Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

rmendis · Mar 12, 2003, 01:05 AM

[Spun off discussion from the "What's new in Mac OS X 10.3 Panther?" thread]

Having pretty much integrated the two environments Carbon and Cocoa, i.e making them true 'peers', seemless and with a common look & feel and functionality, maybe Apple will finally look at making Classic seemless as well.

This is not technically impossible or out of the question, particularly as there still appears to be a legacy Classic user base...primarily creative & publishing businesses (which tend to lag behind in making changes due to dept. budget constraints, IT direction, time, etc).

Consider this:
1. Rebuild Mac OS 9 ontop of Darwin - this is what Mach microkernel architecture was designed for - to be very versatile and allow the budding of various OS 'shells' - MkLinux, NEXTSTEP (BSD), OSF/1, etc...in fact, there is nothing stopping Apple from gently migrating the Mac OS X unix shell to Linux (ala MkLinux): "Linux for Mac OS X".
2. Back port Quartz to Mac OS 9. The Quartz rendering + compositing engine is again a very portable system.
3. Give Mac OS 9 the Aqua theme along with transparency and compositing. Then Carbon and Classic apps being seemless as they are already in Mac OS 9, will inherit the Aqua look & feel.
4. Port the Mac OS X Carbon Finder to Mac OS 9.
5. Now i'm not sure if Cocoa will be portable to Mac OS 9...even though Carbon is and they share the same Core foundation. Say it is, then with a little work, Cocoa should port to Mac OS 9...it will at least require retrofitting NSEvents.

Viola!

You will basically have Classic, Carbon and Cocoa seemlessly integrated as one.

The downside is that although it is running on Mach/Darwin, the Classic API will prohibit the use of the its protected memory and multi-threading architecture. Also compatibility with some Classic apps may break due to chages to the OS and the toolbox (to handle Aqua)...but this is a small compromise at the expense of integrating the three environments.

However, what you have essentially looks & feels just like Mac OS X though in fact it really will be a well desguised Mac OS 9.

So instead of allowing a reboot into Mac OS 9 to run Classic apps like Quark, allow Mac OS X to run(/reboot) in this "Classic Mode".

Earth Mk. II · Mar 12, 2003, 01:28 AM

Why would apple do this?

Apple wants to push developers to develop for OS X and use Cocoa - or at least carbon if you absolutely MUST retain compatibility with os 9. Classic looks different from the rest of OS X's apps because they're supposed to. The visual separation reminds you that the app is old and gets you to buy the new version or bug the developer to release a new version so everyone buys that and sees how good OS X looks and how many apps it has. The technical ability to get it done is irrelevant.

It's marketing. And, if anything, classic support will drop off over time, not get more integrated.

CharlesS · Mar 12, 2003, 04:50 AM

Um... what you've described is essentially what Carbon is.

rmendis · Mar 12, 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by CharlesS:
what you've described is essentially what Carbon is.

Not quite...nor is it Mac OS X (as we know it).

Also it should perhaps be called booting into "Classic Compatibility mode".

Sometime back wasn't there an Aqua(-ish) appearance theme for Mac OS 9? (Without the transparency, compositing or special effects).

It is possible in fact to graft Quartz onto Mac OS 9 and update the Mac OS 9 toolbox to use Quartz and Aqua just like Carbon on Mac OS X.
Then porting Cocoa onto Mac OS 9 would provide a seemless environment for running Carbon, Cocoa and Classic apps...though they will be prone to the typical crashes that Mac OS 9 apps do experience. However, i suspect that the apps will be more responsive and faster (because of the Mac OS 9 event manager/mechanism).

So what it is: a kinda Mac OS 9 appearing to be like Mac OS X.

Now that most apps are Carbonized, there isn't a need to worry about developers not porting to Carbon (except Quark

It will be 'Mac OS X" effectively, but running in a different 'mode', as it were...for Mac OS 9/Classic compatibility.

booboo · Mar 12, 2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by rmendis:
[Spun off discussion from the "What's new in Mac OS X 10.3 Panther?" thread]

This is not technically impossible or out of the question, particularly as there still appears to be a legacy Classic user base...primarily creative & publishing businesses (which tend to lag behind in making changes due to dept. budget constraints, IT direction, time, etc).

I think you have to ask yourself what you need OS 9 for, and the answer is probably Quark XPress and a few plug-ins.

Well XPress is coming to Mac OS X.

And for all those other 'primarily creative & publishing businesses (which tend to lag behind in making changes due to dept. budget constraints, IT direction, time, etc' you have Mac OS 9, which still works as well as it ever did.

nickm · Mar 12, 2003, 12:56 PM

This is an inane idea.

step · Mar 12, 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by booboo:
I think you have to ask yourself what you need OS 9 for, and the answer is probably Quark XPress and a few plug-ins.

Well XPress is coming to Mac OS X.

