[ManOfSteal]

I can only assume that "Classic" is still going to be available when Tiger is released; however, how much longer can Apple go including that as part of the OS? They don't support it any longer. I assume since the code is basically frozen it only takes a handful of changes to make it compatible with each OS X release, but still...at what point should Apple completely ditch the "Classic" operation all together? Will they ever?

[Randman]

It doesn't cost Apple any extra to bundle Classic with the OS. And there is still a market (publishing at least) that does still OS9. Many places are migrating but OS9 is still alive, if not well.
I would think it makes sense for Apple to bundle rather than leave it out, at this point.
Maybe a few years from now and 10.5, it might be omitted.
That said, I've not worked with Tiger and don't have any details on it.

[ManOfSteal]

Originally posted by Randman:
Maybe a few years from now and 10.5, it might be omitted.

I see your point, but at the same time...what is the difference in doing it now and waiting 2 years or the next release? It's not like some of those publishing products do not have OS X counter-parts at this point and it's an absolute must to keep them around (and they only do for backwards compatibility for the most part). In my view, if Apple keeps bundling it, then people will still want it in the next release and it will live forever and ever. If Apple were to make a clean break, that wouldn't happen.

[Randman]

Because some people who would use Tiger might also want Classic. I still have Classic only because there are times (though, thankfully getting more infrequent) that I sometimes need Quark. And Quark 4 is still a helluva lot better than Quark 6 on OSX.
And from Apple's POV, it's a win-win. If you want it, you got it (at no additional charge to them). If you don't, you can trash it or not even install it.

[ManOfSteal]

Originally posted by Randman:
I still have Classic only because there are times (though, thankfully getting more infrequent) that I sometimes need Quark. And Quark 4 is still a helluva lot better than Quark 6 on OSX.

So if Quark 6 were to get as good as Quark 4 in your opinion...would you ditch OS 9 forever?

The game/theory back in v10.0, 10.1 (and some still in v10.2) was that "We won't switch to OS X until the big name applications are ported/built for OS X"...well, that has happened for 99.9% of things as far as I know. Is that still the same theory today? Or has it changed? And if so, to what?

[Randman]

I'd like to ditch Quark all together but for doing freelance design work, it's better to have than not have the job.

I guess I could switch to 6 but right now I can't justify the cost of an upgrade, even with a discount from Quark. Maybe someday I will.

Other than that, I have a few old games and an old Canon scanner I got for free from my Internet provide years ago that run in Classic mode. It doesn't take up much space and I could always move it to an external.

That said, I'm glad I still have the choice to have Classic or not.

[Randman]

Just noticed, this is the randman-mos show. Wonder when others will join in the fun? Would suck if someone had us both on ignore and took a look at this thread.

[dru]

Originally posted by ManOfSteal:
I can only assume that "Classic" is still going to be available when Tiger is released; however, how much longer can Apple go including that as part of the OS? They don't support it any longer. I assume since the code is basically frozen it only takes a handful of changes to make it compatible with each OS X release, but still...at what point should Apple completely ditch the "Classic" operation all together? Will they ever?

What do you care? It isn't making Mac OS X slower to support Classic for those who are interested in running Classic apps.

Apple can go on including it forever and ever.

[JLL]

Originally posted by ManOfSteal:
I can only assume that "Classic" is still going to be available when Tiger is released; however, how much longer can Apple go including that as part of the OS? They don't support it any longer. I assume since the code is basically frozen it only takes a handful of changes to make it compatible with each OS X release, but still...at what point should Apple completely ditch the "Classic" operation all together? Will they ever?

As long as it doesn't take too many man hours to keep Classic support working in Mac OS X, I don't see them dumping it for a very long time.

[ManOfSteal]

Originally posted by Randman:
Would suck if someone had us both on ignore and took a look at this thread.

[ManOfSteal]

Originally posted by dru:
What do you care? It isn't making Mac OS X slower to support Classic for those who are interested in running Classic apps.

Apple can go on including it forever and ever.

Wrong side of the bed this morning, eh? Try again.

Just asking a question is all...

[Randman]

Originally posted by ManOfSteal:
Wrong side of the bed this morning, eh?

Every post of his in the last 30 minutes have been angry. I guess the meds have worn off.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by ManOfSteal:
I can only assume that "Classic" is still going to be available when Tiger is released; however, how much longer can Apple go including that as part of the OS? They don't support it any longer.

