requirement, not the OS...in which case, just go to Windows.

It's ashame, but hey... I use a Mac for my personal work, but for work work, its unix and windows, because thats the platforms required. It doesn't end the world.

Stop it. You're making too much sense and CharlieBrown here hates that.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Brass 

I'm sorry if you think I was trying to argue (assuming I was included in 'you guys' since you quoted me). I was merely trying to assist.

It appears to me that you want the best of both worlds, when realistically, you are going to have to choose a compromise in one area or another. It's up to you which is worth the most to you. Apple gave notice 6 years ago that this was going to happen (and with the Intel switch, it was clearly going to become impossible to support it on new Macs), and I would have expected people to have made alternative arrangements by now.

You can't run your Classic apps forever, and expect them to keep working. You're going to have to make the leap into a different solution either now or in the future (one day there will be no classic-capable macs around). If Leopard is so important to you, then perhaps now is a good time for you to make the leap, but it is up to you to decide which way to jump... we can only offer so many suggestions.

Winner

[Eriamjh]

If one MUST upgrade to Leopard and one MUST have Classic support, one MUST tolerate a separate stripped down Tiger partition on their harddrive to run Classic or add a machine that supports classic running Tiger (via VNC) or some other kludge-around.

You can't hang onto the past while upgrading into the future without spending more money.

I wonder if copying certain "files" from Tiger into Leopard would allow classic to run? Anyone know what they might be?

[timmerk]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Have you looked into Octave? I have friends and colleagues working with it instead of Matlab. Octave was specifically designed to be a reverse-engineered Matlab.

You were directing your question to Charles, but I was the one who mentioned Matlab. No I hadn't heard of it, but then I don't know much about Matlab. I'll ask my co-worker if he's heard of it. Thanks!

[timmerk]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

That screen shot could just be a screen shot of the Intel version of 10.5. But the question is.. is Classic there in the PPC version of 10.5?

[Eriamjh]

Originally Posted by timmerk 

That screen shot could just be a screen shot of the Intel version of 10.5. But the question is.. is Classic there in the PPC version of 10.5?

So far the consensus is no. Classic has been on the chopping block since the first round of Macs that lost OS9 boot support (around early-mid 2003).

That makes the last bootable version of OS9 4-4.5 years old. Apple usually drops support around 5 years. 4.5 years is around 5 years. Either move to Leopard or stay with Tiger.

There is no argument for Classic support anymore. Even schools need to move on in 4 years.

[timmerk]

Haha, that picture is so weird!

[Roehlstation]

None of you still running Classic better buy any new Intel Macs, because those already don't support Classic even on 10.4.x. If you need to buy any old used machines let me know.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Roehlstation 

None of you still running Classic better buy any new Intel Macs, because those already don't support Classic even on 10.4.x. If you need to buy any old used machines let me know.

I too would be willing to sell my old 2x800MHz Quicksilver G4 with 17" monitor for 60 bucks. It still works like a champ although it's a little loud. I still think CharlesS should consider networking an old computer with the one his parents have now. The old computer can be a dedicated Folio Views machine and with Leopard, it would be extremely easy to exchange files between both computers. His stubbornness is the only thing stopping him from having a decent solution.

Judging by the way he describes the situation, his parents use Folio Views a lot...they almost eat, breath, live that app...so a dedicated machine only makes sense. And if a dedicated machine isn't what he needs, he could use it as a Folio Views + file server machine...or Time Machine backup computer.

It's always good to have at least two computers in the house. If problems arise with one computer, you can always use the other to diagnose the problem and you're not left without internet. Whatever though...if Charles isn't willing to consider that option, I don't care...all I know is he'd be doing his parents a great disfavor.

[P]

There are possible reasons why supporting Classic on Leopard might be hard. Classic, or rather the TruBluEnvironment, uses special hooks in the kernel (and probably other system services as well) to do its thing. If a significant update to the kernel (which has been rumored since 10.4 finally set the kernel API) makes it hard to support those hooks, the hooks may have to go. Simple as that.

That said, I'm absolutely certain that if Classic had worked fine on 10.5, it would have been cut anyway. Teh Jobs does these things sometimes.

Personally, I don't fault Apple for removing Classic support (it's not like removing 64 bit Carbon...) but I do fault them for not making this clear a year ago. No announcement, no nothing - that is really bad.

[Kevin]

Yeah it has been a decade since OS 9 came out. I think them dropping support of it isn't something to get upset about. If the application you use still don't support OS X, they aren't going to. I'd move to a different application.

[malax]

I'd just like to point out that using the date of 9.2.2 as the "last release" of OS 9 is misleading. Obviously 9.2.2 was a "patch-level" release. The last real release was either 9.0 or 9.2 depending on how they marketed it. Did you have to pay for 9.2 if you had 9.0? If not, you could reasonably argue that date of 9.0 is the relevant one. All dates after that were updates to the last pre-OS X version.

Two other points:
1. Apple should have announced this loss of Classic as a attribute of 10.5. But it's hard to see where they would put that. I'm sure there are other features that got dropped that they don't announce either.
2. 10.5 is a new product. If you want it, get it, but it's not an entitlement. Just because 10.4 works for you doesn't mean Apple is obligated to make you happen with 10.5. If you don't like the feature set (or the price or the style of the dock), don't buy it.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by malax 

I'd just like to point out that using the date of 9.2.2 as the "last release" of OS 9 is misleading. Obviously 9.2.2 was a "patch-level" release. The last real release was either 9.0 or 9.2 depending on how they marketed it. Did you have to pay for 9.2 if you had 9.0? If not, you could reasonably argue that date of 9.0 is the relevant one. All dates after that were updates to the last pre-OS X version.

Two other points:
1. Apple should have announced this loss of Classic as a attribute of 10.5. But it's hard to see where they would put that. I'm sure there are other features that got dropped that they don't announce either.
2. 10.5 is a new product. If you want it, get it, but it's not an entitlement. Just because 10.4 works for you doesn't mean Apple is obligated to make you happen with 10.5. If you don't like the feature set (or the price or the style of the dock), don't buy it.

If we count removed apps as lost features...Sherlock and Print Setup Utility have been removed (since they have been replaced by Dashboard and the Print & Fax prefs pane.) Some might think of this as a loss but I'm sure they're a small minority. Dashboard Widgets are by far more numerous and powerful than Sherlock was and Print Setup Utility was just an app that should have been a prefs pane in the first place. And, in a sense, there are still a few apps in the Utility folder that could belong in the System Preferences.

[peeb]

I still have not seen a decent movie times widget to replace the sherlock one - any options?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

If we count removed apps as lost features...Sherlock and Print Setup Utility have been removed (since they have been replaced by Dashboard and the Print & Fax prefs pane.) Some might think of this as a loss but I'm sure they're a small minority. Dashboard Widgets are by far more numerous and powerful than Sherlock was and Print Setup Utility was just an app that should have been a prefs pane in the first place. And, in a sense, there are still a few apps in the Utility folder that could belong in the System Preferences.

It's a loss of apps, but not a loss of functionality -- something I can live with quite comfortably. All it then boils down to is a preference of how it's done -- that is something you can argue about.