It should save on time and development costs if Apple is no longer making OS 9 enablers for new hardware. It will also make it easier for apple to move to a much different motherboard architecture, because OS X isn't as picky as OS 9 about what it's running on.
Xserve already only boots OS X. I'd imagine the next line of PowerMacs will also only boot X, and the next PowerBooks might do the same thing. The consumer machines may wait a while though.
It's a good thing in the grand scheme of things. People running OS 9 stuff on their current machines can keep doing that if they want. OS X will surpass OS 9 in terms of speed and usability in the near future. Jaguar will be a big step forward and people who are still using OS 9 will fall farther behind.
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>XP is the fastest selling windows version to date.<a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t272-s2119840,00.html"; target="_blank">link</a>
[quote]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! <hr></blockquote>This is exactly the kind of logic that hurts apple. Telling developers and customers what YOU want them to do is no way to grow marketshare. Stop adding features to OS9 and provide compelling reasons to use OSX. I suspect everyone realizes that if microsoft stopped customers from running anything but xp or .net on new machines, there would be blood in the streets.
<strong>This is exactly the kind of logic that hurts apple. Telling developers and customers what YOU want them to do is no way to grow marketshare. Stop adding features to OS9 and provide compelling reasons to use OSX.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Having a schizophrenic OS strategy hurts Apple more. It means more personnel wasted on development, and future support. By that logic, Apple could have a dozen operating systems. They have to use their resources efficiently. To me, the logical conclusion of ths argument is either to ask why they even developed a new OS, or why they don't develop as many as a dozen OSes while they're at it in the name of marketshare?
There are already compelling reasons to upgrade to OS X.
Let's be honest, 90% of the people concerned about this are dependent on Quark. It's not Apple problem that Quark is a company of complacent boobs who are more or less happy with their ancient crusty code and the extreme inertia of the print market. How much should Apple bend backwards due to Quark's incompetence? Granted, it is an important piece of their marketshare. But a lot of these people aren't always using beige G3s let alone the latest and greatest Quicksilvers. I wonder why people come crying to Apple about this and not Quark?
Let's be honest, 90% of the people concerned about this are dependent on Quark. It's not Apple problem that Quark is a company of complacent boobs who are more or less happy with their ancient crusty code and the extreme inertia of the print market. How much should Apple bend backwards due to Quark's incompetence? Granted, it is an important piece of their marketshare. But a lot of these people aren't always using beige G3s let alone the latest and greatest Quicksilvers. I wonder why people come crying to Apple about this and not Quark?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I beg to differ, it is Apple's problem if users are dependent on Quark. If Quark doesn't want to be competitive on OS X, then Quark will simply go out of business. However, if Apple's pro DP customers don't have a native version of Quark, they're going to be reluctant to move to OS X. That is a big problem for Apple. And we're not just talking about Quark. It's really about all of the classic software, classic software plugins and classic experience Apple's user base relies on. Apple has to care about that. If a really hard core OS 9 user is locked out of booting OS 9 and feels slighted because it hurts his or her workflow, it maybe an easier transition to Windows for that individual than OS X. I'm not arguing for backward transitions here, but what I am arguing for is Apple thinking twice before it decides to disable OS 9 booting. It's way too early, and it will have negative consequences for Apple, IMO.
Nearly all my apps are carbonised so I don't really have a problem, I'm running OS X and it's brilliant, but what about all those old apps and games which will never be carbonised, and which don't run under classic? if Apple are abandoning OS 9 they'd better make the Classic environment alot better.
Of course, a third party might make a better OS 9 emulator. I emailed connectix (makers of virtual pc) and suggested this and recieved a reply saying there aren't many Mac emulators for PC available! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Oh well I suppose we don't all have time to actually read emails before we reply.
<strong>I beg to differ, it is Apple's problem if users are dependent on Quark. If Quark doesn't want to be competitive on OS X, then Quark will simply go out of business.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not much Apple can do besides scream until they're blue in the face. It's Quark's product. Apple doesn't control what happen to XPress. And we both know that Quark won't go out of business because no one will dare switch away from their product. People would sooner use 128k Macs running system 6 and XPress than move away from Quark.
