Apple To Prevent Booting Into Mac OS 9? 202
A user writes that eWeek reports "A tweak to new models in its Macintosh line of desktop and portable computers will prevent booting into Mac OS 9, sources said, leaving the Unix-based Mac OS X as the sole operating system." That's a great idea, if they want to prevent people from upgrading their hardware, and to future versions of Mac OS X. I hope it's merely a rumor; there's apparently no technical reason for it, so if true, I imagine it is just to force more people to adopt the Mac OS X.
That was inflamatory. (Score:5, Informative)
They have EOLed MacOS 9, and are focusing development on X. They're not breaking compatibility deliberately. They're just not devoting resources to make a dead operating system run on the new hardware.
You'll still be able to use OS 9 from Classic mode. They're just not providing device drivers to boot it.
Chill.
Re:That was inflamatory. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That was inflamatory. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, you CAN"T run software that violated apple's programming guides going back to 1984!
Any software written for the Mac that does those things is software that violates the programming guides.
Software that doesn't runs great on Classic. And I've had a fun time finding the oldest piece of software I can and trying it out. I have software written in 1987 that runs under classic.
Re:That was inflamatory. (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, in the case of audio and MIDI programs, there are many things that you can't do without going to the hardware.
For example, Apple hasn't supported any MIDI IO since they pulled the plug on MIDI Manager in the early nineties. Any software that wanted to do MIDI IO needed to use some third party drivers which reprogrammed the serial chips to the peculiarities of MIDI (e.g. OMS, FreeMIDI).
Re:That was inflamatory. (Score:2)
OS X has native support for Midi. In Jaguar there's a Midi configuration application in the box.
I know people that use midi now, so I don't see how apple is preventing it.
Why is this so terrible? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is this bad? OS 9 development has stopped. New computers won't be able to boot into 9. If you are currently running OS 9 on your computer, who is taking that away from you? This isn't a retroactive declaration that Apple is coming in and removing OS 9 from your computers.
If you are running OS 9 and like it, then you're all set. If you want to run some OS 9 apps still, classic mode isn't going anywhere. And if your favorite software can't run in classic mode and doesn't have an OS X version, then this action might be just the nudge needed to get your OS X version.
mark
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not sure how Apple is going to implement this. They could hack OpenFirmware to not boot OS9, or they could modify the Startup Disk control panel to not display OS 9 devices. Or they could simply not make the OS 9 cds bootable.
But you could still probably use Yaboot/Ybin (the open-source bootloaded used to boot Linux/PPC) to boot into OS 9. I wonder how much Apple would like the Open Source community then?
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Apple can make modern hardware look like a generic Mac under MacOS X then they only have to port MacOS 9 once and never spend engineering resources on enablers. They'll still do this for MacOS X, but thats where they plan to make money and gain market share.
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:2)
t.
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:1)
This is really about Apple forcing people to upgrade . If OS 9 lacks a driver for a newer piece of hardware, so be it. But I highly doubt that OS 9 could actually damage your hardware.
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact I am right now listening to the scsi [sf.net] session of the OSDN/Usenix Kernel Summit [sourceforge.net] and they are talking about their concern of spinning too many scsi devices up at once since it could spike your power supply and fry it.
t.
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not entirely true: Windows 95 refuses to load on my AMD Athlon 1700+ on a motherboard with VIA chipsets while it works perfectly on an Intel Pentium MMX 166 on a motherboard with Intel chipsets.
I assume that the VIA chipsets are causing Windows 95 to crash since it has very limited support for non-Intel chipsets.
- James
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:4, Interesting)
Go figure...
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:2)
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:1)
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:2)
You're missing a very real likelihood here which is that some older software that people still use, rely on, or enjoy may no longer be supported by its developers. I can think of lots of older games that have no chance of being ported to OS X because the companies that made them have since moved on. Specifically, in my case, I can cite Marathon which I still love playing from time-to-time. Bungie, now permanently attached to the Evil Empire, has no plans to carbonize Marathon. Last thing I heard was that applications couldn't access hardware directly via Classic, so unless Apple figures out some brilliant way to get around that, then users of older software that do access hardware directly (like many games) are out in the cold. Given that Apple has traditionally allowed for compatibility going way back, this would be an uncharacteristic move on their part.
