FWIW, I work in a marketing dept of a 700 man company. Despite the best efforts of IS FUD, we are still a mainly Mac shop. For a while, it looked like the OS9 to OSX jump was going to be the nail in the coffin that would send Macs packing. Generally, we upgrade every other year (unless there is something really goo about a release) and management didn't want to spend the considerable money required to upgrade every app we have to OSX.
Yesterday, I finally got the VP to agree to spend the cash to begin making the transition to X. Our first move will be to get into InDesign2, then 10.2, then PhotoShop, and finally Office. To defer costs, we'll spread this out over the quarter.
I'm putting this out there because we represent a huge segment of the market: the corporate graphics departments. Since I began my career, the majority of jobs I have had have been in this segment of the market. Because of this, my standards of 'current HW' have become very lax. Our newest Mac is a G4/500, followed by a Yikes.
Despite the 'old' HW, we turn out a shi?load of product. Apple would have to be crazy to stop OS9 booting on the Machines that represent the vast majority of their installed user base. That would be the final nail. I doubt we will be 100% OSX by Jan03. Because of that, we will still need OS9 now and then. Apple knows this and I cant believe they would play a dangerous game like this.
My understanding is that MacOS has a 'white list' of machine IDs that it will boot on. Disabling OS 9 could be as simple as updating the ID and not changing any firmware. (Much as how OS 8.x won't boot on modern hardware.)
RE: Upgrade schedules
The people I know that actually use Macs for production work (as opposed to home tinkering like myself) are more ready to use Windows than they are for OS X. Personally, I think killing 9 this quickly is a suicide move -- so much so that I doubt it will happen.
My guess is that G4 hardware ships with OS X only, but will boot 9 if you are willing to buy it for $129. The upgrade bait will be the G5.
My understanding is that MacOS has a 'white list' of machine IDs that it will boot on. Disabling OS 9 could be as simple as updating the ID and not changing any firmware. (Much as how OS 8.x won't boot on modern hardware.)
....</strong><hr></blockquote>
You've got it backwards. Apple prevents MacOS 9 from booting post 2002 machines by not updating MacOS 9.
Despite the 'old' HW, we turn out a shi?load of product. Apple would have to be crazy to stop OS9 booting on the Machines that represent the vast majority of their installed user base. That would be the final nail. I doubt we will be 100% OSX by Jan03. Because of that, we will still need OS9 now and then. Apple knows this and I cant believe they would play a dangerous game like this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
100% X by Jan 03 is the final nail in the coffin? Yes, many do need 9 every now and then, that's what classic is for. I think a lot of people aren't understanding the fact that the new machines simply will not BOOT OS 9, this has NOTHING to do with classic. Not ready for Jag? Then run all your 9 apps in emulation under Jag, don't see what the big deal is.
100% X by Jan 03 is the final nail in the coffin? Yes, many do need 9 every now and then, that's what classic is for. I think a lot of people aren't understanding the fact that the new machines simply will not BOOT OS 9, this has NOTHING to do with classic. Not ready for Jag? Then run all your 9 apps in emulation under Jag, don't see what the big deal is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problems people are fearing aren't related to Clasic, they are related to hardware, ie hardwware that will not work with X. Good examples are anything with a SCSI interface.
In addition, many AppleScript-based solutions will need reprogramming to run under X, because they either just don't work or the inteface elements that were there previously are not any longer (ie folder actions does not exist under X).
The problems people are fearing aren't related to Clasic, they are related to hardware, ie hardwware that will not work with X. Good examples are anything with a SCSI interface.
In addition, many AppleScript-based solutions will need reprogramming to run under X, because they either just don't work or the inteface elements that were there previously are not any longer (ie folder actions does not exist under X).</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you bought a brand new Mac yesterday, you will have to install a third-party card in your new computer to support such a device. You may also have to rely on your vendor to supply a MacOS X driver for it. Remember that it operates under MacOS 9 only the vendor supplied a driver that supports that OS.
<strong>The problems people are fearing aren't related to Clasic, they are related to hardware, ie hardwware that will not work with X. Good examples are anything with a SCSI interface.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apparently improved SCSI support is a part of 10.2.1, and I wouldn't be surprised if the next OS bump occurs prior to the great OS 9 switch-off and just about sorts this out, given the recent pace of developments from Apple.
