Apple to KILL OS9 on new systems...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
<a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,431382,00.asp"; target="_blank">Check out this link I got from the MacNN main page.</a>



Since I have no great investment in mac, I don't really care. You still get classic to run those old apps, but by all accounts it's painfully slow even by mac standards.



The part that gets me is that Apple claims the rate of adoption hasn't been what they expected. Well no shjt. Lots of older systems that make up the 25 million installed base were never meant for OSX.



Forget the gung-ho crowd on these or other forums. There are those for whom OS9 works perfectly and they have no intention of upgrading untill both their key apps and FAST new machines are available.



Why would people spend money to run OSX on an old machine? Adoption will only come with system sales, but I fear as good as OSX looks, shoppers take one look at the spec sheet and another look at the price tag, and head over to the PC isle.



If Apple really wants people to adopt OSX in a hurry, they have to give them a reason to buy a new machine.



Anyway, whaddyall think about shuch a potential move?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 45
    Its a necessary step in the move from 9 to X. You have to realize that for developers to feel secure developing X apps, that they know for a fact that people who are buying the new machines will in fact run X.

    I think once jaguar is out, it'll be the right time to make the new macs non 9 bootable. Its gonna happen sooner or later. The sooner, the better,
  • Reply 2 of 45
    nonsuchnonsuch Posts: 293member
    That article pointed out an issue that should be troubling Apple management: a lot of Apple's most important customers are running very tight workflows on their Mac systems, and they can't even think of migrating until every piece of software they rely on is running well on X.



    I think Apple needs to give the publishing software industry a little financial and technical boost-up to make sure Quark and all its remora-like extensions and utilities get up to date soon, like within the next 6-9 months. A lot of important Mac buyers simply have no reason to buy new systems otherwise.



    BTW, did anyone else catch the development code name for 10.3: "Pinot"? From animals to grapes?
  • Reply 3 of 45
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,227member
    These Developers should have their apps ready for OSX. Apple is doing the right thing by killing OS9 Booting. Developers can generate revenue by porting to OSX and adding features in their next upgrades. With 10.2 I think Apple has finally lived up to the promise of OSX. It's time for the Developers to hop on board if they haven't already.
  • Reply 4 of 45
    I say this is a great step.



    SOMEONE certainly need to give those developers a kick in the ass. It looks like Apple is the only one with this power.



    hmurichson is quite right. It is in develpers' every best interest to get their code working on X. 9 is dead. People who develop and sell software for 9 should consider themselves dead as their market will undoubtedly shrink until they are completely irrelevant.
  • Reply 5 of 45
    cooopcooop Posts: 390member
    Quark <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 6 of 45
    spookyspooky Posts: 504member
    what about people who love their macs but:



    a) hate X with a passion



    b) see no reason to get duped into buying yet another "make do" eeked out variant of apple's current ancient (and laughably called "Power") mac line



    c) are desperately waiting for a kick ass pentium killer so they can justify the cahs on a new machine for X



    d) want to run Director, Quark etc.



    e) don't ever want to see a cli



    f) hate the idea of having any file on their macs that has a Unix-ish name (which is frighteningly similar to the names of files you might see in a typical Wiundows folder)



    g) have just spent big in the last 12 months on upgrades but still don't have X versions of all their key apps - upgrade again?



    To get X flying apple has to win (or force) market share. PC users won't switch as they perceive macs to be old hat - nice looking - but old hat. The alternative is to buy Adobe and Macromedia and cease windows versions



    isn't it sad that XP seems to be selling like the proverbial hot cakes yet the loyal mac faithful don't seem inclined to welcome X with open arms wholesale?
  • Reply 7 of 45
    frawgzfrawgz Posts: 547member
    [quote]Originally posted by spooky:

    <strong>what about people who love their macs but:



    e) don't ever want to see a cli



    f) hate the idea of having any file on their macs that has a Unix-ish name (which is frighteningly similar to the names of files you might see in a typical Wiundows folder)

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Have you ever used Mac OS X?
  • Reply 8 of 45
    [quote]Originally posted by spooky:

    <strong>isn't it sad that XP seems to be selling like the proverbial hot cakes yet the loyal mac faithful don't seem inclined to welcome X with open arms wholesale?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Where did you get this info at? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Last I heard, XP isn't all that welcomed by most Window users. I've used XP, what a joke. Not only is it ugly, the file system and the OS itself is way too complicated - it gets in the way. XP is nothing but hype. OS X runs circles around it.
  • Reply 9 of 45
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    [quote]Originally posted by spooky:

    what about people who love their macs but:



    a) hate X with a passion<hr></blockquote>



    Too subjective for Apple to care. they've put too much time and money into X to cater to a split OS strategy.



    [quote]b) see no reason to get duped into buying yet another "make do" eeked out variant of apple's current ancient (and laughably called "Power") mac line<hr></blockquote>



    Not sure what this has to do with OS X



    [quote]c) are desperately waiting for a kick ass pentium killer so they can justify the cahs on a new machine for X<hr></blockquote>



    Ditto.



    [quote]d) want to run Director, Quark etc.<hr></blockquote>



    Classic. And that's Quark's and Adobe's problem. If I were Apple, I wouldn't let laggards hold up my business plans.



    [quote]e) don't ever want to see a cli<hr></blockquote>



    You never have to. I don't.



    [quote]f) hate the idea of having any file on their macs that has a Unix-ish name (which is frighteningly similar to the names of files you might see in a typical Wiundows folder)<hr></blockquote>



    Ditto.



    [quote]g) have just spent big in the last 12 months on upgrades but still don't have X versions of all their key apps - upgrade again?<hr></blockquote>



    Classic.