Don't spread any FUD. Classic is supported by Apple and it is not going away.

[JLL]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Don't spread any FUD. Classic is supported by Apple and it is not going away.

I think he means Mac OS 9 is not supported - not the Classic functionality itself.

[SMacTech]

Having Classic available in OS X is a definite selling advantage to us graybeards who have a lot of old software for the Mac.

It enables us to dump the old Mac, get a new one, and have best of both worlds. A plus for us, and one for Apple.

I still sell software for OS 9 and need to support it. I could keep an older Mac around, but I don't want too. I still use ResEdit, Claris Homepage and few other apps occasionally.

It would be sad if they dumped Classic anytime soon and I don't see it happening. They have recently made changes/improvements for classic in 10.3, hardly a sign of its impending demise.

[ManOfSteal]

Originally posted by SMacTech:
They have recently made changes/improvements for classic in 10.3, hardly a sign of its impending demise.

What changes have they made?

[chris v]

At home, my last Classic issue is hardware-related. My scanner never got OS X support, so I've got to boot Classic to scan with PS 6 and the crappy UMAX twain plugin. Once I replace that thing, I'm DONE with it.

At work, I'll take Quark 6.5 acting weird in native OS X over Quark 4 and 5 acting weird in Classic now that I've got it. The last 2 applications we need Classic for are Streamline (Illustrator CS2 apparently has a trace thingy built in-- I'm not holding my breath) and Typestyler (whose website has been "announcing" the up-coming OS X version for nearly 3 years).

I will probably continue to need Classic support for a good while, yet.

[Chuckit]

EDIT: Whoa, I'm old news. Never mind me.

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by ManOfSteal:
What changes have they made?

10.3.6
Addresses some issues that could cause Classic to unexpectedly quit when starting up.

10.3.3
Addresses issues that may cause Address Book and other applications to unexpectedly quit if the Classic Mac OS fonts are disabled in Font Book.

10.3.2
Addresses an issue in which a PowerBook G4 computer may stop responding when a Classic application's window is moved

10.3.1
Graphics drivers updated for Classic for ATI and nVidia.

10.3.0
The entire graphics layer for Classic was updated to eliminate the 'white painting' that occurred when moving windows or switching between Classic and OS X apps. There was a definite speed increase with Panther too, at least with the apps that I created.

There were other small changes made that weren't published, but as a developer, I became aware of through documentation updates.

[Eug Wanker]

I think it would be reasonable to drop Classic support in 2007, with the release of 10.5.

[mitchell_pgh]

IMHO, QuarkXPress 6.5 is on par with QuarkXPress 4.1. QuarkXPress 6.0 wasn't.

I think 10.4 would be the perfect time to have "classic" be an option that isn't installed by default... but is still there if a person wants it.

[ManOfSteal]

Good information SMacTech, thanks!

It'll be interesting to see how those who have said they depend on "Classic" still alot today will say in a few years...

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by SMacTech:
10.3.6
Addresses some issues that could cause Classic to unexpectedly quit when starting up.

10.3.3
Addresses issues that may cause Address Book and other applications to unexpectedly quit if the Classic Mac OS fonts are disabled in Font Book.

10.3.2
Addresses an issue in which a PowerBook G4 computer may stop responding when a Classic application's window is moved

10.3.1
Graphics drivers updated for Classic for ATI and nVidia.

10.3.0
The entire graphics layer for Classic was updated to eliminate the 'white painting' that occurred when moving windows or switching between Classic and OS X apps. There was a definite speed increase with Panther too, at least with the apps that I created.

There were other small changes made that weren't published, but as a developer, I became aware of through documentation updates.

Interesting, but much of that seems to be patchwork rather then enhancements.

With QuarkXPress 7 just around the corner, I think Quark might finally have created a good enough version for every designer to move over.

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Interesting, but much of that seems to be patchwork rather then enhancements.

With QuarkXPress 7 just around the corner, I think Quark might finally have created a good enough version for every designer to move over.

Apple doesn't patch something they plan on dumping. There are things not patched/enhanced in APIs that they officially support. There are many long standing bugs in carbon they haven't fixed in 10.3, but are fixed in 10.4, go figure.

