. . . If the next generation of Mac hardware can?t boot on OS9, is it possible that it could have been ready as early as 2 years ago and just waiting for an operating system? . . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. The next generation of Mac could be made to boot OS 9 if Apple wished to do it. It is simply extra work. So, it is in Apple's interest to drop OS 9 booting as soon as it's reasonably acceptable to Mac customers.
Honestly, how many people do you think are going to absolutely, utterly refuse to purchase new machines because they absolutely, utterly *REQUIRE* 9? (Post-Quark upgrade, of course.)
Now, of those, how many actually have the funds to do so? (Eliminates a lot of legacy educational market - they don't have the funds anyway, not a concern for Apple income.)
Now, of the remaining, how many have machines that are old enough that they *have* to upgrade?
There's just not that many people for Apple to be concerned about losing sales on to risk the ill will of breaking booting on older machines.
Is it technologically possible? Sure. Just about anything is.
Is it *reasonable*? God no.
(Not to mention - assume that they *do* have 10.3 break booting on current machines. There *is* an easy fix... DON'T UPGRADE TO 10.3! If you absolutely, utterly need 9, then you probably aren't running 10.x in any case.)
Actually, I've thought of a perfectly good reason to not change older machines so they can't boot 9.
Steve Jobs isn't against Classic, just using 9 as a stand-alone OS.
With machines in 2003, the CDs which come with the computer will (presumably) have the ability to reinstall 9.
No such luck with older systems, as they use a Mac OS 9 CD to install Mac OS 9. If you lose/wipe a hard drive, there is no way of getting 9 onto it (if you want to run classic) without using a non-flashed computer.
That "investment advisor" wouldn't be Robert Morgan of Apple Recon fame, would it?
--Mike</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, he is indeed the one. According to my knowledge, he contracted a longterm illness which accounts for his later absence. Any connection between his sudden absence and Apple's recent dive in stock prices is purely coincidental.
engpjp
PS - remember how someone found MM's head on the side of the B/W? Nearly laughed my head off on that one!
A while ago, it was rumored that 9.5 was in development as a Classic-only OS. This jives w/the recent announcement.
But, the move to bar OS9 booting (and particularly the announcement) is a marketing ploy by Apple. True, we could see a chip or mobo that doesn't support OS9, but if this news wasn't beneficial for Apple's marketing today, we wouldn't have learned of it until the new HW was released.
By forcing OS9 out of the picture, Apple is firmly committing itself, through actions, to a single OS strategy. Financial analysts and developers, alike, have applauded this and believe it will strengthen Apple's position.
All that being said, I don't see any further marketing advantage being gained by blocking 'older' Macs. The announcement was the big news, it shows commitment. The new HW will be big news too, but, instead of commitment, this will show progress. This will get people to buy.
No. The next generation of Mac could be made to boot OS 9 if Apple wished to do it. It is simply extra work. So, it is in Apple's interest to drop OS 9 booting as soon as it's reasonably acceptable to Mac customers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't implying that Apple couldn't have made the next generation boot OS 9, but that maybe the combination of OSX delays and future marketing (get everyone to OSX as quickly as possible) put them in a position where they felt that they couldn't to back-track.
A very efficient way to get all of your user base to switch operating systems would be to offer new hardware light-years (okay, maybe light-minutes) ahead of the current offering that will only run the new operating system.
Delays can be a pernicious thing. If Apple had planned to release the next gen. hardware sometime in 2001 expecting OSX to be ready, incremental delays may have led them to push back the hardware in small enough increments that it seemed reasonable at the time. A six month delay may not seem extreme, then, oops, suddenly you've had three six month delays.
Again, just too much coffee, stream of consciousness, conspiracy theorizing. But then, I still believe that the woman in the polka dot dress was real.
<strong>By forcing OS9 out of the picture, Apple is firmly committing itself, through actions, to a single OS strategy. Financial analysts and developers, alike, have applauded this and believe it will strengthen Apple's position.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Also, some developers need a swift kick in the keister before they'll go to the trouble of porting their app to Carbon - or, failing that, there needs to be some way to force an opening for a hungier alternative developer to fill a gap.
