<strong>This could be fixed in the Classic/OS X software, and should be. If it is then there shouldnt be a problem switching to OS X, unless it is monitary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not quite. One of the reasons why quark is so entrenched is that there are hundreds of auxilery components made by third party software houses. Even if quark and classic were completely compatible, many large design and publishing houses would still not upgrade.
I hope Apple screws Quark by releasing the next gen Powermac in Jan. Every other Publishing App would be able to run on these machines and Quark won't...
tonton ~ Non OS 9 booting must be tied in somehow to the 970. According to IBM, the 970 doesn't go into production until 2/H 2003. Steve may have been being optimistic in July.
Kid Red ~ I'll say it again, we will get a new G4 with new Mobo in Jan/Feb.
<hr></blockquote>
Although there is much talk about the IBM 970 as being responsible for the non OS9 boot capabilities, it is also quite possible that Motorola has a new chip for MWSF (7457, G5?) that incorporates redesign needed due to bus bandwidth changes (Apple Pi?) in redesigned motherboards, makes it not practical to offer OS9 booting. I'm hoping that this is the case, and we'll see new Macs with extreme throughput in three weeks.
The fact that Apple will offer current model PowerMacs, of which they probably have a good supply of, until June, makes sense. This would be a great way to sell outdated hardware for those that want an outdated operating system.
Although there is much talk about the IBM 970 as being responsible for the non OS9 boot capabilities, it is also quite possible that Motorola has a new chip for MWSF (7457, G5?) that incorporates redesign needed due to bus bandwidth changes (Apple Pi?) in redesigned motherboards...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think threads along this line are just bollocks. Trying to guess whay 9.x booting is going to die is a losing game. Saying it's because of some change in processor, or bus or whatever - you may as well say it's because the the new boards will have USB2, 800Mb Firewire or SCSI 640.
The underlying board cannot be that different that it just breaks the previous OS - certainly there are things that may not be well supported - but fundametally if it's a Mac it's a Mac. This is as true with 9.x as it is with 10.x.
What the issue is, is that minor things will make the machine less stable - there's nothing underlying that 9.x could not overcome. But Apple no longer wants to put any effort into reworking 9.x to be fully compatible with new machines - whereas it is prepared to put that effort into X.
This wouldn't be such an issue if we weren't quite so nervous of taking the X-step - which is a far greater leap of faith than any previous Mac "upgrade".
What is Apple right to do? Probably to put the effort into X rather than 9.x - but I'm personally less than convinced that any real level of finesse can be accomplished with X within the next two years.
"What is Apple right to do? Probably to put the effort into X rather than 9.x - but I'm personally less than convinced that any real level of finesse can be accomplished with X within the next two years."
You saying the next two years are going to be feature splurge and sort out the refinement after that?
Signs are that Jag' is already more refined than 10 was!
However, it won't be as mature as 9 was in two years. Perhaps not. But do we expect Apple to cram in 9 years worth of refinements into a couple?
Personally, I think that in the next two years Ten will have gone much further than we think we the Jag' update is anything to go by...
Lemon Bon Bon
And we'll get a processor revision before New York. Some G4 derived (and derided no doubt... ) affair. Dual 1.4 anybody?
Then why do we care if the new machines are capable of booting into Mac OS 9 wrt Quark?
Steve did _NOT_ declare the death of Classic. Yet. Classic, being a sort of virtual machine, is easier to keep running when the underlying hardware changes than a full Mac OS 9 boot-ability would be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For a bunch of reasons, Quark in Classic wavers from tolerable to barely usable. Depending on one's patience and usage.
Quark in Classic is fine for a transition period (e.g. you're switching to InDesign and need Quark on occasion for older documents, or to open documents that InDesign can't translate well) but not as a full-time solution.
This wouldn't be such an issue if we weren't quite so nervous of taking the X-step - which is a far greater leap of faith than any previous Mac "upgrade".</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's true -- it is a leap, and takes some adjustment, and effort.
It's worth it.
[quote]<strong>What is Apple right to do? Probably to put the effort into X rather than 9.x - but I'm personally less than convinced that any real level of finesse can be accomplished with X within the next two years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Real level of finesse? I think OS X is -- in places -- already far sharper than OS 9. The rest of the rough (in some cases, *very* rough) areas that you & others have pointed out (slower printing, performance lag, odd quirks, open/save dialog glitches, etc.) I strongly believe will be sorted out by 10.3/10.4 (and upgrading to new hardware).
IOW, in the next two years.
The thing is that it's not entirely within in Apple's power to make OS X great. The other critical part is the developers... and the faster the transition to OS X is made, the better the native-X apps will get.
<strong>Let's get used to it. No decent processor until 2nd half 2003.
Lemon Bon Bon </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but what the f*** does that have to do with Mac OS 9 booting???
Hello, I got an e-mail from APPLE AUSTRALIA saying that "some configurations of eMac, iMac G3 and iBook" will boot Mac OS 9 until June 2003. The only thing shocking there is that the iMac G3 will be around another 6 months.