Point is, they made major improvements for classic in 10.3. If their direction were to stop supporting it, they would make NO improvements/patching of code what-so-ever.

mitchell_pgh : classic is not installed by default in 10.3 or 10.4

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I think it would be reasonable to drop Classic support in 2007, with the release of 10.5.

I don't. I like having Classic around, for ResEdit and also for certain old games. Why the hell do you people want Apple to ditch Classic, anyway? One of Apple's strengths has always been the way so many ancient apps, even some from the 80s, still work on the latest OS. How many old DOS games still run without trouble on Windows XP?

Apple has never just gone and cut off support for applications for a previous Mac OS version, ever. And this is the way it should be. If you don't like Classic, don't install it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
I don't. I like having Classic around, for ResEdit and also for certain old games. Why the hell do you people want Apple to ditch Classic, anyway?

Well, it still takes manhours for Apple to support Classic.

OS 9 came out 1999. By 2007 it will be 8 years old.

One of Apple's strengths has always been the way so many ancient apps, even some from the 80s, still work on the latest OS.

I don't consider it much of a strength to be able run 20 year-old Mac Apps.

How many old DOS games still run without trouble on Windows XP?

Not any I'd want to play.

[calumma]

I still haven't found any OSX software to replace the simple and intuitive Statview. Alas Statview will never be updated again so Classic is still a necessity.

[Footy]

Originally posted by chris v:
At home, my last Classic issue is hardware-related. My scanner never got OS X support, so I've got to boot Classic to scan with PS 6 and the crappy UMAX twain plugin. Once I replace that thing, I'm DONE with it.

Have you tried VueScan under OSX? Might solve your scanner issues.

[Agent69]

Vuescan rocks.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Footy:
Have you tried VueScan under OSX? Might solve your scanner issues.

Yes, I have-- no it doesn't. The author has stated repeatedly he doesn't intend to support the old Astra USB series of scanners. I do use it for my (crap) Microtek 5700 when I can get it to mount.

[mishakim]

just to chip in another reason why some of us need Classic: WordPerfect is still used in the legal community (esp. by courts), and Word doesn't import it well, if at all. WP 3.5 for classic is available free and may be the only way to read certain files and export them to other formats.

the latest NeoOffice/J seems to handle WP files, so that may help us move on, but it will still be a long time

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Well, it still takes manhours for Apple to support Classic.

OS 9 came out 1999. By 2007 it will be 8 years old.

You know, since the hardware is fairly abstracted away, I really doubt they have to do much at all to support Classic.

Remember, Classic works just fine on machines that aren't OS 9 bootable at all. I highly doubt they've made many changes to OS 9 since the first non-OS 9 bootable machine came out. Most changes listed have been to the environment itself, and most of those have been fixing minor bugs, adding features such as double buffering, etc. that aren't necessary just to make Classic work.

I don't consider it much of a strength to be able run 20 year-old Mac Apps.

Well, it really comes in handy when you get stuck with some app that you have to run that doesn't have a Carbon port.

For example, I understand that there's an app called Folio VIP that people in the legal profession have to use, which apparently has had development work cancelled on the Mac version, so it's necessary to use the OS 9 version.

Not any I'd want to play.

Good for you. I find that most games that are actually fun to play, rather than just graphically impressive, come from that era.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
You know, since the hardware is fairly abstracted away, I really doubt they have to do much at all to support Classic.

Originally posted by SMacTech:

10.3.6
Addresses some issues that could cause Classic to unexpectedly quit when starting up.

10.3.3
Addresses issues that may cause Address Book and other applications to unexpectedly quit if the Classic Mac OS fonts are disabled in Font Book.

10.3.2
Addresses an issue in which a PowerBook G4 computer may stop responding when a Classic application's window is moved

10.3.1
Graphics drivers updated for Classic for ATI and nVidia.

10.3.0
The entire graphics layer for Classic was updated to eliminate the 'white painting' that occurred when moving windows or switching between Classic and OS X apps. There was a definite speed increase with Panther too, at least with the apps that I created.

There were other small changes made that weren't published, but as a developer, I became aware of through documentation updates.

Remember, Classic works just fine on machines that aren't OS 9 bootable at all. I highly doubt they've made many changes to OS 9 since the first non-OS 9 bootable machine came out. Most changes listed have been to the environment itself, and most of those have been fixing minor bugs, adding features such as double buffering, etc. that aren't necessary just to make Classic work.