However, it means there will be a period where the solutions simply aren't available - just as there initially were almost no USB peripherals available for the iMac - and some of those are in traditional Mac strongholds: Large format printing, prepress, publishing (XPress might be coming, but what about all the XTensions?), AppleScript (again, what about OSAXen?), music authoring/editing, and - seriously - HyperCard (and its halo of XTNDs...).
Any situation like this will leave people whose livelihoods depend on the OS 9 versions - or who could switch, but at a high up-front cost in upgrade prices and in downtime while learning the new system - justifiably nervous. It's hard to tell them that theirs is a necessary pain to move the platform forward, but it is.
[quote]<strong>All that being said, I don't see any further marketing advantage being gained by blocking 'older' Macs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't imagine that move generating anything but bad blood. It wouldn't do Apple any good - the work to get OS 9 running on the hardware that's already out there is done and paid for.
<strong>I don't think the engineering would be that much of an issue. Perhaps the new machines only booting into OSX in 03 is more a marketing ploy. By having this requirement, Apple does two things.
1. Encourages more companies/people to make the migration to OSX. Apple gets money from more Jaguar sales.
2. OS 9 users/shops who won't be upgrading to Jaguar in the forseeable future (i.e. heavy Quark Users) who have been putting off getting a new machine (maybe waiting for a G5), now see that a dual 1.25 G4 is the fastest machine they are going to be able to use with their curent software. They buy lots of high end machines now instead of putting off the purchase. Apple gets lots of money from hardware sales.
Just my 2 cents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So when Quark X is announced possibly this year where does your #2 theory stand?
Delays can be a pernicious thing. If Apple had planned to release the next gen. hardware sometime in 2001 expecting OSX to be ready, incremental delays may have led them to push back the hardware in small enough increments that it seemed reasonable at the time. A six month delay may not seem extreme, then, oops, suddenly you've had three six month delays.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess my reply wasn't clear on one thing. To make hardware that does not boot OS 9 is almost a trivial thing. Apple would not have such a change designed into new hardware in advance. So there was not super hardware waiting to be released until now. Also, from the way it is taking place now, you can see that Apple would not do such a things right away with OS X. OS X has to be out for a while, until things are right and customers will accept such a change. Now the time is right and it is easy for Apple to make the change. They even plans to do it for mere preformance upgrades to existing Macs. No big deal. Sorry to bust an otherwise possible theory.
I think this decision is simple. Steve said OS9 is dead, and rather than letting die of "natural causes" they are going to pull the plug! Apple wants to make it clear to developers to focus on OSX, they want their users to migrate completely to OSX. Apple has had no problem in the past to force users to adopt new technology. Apple does not want their to be "Mac OS" and "Mac OSX". They want a single OS strategy and they are going to force that on developers and users.
Honestly, how many people do you think are going to absolutely, utterly refuse to purchase new machines because they absolutely, utterly *REQUIRE* 9? (Post-Quark upgrade, of course.)
Now, of those, how many actually have the funds to do so? (Eliminates a lot of legacy educational market - they don't have the funds anyway, not a concern for Apple income.)
Now, of the remaining, how many have machines that are old enough that they *have* to upgrade?
There's just not that many people for Apple to be concerned about losing sales on to risk the ill will of breaking booting on older machines.
Is it technologically possible? Sure. Just about anything is.
Is it *reasonable*? God no.
(Not to mention - assume that they *do* have 10.3 break booting on current machines. There *is* an easy fix... DON'T UPGRADE TO 10.3! If you absolutely, utterly need 9, then you probably aren't running 10.x in any case.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can answer the first question, any number of larger publishing companies do and probably will be using OS 9 throughout at least the next 12-18 months, and those companies will probably be snatching up every Mac they can toward the end of the year.
The reason is simple, the major software that they, and their clients use is still not supported in OS 9. A number of them are probably still at Quark 4.1 (If I recall it was about 2 years after 4.0's before clients let us work on live jobs in Quark 4.1), and still working on rolling out Quark 5.0 (some type of problem with the way Quark is handeling site licensing now and as far as I know we havent had a client request us to use 5.0), and a few are probably still doing a few legacy jobs (reprints from 3-4 years ago) in Quark 3.32. Quark hasnt even anounced real news on an OS X version, and these companies will need up to a year of testing Quark X with their warkflows, required extension, legacy document, prepress, etc. before it is put into use. Not to mention the training and install time and licencing fees that their IT departments will have to spend to get their systems upgraded.