And for all those other 'primarily creative & publishing businesses (which tend to lag behind in making changes due to dept. budget constraints, IT direction, time, etc' you have Mac OS 9, which still works as well as it ever did.

well i have a $800 new HP printer/ scanner that only works in classic, (despite what it says on the box)
photoshop runs better in classic, i have a work horse A3 scanner unsupported by vuescan that's never going to have new drivers written for it.
i think many people who runs a business with macs are going to need classic for quite a while, and the argument that 'frick'em, i don't need it, so neither should you ' is just never helpful.

i really like osx, much more than os9, but too much of the world hasn't caught up with it yet

clebin · Mar 12, 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by rmendis:
Consider this:
1. Rebuild Mac OS 9 ontop of Darwin - this is what Mach microkernel architecture was designed for - to be very versatile and allow the budding of various OS 'shells' - MkLinux, NEXTSTEP (BSD), OSF/1, etc...in fact, there is nothing stopping Apple from gently migrating the Mac OS X unix shell to Linux (ala MkLinux): "Linux for Mac OS X".
2. Back port Quartz to Mac OS 9. The Quartz rendering + compositing engine is again a very portable system.
3. Give Mac OS 9 the Aqua theme along with transparency and compositing. Then Carbon and Classic apps being seemless as they are already in Mac OS 9, will inherit the Aqua look & feel.
4. Port the Mac OS X Carbon Finder to Mac OS 9.
5. Now i'm not sure if Cocoa will be portable to Mac OS 9...even though Carbon is and they share the same Core foundation. Say it is, then with a little work, Cocoa should port to Mac OS 9...it will at least require retrofitting NSEvents.

Viola!

I can think of easier ways of making a viola.

Chris

eevyl · Mar 12, 2003, 02:23 PM

While it may be possible (almost anything is possible) we really need to understand Apple is throwing 0 %, and I mean zero, nothing, nada, development effort into Mac OS 9. So any improvements into Mac OS X won't have anything to do with OS 9 or Classic, but with Carbon and Cocoa.

My two euro cents

clebin · Mar 12, 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by eevyl:
While it may be possible (almost anything is possible) we really need to understand Apple is throwing 0 %, and I mean zero, nothing, nada, development effort into Mac OS 9

Not just that - putting a new kernel on OS 9 effectively amounts to redoing Copland. That was money well spent!!

Chris

Anomalous · Mar 12, 2003, 04:15 PM

I don't think Apple would put that much time and money into something they consider obsolete.

awaspaas · Mar 12, 2003, 04:16 PM

It's not gonna happen, and if it does, God help us. This entire OS switchover process has encouraged developers to write more modern, more efficient, and more aesthetically pleasing programs. If Apple were to suddenly announce that Classic apps ran as native and magically looked good too, where's the incentive for fresh programming?

Just like my concern with Microsoft making Virtual PC run a little too well - they might stop making Mac programs and have Virtual PC run the Windows programs seemlessly. That just makes me shudder to think about.

Bobby · Mar 12, 2003, 05:21 PM

This whole theory is wrought with inaccuracies... Carbon is the method apple created to allow others to move classic into X compatible apps. Classic itself is a completely different arcatecture. Carbon USUALLY allows apps to run in both, but I've seen a ton of carbon apps that will run in 9 but not X, and in X but not 9...

Classic lacks too much to be X native. If a classic App crashes it is likely to take down ALL of classic...

The ONLY thing I can think of making classic fit in a *little* better, would be to use an X theme (or a Kaleidoscope Scheme) to make it look like X... Then you won't need to think too differently in one or the other...

booboo · Mar 12, 2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by step:
well i have a $800 new HP printer/ scanner that only works in classic, (despite what it says on the box)
photoshop runs better in classic, i have a work horse A3 scanner unsupported by vuescan that's never going to have new drivers written for it.
i think many people who runs a business with macs are going to need classic for quite a while, and the argument that 'frick'em, i don't need it, so neither should you ' is just never helpful.
i really like osx, much more than os9, but too much of the world hasn't caught up with it yet

If HP say their printer is X compatible and it isn't, give them grief. Their X drivers have thus far been a pile of poop. Just search this forum.

This is the only real issue, as far as I can see. As far as the rest of it is concerned, just keep using 9, which is as viable and useable as it ever was. Mac OS 9 hasn't suddenly stopped working, and apple have truly provided as much support for OS 9 with X as they possibly can. Unfortunately, driver support is out of the question, as the Mac OS X core is completely different, and I'm sure you'll understand that the OS X core is much more stable and superior.

Scanners don't last forever, and when it's time to replace it, choose a model from a company that has demonstrated good support for Mac OS X, i.e. not HP.

I really like OS X too, and yes, much of the world hasn't yet caught up. but the solution is to either use alternative solutions that do work in OS X, or continue in 9, and the blame for this state of affairs can't really be put at Apple's door.

goMac · Mar 13, 2003, 12:07 AM

Yeah, Carbon is the layer you are describing. Why you have to recompile is because you have to take out a lot of the interface specific stuff and various extension stuff that no longer exists. Porting all the extensions to OS X would be a royal mess and take us back a few years.

Amorph · Mar 13, 2003, 12:26 AM

Not to mention all the code that assumes that it can draw directly to the screen, and does so (draw into an offscreen GWorld and use CopyBits() to splat to the screen). Not to mention all the custom widgets that bypass the system libraries and paint their own Platinum-ish widgets on screen (c.f. any Microsoft application). Those will look fine as long as Classic apps look like they're in OS 9. Also, the different UI serves as a reminder that both the interface and the behavior are different.

The fact is that the nature of the Toolbox makes it extremely difficult to slip anything underneath it. There are too many low-level calls, and too many applications that use them. That's why Carbon exists. If it were so easy to bring OS 9 up to OS X standards, they would have done so instead of taking two years to reinvent that particular wheel.

