[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Your logic does not compute. The fallacy here is that the user is the one purchasing and installing an optional upgrade - and that upgrade does not include classic. Nothing rendered inoperable by Apple - purely by the consumer.

Oh, please. I don't think you really believe this. The upgrade is necessary to get several major bug fixes and to run new versions of applications (which we're all about, right?). And besides that, once again, there is no warning anywhere on the box or in any of the accompanying papers or anywhere else the average consumer could be expected to look noting that this will break the app. It's pretty perverse to look at something that the buyer had no way of predicting but Apple intentionally made happen and say, "Oh, that's the buyer's fault. Nothing to do with Apple."

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Apple is not trying to "screw you over". Again with the hyperbole. And yes, this emoticon is warranted for that comment alone:

That's fair.

[OreoCookie]

People, chill. No reason to get so emotional here.

Just one more piece of information: there is no Classic environment available for the Intel version of 10.4. It wasn't printed on `any box' either. Erik has a point that nobody forces you to upgrade. The fact that OS 9 was buried in a coffin in 2001 should have been a hint as well: they have always marketed Classic as a solution to bridge the gap -- and it was necessary in the beginning since many apps simply weren't available for OS X at that time. It has always been marketed as a transitional element of OS X, not as a permanent component of OS X, so everybody should have gotten the message. You can't always have the latest and greatest while your golden oldie is still supposed to run on OS X. If you definitely need a certain app and you don't want to look for alternatives or the alternatives don't fit your bill, then you can still choose to keep the machine on 10.4.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Just one more piece of information: there is no Classic environment available for the Intel version of 10.4. It wasn't printed on `any box' either.

It also wasn't sold in any box (nor could it be installed on any system that had previously been running Classic without trouble).

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Erik has a point that nobody forces you to upgrade. The fact that OS 9 was buried in a coffin in 2001 should have been a hint as well: they have always marketed Classic as a solution to bridge the gap -- and it was necessary in the beginning since many apps simply weren't available for OS X at that time. It has always been marketed as a transitional element of OS X, not as a permanent component of OS X, so everybody should have gotten the message. You can't always have the latest and greatest while your golden oldie is still supposed to run on OS X. If you definitely need a certain app and you don't want to look for alternatives or the alternatives don't fit your bill, then you can still choose to keep the machine on 10.4.

You seem to be going with the premise that if Apple can refuse to support someone, they should choose that by default. Maybe we just disagree on this point. I'm asking, why not continue to allow people to use Classic?

[- - e r i k - -]

Thank you OreoCookie for stating what I had said earlier in more reasonable terms.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm asking, why not continue to allow people to use Classic?

Already answered. If not for purely technical reasons, it most certainly was for economical ones. Cost outweighing benefits. 101 stuff.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It also wasn't sold in any box (nor could it be installed on any system that had previously been running Classic without trouble).

Intel-based Macs came in boxes So all people who wanted to/had to upgrade `weren't told by Apple' that Classic no longer works. At least I haven't seen any mention on any of Apple's marketing brochures/websites that said so (obviously it is mentioned on their support site).

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You seem to be going with the premise that if Apple can refuse to support someone, they should choose that by default. Maybe we just disagree on this point. I'm asking, why not continue to allow people to use Classic?

Refuse to support by default? They have included Classic in their Public Beta (I believe, it's been a long time) and continued to support it on all machines until 10.3, on all PowerPC machines up until now, some 6 years after OS 9 was officially declared dead (they've literally had a coffin on stage). In the meantime, fewer and fewer people have been using Classic, so that it doesn't make economic sense to continue testing and development for a deprecated feature that is used by less and less people. Apple will do the same with Rosetta. It will be supported for a good while longer, but in five years, I don't think it'll be around any longer.

[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.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I own VMWare, and you can every once in a while see the Windows wallpaper when VMWare fails to clean it up.

Sounds like a bug to me. How do we know that Classic's desktop picture and menu bar aren't being hidden in a similar (albeit less buggy) fashion?

Yes, it's a public API to Carbon and Cocoa programs running under OS X. OS 9 programs run in a virtual machine, and they aren't Cocoa or Carbon.