It's still extra work, for an 8 year-old OS (by 2007).

Well, it really comes in handy when you get stuck with some app that you have to run that doesn't have a Carbon port.

For example, I understand that there's an app called Folio VIP that people in the legal profession have to use, which apparently has had development work cancelled on the Mac version, so it's necessary to use the OS 9 version.

Well, OS 9 bootability really comes in handy when you get stuck with some app that you have to run that doesn't run under Classic.

For example, I understand that there are several audio programs that people in the music business have to use, which apparently have had development cancelled, so it's necessary to use the OS 9 bootable versions.

Good for you. I find that most games that are actually fun to play, rather than just graphically impressive, come from that era.

And Apple needs to support your games from 1989 because you just have to run these games, on a 2007 OS?

[CharlesS]

Someone didn't read my post very well. Or maybe you did, and are just trying to be misleading.

Anyway, here's what I actually said, rather than the carefully selected excerpt you quoted:

Originally posted by CharlesS:
You know, since the hardware is fairly abstracted away, I really doubt they have to do much at all to support Classic.

Remember, Classic works just fine on machines that aren't OS 9 bootable at all. I highly doubt they've made many changes to OS 9 since the first non-OS 9 bootable machine came out. Most changes listed have been to the environment itself, and most of those have been fixing minor bugs, adding features such as double buffering, etc. that aren't necessary just to make Classic work.

To restate what I said, most of the changes that have been made have been to the Classic environment, not to OS 9 itself. I was specifically referring to this list which was posted earlier, which you have just brought up again:

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Originally posted by SMacTech:

10.3.6
Addresses some issues that could cause Classic to unexpectedly quit when starting up.

Minor bug fix to the Classic environment. The Classic environment would have continued to work without this; they were simply fixing a bug.

10.3.3
Addresses issues that may cause Address Book and other applications to unexpectedly quit if the Classic Mac OS fonts are disabled in Font Book.

This one isn't even a change to the Classic environment. This bug fix dealt with the way Address Book and Font Book deal with classic fonts.

10.3.2
Addresses an issue in which a PowerBook G4 computer may stop responding when a Classic application's window is moved

Minor bug fix to the Classic environment. The Classic environment would have continued to work without this; they were simply fixing a bug.

10.3.1
Graphics drivers updated for Classic for ATI and nVidia.

This is about the only one that even qualifies as a change to OS 9, and it's just some graphics drivers. The Classic environment would have continued to work without this; it just may not have been able to take advantage of all the features of the graphics card.

10.3.0
The entire graphics layer for Classic was updated to eliminate the 'white painting' that occurred when moving windows or switching between Classic and OS X apps. There was a definite speed increase with Panther too, at least with the apps that I created.

This was an added feature to the Classic environment (well, actually, it wasn't even that - it simply made an option that had already been present in Jaguar the default. Presumably, some bugs were probably fixed in this functionality that caused Apple to deem it ready for prime time). The Classic environment would have continued to work without this, but the windows would have continued to be non-buffered and you'd be able to paint over them like in Jaguar with the default settings.

It's still extra work, for an 8 year-old OS (by 2007).

Not an 8-year-old OS, but a compatibility layer. Most of those changes have nothing to do with the OS itself. In fact, the only thing that those changes prove is that the Classic environment is still in active development by Apple, which doesn't point toward it being removed.

Well, OS 9 bootability really comes in handy when you get stuck with some app that you have to run that doesn't run under Classic.

For example, I understand that there are several audio programs that people in the music business have to use, which apparently have had development cancelled, so it's necessary to use the OS 9 bootable versions.

Uh, that's what the Classic environment is for.

And Apple needs to support your games from 1989 because you just have to run these games, on a 2007 OS?

Apple has never arbitrarily broken support for software older than a certain date before. Example: the 68k emulator. It's been eleven years since the first Power Mac was introduced, but Apple hasn't stripped that out of the OS. It was still in OS 9, and it's still in OS X through the Classic layer.

This just isn't the way Apple works. And I, for one, am glad of it.

[Eug Wanker]

CharlesS:
Well, it really comes in handy when you get stuck with some app that you have to run that doesn't have a Carbon port.