I expect Apple to continue refining the Classic application bit by bit, as needed, until it reaches a state where it requires little to no effort to maintain. WIth luck, they can get it so that it runs entirely in userland, without requiring any hooks into the kernel.

What I'm hoping for is for AppleScript 2 (more precisely, OSA) to be built on CoreFoundation, so that sharing data types between AS, Carbon, Cocoa and Java is all basically transparent. If auxiliary languages like Perl, Python, Ruby et al can join in on the fun, so much the better. But for the sake of writing and automating scriptable applications, it would be amazing to have the same data structure look like an NSDictionary to Cocoa and a record in AppleScript.

im_noahselby · Mar 13, 2003, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by rmendis:
Having pretty much integrated the two environments Carbon and Cocoa, i.e making them true 'peers', seemless and with a common look & feel and functionality, maybe Apple will finally look at making Classic seemless as well.

This is not technically impossible or out of the question, particularly as there still appears to be a legacy Classic user base...primarily creative & publishing businesses (which tend to lag behind in making changes due to dept. budget constraints, IT direction, time, etc).

Consider this:
1. Rebuild Mac OS 9 ontop of Darwin - this is what Mach microkernel architecture was designed for - to be very versatile and allow the budding of various OS 'shells' - MkLinux, NEXTSTEP (BSD), OSF/1, etc...in fact, there is nothing stopping Apple from gently migrating the Mac OS X unix shell to Linux (ala MkLinux): "Linux for Mac OS X".
2. Back port Quartz to Mac OS 9. The Quartz rendering + compositing engine is again a very portable system.
3. Give Mac OS 9 the Aqua theme along with transparency and compositing. Then Carbon and Classic apps being seemless as they are already in Mac OS 9, will inherit the Aqua look & feel.
4. Port the Mac OS X Carbon Finder to Mac OS 9.
5. Now i'm not sure if Cocoa will be portable to Mac OS 9...even though Carbon is and they share the same Core foundation. Say it is, then with a little work, Cocoa should port to Mac OS 9...it will at least require retrofitting NSEvents.

By the time Apple releases 10.3 Panther, we may no longer even have a classic mode...

Apple want's nothing more than to leave OS9 behind, and this becomes ever more apparent with every new Steve Jobs keynote. There will come a day when we'll likely not even have classic support for OS9 applications, and I'm sure this day is not that far off...

Noah

Earth Mk. II · Mar 13, 2003, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Amorph:
What I'm hoping for is for AppleScript 2 (more precisely, OSA) to be built on CoreFoundation, so that sharing data types between AS, Carbon, Cocoa and Java is all basically transparent. If auxiliary languages like Perl, Python, Ruby et al can join in on the fun, so much the better. But for the sake of writing and automating scriptable applications, it would be amazing to have the same data structure look like an NSDictionary to Cocoa and a record in AppleScript.

That would be sweet.

ApeInTheShell · Mar 13, 2003, 01:55 AM

As I said it before in a thread that was ignored

I think it would be better if they turned it into an application like Apple's version of X11.
The only problem is it might be a waste of resources. However, having the best of 8 worlds is much better than having the best of 4.
Whatever, they do. I can still run mac os 8.6 on my iMac. big deal.

goMac · Mar 13, 2003, 02:02 AM

Classic is an application actually, its just not apparent. It felt much like x11 back in the original OS X Server days (macos.app anyone?). Ahhhh.... when you started classic it even had the boot up "bong" sound. Apple should bring that back.

rmendis · Mar 13, 2003, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by goMac:
Yeah, Carbon is the layer you are describing.

No. I'm not describing Carbon though it may sound similar.

Now Mac OS X really ships with two OSs - Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X.
Mac OS 9 is provided for Classic compatibility and on older machines there is the option to boot into it as well.
So Mac ship with two OSs.

What i'm talking about is 'booting' into two modes of the *same* OS/kernel. That is one for 'Classic' compatibility and the other 'native'/Aqua.

Now i think i may agree that grafing Aqua onto Mac OS 9 may not prove to be that asthetic because of legacy apps that hard-wire Platinum into their UI. Fine.
Still, port Cocoa to Mac OS 9 (will require Quartz rendering) like OPENSTEP for Windows and OPENSTEP for Solaris. This should be possible now that Cocoa and Carbon share the same Core functionality.

Second, rebuild the Mac OS 9 kernel on Mach/Darwin microkernel.

Third, back port the Carbon Finder to Mac OS 9.

Then you will have a 'Classic' OS personality sitting ontop of Mac OS X kernel that will run Carbon, Cocoa and Classic apps seemlessly in Platinum. (Carbon and Cocoa apps are more versatile and should use Platinum in 'Classic mode'/Mac OS 9 and Aqua in Mac OS X/native - like Adobe apps for example).

Or you could run Mac OS X 'natively' in Aqua seemlessly running Carbon, Cocoa and Java apps (but not Classic apps - as this Classic mode should replace the TruBlue environment).

Then it will be just *one* OS running two personalities/modes (not simultaneously) - Classic and Aqua.