[quote]<strong>If a really hard core OS 9 user is locked out of booting OS 9 and feels slighted because it hurts his or her workflow, it maybe an easier transition to Windows for that individual than OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't see how it would be easier to switch to Windows. You either start over or stay in OS 9 on your current hardware. Unless of course Quark actually gets its stuff at least running in Classic.
It should be simple to be able to support the latest OS without shedding tears for what it replaces. The choice is easier for individuals, but tough for the businesses that are running on 8 or 9 and don't have the resources to change everything all at once. Printshops and ad agencies are waiting for Quark because it's what they're used to. (Anyone read the article in this month's MacAddict re: InDesign?)
And we haven't heard from the audio crowd. All the tools are in place to work in OS 9, but are not ready in 10, although I'd expect musicians to be ready to make a faster move to upgrade when the apps are ready to rock and roll.
<strong>XP is the fastest selling windows version to date.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only because many people were forced to upgrade or face penalties. This wasn't upgrading because people felt it was a good product.
This is one of the things that bothers me about those who won't pay for OS 10.2. It is a good product and Apple isn't making you pay for an OS that is largely not improved over earlier versions. You have significant enhancements and new additions, whether they should have been there earlier or not is unimportant, yet people refuse to pay.
Seriously if Apple's upgrade policies bother you you really need to try Microsoft's, where they will force you to buy almost the same product as an upgrade to the version you already have.
<strong>This is exactly the kind of logic that hurts apple. Telling developers and customers what YOU want them to do is no way to grow marketshare. Stop adding features to OS9 and provide compelling reasons to use OSX. I suspect everyone realizes that if microsoft stopped customers from running anything but xp or .net on new machines, there would be blood in the streets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
XP is the 'fastest selling version of windows' because windows is counting OEM sales, not just upgrades.
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For one I still won't touch X with an extremely long bargepole until it sorts out compatibility probems. Hell, OS9 was sh*t enough. 8x was great.
Actually, this thought came up today, while thinking about the rumored IBM Power4/PPC CPU, as a 64-bit chip...
MacOS X is, if not completely, nearly, 64-bit clean already. It's been a big push for the Darwin code lately.
MacOS 9 is most certainly NOT.
So any 64-bit based mobo is not going to be able to boot MacOS 9 without *MAJOR* retooling of 9, which just isn't going to go happen.
I think it's pretty obvious that 9 *WILL NOT* boot onto a 64-bit mobo, or even a 64-bit ready mobo with a temporary 32-bit placeholder CPU.
So don't be shocked if we get exactly the hardware we want one of these days, and on that same day, say goodbye forever to booting into 9.
It's going to happen sooner or later, folks, and the 64-bit changeover is going to be the absolute last minute for it to happen. 9 will not, I'm afraid, be up to the task. Period.
Personally I don't think OSX only booting is a problem so long as the classic emulation (or whatever it is) layer runs perfectly and runs very fast! IF the hardware is up to the task, then no problem. But that's been the major Apple problem of late. Any machine they release should at least run 'classic' mode in OSX about as fast as a 533-733 G4 PM ran OS9.
Kickaha that is a VERY interesting observation. I was wondering about how much of OSX is 64bit ready.
Banana- what compatibility problems are U having?
And finally what's with letting Developers off the hook here? Apple has become some recepticle for whining to some people. Each plugin that you need each app that you buy has support that goes along with it. OSX users should be firing out emails demanding OSX compatability every week for the laggards.
Besides..IMO the industry needs a little shake up. New blood is needed.
When you try to install an app via classic, classic can't see the CD, or removeable media. (or mouting a OS 9 only disk image won't mount).
How can you install Classic without booting from the OS 9 CD?
Alot of the games have updater's to make then run in OS X natively, BUT the problem is that once OS 9 can no longer boot natively, which means that it will be impossible to install the game via classic and then apply the carbon updater.