For example, I understand that there's an app called Folio VIP that people in the legal profession have to use, which apparently has had development work cancelled on the Mac version, so it's necessary to use the OS 9 version.

Eug:
Well, OS 9 bootability really comes in handy when you get stuck with some app that you have to run that doesn't run under Classic.

For example, I understand that there are several audio programs that people in the music business have to use, which apparently have had development cancelled, so it's necessary to use the OS 9 bootable versions.

CharlesS:
Uh, that's what the Classic environment is for.

Uh, it was just an illustration of why your reasoning doesn't hold up.

Many audio apps do NOT run properly under Classic. Yet Apple felt completely justified not to support OS 9 bootability on new machines, because in Apple's view, it's just not worth it. Strangely enough, given Apple's place in pro audio, I felt they should have in fact supported them longer, but they didn't.

Apple arbitrarily made the decision to break support for them on new machines, even though the apps were only a few years old.

If Apple were to drop Classic support in 10.5 it would reasonable. I actually don't think they will, but I for one do not see the need to keep up that support, from the overall business point of view. Keeping up support for an 8 year old OS isn't a big draw these days, especially when it's a non-corporate OS.

To restate what I said, most of the changes that have been made have been to the Classic environment, not to OS 9 itself.

Like you said, some changes ARE to OS 9 itself. However, that's irrelevant, anyway. Extra work is extra work.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Uh, it was just an illustration of why your reasoning doesn't hold up.

Many audio apps do NOT run properly under Classic. Yet Apple felt completely justified not to support OS 9 bootability on new machines, because in Apple's view, it's just not worth it. Strangely enough, given Apple's place in pro audio, I felt they should have in fact supported them longer, but they didn't.

Apple arbitrarily made the decision to break support for them on new machines, even though the apps were only a few years old.

It's not Apple's fault if apps don't work with the Classic environment due to the programmers making faulty assumptions or just plain bad luck. Apple does their best to make old applications compatible by providing the Classic environment. If it doesn't work 100%, well, welcome to real life where nothing does (and in the past, OS 9 broke some OS 8 apps, OS 8 broke some System 7 apps, System 7 broke some System 6 apps, etc.). It is certainly not the same thing as suddenly and deliberately breaking all support for any old applications period.

And I hope you realize that making new machines OS 9-bootable is a hell of a lot more work than simply not deleting the already-working Classic environment from the install discs.

Like you said, some changes ARE to OS 9 itself. However, that's irrelevant, anyway. Extra work is extra work.

No, oddly enough, I'm pretty sure that I said that the changes are to the Classic environment, not OS 9 itself. The only thing that could even remotely qualify as a change to OS 9 was the addition of some graphics drivers, which is not critical for the thing to continue working.

Again: ALL of the changes on that list were not things that needed to be done for the Classic environment to continue to work! They were all bug fixes or feature additions.

OS 9's development is dead. There hasn't been any work on it in years. And yet the thing continues to work in the hardware-abstracted environment created for it.

[Eug Wanker]

If 10.5 has Classic then fine... bonus for those few who will *need* it.

Personally, I'd just rather see the time spent on maintaining Tiger 10.4's OS X features/compatibility after 10.5 is out, rather than maintaining Classic.

We'll agree to disagree.

[hudson1]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Many audio apps do NOT run properly under Classic. Yet Apple felt completely justified not to support OS 9 bootability on new machines, because in Apple's view, it's just not worth it. Strangely enough, given Apple's place in pro audio, I felt they should have in fact supported them longer, but they didn't.

Apple arbitrarily made the decision to break support for them on new machines, even though the apps were only a few years old.

To me, that claim is a stretch. For the most part, the only OS 9 applications that won't run in Classic are ones that rely on direct interaction with the hardware. That type of software construction is in direct opposition to the whole philosophy that underpins OS X so it's no wonder those few apps don't work in Classic. They aren't supposed to.

As for continuing OS 9 bootability, Apple had to draw the line somewhere as it affected their ability to advance the hardware. They did continue selling a PM G4 model for an extended time to accomodate those who had to have OS 9 for a specific purpose.

I still don't see what's the big deal about Classic. It seems pretty obvious that Apple doesn't need much for resources to keep it functional as it's only "software" when you get down to the bottom (as opposed to hardware support).