DrBoar · Mar 13, 2003, 04:22 AM

1. Rebuild Mac OS 9 ontop of Darwin ---
2. Back port Quartz to Mac OS 9---
3. Give Mac OS 9 the Aqua theme ---
4. Port the Mac OS X Carbon Finder to Mac OS 9.
5. Now i'm not sure if Cocoa will be portable to Mac OS 9...even though Carbon is and they share the same Core foundation. Say it is, then with a little work, Cocoa should port to Mac OS 9...it will at least require retrofitting NSEvents.

Viola!

You will basically have Classic, Carbon and Cocoa seemlessly integrated as one.
Why? What functionality does 9 have that X lack that is so very important.

Have you ever tried giving tech support to someone over the phone? Imagine that OS 9 and OS X would look the same as you suggest but the underpinning would be very different...

OS 7-8-9 have a file browser that is horrible when you have a lot of file and folders, for historical reasons things is scattered there and there, the GUI was up for a replacement. The underpinnings is really stale, multitasking and multithreading is inferior to the DOS based Win 95, there is no SMP.

So either porting the X GUI to 9 or he 9 GUI to X seem equally pointless.

Regarding lacking drivers, I have an old UMAX SCSI scanner that does not work in X and not really in 9 either. For not much more than the price of a SCSI card to the G4 I can get a Cannon USB scanner that will work in X, have a twise the resolution and a third of the size of the UMAX. To use the UMAX scanner I have old 7600 that run the scanner a Stylewriter and some programs that really just work in OS 7 ( programs that I use a couple of times a year).

OS 9 is as dead on the software side as the G4 and Motorola will be on the CPU side next year. I remember when 7 came, the complaints about 7 being slow. The space it took on the hard disks , more than 10 MB and the high RAM requirements: 1.5 MB just for the OS! Insane

eevyl · Mar 13, 2003, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by rmendis:
Second, rebuild the Mac OS 9 kernel on Mach/Darwin microkernel.

Well, while this can be possible, it was tried in the past with the Copland project and Apple almost die trying. It was sooo difficult to put a moderm kernel architecture to Mac OS that they gave up.

So, Mac OS 9 was (and it is) a good thing, but better to look ahead. It will do much more good to improve Carbon and Cocoa in Darwin that trying to bring to life a long time dead project.

unfaded · Mar 13, 2003, 05:58 AM

*stamps the word "stooooooooooooopid" onto this thread*

You'll be lucky, quite hoenstly, if 10.3 even has classic compatability. It is very obviously something Apple does not want to maintain.

waffffffle · Mar 13, 2003, 07:13 AM

You've got it all wrong. The way to improve classic is to turn it into more of a virtual machine. If classic could be made so that each classic application runs within its own instance of the classic environment then each classic application would be protected from eachother.

Also Apple can sort of fake UI seamlessness by makeing an Aqua theme for OS 9, with shadows (in quickdraw) and using a better font smoothing algorithm (SmoothType). They can also add live window dragging (available now from PowerWindows).

Since each program will be running in its own classic environment screen refreshes will be faster (less of the white eraser effect when dragging OS X windows over classic windows).

Now this whole idea will most definitely suck up RAM, and Apple COULD in theory try to optimize shared components (example: each classic environment shares one common Quicktime library, ideally routing through OS X's quicktime). However that would be a hell of a lot of work. One thing that I think could help would be to use some sort of save state for the booting of classic so that you don't have to wait for classic to boot and instead you can just use a saved state of the classic system folder (like in VPC).

I don't think Apple will ever do this. I think they don't have the resources for it. Classic is already an extremely well-done environment in terms of integration. Apple has done a pretty good job in terms of clipboard, networking, file systems, etc. However Microsoft has sort of beaten Apple by doing better.

Back when NT was a totally different operating system than 9x NT used a virtual machine to launch 9x apps. That VM has been integrated so well that now 2000 and XP can run windows 9x applications natively. It definitely helps that 9x had multitasking to begin with but it didn't have protected memory. Yet those applications can now run in XP and 2k with protected memory. However Microsoft also had many years to do this. I guess Apple has had quite a few years to work on Classic (first is was Blue Box). However they haven't really touched the thing now in over 2 years. Classic as a whole seems to have been unchanged since the public beta days.

I doubt this will happen but it would be nice.

Mark Tungston · Mar 13, 2003, 08:33 AM

how about this:

I JUST LIKE OS9.

i think OSX is good but OS9 is more developed imo and OSX is still a year or two away

GENERAL_SMILEY · Mar 13, 2003, 08:44 AM

hehehe... I was going to save this until I'd had a proper look, but this interested me - I can see it now running nine different versions of classic in their own indivdual windows...

dfiler · Mar 13, 2003, 09:13 AM

What you are describing is either Carbon or Copland. We already have carbon and Apple gave up on Copland after pouring hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain.

Its not like apple hasn't thought of this. They thought of it a decade ago and failed at their first attempt. OS X and the classic environment comprise their second attempt. (Or third or forth depending on how you count various other projects that never saw a consumer release.) Copland 2.0 would be a colossal waste of R&D money now that we have OSX and classic.

Earth Mk. II · Mar 13, 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by waffffffle:
Now this whole idea will most definitely suck up RAM, and Apple COULD in theory try to optimize shared components (example: each classic environment shares one common Quicktime library, ideally routing through OS X's quicktime). However that would be a hell of a lot of work. One thing that I think could help would be to use some sort of save state for the booting of classic so that you don't have to wait for classic to boot and instead you can just use a saved state of the classic system folder (like in VPC).