I'm not just saying this. I work in educational publishing, and have for about 7 years. Projects that we work on are multi-year, and due to their magnitude program versions are "locked-in" at the start. We are getting ready to do reprints on a book that I designed 4 years ago, in Quark 3.32 becouse we hadnt fiinished testing Quark 4. At the time we were still buying up every copy of 3.32 that we could find. This time around we may need to do the reprint corrections in 3.32 again just to maintain file integrety, and that wouldnt be the only 3.32 job that we are working on right now.
My company is not alone, we just develop the production, and software/file names/etc are dictated by clients such as Mcgraw Hill, HRW, Harcourt, Houghton Mifflin, Glencoe and other large customers. The transition to X for parts of the industry working at this scale will probably just be starting 12 monts from now, and not be complete for 24-36 monts.
As slow as these clients upgrade parts of their systems, they are very important to Apple becouse they buy large numbers of computers over the years, and leave the older ones in service as well.
I completely agree that the best tactic in figuring out what apple's next move is, is not to read into things at all. When they say they'll have something revolutionary, they'll have something revolutionary, but simply not the thing that you would most want revolutionized. When they say "starting in 2003, new macs will no longer boot into OS9" that means that whatever comes down the line from 2003 on up, will no longer boot into OS9. It doesn't mean they will release any new hardware at that time; that's not what Steve said. Of course, what fun are rumor forums without reading into everything, anyway?
Some of my software doesn't have available versions for OS X, and a few things that I've always liked, I can pretty much kiss goodbye (although those are mostly older videogames) with my next Apple computer purchase. On the other hand, I could just not ever get another computer for as long as I live, and the industry will simply pass me by without so much as a glance, a wink, a tip of the hat...it doesn't exactly care much for the person not interested in what it has to offer, and it will smash just such a person if it finds that person in its way.
But back to the subject: Apple's got pretty new computers, pretty new monitors, pretty new motherboards, a pretty new OS, and all for a pretty penny. The significance of the body modification would appear to be something which will not go out within 3-6 months, and supposedly all the extra power and vents on it have a purpose which is fulfilled by managing Current hardware, like all those hard drives, 2 optical drive bays. If a loaded system takes up all the juice and all the cooling capability that the new body has, then it doesn't much sound as if they're going to release a new, more demanding processor; and it doesn't sound like they're going to scale up the current ones that much. However....
As for OS X-only booting, it may suggest that they will be taking advantage of that PC-compatible version, and installing Intel or AMD processors which can run it, but clearly can't run OS 9. But what of the Mac version they've had for so long and have continued to develop and support, and no rumored development of many mac-only major editing applications being ported for PC compatibility...so that's not even a possibility for a long, long time, I would think.
Now, if OS 9 boots up on the newest motherboards, and supposedly these latest motherboards are supposed to be "transitional", and therefore used, as-is or only slightly modified, with some newer processor, then it can't be the Motherboard that will be changed in 2003, and which OS 9 will not support. It would have to be something else, since everyone thinks the mobo will stay, and it's confirmed that OS X will be the only bootable OS. What could it be, then? What piece of hardware could not be compatible with OS 9 booting, but still be able to use Classic? Or is it something activated that simply cuts off permission to boot into the old OS, and not persay that any of the components are actually incapable of running it? Odd..
Still, All new hardware as of 2003? That would mean whatever new hardware goes into new macs after that set date, would have to be on All the new computers. The old iMac, and the iBook, are still using G3 processors. The Tibook, new iMac, eMac, Xserve, and Power Mac, all G4s, and yet Something will be changed in All of those systems past New Years...
Well, they can't just upgrade every single one of them to a new, super powerful processor, Can they? That doesn't sound feasible. To me, this simply negates the likelihood of a major processor update at a time concurrent with the discontinuation of OS9 booting. So, that said and done, we're still left wondering What exactly will they be changing, in order to make these systems, whose processors are not likely to be modified ALL at the same time, whose motherboards are exactly in the very same situation, and whose general hardware compatibility is, likewise, probably not going to be changed in such a massive movement, boot Only into OS X. I just don't know. Maybe we should ask Apple.
Who cares if the new Power 5 Powermacs don't boot into OS 9? OS 9 sucks, OS X is where it's at and if you buy a new G5 Powermac to run OS 9 then you've got more important problems to deal with.