Lastly, saying that OS 9 is nine years old come 2008 might technically by true but not practically. It was still the only Mac OS you could buy before 2001.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by SMacTech:
10.3.6
Addresses some issues that could cause Classic to unexpectedly quit when starting up.

10.3.3
Addresses issues that may cause Address Book and other applications to unexpectedly quit if the Classic Mac OS fonts are disabled in Font Book.

10.3.2
Addresses an issue in which a PowerBook G4 computer may stop responding when a Classic application's window is moved

10.3.1
Graphics drivers updated for Classic for ATI and nVidia.

10.3.0
The entire graphics layer for Classic was updated to eliminate the 'white painting' that occurred when moving windows or switching between Classic and OS X apps. There was a definite speed increase with Panther too, at least with the apps that I created.

There were other small changes made that weren't published, but as a developer, I became aware of through documentation updates.

You know, I'm actually starting to question this list.

List the files in the .bom file for 10.3.1 sometime. See if you see anything related to Classic at all in there, because I don't. I did a grep of the entire disk image that the 10.3.1 update comes on, and I didn't find any mention of Classic or nVidia.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Apple's short on games as is.

And if they take my Sim City 2000 from me...

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
You know, I'm actually starting to question this list.

List the files in the .bom file for 10.3.1 sometime. See if you see anything related to Classic at all in there, because I don't. I did a grep of the entire disk image that the 10.3.1 update comes on, and I didn't find any mention of Classic or nVidia.

I got most of them from Apple's web site. If it is related to classic, regardless if the fix was in OS X or not, they made improvements to support it.

Links are at the bottom of the page.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300570

the 10.3.1 reference is one I have in my support database as I refer to it when some clients maybe using that version of the OS. It may be wrong. I don't claim to be 100% accurate.

But you can refute or question Apple's page all you want.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by SMacTech:
I got most of them from Apple's web site. If it is related to classic, regardless if the fix was in OS X or not, they made improvements to support it.

Links are at the bottom of the page.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300570

the 10.3.1 reference is one I have in my support database as I refer to it when some clients maybe using that version of the OS. It may be wrong. I don't claim to be 100% accurate.

Okay, that explains it. I forgot to mention that this was part of what was making me kind of scratch my head. This is all Apple has to say about 10.3.1:

The 10.3.1 Update delivers enhanced functionality and improved reliability for the following applications, services and technologies: FileVault, Printing, WebDav, and FireWire 800 drives. This update also includes the latest Security Updates.

Nothing about new graphics drivers for Classic that I could see. This really doesn't surprise me much since I thought Classic just used the OS X video drivers since it doesn't have direct access to the hardware anyway.

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Okay, that explains it. I forgot to mention that this was part of what was making me kind of scratch my head. This is all Apple has to say about 10.3.1:


Nothing about new graphics drivers for Classic that I could see. This really doesn't surprise me much since I thought Classic just used the OS X video drivers since it doesn't have direct access to the hardware anyway.

Apple didn't have much at all in regards to the details of 10.3.1 update. They started getting verbose as time went on.

But I still assert they will not drop Classic support anytime soon and they have made refinements, albeit small ones, for improving Classic's interoperability with OS X.

You as a developer, should know how Apple is, at times, about fixing what they know is a problem or bug if the API will be deprecated sometime soon. Hint : they don't fix or improve it, at all.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by SMacTech:
Apple didn't have much at all in regards to the details of 10.3.1 update. They started getting verbose as time went on.

I'm aware of that; that's why I checked the .bom file.

But I still assert they will not drop Classic support anytime soon and they have made refinements, albeit small ones, for improving Classic's interoperability with OS X.

You as a developer, should know how Apple is, at times, about fixing what they know is a problem or bug if the API will be deprecated sometime soon.

Oh, I agree with you 100%. I'm only attempting to debunk Eug Wanker's assertion that keeping Classic updated for new versions of OS X is some incredibly difficult task that involves lots of updates to OS 9. Most of the updates that Apple has done seem to affect the Classic environment rather than OS 9 itself, and they're all bug fixes or feature additions. I certainly don't expect Classic to go away anytime soon, and I would be really upset if it did. Fortunately, as you point out, the fact that it's in active development pretty much rules out it being removed, no matter how much certain people illogically scream for its head on a silver platter.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Oh, I agree with you 100%. I'm only attempting to debunk Eug Wanker's assertion that keeping Classic updated for new versions of OS X is some incredibly difficult task that involves lots of updates to OS 9.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

I just said it was extra work to support Classic. And I think that 8 years after OS 9's release, losing support for Classic is no great loss in the greater scheme of things. That's where we differ in opinion. You seem to think it's important enough to keep around even after 2007, in a brand new OS. I don't.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort. I just said it was extra work to support Classic. And I think that 8 years after OS 9's release, losing support for Classic is no great loss in the greater scheme of things.