No kidding it would suck up a lot of RAM. A typical config of OS 9 takes up anywhere from 20-40 MB of RAM just for the system... plus the RAM used for the application, and you want to run multiple instances of an entire OS? The loading times for the applications can't be too good either.

And wouldn't sharing components (such as quicktime) defeat the purpose of having a "classic VM" system like this? If quicktime is shared, then gets corrupted in RAM, it will affect all Classic applications - just like now.

Anyway, the point stands that classic integration will never get better because apple doesn't want it to. Wether you like it or not, Apple is willing OS 9 and it's apps out of existence.

Developer · Mar 13, 2003, 09:43 AM

I see two solutions to this problem:

First:
1. Rebuild Mac OS 9 ontop of Darwin ---
2. Back port Quartz to Mac OS 9---
3. Give Mac OS 9 the Aqua theme ---
4. Port the Mac OS X Carbon Finder to Mac OS 9.
5. Cocoa should port to Mac OS 9

Second:
1. Write an OS X driver for your HP printer

Now tell me, which solution is a) cheaper and b) technically more elegant?

rmendis · Mar 13, 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by dfiler:
What you are describing is either Carbon or Copland. We already have carbon and Apple gave up on Copland after pouring hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain.

It is not Copland...if you think about it, when Classic runs on Mac OS X, it is Mac OS 9 effectively running on Mach/Darwin.

The Mach/Darwin microkernel was originally developed with the intention of building whatever kernel you wanted ontop of it. (In fact Avie Tevanian, Head of Apple Software Engineering worked/developed it at Carnegie-Mellon before joining NeXT).

It is therefore rather surprising that they didn't take that route - probably because the No.1 goal for Classic environment was 100% compatibility. There may be some compromise when rebuilding an OS on Mach...say MkLinux may not exactly behave like other Linuxes for example.

However, one can therefore start to abstract and strip redundant bits of each OS and effectively run Mac OS 9 on Mach/Darwin microkernel.

The difference between this and Copland is that this 'Classic mode' of Mac OS X will still lack multi-tasking and protected memory. With Copland Apple tried to add those features and failed because of the *API*. You will still have an environment no better than Mac OS 9.

It's not a big deal that it would be running on Mach/Darwin microkernel.

The Mac OS has had several kernel changes since System 7 - once maybe twice in Mac OS 8 and perhaps in Mac OS9 as well.
This is really a revision of Mac OS 9...nothing special.

sadie · Mar 13, 2003, 10:22 AM

And don't forget, many of the APIs used for Classic are out of date - things like support for long file names, for example. There's no sane reason you want programs like that to survive.

rmendis · Mar 13, 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
Anyway, the point stands that classic integration will never get better because apple doesn't want it to. Wether you like it or not, Apple is willing OS 9 and it's apps out of existence.

I think people are mistaking this as taking a step back or away from Mac OS X.

Not at all.
In fact, it's the other way round.

It's really developing better Classic support into Mac OS X.

Afterall, most of Mac OS X is pretty well finessed: ported apps, well developed iApps, etc...apart from performance, 3rd party device support and a few rough edges, the biggest 'thorn' in Mac OS X's side is the Classic environment. This is in a way an excuse to get rid of it

Booting into a 'Classic mode' to run Classic apps should further dissuade users from using classic apps. (This should really replace the Classic environment altogether).

It is like having a dual Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X set up without the Classic environment. The only way to run classic apps will be in the 'Classic mode' of Mac OS X in which you can also run your Cocoa and Carbon apps.

What the benefit of giving Mac OS 9:
1. Cocoa support - so that there can be just one set/folder of Applications that runs in both 'modes', share user preferences and logins (i.e not having to create two sets of users for what was Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X), etc...
2. Mach/Darwin microkernel - so that they share the same set of device drivers, etc..
3. Mac OS X's Carbon Finder - consistency between the two 'modes'. Remember it is *not* Mac OS 9, but a 'Classic mode' of Mac OS X.

So there would be *no* separate Mac OS 9 anymore - just a face of Mac OS X.

dfiler · Mar 13, 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by rmendis:
It is not Copland...if you think about it, when Classic runs on Mac OS X, it is Mac OS 9 effectively running on Mach/Darwin.
...
However, one can therefore start to abstract and strip redundant bits of each OS and effectively run Mac OS 9 on Mach/Darwin microkernel.

The difference between this and Copland is that this 'Classic mode' of Mac OS X will still lack multi-tasking and protected memory. With Copland Apple tried to add those features and failed because of the *API*. You will still have an environment no better than Mac OS 9.

It's not a big deal that it would be running on Mach/Darwin microkernel.

It is a big deal to change kernels. Why swap out OS 9's kernel if not for multi-tasking and protected memory? Do you just want an aqua theme? (maybe i'm missing something?)

This still sounds halfway between Copland and Carbon.

GRAHAMUK · Mar 13, 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
how about this:

I JUST LIKE OS9.

i think OSX is good but OS9 is more developed imo and OSX is still a year or two away

You are entitled to like OS 9, it's pretty good for an 80s OS - but you have to recognise you are going to be in a rapidly shrinking minority pretty soon. OS X is not two years away, it's here right now, and works very very well. The few rough edges remaining will get polished off sooner or later but fundamentally it's all there. In terms of networking and integration into the real world, OS X is way more developed already than OS 9. Most of the things that OS 9 does better relate to relatively minor GUI and Finder behaviours, rather than anything within the core OS.