    [quote]To get X flying apple has to win (or force) market share. PC users won't switch as they perceive macs to be old hat - nice looking - but old hat. The alternative is to buy Adobe and Macromedia and cease windows versions.<hr></blockquote>



    Not sure I understand this comment in this context. Apple has to also get their current user base on the new OS. OS X is the "new hat" and Classic is the "old hat."
  • Reply 10 of 45
    Nicely put, BuonRotto.



  • Reply 11 of 45
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    I think it's a great move. It really should push the developers to write their apps for OS X only.
  • Reply 12 of 45
    luckylucky Posts: 50member
    I think Apple should include System 6 on all its new computers so that I could play Dungeon of Doom again. Man that was a great game.
  • Reply 13 of 45
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    From my vantage point I believe this is an extremely shortsighted choice for Apple to make. I really love OS X and I sincerely wish to upgrade my desktop soon so that I can run it full time. (Come on G5!) However, there are a lot of professional users who refuse to upgrade to OS X due to the huge investment in resources they have invested in OS 9. They simply don't want to change. While I realize there will always a backlash to OS upgrades, going OS 9 -&gt; OS X is completely different from going OS 8 -&gt; OS 9. Of course, it is a valid point that eventually OS 9 will have to go. However, we're just barely celebrating OS X's first birthday, so making it the only game in town next year seems quite premature. If Apple is still weighing the options, I think it's highly inappropriate to force OS X at this time.



    [ 08-03-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 45
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Lucky are you kidding!? I want GS/OS back! That was pretty slick eh? Seriously, I have posted rants against OS X, but this can only make OS X better since they have more resources to devote to it. This is a Good Thing? Now hopefully certain companies can follow suit *cough* Quark *cough*
  • Reply 15 of 45
    trevormtrevorm Posts: 841member
    [quote]Originally posted by spooky:

    <strong>what about people who love their macs but:



    a) hate X with a passion



    b) see no reason to get duped into buying yet another "make do" eeked out variant of apple's current ancient (and laughably called "Power") mac line



    c) are desperately waiting for a kick ass pentium killer so they can justify the cahs on a new machine for X



    d) want to run Director, Quark etc.



    e) don't ever want to see a cli



    f) hate the idea of having any file on their macs that has a Unix-ish name (which is frighteningly similar to the names of files you might see in a typical Wiundows folder)



    g) have just spent big in the last 12 months on upgrades but still don't have X versions of all their key apps - upgrade again?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    OUCH!!!!!!!





    <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 16 of 45
    macguymacguy Posts: 22member
    I still run 8.6 on a 6500/275...



    On it right now.



    I used to think of myself as a hard-core mac user until i realized just now that I haven't even seen Mac OS X in action yet...



    Feeling a little out-dated here.



    [ 08-03-2002: Message edited by: Macguy ]</p>
  • Reply 17 of 45
    Apple needs to kill 9 soon or this'll keep dragging on and on. If a developer is not committed to X they don't deserve to be on a mac!



    All new hardware should only boot into X, but classic can run from within.



    They gotta do this soon. If places already have large investments in OS 9 software well then that's fine but if they want new hardware they will then have to make the transition to X completely.
  • Reply 18 of 45
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    [quote]Originally posted by spooky:

    <strong>what about people who love their macs but:



    a) hate X with a passion



    b) see no reason to get duped into buying yet another "make do" eeked out variant of apple's current ancient (and laughably called "Power") mac line



    c) are desperately waiting for a kick ass pentium killer so they can justify the cahs on a new machine for X



    d) want to run Director, Quark etc.



    e) don't ever want to see a cli



    f) hate the idea of having any file on their macs that has a Unix-ish name (which is frighteningly similar to the names of files you might see in a typical Wiundows folder)



    g) have just spent big in the last 12 months on upgrades but still don't have X versions of all their key apps - upgrade again?



    To get X flying apple has to win (or force) market share. PC users won't switch as they perceive macs to be old hat - nice looking - but old hat. The alternative is to buy Adobe and Macromedia and cease windows versions



    isn't it sad that XP seems to be selling like the proverbial hot cakes yet the loyal mac faithful don't seem inclined to welcome X with open arms wholesale?</strong><hr></blockquote>





    [ 08-04-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
  • Reply 19 of 45
    Someone in a related thread had asked how Apple could keep Macs from booting MacOS 9 without modifying the hardware.



    There are alternative ways, like:



    Not updating MacOS 9 to support the new hardware, so that the only way it can run is as Classic, with MacOS X handling hardware details.



    Skipping MacOS-9 support in the new Macs' firmware, so that they are unable to boot MacOS 9.
  • Reply 20 of 45
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Bingo.



    Doesn't anyone remember those System Enablers we used to deal with?



    Every newly released machine shipped with a little patch file that let it run the current MacOS. When the next MacOS version came out, the extension would be rolled into the guts of the system.



    Basically *ALL* Apple would be doing is not producing new System Enabler extensions for new hardware... MacOS 9.2.2 would therefore not run on it.



    That's it. Simple.



    No one is saying that upgrading to 10.3 (or 4, or 5, or 8, or 15...) will suddenly keep your old machine from booting 9 - that's just dumb. They're just saying that *NEW* hardware from Apple may not boot directly into 9. This is just common sense. If 9 has to be updated to run on new hardware, and they're no longer updating it...



    However, because Classic sets up a virtual machine for MacOS 9.x to run in, it would still run in Classic. (Classic provides a buffer between the actual hardware and 9 - as far as 9 is concerned, it's running on a real machine... call it PowerMac Classic. That 'machine' specification will never change, no matter what the actual hardware does, so 9 always runs in Classic.)
Sign In or Register to comment.