This will mean the game developers, will need to provider downloadable carbonized installers for there older games, that work with the CD to install the game.
But why are people surprised by this? That's what I don't understand. Maybe it's too soon, though as Eugene pointed out, we don't know when it will happen. But it will happen and we've all known it from the start like so many other things we seem to get complaints about. Too many people have unrealistic expectations and assumptions about Apple.
Comments
Xserve already only boots OS X. I'd imagine the next line of PowerMacs will also only boot X, and the next PowerBooks might do the same thing. The consumer machines may wait a while though.
It's a good thing in the grand scheme of things. People running OS 9 stuff on their current machines can keep doing that if they want. OS X will surpass OS 9 in terms of speed and usability in the near future. Jaguar will be a big step forward and people who are still using OS 9 will fall farther behind.
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>XP is the fastest selling windows version to date.<a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t272-s2119840,00.html"; target="_blank">link</a>
[quote]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! <hr></blockquote>This is exactly the kind of logic that hurts apple. Telling developers and customers what YOU want them to do is no way to grow marketshare. Stop adding features to OS9 and provide compelling reasons to use OSX. I suspect everyone realizes that if microsoft stopped customers from running anything but xp or .net on new machines, there would be blood in the streets.
<strong>This is exactly the kind of logic that hurts apple. Telling developers and customers what YOU want them to do is no way to grow marketshare. Stop adding features to OS9 and provide compelling reasons to use OSX.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Having a schizophrenic OS strategy hurts Apple more. It means more personnel wasted on development, and future support. By that logic, Apple could have a dozen operating systems. They have to use their resources efficiently. To me, the logical conclusion of ths argument is either to ask why they even developed a new OS, or why they don't develop as many as a dozen OSes while they're at it in the name of marketshare?
There are already compelling reasons to upgrade to OS X.
Let's be honest, 90% of the people concerned about this are dependent on Quark. It's not Apple problem that Quark is a company of complacent boobs who are more or less happy with their ancient crusty code and the extreme inertia of the print market. How much should Apple bend backwards due to Quark's incompetence? Granted, it is an important piece of their marketshare. But a lot of these people aren't always using beige G3s let alone the latest and greatest Quicksilvers. I wonder why people come crying to Apple about this and not Quark?
<strong>[SNIP]
Let's be honest, 90% of the people concerned about this are dependent on Quark. It's not Apple problem that Quark is a company of complacent boobs who are more or less happy with their ancient crusty code and the extreme inertia of the print market. How much should Apple bend backwards due to Quark's incompetence? Granted, it is an important piece of their marketshare. But a lot of these people aren't always using beige G3s let alone the latest and greatest Quicksilvers. I wonder why people come crying to Apple about this and not Quark?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I beg to differ, it is Apple's problem if users are dependent on Quark. If Quark doesn't want to be competitive on OS X, then Quark will simply go out of business. However, if Apple's pro DP customers don't have a native version of Quark, they're going to be reluctant to move to OS X. That is a big problem for Apple. And we're not just talking about Quark. It's really about all of the classic software, classic software plugins and classic experience Apple's user base relies on. Apple has to care about that. If a really hard core OS 9 user is locked out of booting OS 9 and feels slighted because it hurts his or her workflow, it maybe an easier transition to Windows for that individual than OS X. I'm not arguing for backward transitions here, but what I am arguing for is Apple thinking twice before it decides to disable OS 9 booting. It's way too early, and it will have negative consequences for Apple, IMO.
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
Of course, a third party might make a better OS 9 emulator. I emailed connectix (makers of virtual pc) and suggested this and recieved a reply saying there aren't many Mac emulators for PC available! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Oh well I suppose we don't all have time to actually read emails before we reply.
Andrew
I need classic (couple of updater/patches are classic apps) but not the direct boot.
As long as Apple can make Classic environment work smooth and stable (and yeah, include the Aqua theme!