Earth Mk. II · Mar 13, 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by rmendis:
I think people are mistaking this as taking a step back or away from Mac OS X.

Not at all.
In fact, it's the other way round.

It's really developing better Classic support into Mac OS X.

Afterall, most of Mac OS X is pretty well finessed: ported apps, well developed iApps, etc...apart from performance, 3rd party device support and a few rough edges, the biggest 'thorn' in Mac OS X's side is the Classic environment. This is in a way an excuse to get rid of it

Booting into a 'Classic mode' to run Classic apps should further dissuade users from using classic apps. (This should really replace the Classic environment altogether).

It is like having a dual Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X set up without the Classic environment. The only way to run classic apps will be in the 'Classic mode' of Mac OS X in which you can also run your Cocoa and Carbon apps.

What the benefit of giving Mac OS 9:
1. Cocoa support - so that there can be just one set/folder of Applications that runs in both 'modes', share user preferences and logins (i.e not having to create two sets of users for what was Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X), etc...
2. Mach/Darwin microkernel - so that they share the same set of device drivers, etc..
3. Mac OS X's Carbon Finder - consistency between the two 'modes'. Remember it is *not* Mac OS 9, but a 'Classic mode' of Mac OS X.

So there would be *no* separate Mac OS 9 anymore - just a face of Mac OS X.

Wait... now just wait a second here...

You want to completly rewrite the guts of a dead operating system so that you can reboot into some "classized" mode of OS X based off the mach microkernel?

First of all, you do realize that classic (os 9) extensions work incredibly differently than OS X's .kext's, right? Making classic use .kext's would probably break all your driver support in classic programs - requiring the devs to write new software.. which that have to do anyway for OS X support.

Secondly, why would Apple waste the time, money, and brain power to do this? Right now Classic works. That is the extent OS X is intended to support legacy OS 9 applications. Classic is not intended to be pretty. It is not intended to be integrated at the same level as Carbon and Cocoa. It is intended as a compatibility layer for applications that have not yet been updated for OS X until they can run in X natively. It is intended merely to work.

I sincerely hope that apple has no plans to implement any such design you suggest. I honestly believe that their effort and money for research and development would be better suited in other elements of the OS. Time should not be wasted grafting a legacy OS onto a rapidly maturing new OS.

rmendis · Mar 13, 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
First of all, you do realize that classic (os 9) extensions work incredibly differently than OS X's .kext's, right?

Yes. True.

One would implement support for Classic Extensions using a Mach kernel extension.

Similarly for other low-level bits of the Classic Mac OS.
Once those are in place, you will effectively have built a Classic Mac OS kernel on Mach/darwin microkernel.

unfaded · Mar 13, 2003, 02:43 PM

people...

Steve hates OS 9, and we all know, Steve gets what he wants. There will never, ever, ever be better Classic Support for 9, especially when the only app that 9 is still used for (according to Steve), Quark, is coming out with an X version this year.

No way in hell. Apple would rather see classic die than improve it, and especially over seeing Classic be totally rebuilt when they consider it DEAD.

Sorry, guys. If you like OS 9, run OS 9, and don't buy a new computer.

SMacTech · Mar 13, 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by unfaded:
people...

Steve hates OS 9, and we all know, Steve gets what he wants. There will never, ever, ever be better Classic Support for 9, especially when the only app that 9 is still used for (according to Steve), Quark, is coming out with an X version this year.

No way in hell. Apple would rather see classic die than improve it, and especially over seeing Classic be totally rebuilt when they consider it DEAD.

I guess that's why they keep improving classic in OS X, because they want it to die. Not !

el_humpo · Mar 13, 2003, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by rmendis:
It is like having a dual Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X set up without the Classic environment. The only way to run classic apps will be in the 'Classic mode' of Mac OS X in which you can also run your Cocoa and Carbon apps.

So if I have 2 modes of Mac OS X, one where I can run Cocoa and Carbon apps, and another that allows me to run Cocoa, Carbon, and Classic apps, why would I ever boot into the first mode? It's more limiting!

Also, the second mode is pretty much what we have now with TruBlue, albeit without an Aqua skin.

Terri · Mar 13, 2003, 07:24 PM

Well just today I had a printer return a bunch of G4s because they said it was too confusing for their production people to go back and forth between Classic and X. They are buying a bunch of Mac 9 booting machines that they found someplace.

IMHO Apple blew it by making Mac OS X work so different. How hard would it have been to make X look and work more like 9. Don't get me started on the Open/Save dialog boxes in X.

I'm in Mac OS X full time, but I have ASM, Windowshade, Fruitmenu, Labels installed. Also I'm not doing print production type work, but I have in the past so I understand why they are having problems.

I realize this thread is about making Classic look more like X, but if X wasn't so different then it wouldn't be such an issue.

I'm really glad that Quark will be for X and XP only because if it ran under Win98 I would really worry about many of the printers just switching, but they seem to hate XP even mor then Mac OS X.

ApeInTheShell · Mar 13, 2003, 10:34 PM

I think this isn't about making mac os x more classic compatible but going back to the argument when Mac OS X first arrived.

