I think he means, what version of Mac OS X will come without Classic installed by default.
That won't happen for a long time, IMHO. Many people depend on Classic apps to get their work done, so it will be at least another year, if not longer, before Apple would even consider removing Classic.
And why? Something like that should have an easy to identify version number.
Imagine this scenario: "Which version is it that doesn't include Classic, again?" Answer: "Oh, um, 1.4, no wait 1.5, I think." Better to make it clear with a nice, round 2.0. Or, better still, a whole new name. Something without Roman numerals in it, please. Like, simply, "Mac OS 2.0" (nobody will think Apple's gone back to System 2.0 in 198?).
wow! Classic really was a dinosaur, what with it's 1800+ years of service as the default mac OS.
How does OSX currently open Classic apps? Perhaps a revision will include a thinner classic client/shell that can't be booted into independently but exists only to run classic apps in OSX ???
How does OSX currently open Classic apps? Perhaps a revision will include a thinner classic client/shell that can't be booted into independently but exists only to run classic apps in OSX ???</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>wow! Classic really was a dinosaur, what with it's 1800+ years of service as the default mac OS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose you already understood this, but I put the question mark in "198?" to indicate that I didn't know which year(s) in the '80s (that's 1980's) we had System 2.0.
Comments
In english, please?
That won't happen for a long time, IMHO. Many people depend on Classic apps to get their work done, so it will be at least another year, if not longer, before Apple would even consider removing Classic.
It doers seem to make the system snappier
And why? Something like that should have an easy to identify version number.
Imagine this scenario: "Which version is it that doesn't include Classic, again?" Answer: "Oh, um, 1.4, no wait 1.5, I think." Better to make it clear with a nice, round 2.0. Or, better still, a whole new name. Something without Roman numerals in it, please. Like, simply, "Mac OS 2.0" (nobody will think Apple's gone back to System 2.0 in 198?).
How does OSX currently open Classic apps? Perhaps a revision will include a thinner classic client/shell that can't be booted into independently but exists only to run classic apps in OSX ???
<strong>
How does OSX currently open Classic apps? Perhaps a revision will include a thinner classic client/shell that can't be booted into independently but exists only to run classic apps in OSX ???</strong><hr></blockquote>
That sounds like a pretty good idea.
<strong>wow! Classic really was a dinosaur, what with it's 1800+ years of service as the default mac OS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose you already understood this, but I put the question mark in "198?" to indicate that I didn't know which year(s) in the '80s (that's 1980's) we had System 2.0.