[sumsugar]

Guess Steve changed his tune.....
http://earthlink.com.com/2100-1040-9...thlink&type=pt

[nvaughan3]

and all for quark. what a POS company to continue waffling at releasing an OSX version.

[el lindo]

Haha, waffling.

[mikerally]

While OS 9 booting Macs will still be limitedly available, I'm sure they'll put restrictions on even that:

First of all, I think you'll only be able to get these OS 9 booting machines directly from Apple - not from any dealer, and not from any Apple retail store.

Only available on certain models of the: iMac, eMac, iBook, and PowerMac.

That means it won't be available on the Powerbook.

It won't be available on any new models/machines introduced in 2003.

You need to be an education customer, or a company customer - and you need to buy these machines in quantity - you can't just buy one on it's own.

That means the average joe like you and me, won't be able to get one.

And finally, this is only up until June - and then that's it - nadda no OS 9 at all (like it's meant to be).

[Superchicken]

If I buy a new Mac before the end of OS 9 shipping I'll probably get it bootable into OS 9... It'd be nice to have at least just to be nostalgic.

[Eriamjh]

Oh, puhlease... If a bootable version of OS9 exists, you can guarantee it will end up on the internet for all to (illegally) use.

If you insist on booting into 9, why are you buying a new machine? Stick with the old machine or get one now before it's too late.

Move to X and be happy with it. It is the present and the future of Macs.

[reader50]

Filename extensions.problem

They are stupid. Until Apple gets.over them and fixes OSX to no longer push them, I'd like to see 9 remain. A genuine MacOS that doesn't push extensions. Nice.

Uh, tabbed folders are kinda nice too.

More urgently, permissions problems are often solved by a quick boot into 9. I have no problems fixing permissions from inside X, but they can be a nuisance. So much so that with the move to Jag, I set up home as the root user. Much better.

[Superchicken]

I like some things about OS 9 more than OS X... I would preffer if OS 9 stays similar to Dos on windows... which is gone now... but anyway... OS 9 is kinda like the Dos of OS X.. at least for being able to have a back door and stuff.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
and all for quark. what a POS company to continue waffling at releasing an OSX version.

Wow, nice attitude
And I'm sure you'll say the same about the place I work for. It only took us what, 6 years to release a windows version after windows 95 came out? All those poor people, stuck using our dos version.

Get over it. They made a decision. They'll release an OSX version when they are ready, or people can always use windows. It's apple's choice to get rid of all of their mac users, not quark's.

Moving this to the lounge, since it really doesn't seem to fit anywhere else.

[Subzero Diesel949]

Wow...this thread got more replies than the one I posted on the same topic earlier this week.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:


Wow, nice attitude
And I'm sure you'll say the same about the place I work for. It only took us what, 6 years to release a windows version after windows 95 came out? All those poor people, stuck using our dos version.

Get over it. They made a decision. They'll release an OSX version when they are ready, or people can always use windows. It's apple's choice to get rid of all of their mac users, not quark's.

Moving this to the lounge, since it really doesn't seem to fit anywhere else.

what, im supposed to clap wildly at a company that doesnt give a sh*t about it's products? you own stock in them or something?

[cheerios]

Originally posted by reader50:
Filename extensions.problem

They are stupid. Until Apple gets.over them and fixes OSX to no longer push them, I'd like to see 9 remain. A genuine MacOS that doesn't push extensions. Nice.

Uh, tabbed folders are kinda nice too.

More urgently, permissions problems are often solved by a quick boot into 9. I have no problems fixing permissions from inside X, but they can be a nuisance. So much so that with the move to Jag, I set up home as the root user. Much better.

Reader! I thought better of you than that! NEVER run a machine as root. the su command can get you in and out easily. type su, hit enter. enter root pass and hit enter. you're good till you type exit. that way you've got quick root access, and you don't have that HUGE GAPING security hole. there is a seperate password on root for a reason. it won't protect anyone from their own stupidity.

:sigh: it's your machine, I guess, but BE CAREFUL. One accidental space in a rm command "rm -rf / user/cheerios/documents" instead of "rm -rf /user/cheerios/documents" and you've toasted your WHOLE HDD.