1) When a company updates to a new operating system it assumes eventually the user base will follow.
a) much to Apple's dissapointment, a large mass of people who still used Mac OS 9 began to criticize the system.
b) People wanted essentially Mac OS 9 extended.
c) So Apple did its best to give them a compatiblity mode called "classic"
2) Apple has received the same from developers such as Quark.
a) they didn't feel like they had to update their software because they thought Mac OS X was just nice graphics.
b) now their product is a pre-release. Some previous customers have switched to Indesign because of all the trouble the company has given them, who can blame them?
3) Some people finally submited to Mac OS X but still use classic for their work.

This is not brand new but i thought i should remind you.

Also, assume you had developed an operating system for many years, took a risk and made a new one which to your hopes surpassed the other one. You put years merging each element together. Than released it to the public. Two years later a software engineer comes into your company and suggests you integrate the old system in the new one. But it won't work and you know it. Do you use the fleeding R&D you have to make it happen or do you make the new operating system better with each upgrade?
If you understand what position Apple is in now than you'll feel alot better when classic fades away.

Terri · Mar 13, 2003, 11:27 PM

The print shops drive the publishing industry. The print shops use about 20 different apps daily. It's almost a sweat shop for the production people that run the Macs and a few PCs. The files they get are often horrendous in how they are put together. They also have a wide collection of Macs, some much older then B&W G3s. Many of them are less then great at understanding computers. They have been shown how to do something and they do the same thing over and over again each day.

Also shops don't upgrade all of their apps at once. If an app does it's job there is no reason to upgrade it.

So we have ended up with machines that will be running programs in classic for a very long time along side the Mac OS X apps.

I even get confused sometimes switching back and forth between Classic and Mac OS X apps. Plus, like many others, I prefer the way many things work in Classic to the way things work in Mac OS X. In every case after using X for a few days they end up getting things to make X work more like Classic, ASM, WindowShade, FruitMenu, Labels, but it's like X fights back at times.

Apple could have avoided much of this mess by not changing the interface so drastically. People would have understood that a crashing 9 app will take down all of the other Mac 9 apps so hey it's better to get Mac OS X versions, but instead they are being forced to use to different interfaces at once on the same computer. It does help that many of them don't like the new interface as much as the old one and I'm not taking about pin strips verses platinum.

If it helps any they also seem to hate Windows XP even more and are keeping all of their Windows machines at 98 for as long as they can.

kupan787 · Mar 14, 2003, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by rmendis:
2. Back port Quartz to Mac OS 9. The Quartz rendering + compositing engine is again a very portable system.
3. Give Mac OS 9 the Aqua theme along with transparency and compositing. Then Carbon and Classic apps being seemless as they are already in Mac OS 9, will inherit the Aqua look & feel.
4. Port the Mac OS X Carbon Finder to Mac OS 9.
5. Now i'm not sure if Cocoa will be portable to Mac OS 9...even though Carbon is and they share the same Core foundation. Say it is, then with a little work, Cocoa should port to Mac OS 9...it will at least require retrofitting NSEvents.

How does porting Cocoa to OS 9 help the MacOS X classic layer? And back porting the Carbon finder to OS 9? Giving MacOS 9 the Aqua theme? To me, it sounds like this guy just wants all of the OS X's goddies to run in OS 9. Reread his posts, and you will see it as well. Everything he is asking for, basicly reverts down to running on OS 9, so that he could boot OS 9, but run Carbon, and Cocoa apps (he wants the OS X finder to be ported to OS 9, he wants Cocoa on OS 9, etc).

This whole thing is ridiculous, and in the wrong forum!

rmendis · Mar 14, 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by el_humpo:
So if I have 2 modes of Mac OS X, one where I can run Cocoa and Carbon apps, and another that allows me to run Cocoa, Carbon, and Classic apps, why would I ever boot into the first mode?

Ah, this is a true and important point.

Most users who don't use Classic apps (like me),
will have no reason or advantage to run in Mac OS X 'Classic mode'.

However for those users who do, then booting into Mac OS X 'Classic mode' will be very valuable.

The advantages of Mac OS X 'Aqua mode' over a 'Classic mode' are:
1. Advanced UI/Aqua
2. Multi-tasking
3. Greater stability

Also, the second mode is pretty much what we have now with TruBlue, albeit without an Aqua skin.

The 'Classic mode' would be more like booting into Mac OS 9...not TruBlue. This is an excuse to not ship it with Mac OS X.

It encourages users to use one or the other system.

That is one doesn't get to use *both* like one can with Mac OS X and TruBlue...this way you are forced to use *either* Classic Mode (essentially advanced Mac OS 9) or Aqua mode (essentially Mac OS X less Classic environment).

rmendis · Mar 15, 2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
Secondly, why would Apple waste the time, money, and brain power to do this?

Actually, there is a very simple way to achieve a 'Classic Mode' for Mac OS X...and I wonder why I hadn't thought of it before

It started with thinking of giving Mac OS X the platinum look & feel (ala Rhapsody).
That way, if Classic can't blend with Aqua, make Mac OS X blend with Classic...now Apple's been there and done that with Rhapsody. However this is different...

...it appears that all the technology required for a Mac OS X 'Classic mode' is already in place. And would require no more money, R&D expenses or effort on Apple's part to achieve this.