Yes, but Classic itself is a Carbon app. I'd guess its drag and drop support works sort of like this (at least, this is how I'd implement it if I had to write something like this):

1. Accept a drag event to your (the Classic environment's) Carbon window.

2. Check the mouse coordinates where the drop occurred, and figure out what OS 9 window they occurred in.

3. Pass on the event to the OS 9 app that owns that window.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

No. The blame is on yourself for making
a) Poor software choices to begin with
b) Not seeking alternatives
c) Expecting your software to be supported indefinitely

Once again, sometimes you're not the one who gets to make the decisions about what software to use.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You are always responsible for software choices.

I am sick of this whole blame-Apple mentality going around (just as much as I am sick of the thoughtless Apple-can-do-no-wrong attitude that some people exhibit). Personal responsibility mean nothing anymore?

When the choice is either 1. using the software your employer (or your profession) requires to you use or 2. standing in an unemployment line, number 1 usually sounds like the better choice.

Originally Posted by goMac 

They told you back in 2001 that they would eventually break your classic apps, and to move to OS X apps. In fact, they gave you 6 years to move to OS X apps. It's not like this is a surprise.

They did? I don't remember anything like that.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The fact that OS 9 was buried in a coffin in 2001 should have been a hint as well: they have always marketed Classic as a solution to bridge the gap -- and it was necessary in the beginning since many apps simply weren't available for OS X at that time.

The coffin thing was to developers. The message it was intended to send was: Don't write apps for OS 9 anymore. It was a message that made sense, because you can write better OS X apps if you don't have to worry about it running on OS 9 (and you can use Mach-O, the .app bundle format, and Project Builder/Xcode).

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Apple will do the same with Rosetta. It will be supported for a good while longer, but in five years, I don't think it'll be around any longer.

If they do that, I will be mightily pissed off. However, the cynic in me suspects you might be right...

Imagine the outrage if Microsoft did things like this.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Meanwhile, oddly enough, every other emulation environment that worked in 10.4 continues to work exactly the same in 10.5. Basilisk, SheepShaver, vMac, SNES9x, you name it, they all still magically seem to work at least as well as they did in Tiger.

People seem to think that these things have to be completely rewritten or something to support a new OS. I'm pretty sure that the reason to remove Classic would not be a technical one.

These emulators you've mentioned are self-contained and aren't trying to recreate the OS 9 experience within the OS X environment (which could be a huge pain in the ass in Leopard considering Apple is really trying to get it resolution independent.) It's not the emulation that is a problem to Apple, it's how these Mac OS 9 windows are supposed to be handled with an increasingly different display technology/philosophy in OS X.

[timmerk]

So wait, is it confirmed there is no Classic in the PPC version of 10.5?

[CharlesS]

Can't confirm yet, but can only speak hypothetically.

In four days, you will find out.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by timmerk 

So wait, is it confirmed there is no Classic in the PPC version of 10.5?

Yes...confirmed. And who cares?

Anyone can buy a fast $50 PPC Mac that can still boot OS 9 or use Mac OS 10.4's Classic environment and then network that computer with the newer Mac running Leopard. Or better yet, create a partition for 10.4 and run Classic apps to your heart's content. Problem solved.

edit: added part about partitioning hard drive to have both 10.4 and 10.5

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

These emulators you've mentioned are self-contained and aren't trying to recreate the OS 9 experience within the OS X environment (which could be a huge pain in the ass in Leopard considering Apple is really trying to get it resolution independent.) It's not the emulation that is a problem to Apple, it's how these Mac OS 9 windows are supposed to be handled with an increasingly different display technology/philosophy in OS X.

So let Classic windows get pixelly if you scale up the screen size. Choosing between having Classic apps look good and resolution independence is a better trade-off than not being able to use Classic apps at all.

Besides which, I don't see any such thing as "resolution independence" on Apple's list of features, do you?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

So let Classic windows get pixelly if you scale up the screen size. Choosing between having Classic apps look good and resolution independence is a better trade-off than not being able to use Classic apps at all.

Besides which, I don't see any such thing as "resolution independence" on Apple's list of features, do you?

There's a lot of things that don't show up on the list...you know this yourself. Quit playing the devil's advocate.

You also know very well that most Mac OS 9 apps have a Mac OS X equivalent and that it would be madness to support Classic for the remaining few apps that don't have equivalents for the thousands of users that actually do really need Classic and to the detriment of the 30 million that don't.

Even Pacifist doesn't support 10.0 and 10.1 users, you cruel bastard you. PWNT! You can't tell Apple they're being bitches if you yourself are leaving 10.0 and 10.1 users in the dust.