[quote] 100% X by Jan 03 is the final nail in the coffin? Yes, many do need 9 every now and then, that's what classic is for. <hr></blockquote>
Kidred, just to be clear, I wasn't referring to the world in general. The IS dept of my company has been actively trying to kill Macs for a few years. When it became apparent that OSX would require us to upgrade all our apps, the mgmt balked. Thats alot of money! I finally got them to upgrade my Mac on a test basis and after months of running X have finally persuaded them to make the leap. It didn't help matters that most of our vendors are just now going to OSX.
As I said, blocking OS9 booting would not be received well at my company or many others like us. The added cost of going to OSX almost brought Dell's in.
I posted my experience because I do work in a production environment (and no we wouldn't rather use Windoze than OSX) and thought it might be relevant.
Because of the upgrade costs, it will be a while until we are all-X and Classic is NOT a solution. Classic works when you just need to do light stuff, but for pro-work, it is not adequate.
As I said, Apple would have to be crazy to block OS9 on anything but the newest Macs at the time.
I'm most concerned that I'll have to upgrade/get new software for OS X only, and some stuff that I've enjoyed won't work anymore! Like dungeon master II or Simcity 3k, and I'll have to upgrade lightwave and some other graphics apps I use. My fear of incompatible accessories and peripherals isn't as great, although if the printer and the scanner and the digicam no longer work on my computer, that would Definitely Suck!
Where did anyone get the idea that Apple will somehow make ALL Macs in existence unable to boot OS 9? That would be crazy...it's not going to happen unless Apple hires a SWAT team to break into Mac users' houses and tinker with their Macs.
Beginning Jan 03, all NEW Macs will not boot into OS 9. That's all that Apple is doing. And if someone loves OS 9 enough to want to keep it, then they can probably handle their old hardware as well. OS X is the future and it's about time that Apple starts forcing it on stubborn Mac users. These users are afraid of change but once they use OS X for a few months they'll be glad Apple forced it upon them.
<strong>Where did anyone get the idea that Apple will somehow make ALL Macs in existence unable to boot OS 9?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what I've been asking!
Apparently it started with ill informed people thinking that if can run Classic, but 9 can't boot on it directly, that it can only be because of deception and greed on Apple's part... which is just plain wrong.
I still think that the grand total number of actual, paying customers with cash in hand to buy new machines, that need new machines, that will be affected adversely by a lack of 9 booting is minimal. I won't say vanishingly small, but close enough. Will there be some? Yes. Will there be enough to be an issue for Apple? I seriously doubt it. Will the benefits of this move outweigh the drawbacks for Apple? I believe so, without much trouble at all.
Just thinking about a post I read elsewhere. The guy said, "what's a graphic designer supposed to do? Get on his knees and beg for a new Mac before January?" Could the pre-announcement of this be a cynical way of moving these boxes? If you are one of those holding on to 9, you better buy now. These are the fastest Macs that will support your OS.
<strong> OS X is the future and it's about time that Apple starts forcing it on stubborn Mac users. These users are afraid of change but once they use OS X for a few months they'll be glad Apple forced it upon them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does anyone else think that forcing your consumer base to do something because "you know better" sounds a heck of a lot like Micro$hit? I for one, and anyone else who is wired like me, find anything forced down my throat to have a bad taste, even if I would have enjoyed it otherwise. Crap like this in the PC world is the reason I switched last year. My safe haven of Apple is starting to follow the Micro$hit business plan. Perrhaps it is me... I am cursed... sorry guys, my fault.
Does anyone else think that forcing your consumer base to do something because "you know better" sounds a heck of a lot like Micro$hit? I for one, and anyone else who is wired like me, find anything forced down my throat to have a bad taste, even if I would have enjoyed it otherwise. Crap like this in the PC world is the reason I switched last year. My safe haven of Apple is starting to follow the Micro$hit business plan. Perrhaps it is me... I am cursed... sorry guys, my fault.
My two cents.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nobody is forcing you to do anything. I have a PowerBook G3 FireWire running MacOS X 10.2. My desktop at work is a 266 MHz beige G3. I bought my home machine in 1996. I want to replace the 1996 machine soon, but I am holding out as long as I can for a G5 or equivalent. That is my choice. Apple has no power at all to force me to do anything.
Currently, my home machine runs MacOS 9.1. My work machine runs MacOS 9.2.2. I still have mission critical applications that run only in Classic, so my desire for the G5 is tempered somewhat. Both my home and work computers will continue to handle my current applications well past Apple's introduction of new machines in 2003. But, by the time I get that G5 (or equivalent), I expect my mission critical applications to be MacOS X native. I will not lament no longer booting into MacOS 9.
