 |
 |
The Future of 9?
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
How long do you think untill apple cans 9?
I like 9 more then x so I hope not anytime soon.
But I am probebly wrong 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: FRANCE
Status:
Offline
|
|
IMHO, any Mac will boot under OS X at MWSF '02.
Early 2003, Macs won't ship with OS 9 installed.
in 2004, OS 9 won't be supported anymore.
just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
 It will be a lot sooner than 2004 that OS 9 won't be supported on the then current (now future) hardware.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
It depends.
If you're talking about booting into OS9, I'd give it one year max. Probably less. You'd still be able to run OS9 via Classic, but not boot straight into it.
Classic support, however, will probably continue for quite some time, probably 2005 at the earliest.
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
I look at 9 the way the 680XX to PPC transistion occured. But I feel it will tak much longer since we're talking interface versus circuit boards.
My best guess is that 9 will be supported for at least two years. Classic? Well........two years as well.
It all comes down to how well programs are created and supplied, if they replace all old 9 apps and if people buy them or not.
I'm sounding wishy washy so I'll put it this way -
The boat's rocking and getting to shore will be very muddy!
  
|
|
"Tough Little Ship" - Riker
"LITTLE?" - Worf after having the Defiant salvaged by the Enterprise (First Contact)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Folding customer returned size 52 underwear.
Status:
Offline
|
|
OSX will be the default OS in March 2002.
|
{ v2.3 Now Jesus free}
Religions are like farts: yours is good, the others always stink.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
<STRONG>OSX will be the default OS in March 2002.</STRONG>
why do you say that?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Folding customer returned size 52 underwear.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by IUJHJSDHE:
<STRONG>
why do you say that?</STRONG>
Because that is what Schiller said at the last Developer meeting.
|
{ v2.3 Now Jesus free}
Religions are like farts: yours is good, the others always stink.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sad King Billy's Monument on Hyperion
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
I abused my signature until she cried.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ok thank you.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
<STRONG>
Because that is what Schiller said at the last Developer meeting.</STRONG>
And also when the 12 hours of OS X transitions are up. Can't believe no one spotted that one before...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
<STRONG>OSX will be the default OS in March 2002.</STRONG>
what do you meen default?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Behind the dryer, looking for a matching sock
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by IUJHJSDHE:
<STRONG>
what do you meen default?</STRONG>
meaning that when you boot up a mac which was sold in or after March 2002, you will see a Mac OS X login screen.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ambrosia - el Presidente
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Rochester, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Franck:
<STRONG>IMHO, any Mac will boot under OS X at MWSF '02.
Early 2003, Macs won't ship with OS 9 installed.
in 2004, OS 9 won't be supported anymore.
</STRONG>
Though I agree that development on OS 9 will be relegated to whatever makes it run better as "classic", I highly doubt they will ever not include it.
Consider "classic" to be like the 68K emulator that shipped with PPC Macs -- old software will be around for a long, long time -- and Classic will be how you run it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
I have a feeling that the classic environment will continue to get better and more integrated into X so that maybe a year from now "OS 9" won't be the OS 9 that we've come to recognize, as far as classic is concerned. I certainly hope that Apple can figure out a way to get quartz shadowing and other effects to at least work somewhat with classic. RIght now it is really an eyesore. I have a feeling that eventually, through the use of a lot of Appearance Manager hacks, OS 9 apps will look and feel like OS X apps while running in classic. And I think Apple's appearance hacks will be much better than the schemes and themes out there right now. Well at least I hope. . .
And I think that 9 will continue to ship on Macs until March 2003. However it will be supported for much longer. Figure someone who buys a Mac in Feb 2003 still has rights to support on 9, and if they purchased extended AppleCare that could be for some time.
I personally hope to never have to see OS 9 again by March. However that might be overly optimistic.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: East Texas (omg)
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by IUJHJSDHE:
<STRONG>I like 9 more then x</STRONG>
You, sir, are one sick individual.
That is all.
-ch
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by IUJHJSDHE:
<STRONG>How long do you think untill apple cans 9?
I like 9 more then x so I hope not anytime soon.
But I am probebly wrong </STRONG>
Hmmm. I'm not sure Apple really has the authority to ditch 9 all by itself - or did you mean going it alone without 9 ?
