Jaguar and the future of Classic
I know we are no longer supposed to care about Classic, but I?m afraid it will be with us for a while. The one last feature I' d like to see is the ability to save Classic as a state. As we use it less and less, it seems more and more stupid to keep it running all the time. For the occasional app that needs it, however, turning it off and restarting when needed is a pain. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it saved as a state that would be instant on and off?
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: murk ]</p>
[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: murk ]</p>
Comments
I would like to see it as a set of extensions or something that would allow old apps to run in X so you wouldn't have to actually boot up a new OS at all. Perhaps that's just impossible.
MacOS 9, as a standalone OS, and as a vibrant developer market, is essentially on life support. It will be around, but expect Apple to ditch it ASAHP. I suspect that a soon revision to the motherboards (quite probably the next major one) will dump support for 9. (Or rather, 9 won't be updated to run on it.) So you won't be able to boot into 9.
Classic is completely different... Classic is essentially a simple hardware 'emulator' that is a frozen description. 9 should continue to run inside it indefinitely, where indefinitely is defined as 'until Classic is no longer updated to run on current OS/hardware'. Given the rather clean design of Classic and its interaction with the actual mobo (through the wonder which is IOKit, blessed be it, amen), this should be fine for a number of years, say 3-5.
To get 9 running on a new mobo architecture means a serious set of changes to the underlying fabric of 9.
To get Classic running on a new mobo architecture means... well, not much.
If you were Apple, which would you rather do?
Classic will be around long after 9, as a standalone bootable OS, is toast. At least, that's my prognosis.
<strong>I know people will whine that xyz app isn't over to X yet. I don't care!</strong><hr></blockquote>Agreed.
Apple needs to give developers that haven't switched over yet a real kick in the ass. Jag-wire brings more functionality to many areas including audio, device support, carbon, printing, and many other areas. Developers that haven't released X-native software need to get moving. Now!
I read in Linus Torvalds' book that Jobs had been planning on supporting classic apps in this manner for a long time. By this I mean that unless the whole G4 chip thing was a stopgap solution, it isn't likely that the PPC architecture will be dumped.
Make sense? meh maybe not.
Pres
<strong> Developers that haven't released X-native software need to get moving. Now!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quark? Oh wait a sec. What's that anyway?
[ 05-22-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
<strong>I read in Linus Torvalds' book that Jobs had been planning on supporting classic apps in this manner for a long time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wait... you're relying on a book by *Linus Torvalds* for insider info on what Jobs and Apple plan on doing?!?
Okay, that's got to take the award for most bizarre 'insider' info yet. Of course, the big question is... was it CONFIRMED?
Why? Well can you run pre PPC apps in OS 9? Sure can. Why didn't Apple cut out pre-PPC app support in OS 9? Because that makes no sense. For this same reason Classic will be with us for years to come & I for one am glad because oneday I'll have a new mac that doesn't boot OS 9 (who knows, maybe even as soon as this summer) & I'll want to run an old app or older game (like say Dues Ex).
Isn't that an oxymoron? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Certainly Apple would certainly like OS 9 fade away as soon as possible, but Classic won't be going anytime soon.
What Apple *may* do -- at some point -- is remove, or make much less easy, the dual-boot option... as being able to boot into OS 9 from any machine makes X rather less secure.
<strong>I think many people are eager to see Classic go as some developers (ahem, cough, quark) seem to feel little pressure to develop a OS X native app as long as their app works on OS 9 / Classic.
Certainly Apple would certainly like OS 9 fade away as soon as possible, but Classic won't be going anytime soon.
What Apple *may* do -- at some point -- is remove, or make much less easy, the dual-boot option... as being able to boot into OS 9 from any machine makes X rather less secure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Classic must be maintained. There are some apps that will never be ported, that people will continue to need. One that comes to mind is Cricket Graph. It may be ancient and have a limited feature set, but nothing beats it for easy of use. I don't think my lab can function without it.
<strong>
Classic must be maintained. There are some apps that will never be ported, that people will continue to need. One that comes to mind is Cricket Graph. It may be ancient and have a limited feature set, but nothing beats it for easy of use. I don't think my lab can function without it.
You might want to give GraphPad's Prism a try. It's just as easy as CricketGraph and has some nice built-in stats functions. The current version is Classic only, but they say an OS X version should be out soon.
I have been using X since it came out and I love it... I dont crash anymore but I still use and will continue to use classic and OS 9 because of the present gap between the OS'es ability to function the way you want it to... there is just such a large gap when it comes to running certain apps... and other software which isnt supprted any longer... Sure X is great but its the gap that is the reason any body even still talks about 9/classic...
Maybe they should have just figured how to integrate them better earlier, then this would have never been an issue...
As for murks "saved-state" idea, I fully agree... If you can save the state of VPC, how much more complicated could saving classics state be???? really....
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: FERRO ]</p>
<strong>It seems that some want classic dead? Why would you possibly want to loose fuctionality in your OS
Classic hogs the CPU and RAM big time. Not running classic makes Mac OS X much faster. Classic violates Aqua, leaving Mac OS X inconsistant. Classic is Mac OS 9, and as such if a Classic app goes down ALL the Classic apps go down.
Classic > Developers Use Classic > Users Use Classic > Mac OS X is slower
No Classic > Developers Don't Use Classic > Users Don't Use Classic > Mac OS X is faster, more consistent and more reliable.
If Apple kills Classic it dies, and apps are ported. If they don't, it lives and apps arn't ported.
I reckon within a year Classic will be dead, as developers (even Quark!) will have had more than enough time to port their apps.
Apple will probably start a count-down until Classic's death to speed developers along.
Barto
[ 05-23-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>