It is time to move on. However, you don't have to because no one is forcing you.
Does anyone else think that forcing your consumer base to do something because "you know better" sounds a heck of a lot like Micro$hit? I for one, and anyone else who is wired like me, find anything forced down my throat to have a bad taste, even if I would have enjoyed it otherwise. Crap like this in the PC world is the reason I switched last year. My safe haven of Apple is starting to follow the Micro$hit business plan. Perrhaps it is me... I am cursed... sorry guys, my fault.
My two cents.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple can't afford to keep OS 9 in development forever. If new CPUs are coming out that would require significant changes to OS 9, then Apple should dump 9. Classic will remain, but OS 9 needs to go when it becomes a burden to apple.
Apple isn't exactly forcing OS X on you....you can run OS 9 forever on your current hardware if you like. But if you CHOOSE to buy new hardware, then you've got to use OS X. That's up to you, alternatively, you can choose to use Windows XP.
I was under the impression that the OS 9 unit has been more-or-less disbanded, and its staff reassigned.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. Now that the OS 9 developers are working on OS X, we'll see OS X gain more and more of OS 9's features. Already we are seeing this with 10.2 (SLFs?). 10.3 is going to be amazing.
The problems people are fearing aren't related to Clasic, they are related to hardware, ie hardwware that will not work with X. Good examples are anything with a SCSI interface.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, 10.2.1 patched SCSI up pretty well. There are some remaining problems with Adaptec cards, but the reports I've read assure that the problem is being worked on.
[quote]<strong>In addition, many AppleScript-based solutions will need reprogramming to run under X, because they either just don't work or the inteface elements that were there previously are not any longer (ie folder actions does not exist under X).</strong><hr></blockquote>
OS X has Folder Actions as of 10.2, and you don't even have to have the folder open for them to trigger.
The biggest loss to AppleScript going to OS X are the various OSAXen. Tanaka's OSAX and Jon's Commands can't make the jump over and their authors have balked at rewriting them (Tanaka's is written in 68K assembler!) and those are two heavyweights right there.
They will be replaced by one means or another, given time. The publishing industry depends on AppleScript, Apple knows that full well (all the way up to Steve), and one way or another they and/or another Tanaka or Jon will fill the gap. One early example: A lot of OSAXen sprung up to deal with the fact that Finder in Mac OS was extremely unresponsive, frequently timing out in response to AS commands. Finder in OS X is much more responsive, thanks to a number of things.
Nobody's forcing you to replace all your hardware with the post-2002 stuff, so it's not like all your AppleScripts break on Jan 1.
Comments
Yesterday, I finally got the VP to agree to spend the cash to begin making the transition to X. Our first move will be to get into InDesign2, then 10.2, then PhotoShop, and finally Office. To defer costs, we'll spread this out over the quarter.
I'm putting this out there because we represent a huge segment of the market: the corporate graphics departments. Since I began my career, the majority of jobs I have had have been in this segment of the market. Because of this, my standards of 'current HW' have become very lax. Our newest Mac is a G4/500, followed by a Yikes.
Despite the 'old' HW, we turn out a shi?load of product. Apple would have to be crazy to stop OS9 booting on the Machines that represent the vast majority of their installed user base. That would be the final nail. I doubt we will be 100% OSX by Jan03. Because of that, we will still need OS9 now and then. Apple knows this and I cant believe they would play a dangerous game like this.
My understanding is that MacOS has a 'white list' of machine IDs that it will boot on. Disabling OS 9 could be as simple as updating the ID and not changing any firmware. (Much as how OS 8.x won't boot on modern hardware.)
RE: Upgrade schedules
The people I know that actually use Macs for production work (as opposed to home tinkering like myself) are more ready to use Windows than they are for OS X. Personally, I think killing 9 this quickly is a suicide move -- so much so that I doubt it will happen.
My guess is that G4 hardware ships with OS X only, but will boot 9 if you are willing to buy it for $129. The upgrade bait will be the G5.
<strong>RE: Firmware
My understanding is that MacOS has a 'white list' of machine IDs that it will boot on. Disabling OS 9 could be as simple as updating the ID and not changing any firmware. (Much as how OS 8.x won't boot on modern hardware.)
....</strong><hr></blockquote>
You've got it backwards. Apple prevents MacOS 9 from booting post 2002 machines by not updating MacOS 9.