[nikstar101]

OK i am going to try an add my 2 pence (hopefully without starting a flame war). Now firstly no one actually knows whether Leopard has Classic or not so it is not worth getting too excited at this point. But going on the basis that it has been removed from Leopard here's my bit.

I will start out that my position is that if users want to keep Classic they keep Tiger. Tiger will still be updated much like Panther is. Security updates which apply to Panther are still released by Apple. In fact there is still a 10.4.11 update to be released.

Secondly it is uneconomical to keep supporting legacy software and hardware, The needs of the many out-weigh the need of a few. But we have had this issue before with the 68K processor change-over. MacOS 8 supported both PPC and 68K and then 8.5 only supported PPC. There wasn't much of a overlap (at least not 6 years). How did people cope then. Well having both a 68K and PPC Mac i kept them both on MacOS 8.0.

It is the users choice to upgrade to OS 10.5, but i must admit i would like Apple to state whether it has Classic or not (to stop people buying unnecessarily ). Tiger is a very capable OS and honestly i don't think most people (especially within PPC Mac) NEED to upgrade to Leopard. Apple is not deliberately "breaking" Classic, it is answering the demands of its customers who want a faster more capable OS, and to do this Classic maybe removed.

[Big Mac]

Actually, we know it doesn't. Also, Horsepoo!!, it's downright laughable to claim that Classic support was dropped because it clashes with Leopard's interface design. Classic's UI clashed with OS X the day OS X came out.

[timmerk]

We do?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Actually, we know it doesn't. Also, Horsepoo!!, it's downright laughable to claim that Classic support was dropped because it clashes with Leopard's interface design. Classic's UI clashed with OS X the day OS X came out.

IF that as the case Apple would have canceled Leopard.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Actually, we know it doesn't. Also, Horsepoo!!, it's downright laughable to claim that Classic support was dropped because it clashes with Leopard's interface design. Classic's UI clashed with OS X the day OS X came out.

I never said it clashed with the design. I said it doesn't work with the display technology/philosophy that is upcoming (ie getting ready for resolution independence.) And because Apple doesn't want to be bothered making things look as good as possible for Classic under those circumstances (ie blocky scaled-up pixels or smoothed/washed out scaled-up pixels) they decided to drop it completely. Reading comprehension classes help.

Imagine if Apple had spent any time on getting Classic to work under these conditions...Leopard wouldn't be 8 months late...it would be 10 months late...or more...or wouldn't be late but would be lacking other more important features because development time was shifted from those features to getting Classic supported and working well. Is 30 million people going to feel sorry about the couple thousand people that still rely on Classic apps? Not me...

[Big Mac]

Speculating that it was dropped because changes were made to Leopard that made it incompatible is a plausible explanation. On the other hand, speculating that it was dropped because of anything having to do with resolution independence is outright lunacy.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Speculating that it was dropped because changes were made to Leopard that made it incompatible is a plausible explanation. On the other hand, speculating that it was dropped because of anything having to do with resolution independence is outright lunacy.

Oh...right...ok.

[nikstar101]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Actually, we know it doesn't. Also, Horsepoo!!, it's downright laughable to claim that Classic support was dropped because it clashes with Leopard's interface design. Classic's UI clashed with OS X the day OS X came out.

Where is this info??

[Big Mac]

All over the 'net and in past forum threads.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by nikstar101 

Where is this info??

Don't bother with Big Mac. He has severe reading comprehension problems and doesn't understand that it doesn't matter what the reason for dropping Classic was just that it wasn't worth supporting anymore.

Watch what you say because he'll pretend like you said that is completely wrong and then attack that fictional point.

[Big Mac]

You're just embarrassed over the completely ludicrous explanation you originally gave. It's okay, we understand.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You're just embarrassed over the completely ludicrous explanation you originally gave. It's okay, we understand.

I'm embarrassed I'm replying to your asinine posts. Since nobody knows the actual reason(s), I don't see why incpompatibilies between Classic and Leopard (and I don't see why graphical problems such as scaling Classic windows to make it support resolution independence doesn't fall in this category) is a more valid reason than scaling problems under resolution independent circumstances. They're both plausible and they probably are both responsible for the dropped-support (if you count them as separate reasons.) Why would one be a better reason than the other? They're both enough reason to drop Classic support and not waste development time.