I have a feeling that some changes will be made to the Classic mode to allow for these kinds of things (or I hope.) I can't possibly imagine that someone at Apple would think cutting off access to OS 9 completely like this would be a good idea. If they did that, effectively rendering any given company's software investment virtually worthless, they would open the door for people to jump to Windows (hell, if you have to re-purchase all your software anyway... why not?) Think people won't jump to Windows if Apple fucks them over? I don't think it's a gamble Apple wants to take, and I hope they wouldn't be unwise enough to force customers into such an undesireable position.
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:1)
While I don't know if it has been carbonized, it satisfies my OS X'thon needs. *grin*
As far as the original topic, I know way too many people that aren't willing to go to OS X until EVERYTHING they need for it works perfectly, without having to open classic. I too hope Apple doesn't do this. (Yes, i do see the message it sends to developers, by the way)
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:1)
Well, with all the Windows people switching [apple.com] to Macs, it'll probably be a wash anyhow ;-)
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a LOT of software back from when I first got a PowerMac 6100 running System 7.5.5 that wont run in OS 9... it wouldn't even run in OS 8!
We have an old PowerMac 7100 at work with a 266G3 upgrade. We installed Mac OS 9.1 on that machine, but 9.2 wont install. And this is no different than if I tried to install OS 8.0 in this G4... I'm sure it wouldn't run, and I couldn't even boot it from a CD. I've tried it.
At some point you have to give up on old software. Every OS upgrade breaks something, and unless the software developer fixes it you are out of luck.
If someone really needs to run OS 9, keep the machine you have ... this is why I still have my old Mac Clone (and also to run LinuxPPC, and it used to run BeOS... but what's the point?).
The only time I run 9 on my G4 is for CubaseVST, and sometimes if Quark is acting up in Classic. As soon as CubaseSX is out, that's it for 9!
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:1)
i'm in the same boat, i have software the only barely runs in OS 8 and refuses to run in 9. about a month ago i was feeling dangourus, and i opened it under classic. it works FINE, i was pleasantly surprised
Re:Why is this so terrible? (Score:3, Informative)
Aleph One
So, you can run that on almost any modern OS, as long as you have the original marathon data files
http://source.bungie.org/ [bungie.org]
(OSX version is available!)
Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:1)
My understanding is that applications have to be recompiled (and possibly modified) to run natively under OS X. Most major applications now have native OS X versions, but there are a lot of older programs that don't. To run those applications, you have to run OS 9, which is why OS 9 is included when you buy OS X. Now what I don't follow completely is whether you can somehow run OS 9 and OS X at the same time, or if you have to reboot to switch between native and legacy applications.
Can someone enlighten me?
Re:Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:2, Informative)
mark
Re:Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:3, Informative)
You're overstating the situation. The Carbon API is a subset of the ancient (in computer terms) Mac OS Toolbox APIs. You don't have to "re-write" applications, but you may need to modify them if you were using Toolbox APIs that are not included in Carbon.
There have been many cases of Classic applications being Carbonized without changing any code at all. Granted, those were some fairly small applications, but the point holds just the same.
Re:Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:1)
mark
Re:Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:2)
Re:Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:1)
mark
Re:Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:2)
Like what, exactly? We all know that the Carbon libraries were incomplete in 10.0 and 10.1, but what about now?
Re:Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:3, Informative)
Is Cocoa Better than Carbon?
The short answer is no. The Cocoa and Carbon APIs both call functions in the Application Services and Core Services layers of Mac OS X. Contrary to what some people think, Carbon APIs do not call Cocoa APIs. There is no more overhead in calling Carbon APIs than there is in calling Cocoa APIs. The long answer is that if you were going to start writing a new application in a language such as C or Java, and you were only concerned with your application running on Mac OS X, you might choose to learn the Cocoa APIs because they are a higher level API than Carbon. Most Mac developers want to utilize the large base of code they have written over the years as well as their knowledge of C or C++ so they are likely to stick with Carbon rather than learn Objective-C and rewrite their code using the Cocoa APIs.
Can applications that use Cocoa do more things than applications that use Carbon?
The short answer is no. The Cocoa and Carbon APIs both call into the same parts of Mac OS X. However, there is a small set of functions that Apple has not yet made available to Carbon simply because they weren't needed for Mac applications to be made native on Mac OS X. The reverse is also true. There is a small set of functions that Carbon applications can access on Mac OS X that Cocoa-based applications can't simply because Cocoa applications didn't need them because they weren't used to having those functions anyway. Apple is working to reduce these differences to zero.
Are Cocoa-based applications "more native" than Carbon-based applications?