[reader50]

Originally posted by cheerios:
Reader! ... NEVER run a machine as root. the su command can get you in and out easily. type su ... and you don't have that HUGE GAPING security hole. ...

It's my machine. I am the sole user, and no one else has access. Running the Finder as root eliminates most of the reasons to use 'rm' anyway.

On a daily basis, I need to edit system config files inside /Library or worse, /System/Library, as well as Apache/PHP generated files owned by www. After paying over a grand for my own machine, I do not really need to be told:

Originally posted by OSX:
We're sorry, you don't have permission to do this. We're not really sorry ... and we don't care that you own this box. As for editing this file, you can stick it until you get around to changing the permissions. I don't care that the file was generated on demand, and needs debugging to fix your website, change permissions or get lost.

This gets tiresome after the 20th time during one debug session. Also, if I'm exploring /System/Library and find the default new user folder structure, I can delete the IE preferencefile instantly.

I have 3 HDs, 7 partitions (most bootable, some dual-bootable), 4 bootable CDs, I backup at least once a year, and I can recover from any problem. Including recovering an entire partition that had been erased by 'rm -r /'. A personal computer should do what the owner wants it to do, rather than put up roadblocks "you're stupid, I'll protect you - [beep - please reboot and check panic.log]".

[The Dude]

You tell em, Rodney!

[cheerios]

well, like i said, it's your machine, do with it what you wish. I'm just sayin' it's not a wise move.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:



what, im supposed to clap wildly at a company that doesnt give a sh*t about it's products? you own stock in them or something?

You are talking about apple, right?
Because they are the ones who don't care about their products, or their customers.
OSX was very hard to develop on before 10.1, and still has issues, even with 10.2.
No other company would drop support that fast. Sorry, doesn't happen. IBM's servers can still run apps made in the 80s with no problems. The dos version of our app ran fine in windows up through 2000. Sorry, but this one is Apple's fault. Sure, Quark could have said what was going on, but they didn't. Apple doesn't say what is going on either.
Instead of whining about Quark, blame Apple. They should NOT be dropping all support for an OS this soon. That isn't right.

[undotwa]

The only problem with running root if you have got a good system up and running is that you might run a bad program which might trash your system.

If you are careful, I'd say its alright.

Although, while using root I've had the Finder crashing on me and then corrupting a few files. Just be careful. Thats why its better to use just the command line in root. Not the GUI.

[agentz]

We (as a large education customer) have just taken delivery of another 20 or so new base model iBook 700's and very nice they are too.

Out of the box they will not boot into OS9. They do not come with OS9 systems, only the Classic stuff for X - a couple of installer packages and thats about it.

None of our previous OS9 resources (custom disk images, boot CD's from iBooks purchased three weeks previously etc) would directly boot the machines.

We had to complete the X install first to make the damn things even bootable, then we managed to cludge together an OS9 disk image - the System folder in the Classic install that it does contained something like 130 extensions, our standard system contains something like 214 - so we had to move extensions over, replace a couple of system resources, tweak another couple of things then we could make the machine boot directly into OS9, then we were able to create a disk image and put that onto the rest of the machines.

The problem is that we don't even know if this is an interim state for new machines - at least we were able to make it boot properly into OS9 after several hours work, but we don't know if this solution will work beyond mid-January.

The machines were bought from a specialist education supplier, it was totally obvious that they were for end users in schools, and the supplier knows fine damn well that we don't want X-only machines just yet. The reason we're not moving to X with new installs just yet is that there are a couple or three applications that our schools use that we haven't been able to make run in X yet and they don't perform particularly well in Classic either. Once thats ironed out and the rest of the support team have had X training (mid January for that one) we then need to roll out X training for teaching staff at the same time as the next batch of machines.

We've got about 350 machines on order at the moment but we've not been able to get a definitive answer from either our supplier or Apple what we're going to be able to do with them boot-wise.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:


You are talking about apple, right?
Because they are the ones who don't care about their products, or their customers.
OSX was very hard to develop on before 10.1, and still has issues, even with 10.2.
No other company would drop support that fast. Sorry, doesn't happen. IBM's servers can still run apps made in the 80s with no problems. The dos version of our app ran fine in windows up through 2000. Sorry, but this one is Apple's fault. Sure, Quark could have said what was going on, but they didn't. Apple doesn't say what is going on either.
Instead of whining about Quark, blame Apple. They should NOT be dropping all support for an OS this soon. That isn't right.