I can answer the first question, any number of larger publishing companies do and probably will be using OS 9 throughout at least the next 12-18 months, and those companies will probably be snatching up every Mac they can toward the end of the year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and while they also pass the second test (funds), do they pass the third test (REQUIRE new hardware)? I doubt it, given your last statement:
[quote]As slow as these clients upgrade parts of their systems, they are very important to Apple becouse they buy large numbers of computers over the years, and <strong>leave the older ones in service as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If they don't REQUIRE new hardware, then they aren't going to be in any rush to be buying new hardware. And if they're not buying new hardware, then a) they're not a consideration for Apple at the moment, b) their old units will continue to work just fine for them, as you stated yourself.
The only people this is going to adversely affect, in reality, are those that a) absolutely need new hardware (fastest available, new technologies, etc), b) have the funds to purchase it, c) require OS9 for some reason.
Given all three of those factors, the actual number of customers that this would affect is going to be *tiny* in comparison to the larger market.
In your situation, they need 9 (reasonably so), they have the funds to purchase new machines (I'm guessing), but do they *really* need the latest and greatest machines for it? Apparently not, and they can continue to use their older machines until they have a clear migration path.
Those that need new Hardware every year to maintain the fastest speed generally aren't running too many OS9 only apps(I would guess).
Quark doesn't seem to foster a "gotta have the top Mac every year" rush like Photoshop Pro's. As mention prev. I agree with @ I see some houses snapping up the MDD systems as they are closed out next year Q1 if they know they need speed and OS9 booting.
<strong>Kickaha your post jives with what i've seen.
Those that need new Hardware every year to maintain the fastest speed generally aren't running too many OS9 only apps(I would guess).
Quark doesn't seem to foster a "gotta have the top Mac every year" rush like Photoshop Pro's. As mention prev. I agree with @ I see some houses snapping up the MDD systems as they are closed out next year Q1 if they know they need speed and OS9 booting.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One flaw in your thinking, these big publishing houses also have their Phoroshop Pros that do require newer, faster hardware. These, and on these same computers there is a need for Quark as well (and we are still using Illustrator 8 for most Illustrator work due to the lackluster performance of 9 and 10, as well as printing problems that the newer Illustrator format causes). I would imagine that there will be a rush on high end hardware at the end of the year, or very early in the beginning of next year before Apple cuts off OS 9 from their shipping models.
Comments
Screed
<strong>
. . . If the next generation of Mac hardware can?t boot on OS9, is it possible that it could have been ready as early as 2 years ago and just waiting for an operating system? . . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. The next generation of Mac could be made to boot OS 9 if Apple wished to do it. It is simply extra work. So, it is in Apple's interest to drop OS 9 booting as soon as it's reasonably acceptable to Mac customers.
There are 2 questions:
1) Will there ever be a firmware update to stop older machines booting 9?
2) Is anyone going to care if new and/or current and/or older machines will not be able to boot 9 if the owner is running the lastest version of X?
The answer to the 2nd question is: No.
Barto
Of course not, that'd be asinine.
Honestly, how many people do you think are going to absolutely, utterly refuse to purchase new machines because they absolutely, utterly *REQUIRE* 9? (Post-Quark upgrade, of course.)
Now, of those, how many actually have the funds to do so? (Eliminates a lot of legacy educational market - they don't have the funds anyway, not a concern for Apple income.)
Now, of the remaining, how many have machines that are old enough that they *have* to upgrade?
There's just not that many people for Apple to be concerned about losing sales on to risk the ill will of breaking booting on older machines.
Is it technologically possible? Sure. Just about anything is.
Is it *reasonable*? God no.
(Not to mention - assume that they *do* have 10.3 break booting on current machines. There *is* an easy fix... DON'T UPGRADE TO 10.3! If you absolutely, utterly need 9, then you probably aren't running 10.x in any case.)
Steve Jobs isn't against Classic, just using 9 as a stand-alone OS.
With machines in 2003, the CDs which come with the computer will (presumably) have the ability to reinstall 9.
No such luck with older systems, as they use a Mac OS 9 CD to install Mac OS 9. If you lose/wipe a hard drive, there is no way of getting 9 onto it (if you want to run classic) without using a non-flashed computer.