I mean, despite being much maligned, 9 still has a vital role to play, sitting squarely as it does between 8 and 10. Removing 9 could pose significant difficulties, not least to questions such as "what's 7 plus 2 ?"
Think of all the house numbers that would have to change - and the potential postal confusion.
The suggestion of substituting 9 with x is clearly ridiculous - equations such as "x + y = 2xy" would suddenly take on new meaning.
I hope Apple can be persuaded to retain 9 at all costs. Personally, I think 3 has had it's day, and is long overdue for replacement, possibly with �
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Gee4orce:
<STRONG>
Hmmm. I'm not sure Apple really has the authority to ditch 9 all by itself - or did you mean going it alone without 9 ?
I mean, despite being much maligned, 9 still has a vital role to play, sitting squarely as it does between 8 and 10. Removing 9 could pose significant difficulties, not least to questions such as "what's 7 plus 2 ?"
Think of all the house numbers that would have to change - and the potential postal confusion.
The suggestion of substituting 9 with x is clearly ridiculous - equations such as "x + y = 2xy" would suddenly take on new meaning.
I hope Apple can be persuaded to retain 9 at all costs. Personally, I think 3 has had it's day, and is long overdue for replacement, possibly with �</STRONG>
LOL
|
|
JLL
- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Gee4orce:
<STRONG>
Hmmm. I'm not sure Apple really has the authority to ditch 9 all by itself - or did you mean going it alone without 9 ?
I mean, despite being much maligned, 9 still has a vital role to play, sitting squarely as it does between 8 and 10. Removing 9 could pose significant difficulties, not least to questions such as "what's 7 plus 2 ?" </STRONG>
I don't know, a friend of mine was hypnotized at a party and told to forget the number 7. It worked too.
So it's not so much about having authority as about having a big enough pocket watch.
wait a minute... 10.0 was slow, almost relaxing, there was a attention grabbing swirling rainbow, ... I'm getting sleepy.
What if we're already missing a numeral !?!
|
|
You can take the dude out of So Cal, but you can't take the dude outta the dude, dude!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Gavin:
<STRONG>
wait a minute... 10.0 was slow, almost relaxing, there was a attention grabbing swirling rainbow, ... I'm getting sleepy.
What if we're already missing a numeral !?!</STRONG>
The number is bleen. It belongs between 6 and 7. Don't you remember running OS Bleen? Everyone complaining about how slow it was?
(Old Carlin joke)
|
|
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.
-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Vancouver, WA
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's hard to tell, but the language on http://www.apple.com/powerbook makes it look like yesterday's new hardware ships with 10.1 as the default system and the options to switch back into 9.2, instead of the other way around.
I'd be willing to bet that by MWNY '02, new Macs will lose the ability to boot native OS 9.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Rickster:
<STRONG>I'd be willing to bet that by MWNY '02, new Macs will lose the ability to boot native OS 9.</STRONG>
Could they even do that? Unless they do something similar to when they went PPC, I don't see how they could easily limit the OS from being installed on the computer.
|
|
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1787
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Perth Australia
Status:
Offline
|
|
They could easily break OS9. Look at the little updates that had to come out with every hardware revision. If they can find a way to keep OS9 in Classic from needing those changes (not hard since it's not supposed to talk to the hardware directly) then they can break OS9. It'd be just like trying to install a version of the MacOS on a computer to old to run that version.
|
You've got the best computer on the planet. Use it to help us CRUSH all competition. Join Team Macnn NOW! 
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Vancouver, WA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Almost every time Apple has introduced new hardware, they had to do a minor rev of the Classic Mac OS to support it, unless they were doing a less-minor rev of the OS at the same time. System 6.0.1 through 6.0.8, 7.0.1 with all its various "System Enabler" files, 7.5.2, 9.0.1 through 9.0.3, and probably others I don't remember. Same With Mac OS X (the 10.0.4 for Quicksilver is a slightly higher build number than the one shipped via software update). Apple could easily decide to stop making more minor 9.x updates just to support new hardware.
More importantly, though, I'm sure Apple's hardware engineers are itching for the opportunity to drop OS 9 support. When you boot OS X, half the stuff that's in the boot ROM never gets touched -- if Apple were to design a X-only Mac, they could strip all that out, even add some new enhancements to the firmware, and ship it on a smaller EEPROM. There's probably still some ASICs around that OS X doesn't need, too. Less custom silicon for Apple to make means more Mac for your buck.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top