I impatiently await your attacks on points I probably haven't even brought up in this very post.

[Big Mac]

Horsepoo!!, I can absolutely guarantee you're the only one around who thinks linking this issue to resolution independence makes any sense at all. You're all wet and too proud to admit it. Just recognize that it was a stupid claim and move on.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

I never said it clashed with the design. I said it doesn't work with the display technology/philosophy that is upcoming (ie getting ready for resolution independence.) And because Apple doesn't want to be bothered making things look as good as possible for Classic under those circumstances (ie blocky scaled-up pixels or smoothed/washed out scaled-up pixels) they decided to drop it completely. Reading comprehension classes help.

I am not so sure that is what Apple dropped Classic support. Is there any info on this?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Speculating that it was dropped because changes were made to Leopard that made it incompatible is a plausible explanation. On the other hand, speculating that it was dropped because of anything having to do with resolution independence is outright lunacy.

He never said that.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Horsepoo!!, I can absolutely guarantee you're the only one around who thinks linking this issue to resolution independence makes any sense at all. You're all wet and too proud to admit it. Just admit it was a stupid claim and move on.

Well we don't know why it was dropped. So saying he was wrong isn't totally honest. We DO know that you claimed he said things he did not.

[Big Mac]

He said: "it doesn't work with the display technology/philosophy that is upcoming. . . ." That's linking the end of Classic support to resolution independence, and it's just plain moronic to do so. I don't like arguing inane points, but I dislike blissful idiocy a great deal more.

[Voch]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I am not so sure that is what Apple dropped Classic support. Is there any info on this?

My guess is that you can't buy new hardware from Apple that can run Classic...they're all Intel machines now.

That being said, for me it's no big deal. I've been Classic-free since 10.2.

Voch

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Horsepoo!!, I can absolutely guarantee you're the only one around who thinks linking this issue to resolution independence makes any sense at all. You're all wet and too proud to admit it. Just recognize that it was a stupid claim and move on.

And I can guarantee you have no clue what the reasons are either...I freely admit I don't, I'm just providing a possible explanation to why it's not worth supporting because simply saying that it's not worth supporting isn't enough on these forums.

It's not a stupid claim...you can't say that it's more stupid than your claim because there's no info on this anywhere. Now admit that you've got a reading comprehension problem.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

He said: "it doesn't work with the display technology/philosophy that is upcoming. . . ." That's linking the end of Classic support to resolution independence, and it's just plain moronic to do so. I don't like arguing inane points, but I dislike blissful idiocy a great deal more.

I find your reason (Classic incompatibilities with Leopard) to be idiotic. Does that make my point more valid? First you'd have to define what you mean by Classic incompatibilities...because I think my reason fits right into that category. Then you'd have to explain why your point is more valid that mine.

[Big Mac]

I realize now how fitting your forum name is.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I realize now how fitting your forum name is.

I'm guessing you have nothing more to say? You don't have anything to back up your claims that my reason is stupid and yours is excellent. Ok...we'll leave it at that. My reason is stupid and yours is so awesome.

I'm guessing you switched your argument when you realized you mistakenly attributed what I originally said to the interface 'design' as being a dumb reason and in your pride ('cuz I bet *you* can't admit you're wrong) you suddenly changed your argument to resolution independence being a dumb reason. But I can see right through you.

[Kevin]

Nice threads on teh matter

Ars Technica: Mac OS X DP3: Trial by Water - Page 5 - (2/2000)

BTW that Sine guy that made that last post sure seems to know what he is talking about

http://forums.macnn.com/84/mac-os-x-...assic-x-theme/

"Also note the inferior anti-aliasing of the menu titles in Classic. Classic lags behind in look and feel in many ways. Classic apps don't get the Aqua appearance. Instead, they use a modified version of the classic "Apple platinum" appearance that has the window widgets rearranged to match Aqua windows:

Appearance-wise, it gets even worse for classic apps in DP3. They do not play well with Aqua windows:

As you can see, the transparent shadows don't quite work on top of classic apps yet. The same thing happens when Aqua menus (the real ones, not the Classic X versions) come down over classic windows. In fact, this shadow bug can be seen when any Aqua UI elements display themselves over a classic window: dock item titles, tool-tips, etc. The bug is especially jarring beneath the active window (which has a larger shadow than inactive windows, appearing to float "higher" above the desktop.) There are many other more minor cosmetic bugs across both classic and Aqua, but these (unlike the dual-UI issues) are very solvable problems.