Barto
[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
<strong>EGNPJP:
That "investment advisor" wouldn't be Robert Morgan of Apple Recon fame, would it?
--Mike</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, he is indeed the one. According to my knowledge, he contracted a longterm illness which accounts for his later absence. Any connection between his sudden absence and Apple's recent dive in stock prices is purely coincidental.
engpjp
PS - remember how someone found MM's head on the side of the B/W? Nearly laughed my head off on that one!
But, the move to bar OS9 booting (and particularly the announcement) is a marketing ploy by Apple. True, we could see a chip or mobo that doesn't support OS9, but if this news wasn't beneficial for Apple's marketing today, we wouldn't have learned of it until the new HW was released.
By forcing OS9 out of the picture, Apple is firmly committing itself, through actions, to a single OS strategy. Financial analysts and developers, alike, have applauded this and believe it will strengthen Apple's position.
All that being said, I don't see any further marketing advantage being gained by blocking 'older' Macs. The announcement was the big news, it shows commitment. The new HW will be big news too, but, instead of commitment, this will show progress. This will get people to buy.
<strong>
No. The next generation of Mac could be made to boot OS 9 if Apple wished to do it. It is simply extra work. So, it is in Apple's interest to drop OS 9 booting as soon as it's reasonably acceptable to Mac customers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wasn't implying that Apple couldn't have made the next generation boot OS 9, but that maybe the combination of OSX delays and future marketing (get everyone to OSX as quickly as possible) put them in a position where they felt that they couldn't to back-track.
A very efficient way to get all of your user base to switch operating systems would be to offer new hardware light-years (okay, maybe light-minutes) ahead of the current offering that will only run the new operating system.
Delays can be a pernicious thing. If Apple had planned to release the next gen. hardware sometime in 2001 expecting OSX to be ready, incremental delays may have led them to push back the hardware in small enough increments that it seemed reasonable at the time. A six month delay may not seem extreme, then, oops, suddenly you've had three six month delays.
Again, just too much coffee, stream of consciousness, conspiracy theorizing. But then, I still believe that the woman in the polka dot dress was real.
<strong>By forcing OS9 out of the picture, Apple is firmly committing itself, through actions, to a single OS strategy. Financial analysts and developers, alike, have applauded this and believe it will strengthen Apple's position.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Also, some developers need a swift kick in the keister before they'll go to the trouble of porting their app to Carbon - or, failing that, there needs to be some way to force an opening for a hungier alternative developer to fill a gap.
However, it means there will be a period where the solutions simply aren't available - just as there initially were almost no USB peripherals available for the iMac - and some of those are in traditional Mac strongholds: Large format printing, prepress, publishing (XPress might be coming, but what about all the XTensions?), AppleScript (again, what about OSAXen?), music authoring/editing, and - seriously - HyperCard (and its halo of XTNDs...).
Any situation like this will leave people whose livelihoods depend on the OS 9 versions - or who could switch, but at a high up-front cost in upgrade prices and in downtime while learning the new system - justifiably nervous. It's hard to tell them that theirs is a necessary pain to move the platform forward, but it is.
[quote]<strong>All that being said, I don't see any further marketing advantage being gained by blocking 'older' Macs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't imagine that move generating anything but bad blood. It wouldn't do Apple any good - the work to get OS 9 running on the hardware that's already out there is done and paid for.
<strong>I don't think the engineering would be that much of an issue. Perhaps the new machines only booting into OSX in 03 is more a marketing ploy. By having this requirement, Apple does two things.
1. Encourages more companies/people to make the migration to OSX. Apple gets money from more Jaguar sales.
2. OS 9 users/shops who won't be upgrading to Jaguar in the forseeable future (i.e. heavy Quark Users) who have been putting off getting a new machine (maybe waiting for a G5), now see that a dual 1.25 G4 is the fastest machine they are going to be able to use with their curent software. They buy lots of high end machines now instead of putting off the purchase. Apple gets lots of money from hardware sales.
Just my 2 cents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So when Quark X is announced possibly this year where does your #2 theory stand?
<strong>True, we could see a chip or mobo that doesn't support OS9,</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sloppy language, that feeds the paranoia.
What you meant to say was "True, we could see a chip or mobo that OS9 doesn't support,"
OSs support hardware, not the other way around.
Try telling that to Micro$oft. ;-)
--
Ed M.