<strong>I beg to differ, it is Apple's problem if users are dependent on Quark. If Quark doesn't want to be competitive on OS X, then Quark will simply go out of business.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not much Apple can do besides scream until they're blue in the face. It's Quark's product. Apple doesn't control what happen to XPress. And we both know that Quark won't go out of business because no one will dare switch away from their product. People would sooner use 128k Macs running system 6 and XPress than move away from Quark.
[quote]<strong>If a really hard core OS 9 user is locked out of booting OS 9 and feels slighted because it hurts his or her workflow, it maybe an easier transition to Windows for that individual than OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't see how it would be easier to switch to Windows. You either start over or stay in OS 9 on your current hardware. Unless of course Quark actually gets its stuff at least running in Classic.
[ 08-10-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
And we haven't heard from the audio crowd. All the tools are in place to work in OS 9, but are not ready in 10, although I'd expect musicians to be ready to make a faster move to upgrade when the apps are ready to rock and roll.
<strong>XP is the fastest selling windows version to date.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only because many people were forced to upgrade or face penalties. This wasn't upgrading because people felt it was a good product.
This is one of the things that bothers me about those who won't pay for OS 10.2. It is a good product and Apple isn't making you pay for an OS that is largely not improved over earlier versions. You have significant enhancements and new additions, whether they should have been there earlier or not is unimportant, yet people refuse to pay.
Seriously if Apple's upgrade policies bother you you really need to try Microsoft's, where they will force you to buy almost the same product as an upgrade to the version you already have.
Sorry had to rant.
<strong>This is exactly the kind of logic that hurts apple. Telling developers and customers what YOU want them to do is no way to grow marketshare. Stop adding features to OS9 and provide compelling reasons to use OSX. I suspect everyone realizes that if microsoft stopped customers from running anything but xp or .net on new machines, there would be blood in the streets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
XP is the 'fastest selling version of windows' because windows is counting OEM sales, not just upgrades.
The blood will flow soon.
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For one I still won't touch X with an extremely long bargepole until it sorts out compatibility probems. Hell, OS9 was sh*t enough. 8x was great.
MacOS X is, if not completely, nearly, 64-bit clean already. It's been a big push for the Darwin code lately.
MacOS 9 is most certainly NOT.
So any 64-bit based mobo is not going to be able to boot MacOS 9 without *MAJOR* retooling of 9, which just isn't going to go happen.
I think it's pretty obvious that 9 *WILL NOT* boot onto a 64-bit mobo, or even a 64-bit ready mobo with a temporary 32-bit placeholder CPU.
So don't be shocked if we get exactly the hardware we want one of these days, and on that same day, say goodbye forever to booting into 9.
It's going to happen sooner or later, folks, and the 64-bit changeover is going to be the absolute last minute for it to happen. 9 will not, I'm afraid, be up to the task. Period.
Banana- what compatibility problems are U having?
And finally what's with letting Developers off the hook here? Apple has become some recepticle for whining to some people. Each plugin that you need each app that you buy has support that goes along with it. OSX users should be firing out emails demanding OSX compatability every week for the laggards.
Besides..IMO the industry needs a little shake up. New blood is needed.
When Apple does it: It's for the best.
When Apple does it: It's for the best.
<strong>When Microsoft does it: EVIL!
When Apple does it: It's for the best.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the way. You're picking it up at last
- When you try to install an app via classic, classic can't see the CD, or removeable media. (or mouting a OS 9 only disk image won't mount).
- How can you install Classic without booting from the OS 9 CD?
Alot of the games have updater's to make then run in OS X natively, BUT the problem is that once OS 9 can no longer boot natively, which means that it will be impossible to install the game via classic and then apply the carbon updater.This will mean the game developers, will need to provider downloadable carbonized installers for there older games, that work with the CD to install the game.
[ 08-11-2002: Message edited by: Mac Write ]</p>
But why are people surprised by this? That's what I don't understand. Maybe it's too soon, though as Eugene pointed out, we don't know when it will happen. But it will happen and we've all known it from the start like so many other things we seem to get complaints about. Too many people have unrealistic expectations and assumptions about Apple.