Comments
<strong>This could be fixed in the Classic/OS X software, and should be. If it is then there shouldnt be a problem switching to OS X, unless it is monitary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not quite. One of the reasons why quark is so entrenched is that there are hundreds of auxilery components made by third party software houses. Even if quark and classic were completely compatible, many large design and publishing houses would still not upgrade.
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Who would buy these OS9 booting machines??
People would rather shift to Indesign...
tonton ~ Non OS 9 booting must be tied in somehow to the 970. According to IBM, the 970 doesn't go into production until 2/H 2003. Steve may have been being optimistic in July.
Kid Red ~ I'll say it again, we will get a new G4 with new Mobo in Jan/Feb.
<hr></blockquote>
Although there is much talk about the IBM 970 as being responsible for the non OS9 boot capabilities, it is also quite possible that Motorola has a new chip for MWSF (7457, G5?) that incorporates redesign needed due to bus bandwidth changes (Apple Pi?) in redesigned motherboards, makes it not practical to offer OS9 booting. I'm hoping that this is the case, and we'll see new Macs with extreme throughput in three weeks.
The fact that Apple will offer current model PowerMacs, of which they probably have a good supply of, until June, makes sense. This would be a great way to sell outdated hardware for those that want an outdated operating system.
...
<strong>
Although there is much talk about the IBM 970 as being responsible for the non OS9 boot capabilities, it is also quite possible that Motorola has a new chip for MWSF (7457, G5?) that incorporates redesign needed due to bus bandwidth changes (Apple Pi?) in redesigned motherboards...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think threads along this line are just bollocks. Trying to guess whay 9.x booting is going to die is a losing game. Saying it's because of some change in processor, or bus or whatever - you may as well say it's because the the new boards will have USB2, 800Mb Firewire or SCSI 640.
The underlying board cannot be that different that it just breaks the previous OS - certainly there are things that may not be well supported - but fundametally if it's a Mac it's a Mac. This is as true with 9.x as it is with 10.x.
What the issue is, is that minor things will make the machine less stable - there's nothing underlying that 9.x could not overcome. But Apple no longer wants to put any effort into reworking 9.x to be fully compatible with new machines - whereas it is prepared to put that effort into X.
This wouldn't be such an issue if we weren't quite so nervous of taking the X-step - which is a far greater leap of faith than any previous Mac "upgrade".
What is Apple right to do? Probably to put the effort into X rather than 9.x - but I'm personally less than convinced that any real level of finesse can be accomplished with X within the next two years.
You saying the next two years are going to be feature splurge and sort out the refinement after that?
Signs are that Jag' is already more refined than 10 was!
However, it won't be as mature as 9 was in two years. Perhaps not. But do we expect Apple to cram in 9 years worth of refinements into a couple?
Personally, I think that in the next two years Ten will have gone much further than we think we the Jag' update is anything to go by...
Lemon Bon Bon
And we'll get a processor revision before New York. Some G4 derived (and derided no doubt...
[ 12-17-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>Quark runs inside Classic ok, yes?
Then why do we care if the new machines are capable of booting into Mac OS 9 wrt Quark?
Steve did _NOT_ declare the death of Classic. Yet. Classic, being a sort of virtual machine, is easier to keep running when the underlying hardware changes than a full Mac OS 9 boot-ability would be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For a bunch of reasons, Quark in Classic wavers from tolerable to barely usable. Depending on one's patience and usage.
Quark in Classic is fine for a transition period (e.g. you're switching to InDesign and need Quark on occasion for older documents, or to open documents that InDesign can't translate well) but not as a full-time solution.
This wouldn't be such an issue if we weren't quite so nervous of taking the X-step - which is a far greater leap of faith than any previous Mac "upgrade".</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's true -- it is a leap, and takes some adjustment, and effort.
It's worth it.
[quote]<strong>What is Apple right to do? Probably to put the effort into X rather than 9.x - but I'm personally less than convinced that any real level of finesse can be accomplished with X within the next two years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Real level of finesse? I think OS X is -- in places -- already far sharper than OS 9. The rest of the rough (in some cases, *very* rough) areas that you & others have pointed out (slower printing, performance lag, odd quirks, open/save dialog glitches, etc.) I strongly believe will be sorted out by 10.3/10.4 (and upgrading to new hardware).
IOW, in the next two years.
The thing is that it's not entirely within in Apple's power to make OS X great. The other critical part is the developers... and the faster the transition to OS X is made, the better the native-X apps will get.
[ 12-17-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
<strong>Let's get used to it. No decent processor until 2nd half 2003.
Lemon Bon Bon
Yeah, but what the f*** does that have to do with Mac OS 9 booting???
Hello, I got an e-mail from APPLE AUSTRALIA saying that "some configurations of eMac, iMac G3 and iBook" will boot Mac OS 9 until June 2003. The only thing shocking there is that the iMac G3 will be around another 6 months.
Barto