<strong>
Delays can be a pernicious thing. If Apple had planned to release the next gen. hardware sometime in 2001 expecting OSX to be ready, incremental delays may have led them to push back the hardware in small enough increments that it seemed reasonable at the time. A six month delay may not seem extreme, then, oops, suddenly you've had three six month delays.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess my reply wasn't clear on one thing. To make hardware that does not boot OS 9 is almost a trivial thing. Apple would not have such a change designed into new hardware in advance. So there was not super hardware waiting to be released until now. Also, from the way it is taking place now, you can see that Apple would not do such a things right away with OS X. OS X has to be out for a while, until things are right and customers will accept such a change. Now the time is right and it is easy for Apple to make the change. They even plans to do it for mere preformance upgrades to existing Macs. No big deal. Sorry to bust an otherwise possible theory.
Edit: spelling correction.
[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
<strong>
Honestly, how many people do you think are going to absolutely, utterly refuse to purchase new machines because they absolutely, utterly *REQUIRE* 9? (Post-Quark upgrade, of course.)
Now, of those, how many actually have the funds to do so? (Eliminates a lot of legacy educational market - they don't have the funds anyway, not a concern for Apple income.)
Now, of the remaining, how many have machines that are old enough that they *have* to upgrade?
There's just not that many people for Apple to be concerned about losing sales on to risk the ill will of breaking booting on older machines.
Is it technologically possible? Sure. Just about anything is.
Is it *reasonable*? God no.
(Not to mention - assume that they *do* have 10.3 break booting on current machines. There *is* an easy fix... DON'T UPGRADE TO 10.3! If you absolutely, utterly need 9, then you probably aren't running 10.x in any case.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can answer the first question, any number of larger publishing companies do and probably will be using OS 9 throughout at least the next 12-18 months, and those companies will probably be snatching up every Mac they can toward the end of the year.
The reason is simple, the major software that they, and their clients use is still not supported in OS 9. A number of them are probably still at Quark 4.1 (If I recall it was about 2 years after 4.0's before clients let us work on live jobs in Quark 4.1), and still working on rolling out Quark 5.0 (some type of problem with the way Quark is handeling site licensing now and as far as I know we havent had a client request us to use 5.0), and a few are probably still doing a few legacy jobs (reprints from 3-4 years ago) in Quark 3.32. Quark hasnt even anounced real news on an OS X version, and these companies will need up to a year of testing Quark X with their warkflows, required extension, legacy document, prepress, etc. before it is put into use. Not to mention the training and install time and licencing fees that their IT departments will have to spend to get their systems upgraded.
I'm not just saying this. I work in educational publishing, and have for about 7 years. Projects that we work on are multi-year, and due to their magnitude program versions are "locked-in" at the start. We are getting ready to do reprints on a book that I designed 4 years ago, in Quark 3.32 becouse we hadnt fiinished testing Quark 4. At the time we were still buying up every copy of 3.32 that we could find. This time around we may need to do the reprint corrections in 3.32 again just to maintain file integrety, and that wouldnt be the only 3.32 job that we are working on right now.
My company is not alone, we just develop the production, and software/file names/etc are dictated by clients such as Mcgraw Hill, HRW, Harcourt, Houghton Mifflin, Glencoe and other large customers. The transition to X for parts of the industry working at this scale will probably just be starting 12 monts from now, and not be complete for 24-36 monts.
As slow as these clients upgrade parts of their systems, they are very important to Apple becouse they buy large numbers of computers over the years, and leave the older ones in service as well.
Some of my software doesn't have available versions for OS X, and a few things that I've always liked, I can pretty much kiss goodbye (although those are mostly older videogames) with my next Apple computer purchase. On the other hand, I could just not ever get another computer for as long as I live, and the industry will simply pass me by without so much as a glance, a wink, a tip of the hat...it doesn't exactly care much for the person not interested in what it has to offer, and it will smash just such a person if it finds that person in its way.
But back to the subject: Apple's got pretty new computers, pretty new monitors, pretty new motherboards, a pretty new OS, and all for a pretty penny. The significance of the body modification would appear to be something which will not go out within 3-6 months, and supposedly all the extra power and vents on it have a purpose which is fulfilled by managing Current hardware, like all those hard drives, 2 optical drive bays. If a loaded system takes up all the juice and all the cooling capability that the new body has, then it doesn't much sound as if they're going to release a new, more demanding processor; and it doesn't sound like they're going to scale up the current ones that much. However....