<strong>
Despite the 'old' HW, we turn out a shi?load of product. Apple would have to be crazy to stop OS9 booting on the Machines that represent the vast majority of their installed user base. That would be the final nail. I doubt we will be 100% OSX by Jan03. Because of that, we will still need OS9 now and then. Apple knows this and I cant believe they would play a dangerous game like this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
100% X by Jan 03 is the final nail in the coffin? Yes, many do need 9 every now and then, that's what classic is for. I think a lot of people aren't understanding the fact that the new machines simply will not BOOT OS 9, this has NOTHING to do with classic. Not ready for Jag? Then run all your 9 apps in emulation under Jag, don't see what the big deal is.
<strong>
100% X by Jan 03 is the final nail in the coffin? Yes, many do need 9 every now and then, that's what classic is for. I think a lot of people aren't understanding the fact that the new machines simply will not BOOT OS 9, this has NOTHING to do with classic. Not ready for Jag? Then run all your 9 apps in emulation under Jag, don't see what the big deal is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problems people are fearing aren't related to Clasic, they are related to hardware, ie hardwware that will not work with X. Good examples are anything with a SCSI interface.
In addition, many AppleScript-based solutions will need reprogramming to run under X, because they either just don't work or the inteface elements that were there previously are not any longer (ie folder actions does not exist under X).
<strong>
The problems people are fearing aren't related to Clasic, they are related to hardware, ie hardwware that will not work with X. Good examples are anything with a SCSI interface.
In addition, many AppleScript-based solutions will need reprogramming to run under X, because they either just don't work or the inteface elements that were there previously are not any longer (ie folder actions does not exist under X).</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you bought a brand new Mac yesterday, you will have to install a third-party card in your new computer to support such a device. You may also have to rely on your vendor to supply a MacOS X driver for it. Remember that it operates under MacOS 9 only the vendor supplied a driver that supports that OS.
My question is: "What has changed here?"
<strong>The problems people are fearing aren't related to Clasic, they are related to hardware, ie hardwware that will not work with X. Good examples are anything with a SCSI interface.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apparently improved SCSI support is a part of 10.2.1, and I wouldn't be surprised if the next OS bump occurs prior to the great OS 9 switch-off and just about sorts this out, given the recent pace of developments from Apple.
<strong>hello
[ 09-11-2002: Message edited by: firelark ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
hi
Kidred, just to be clear, I wasn't referring to the world in general. The IS dept of my company has been actively trying to kill Macs for a few years. When it became apparent that OSX would require us to upgrade all our apps, the mgmt balked. Thats alot of money! I finally got them to upgrade my Mac on a test basis and after months of running X have finally persuaded them to make the leap. It didn't help matters that most of our vendors are just now going to OSX.
As I said, blocking OS9 booting would not be received well at my company or many others like us. The added cost of going to OSX almost brought Dell's in.
I posted my experience because I do work in a production environment (and no we wouldn't rather use Windoze than OSX) and thought it might be relevant.
Because of the upgrade costs, it will be a while until we are all-X and Classic is NOT a solution. Classic works when you just need to do light stuff, but for pro-work, it is not adequate.
As I said, Apple would have to be crazy to block OS9 on anything but the newest Macs at the time.
Can the old OS verions work without the Apple ROM, will they use a Toolbox file instead?
Of course, I'm just a bithering idiot when it comes to Hardware. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 09-15-2002: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
Beginning Jan 03, all NEW Macs will not boot into OS 9. That's all that Apple is doing. And if someone loves OS 9 enough to want to keep it, then they can probably handle their old hardware as well. OS X is the future and it's about time that Apple starts forcing it on stubborn Mac users. These users are afraid of change but once they use OS X for a few months they'll be glad Apple forced it upon them.
<strong>Where did anyone get the idea that Apple will somehow make ALL Macs in existence unable to boot OS 9?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what I've been asking!
Apparently it started with ill informed people thinking that if can run Classic, but 9 can't boot on it directly, that it can only be because of deception and greed on Apple's part... which is just plain wrong.
I still think that the grand total number of actual, paying customers with cash in hand to buy new machines, that need new machines, that will be affected adversely by a lack of 9 booting is minimal. I won't say vanishingly small, but close enough. Will there be some? Yes. Will there be enough to be an issue for Apple? I seriously doubt it. Will the benefits of this move outweigh the drawbacks for Apple? I believe so, without much trouble at all.