My guess? They didn't have time to get both themes working correctly.

[zaghahzag]

uh. matlab doens't cost 7k. Is he running it on 100 machines or something?

[nikstar101]

Put it this way, if it just means copying Tiger's version of Classic to Leopard (with no code changes) then there is no reaosn why Classic won't be in Leopard because Apple would have no reason no to include it.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

I'm guessing you have nothing more to say? You don't have anything to back up your claims that my reason is stupid and yours is excellent. Ok...we'll leave it at that. My reason is stupid and yours is so awesome.

Horse excrement, it's very simple. From day one OS X used Quartz while the Classic VM used QuickDraw. They're completely independent and having nothing to do with each other from a technology standpoint. Classic doesn't match OS X's display model, never did and never will. It doesn't make any sense for Apple to remove Classic simply because OS X's display model continues to be enhanced. Additionally, Classic is also only supported on Apple's legacy computers, so why should Apple care if Mac owners decide they want to continue to run Classic? What you're saying doesn't make any sense logically, so we can discount it as a possibility. Btw, just as I'm sure that the movement toward resolution independence has nothing to do with Classic, I am also sure that my reading comprehension is superior to yours.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

BTW that Sine guy that made that last post sure seems to know what he is talking about

Sine is Zimphire.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Horse excrement, it's very simple. From day one OS X used Quartz while the Classic VM used QuickDraw. They're completely independent and having nothing to do with each other from a technology standpoint. Classic doesn't match OS X's display model, never did and never will. It doesn't make any sense for Apple to remove Classic simply because OS X's display model continues to be enhanced. Classic is also only supported on Apple's legacy computers, so it's not like intel Mac owners see it. What you're saying doesn't make any sense logically, so we can discount it as a possibility. Btw, just as I'm sure that the movement toward resolution independence has nothing to do with Classic, I am also sure that my reading comprehension is superior to yours.

And QuickDraw works under 72dpi and doesn't under 144dpi. Are you purposely being retarded? Or are you actually retarded? I can't tell.

[Big Mac]

Purposely retarded? That's hilarious. It's too bad you have to act like such a little child, Horse excrement. QuickDraw is 72 dpi - so what? It's a legacy environment for legacy hardware. Do you think Apple honestly cares what Power Mac customers think about Classic's lack of resolution independence enough to strip it out for that reason? Do you think Apple believes it would gain more with users by removing Classic for that reason? Man, for all your retardation talk I bet you rode the short bus to school.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Purposely retarded? That's hilarious. It's too bad you have to act like such a little child, Horse excrement. QuickDraw is 72 dpi - so what? It's a legacy environment for legacy hardware. Do you think Apple honestly cares what Power Mac customers think about Classic's lack of resolution independence enough to strip it out for that reason? Do you think Apple believes it would gain more good will be removing Classic for that reason? Man, for all your retardation talk I bet you rode the short bus to school.

Let's hear your reason, **** for brains. Why *did* Apple remove Classic support? It's obvious that Apple honestly doesn't care about *something* in particular since they're offering Classic in Leopard. If not for that reason...which one? Tell us. I'm dying to hear why Apple removed Classic...in fact, I've been asking this for the last few posts and you've been dodging the question everytime.

As for acting like a child, I wanted you to feel comfortable. I'll remind you that you were the first to start the name calling. I was actually quite civil until you got very hostile.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Sine is Zimphire.

 

Sine is also Kevin

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Purposely retarded? That's hilarious. It's too bad you have to act like such a little child

You aren't showing us that you are acting any better...

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You aren't showing us that you are acting any better...

I didn't call excrement boy s*** for brains and retarded. Then again, one would have to expect s*** remarks from a guy who purposely named himself horse crap. He apparently suffers from an anal fixation.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Yes, but Classic itself is a Carbon app. I'd guess its drag and drop support works sort of like this (at least, this is how I'd implement it if I had to write something like this):

1. Accept a drag event to your (the Classic environment's) Carbon window.

2. Check the mouse coordinates where the drop occurred, and figure out what OS 9 window they occurred in.

3. Pass on the event to the OS 9 app that owns that window.

You have a rather simple idea of software testing and quality control. Classic is not an app, it's an OS layer, so printing has to work, it's a massive task to test even a few relevant configurations.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Once again, sometimes you're not the one who gets to make the decisions about what software to use.