No, sorry, I blame quark. They clearly are not motivated to develope the software. What other pieces of major software are still languishing like quark is? Everyone else has been able to make the transition.

[Thrax]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:


No, sorry, I blame quark. They clearly are not motivated to develope the software. What other pieces of major software are still languishing like quark is? Everyone else has been able to make the transition.

Quark is very motivated. They're getting a great deal of help from Apple in Carbonizing their code.

The problem is QuarkXPress's age. It's codebase goes back 16 years - which is why even minor updates to QuarkXPress take months to finish (and why Apple is helping them).

[suprz]

after what i just read about rm/blah blah blah, and trashing your whole drive in a single keystroke etc..... i am SO glad i still use OS9 and will continue to do so. The whole reason i got a mac was for ease of use and that it wasnt so easy to trash your system with just one keystroke! (up until OSX i guess) if i wanted to have so many f**king problems with my OS i would have just gone ahead a used windows! the real shame is that if i had the cash and did want a new mac without OSX, i couldnt get one!
( now correct me if i'm wrong, and i hope im not) but if i get a brand new mac, and i comes with OSX and OS9.2 can i delete OSX and just use OS9? and if i got a mac that came with OSX only, could i erase the drive and just use OS9? i've heard rumors that you couldnt use OS9 on a OSX only machine. now that doesnt make sense to me, but hey we are talking about apple here

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Thrax:


Quark is very motivated. They're getting a great deal of help from Apple in Carbonizing their code.

The problem is QuarkXPress's age. It's codebase goes back 16 years - which is why even minor updates to QuarkXPress take months to finish (and why Apple is helping them).

I suppose you did not hear of the comments made by their CEO?

Several of the Quark clients called were attendees of a conference held by Quark in New York last month, in which CEO Fred Ebrahimi disparaged the Mac platform and struck back at critics of Quark's sluggish OS X pace. "The Mac platform is shrinking" and users dissatisfied with Quark's Mac efforts should "switch to something else," he told the assembled guests, most of whom were shocked by his comments and left the session early.


And really, its more than just a lack of OSX support. The problems go deeper than that.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:

And really, its more than just a lack of OSX support. The problems go deeper than that.

I imagine Quark's programming department to be a lot like the bridge on Spaceball One.

"How many assholes have got on this ship anyhow?!?"

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by suprz:
after what i just read about rm/blah blah blah, and trashing your whole drive in a single keystroke etc..... i am SO glad i still use OS9 and will continue to do so. The whole reason i got a mac was for ease of use and that it wasnt so easy to trash your system with just one keystroke! (up until OSX i guess) if i wanted to have so many f**king problems with my OS i would have just gone ahead a used windows! the real shame is that if i had the cash and did want a new mac without OSX, i couldnt get one!
( now correct me if i'm wrong, and i hope im not) but if i get a brand new mac, and i comes with OSX and OS9.2 can i delete OSX and just use OS9? and if i got a mac that came with OSX only, could i erase the drive and just use OS9? i've heard rumors that you couldnt use OS9 on a OSX only machine. now that doesnt make sense to me, but hey we are talking about apple here

first you don't have to play around in termainal and risk hitting those keys.

Second that is why you don't run as root, you can only mess up your own room, not the whole house.

third you can still get systems that boot X & 9, you can still put 9 back on there if you wish. BUT the whole deal is as of January they will not update OS 9 to work with new hardware. So 9 might not run on a new mac, that is where this article comes in. They are now going to offer some systems (think leftovers really) until june for purchase. What is likley to happen (dear god I hope) is apple busts out somehting big, huge and gives us a good reason why they should not bother to update 9 for it. read new chip. on the other hand if all we get is faster G4's (and nothing hardware new) even if it's not supported you might be able to get 9 up and running on such a system. Think running OS X on 604's and such.

But this is all just speculation, we will not know until january. So if your in the market for a new mac and you have to still run OS 9 better order soon as the window is closing fast.