This is why:
1. TruBlue Classic environment used to have the option to run Carbon apps inside it. (This may have been in a DP release?)
2. Carbon Mac OS X Finder.
3. More portable Cocoa (having factored out the Core* stuff).

Given that choosing the mode of Mac OS X, be it Classic or Aqua (native) is a *user* preference, one should in fact be able to set this (in Preferences) then logout and log back into the Classic mode. (Like one does to reboot into a different partition/OS, only simpler).

When one logs in to Classic mode, Classic automatically starts up, like you can currently can set it to do, only with the exception of running the Carbon Finder and all your Carbon, Classic (and possibly Cocoa) apps *inside* the Classic environment.

The drawback of using Mac OS X 'Classic mode' is when one of your apps crash, you get logged out

Earth Mk. II · Mar 15, 2003, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by rmendis:
Actually, there is a very simple way to achieve a 'Classic Mode' for Mac OS X...and I wonder why I hadn't thought of it before

It started with thinking of giving Mac OS X the platinum look & feel (ala Rhapsody).
That way, if Classic can't blend with Aqua, make Mac OS X blend with Classic...now Apple's been there and done that with Rhapsody. However this is different...

OS X has not (in any public form), does not, and will not visually blend with classic. This is intentional. Deal with it.

...it appears that all the technology required for a Mac OS X 'Classic mode' is already in place. And would require no more money, R&D expenses or effort on Apple's part to achieve this.

This is why:
1. TruBlue Classic environment used to have the option to run Carbon apps inside it. (This may have been in a DP release?)
2. Carbon Mac OS X Finder.
3. More portable Cocoa (having factored out the Core* stuff).

Given that choosing the mode of Mac OS X, be it Classic or Aqua (native) is a *user* preference, one should in fact be able to set this (in Preferences) then logout and log back into the Classic mode. (Like one does to reboot into a different partition/OS, only simpler).

When one logs in to Classic mode, Classic automatically starts up, like you can currently can set it to do, only with the exception of running the Carbon Finder and all your Carbon, Classic (and possibly Cocoa) apps *inside* the Classic environment.

1) It's still around. Take a carbon app that can run in 9 -> get info -> check "Open in the Classic environment". Presto - launch a carbon app into classic from OS X. The only advantage I can see this having is if you need a specific driver which hasn't been ported yet.

2) Just because it's carbon, doesn't mean it works with OS 9 (or OS X). Carbon was designed to make porting apps to OS X easier, not necessarily ensure compatibility with both OS's. I'd imagine it would still take quite a bit of leg work to get the OS X Finder to work in OS 9.

3) Cocoa IS it's "Core* stuff." Cocoa is not a programming language - it's an API. Without it's core libraries, Cocoa is worthless. You would still need to port all the libraries.

The drawback of using Mac OS X 'Classic mode' is when one of your apps crash, you get logged out

Then you just negated one of the primary advantages of OS X over OS 9/Classic (the point being lost time/work - not rebooting). Why take a step backwards to appease a dead OS? It makes no sense from a marketing or technical point of view.

From a psychological view - Developers are finally getting things in order for their OS X apps. Now you want to rock the boat again? If I was a developer in that position, I'd just jump ship.

Maybe it's a nice idea - I don't particularly like it, but maybe it has a niche somewhere. But it's not very practical, and I don't see it doing much good for the Macintosh platform as a whole. Collect your ideas and send them to Apple though, it couldn't hurt.

rmendis · Mar 15, 2003, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
3) Cocoa IS it's "Core* stuff." Cocoa is not a programming language - it's an API. Without it's core libraries, Cocoa is worthless. You would still need to port all the libraries.

Cocoa is the object oriented API of Mac OS X (in Objective-C and Java). This is *not* the Core* stuff.

CoreFoundation is framework of C opaque types that are isomorphic to Cocoa Foundation. Again:

CFString <-> NSString
CFArray <-> NSArray
etc...

The idea was to allow Carbon and Cocoa to share functionality while at the same time become 'peer' environments. It also made Cocoa more portable, because the Core* stuff is much more portable than Cocoa. (It doesn't require Objective-C runtime, Quartz rendering, etc..)

In fact, it may have made Cocoa portable enough to be ported onto Mac OS 9/Classic perhaps? This I'm not too sure of.

dfiler · Mar 15, 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by rmendis:
Cocoa is the object oriented API of Mac OS X (in Objective-C and Java). This is *not* the Core* stuff.

Cocoa is not just an API. It is also an extensive runtime environment that provides functionality far beyond that of binary libraries.

...

<cranky old man mode>
This thread is doing an amazing job of reinventing the wheel (copland).

But seriously, just about everything described is either already done (carbon) or was already attempted (copland). The rest seems to be completely implausible and based upon misconceptions about the underlying technology.
</cranky old man mode>

Mediaman_12 · Mar 15, 2003, 01:53 PM

Doing what these people want (run OS9 apps in OSX, with all the benefits) is what nearly killed Apple, and is why we now have a OS based on old work (NeXT) and did not have an in house (Apple) developed next gen OS back in the OS8/9 days.
The Copland project was attempting to do exactly what you guys want (a next gen OS that doesn't break any old apps), and that never achived anything (aside from a few bit's that crept into 9.5, and a selection of the worlds most unstable non-release OS's).

Get real! OSX is what we have now and it's better than anything the mony pit that was the Copland project ever delivered (i.e. A stable useable next gen OS).