<strong> OS X is the future and it's about time that Apple starts forcing it on stubborn Mac users. These users are afraid of change but once they use OS X for a few months they'll be glad Apple forced it upon them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does anyone else think that forcing your consumer base to do something because "you know better" sounds a heck of a lot like Micro$hit? I for one, and anyone else who is wired like me, find anything forced down my throat to have a bad taste, even if I would have enjoyed it otherwise. Crap like this in the PC world is the reason I switched last year. My safe haven of Apple is starting to follow the Micro$hit business plan. Perrhaps it is me... I am cursed... sorry guys, my fault.
My two cents.
<strong>
Does anyone else think that forcing your consumer base to do something because "you know better" sounds a heck of a lot like Micro$hit? I for one, and anyone else who is wired like me, find anything forced down my throat to have a bad taste, even if I would have enjoyed it otherwise. Crap like this in the PC world is the reason I switched last year. My safe haven of Apple is starting to follow the Micro$hit business plan. Perrhaps it is me... I am cursed... sorry guys, my fault.
My two cents.
Nobody is forcing you to do anything. I have a PowerBook G3 FireWire running MacOS X 10.2. My desktop at work is a 266 MHz beige G3. I bought my home machine in 1996. I want to replace the 1996 machine soon, but I am holding out as long as I can for a G5 or equivalent. That is my choice. Apple has no power at all to force me to do anything.
Currently, my home machine runs MacOS 9.1. My work machine runs MacOS 9.2.2. I still have mission critical applications that run only in Classic, so my desire for the G5 is tempered somewhat. Both my home and work computers will continue to handle my current applications well past Apple's introduction of new machines in 2003. But, by the time I get that G5 (or equivalent), I expect my mission critical applications to be MacOS X native. I will not lament no longer booting into MacOS 9.
It is time to move on. However, you don't have to because no one is forcing you.
<strong>
Does anyone else think that forcing your consumer base to do something because "you know better" sounds a heck of a lot like Micro$hit? I for one, and anyone else who is wired like me, find anything forced down my throat to have a bad taste, even if I would have enjoyed it otherwise. Crap like this in the PC world is the reason I switched last year. My safe haven of Apple is starting to follow the Micro$hit business plan. Perrhaps it is me... I am cursed... sorry guys, my fault.
My two cents.
Apple can't afford to keep OS 9 in development forever. If new CPUs are coming out that would require significant changes to OS 9, then Apple should dump 9. Classic will remain, but OS 9 needs to go when it becomes a burden to apple.
Apple isn't exactly forcing OS X on you....you can run OS 9 forever on your current hardware if you like. But if you CHOOSE to buy new hardware, then you've got to use OS X. That's up to you, alternatively, you can choose to use Windows XP.
<strong>Apple can't afford to keep OS 9 in development forever.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was under the impression that the OS 9 unit has been more-or-less disbanded, and its staff reassigned.
SJ told the developers that OS 9 was dead, so I wouldn't be surprised if 9.2.2 was its last-ever iteration.
Not a bad way to go out.
<strong>
I was under the impression that the OS 9 unit has been more-or-less disbanded, and its staff reassigned.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. Now that the OS 9 developers are working on OS X, we'll see OS X gain more and more of OS 9's features. Already we are seeing this with 10.2 (SLFs?). 10.3 is going to be amazing.
<strong>
The problems people are fearing aren't related to Clasic, they are related to hardware, ie hardwware that will not work with X. Good examples are anything with a SCSI interface.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, 10.2.1 patched SCSI up pretty well. There are some remaining problems with Adaptec cards, but the reports I've read assure that the problem is being worked on.
[quote]<strong>In addition, many AppleScript-based solutions will need reprogramming to run under X, because they either just don't work or the inteface elements that were there previously are not any longer (ie folder actions does not exist under X).</strong><hr></blockquote>
OS X has Folder Actions as of 10.2, and you don't even have to have the folder open for them to trigger.
The biggest loss to AppleScript going to OS X are the various OSAXen. Tanaka's OSAX and Jon's Commands can't make the jump over and their authors have balked at rewriting them (Tanaka's is written in 68K assembler!) and those are two heavyweights right there.
They will be replaced by one means or another, given time. The publishing industry depends on AppleScript, Apple knows that full well (all the way up to Steve), and one way or another they and/or another Tanaka or Jon will fill the gap. One early example: A lot of OSAXen sprung up to deal with the fact that Finder in Mac OS was extremely unresponsive, frequently timing out in response to AS commands. Finder in OS X is much more responsive, thanks to a number of things.
Nobody's forcing you to replace all your hardware with the post-2002 stuff, so it's not like all your AppleScripts break on Jan 1.
[ 09-24-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>