You've completely ignored posts with alternatives, even free alternatives.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

When the choice is either 1. using the software your employer (or your profession) requires to you use or 2. standing in an unemployment line, number 1 usually sounds like the better choice.

Your employer has to give you the means to do your job, they cannot ask for the impossible. Especially when you have free alternatives that are more compatible with newer versions of OS X. Or you could opt not to upgrade (companies keep Windows XP for instance and hesitate to upgrade to Vista), nobody forces you to upgrade.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

They did? I don't remember anything like that.

Steve has announced in 2000 that Classic and Carbon are to provide a `gentle migration' (fast forward to 5:00).

Originally Posted by Steve

There are three of them in OS X. And the reason for this is to provide a gentle migration for people.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

The coffin thing was to developers. The message it was intended to send was: Don't write apps for OS 9 anymore. It was a message that made sense, because you can write better OS X apps if you don't have to worry about it running on OS 9 (and you can use Mach-O, the .app bundle format, and Project Builder/Xcode).

No, it was also a message for users: we give you a way to use OS 9 apps that didn't have an OS X equivalent. It was always supposed to be a stop-gap solution, kind of like the parallel port on PCs.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Imagine the outrage if Microsoft did things like this.

Microsoft is doing it, they started with the 64 bit version of XP which is incompatible with pretty much all devices and drivers (you need 64 bit drivers). And MS is doing it again with Vista which is even less compatible. And people are complaining. They have complained so much that you can exchange your Vista (Professional + Ultimate) licence for an XP Pro licence. But there, the problem is not that certain DOS applications don't run, but recent apps aren't working. This isn't true here. You can use PPC apps on Intel machines (even drivers work flawlessly!), up until now, you can use Classic apps on PowerPC systems.

[CharlesS]

Dammit Horsepoo, we were having a relatively calm discussion before you showed up. Knock off the flaming, ok?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I didn't call excrement boy s*** for brains and retarded. Then again, one would have to expect s*** remarks from a guy who purposely named himself horse crap. He apparently suffers from an anal fixation.

Maybe I do suffer from an anal fixation...what does it matter to you? What really matters is how you dodge a simple question all the time.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Dammit Horsepoo, we were having a relatively calm discussion before you showed up. Knock off the flaming, ok?

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

This mini-flame war wouldn't have existed if Big Mac here hadn't misrepresented one of my claims (which he tried to correct by switching arguments from interface design to resolution independence). Instead of answering my questions, he insists on distorting my forum alias and belittling my argument with no supporting data.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You have a rather simple idea of software testing and quality control. Classic is not an app, it's an OS layer, so printing has to work, it's a massive task to test even a few relevant configurations.

Classic, as a virtual machine, is an app in the same way VMWare is.

And printing? That never worked all that well in Classic even in 10.0 (although on my machine I managed to get it to work better with a little hack I made that made OS 9 print to a PostScript file, which would then get picked up by a daemon running in OS X and printed via the OS X printing system), so I doubt that was the reason.

You've completely ignored posts with alternatives, even free alternatives.

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.

Your employer has to give you the means to do your job, they cannot ask for the impossible.

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).

Especially when you have free alternatives that are more compatible with newer versions of OS X.

Except that we don't.

Or you could opt not to upgrade (companies keep Windows XP for instance and hesitate to upgrade to Vista), nobody forces you to upgrade.

Yeah, but like I said before, after 10 years when OS XII is out and you're still stuck with Tiger on a G4, it's kind of annoying.

Steve has announced in 2000 that Classic and Carbon are to provide a `gentle migration' (fast forward to 5:00).

"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.

Microsoft is doing it, they started with the 64 bit version of XP which is incompatible with pretty much all devices and drivers (you need 64 bit drivers).

Who cares about drivers? Of course drivers are going to need to be updated. OS X never worked with OS 9 device drivers either, and I'm not complaining about that. We're just talking about plain old applications.

And MS is doing it again with Vista which is even less compatible. And people are complaining. They have complained so much that you can exchange your Vista (Professional + Ultimate) licence for an XP Pro licence. But there, the problem is not that certain DOS applications don't run, but recent apps aren't working. This isn't true here. You can use PPC apps on Intel machines (even drivers work flawlessly!), up until now, you can use Classic apps on PowerPC systems.

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.