As for OS X-only booting, it may suggest that they will be taking advantage of that PC-compatible version, and installing Intel or AMD processors which can run it, but clearly can't run OS 9. But what of the Mac version they've had for so long and have continued to develop and support, and no rumored development of many mac-only major editing applications being ported for PC compatibility...so that's not even a possibility for a long, long time, I would think.
Now, if OS 9 boots up on the newest motherboards, and supposedly these latest motherboards are supposed to be "transitional", and therefore used, as-is or only slightly modified, with some newer processor, then it can't be the Motherboard that will be changed in 2003, and which OS 9 will not support. It would have to be something else, since everyone thinks the mobo will stay, and it's confirmed that OS X will be the only bootable OS. What could it be, then? What piece of hardware could not be compatible with OS 9 booting, but still be able to use Classic? Or is it something activated that simply cuts off permission to boot into the old OS, and not persay that any of the components are actually incapable of running it? Odd..
Still, All new hardware as of 2003? That would mean whatever new hardware goes into new macs after that set date, would have to be on All the new computers. The old iMac, and the iBook, are still using G3 processors. The Tibook, new iMac, eMac, Xserve, and Power Mac, all G4s, and yet Something will be changed in All of those systems past New Years...
Well, they can't just upgrade every single one of them to a new, super powerful processor, Can they? That doesn't sound feasible. To me, this simply negates the likelihood of a major processor update at a time concurrent with the discontinuation of OS9 booting. So, that said and done, we're still left wondering What exactly will they be changing, in order to make these systems, whose processors are not likely to be modified ALL at the same time, whose motherboards are exactly in the very same situation, and whose general hardware compatibility is, likewise, probably not going to be changed in such a massive movement, boot Only into OS X. I just don't know. Maybe we should ask Apple.
<strong>
I can answer the first question, any number of larger publishing companies do and probably will be using OS 9 throughout at least the next 12-18 months, and those companies will probably be snatching up every Mac they can toward the end of the year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and while they also pass the second test (funds), do they pass the third test (REQUIRE new hardware)? I doubt it, given your last statement:
[quote]As slow as these clients upgrade parts of their systems, they are very important to Apple becouse they buy large numbers of computers over the years, and <strong>leave the older ones in service as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If they don't REQUIRE new hardware, then they aren't going to be in any rush to be buying new hardware. And if they're not buying new hardware, then a) they're not a consideration for Apple at the moment, b) their old units will continue to work just fine for them, as you stated yourself.
The only people this is going to adversely affect, in reality, are those that a) absolutely need new hardware (fastest available, new technologies, etc), b) have the funds to purchase it, c) require OS9 for some reason.
Given all three of those factors, the actual number of customers that this would affect is going to be *tiny* in comparison to the larger market.
In your situation, they need 9 (reasonably so), they have the funds to purchase new machines (I'm guessing), but do they *really* need the latest and greatest machines for it? Apparently not, and they can continue to use their older machines until they have a clear migration path.
Those that need new Hardware every year to maintain the fastest speed generally aren't running too many OS9 only apps(I would guess).
Quark doesn't seem to foster a "gotta have the top Mac every year" rush like Photoshop Pro's. As mention prev. I agree with @ I see some houses snapping up the MDD systems as they are closed out next year Q1 if they know they need speed and OS9 booting.
<strong>Kickaha your post jives with what i've seen.
Those that need new Hardware every year to maintain the fastest speed generally aren't running too many OS9 only apps(I would guess).
Quark doesn't seem to foster a "gotta have the top Mac every year" rush like Photoshop Pro's. As mention prev. I agree with @ I see some houses snapping up the MDD systems as they are closed out next year Q1 if they know they need speed and OS9 booting.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One flaw in your thinking, these big publishing houses also have their Phoroshop Pros that do require newer, faster hardware. These, and on these same computers there is a need for Quark as well (and we are still using Illustrator 8 for most Illustrator work due to the lackluster performance of 9 and 10, as well as printing problems that the newer Illustrator format causes). I would imagine that there will be a rush on high end hardware at the end of the year, or very early in the beginning of next year before Apple cuts off OS 9 from their shipping models.