Well, that's just the thing. What is your basis to claim that it's such extra work? It's not like a hardware situation where the hardware is always changing and the OS needs to change to keep up with it. Classic is all software. The hardware is all abstracted away from the running OS 9 system. Basically, Classic reduces OS 9 down to an application, and it's not that hard to update an application to work with a new OS version most of the time (excepting major transitions like OS 9 to OS X). Often times it's not even necessary, and old applications just work. Now, Classic could possibly be a special case, since it's more complex than your typical app and since the OS makes some exceptions for it (i.e. OS 9 apps showing up in the Dock and the Force Quit dialog). Or maybe not. I don't claim to know whether Classic will need to be updated or not for any given version of OS X, but if it does, it will certainly be a small task compared to many more difficult things that Apple's engineers have to do. And I don't think your assertion that it will take "extra work" is really justified without some kind of evidence one way or another.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Well, that's just the thing. What is your basis to claim that it's such extra work? It's not like a hardware situation where the hardware is always changing and the OS needs to change to keep up with it. Classic is all software. The hardware is all abstracted away from the running OS 9 system. Basically, Classic reduces OS 9 down to an application, and it's not that hard to update an application to work with a new OS version most of the time (excepting major transitions like OS 9 to OS X).

You yourself it does take *some* work. I'm no coder, but that seems a given. The amount of work may be low but my point is, in 2007 or later, is any effort to keep it alive worth it?

Obviously, there are diminishing returns. I've drawn the line at 10.5. Hell, even others have drawn the line at 10.4, hence the existence of this thread. You think it's justified for 10.5. Fine. Will you think the same thing for 10.6? 10.7? Do you think that Apple should keep Classic alive forever?

Like I said, I'd rather see Apple spend the time supporting other older versions of OS X than a long dead OS 9 Classic.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
You yourself it does take *some* work.

I did not talk the thing. Or is not and me with realness in me by there is not indication which the prosecuting attorney becomes one means. It is possible, the nao which it believes firmly but absolutely it is.

I'm no coder, but that seems a given. The amount of work may be low but my point is, in 2007 or later, is any effort to keep it alive worth it?

It's not a given to me. It's possible, but without knowing anything about the source code, who knows?

Classic is sort of like an emulator. Of course, it's not actually an emulator because it doesn't really emulate the hardware that the OS will run on, but it's a similar concept - it abstracts the hardware away so that the OS thinks it's running on hardware other than what it's actually running on. Well, depending on how low-level they're written, some emulators like VirtualPC have had to be updated to work with the latest Macs. Other emulators, such as vMac and most console emulators, have worked fine after an OS upgrade without needing an update. Even VPC hasn't needed an update with every new OS version, and I'm willing to bet that it's a fair sight more complex a program than Classic is.

Obviously, there are diminishing returns. I've drawn the line at 10.5. Hell, even others have drawn the line at 10.4, hence the existence of this thread. You think it's justified for 10.5. Fine. Will you think the same thing for 10.6? 10.7? Do you think that Apple should keep Classic alive forever?

The Classic layer has the same role as the x86 emulator. The latter has been with us for years, and frankly I think both of them should continue to be included unless there's a good reason not to (and I can't think of any).

Like I said, I'd rather see Apple spend the time supporting other older versions of OS X than a long dead OS 9 Classic.

Don't worry, Apple won't be arbitrarily deciding that apps written for older versions of OS X will suddenly stop working either.

[Link]

I think more realistically, classic could/should be dumped as a system function and made into a seperate app, which apple could then simply stop working on but not entirely drop

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Link:
I think more realistically, classic could/should be dumped as a system function and made into a seperate app, which apple could then simply stop working on but not entirely drop

You'd be surprised how much of it is contained in /System/Library/CoreServices/Classic Startup.app.