No. Both Cocoa and Carbon call into the same parts of Mac OS X. Cocoa applications are no more or less native than Carbon applications. The Carbon APIs are newer to Mac OS X than the Cocoa APIs and as a result there may be more problems with them in the short term than there are with Cocoa but that is a problem that Apple will solve.
Re:Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:2, Informative)
I haven't done any Cocoa programming, but it sounds like writing a Cocoa app is way easier with Objective-C (or can be done in Java as well) and the tools provided than Carbon apps.
Of course the Real Basic page doesn't mention the Cocoa programming advantages because they claim their own product that they want to sell you is the easiest.
Not Earth-shattering stuff, but I feel like Cocoa is the best place to end up for any program at some point down the road.
mark
Re:Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:5, Interesting)
This article is just plane wrong.
Yes, you can do things with cocoa that you can't with carbon. Carbon has sufficient aaccess to the machine to do all the important things you want to do-- but cocoa is a whole different way of working, and it is much superior to carbon.
Yes, Cocoa applications are MORE NATIVE than carbon. Cocoa is the development environemtn Next made...
Use Cocoa. They are not equivilent. Carbon is great if you need to move a lot of old mac os code over, but otherwise, you should use cocoa. In the areas where you need to call carbon apis (because apple moved the stuff over rather than rewriting it, like quicktime) you can... no problemo. But cocoa is a lot better.
And more native.
And provides things you cannot do in carbon, no way, no how. (Like delegation, protocols, nibs, and categories are glorious.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:2)
Probably nothing, but that's not the point; you can do anything computable with any Turing-complete language, but nobody's advocating writing all software in assembly. In terms of developer productivity, Cocoa is *much* better than Carbon, as well as every other API I've seen.
That article is written by the CEO of RealBasic, a Carbon-based RAD tool, so he naturally sees Cocoa as a threat and is hardly going to be an impartial source of information.
Re:Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:2)
Carbon is around for the long haul, but its not the preferred platform.
New stuff should and will be developed in cocoa-unless you're a diehard fanatic of the toolbox. Even for diehard fanatics, cocoa is a much faster development environment.
Cocoa, and specifically, Objective-C based cocoa is the preferred platform. Java/cocoa when you need cross platform, or carbon when you're porting an older mac app.
You can access carbon apis from cocoa, no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:1)
Re:Stupid user: Explain to me (Score:1)
WINE Is Not an Emulator
WINE is more equivalent to Carbon
I can understand this, (Score:3, Informative)
Second, it will in the long run cut down on their support costs. "Officially" supporting two operating systems is more expensive than supporting one. In the short term they will have to do this, but at some point they'll be able to cut back on MacOS Classic support.
Third, it may allow them more freedom in hardware design. MacOS Classic has often required enabler extensions to run on new hardware. MacOS X obviously needs some level of tweaking as well. If they can relegate Classic to running in a stable virtual Mac running under MacOS X its a win for Apple. They can concentrate on making MacOS X, their actual breadwinner, run better and halt development on MacOS Classic.
Mac OS 9 is Dead... So who cares? (Score:3, Informative)
Just like Mac OS 7/8 will not boot on current Mac hardware. I know, I've tried. I use a much older Mac (Quadra 700) to play some really old games (Pax Imperia) that no longer work properly in Mac OS 9.
So, what's the big deal?
Re:Mac OS 9 is Dead... So who cares? (Score:2)
This to me says they didn't do a good enough job on Classic for what it is supposed to do, which is to transition consumers to OS X while they wait for software makers to update their software to OS X native.
Re:Mac OS 9 is Dead... So who cares? (Score:1)
Yeah, Apple should really make sure their stores (real and virtual) are only stocked with software that can either run natively in X or work in Classic. It's a bit odd for Jobs to talk about the death of MacOS 9 and then visit a store in Soho that has 9-only titles in it.
Re:Mac OS 9 is Dead... So who cares? (Score:2)
While it is certainly true that a lot of software is still being sold that is OS 9 only, that number is shrinking every day. We see more and more Carbon apps that are 9/X as well as X-only applications every day. The most recent version of MS Office _only_ runs in X.
Regardless of when you bought it, that version of qbert was probably written so that it'll run on OS 8 or 9... and was probably originally written before X was releasd to the public (or developers). There are some games that do not run in Classic or X, but that's because they try and access the hardware directly... which occasionallly leads to problems. Conversely, there are many games that are carbonized and X-native.
I almost wish that the "press' had never reported on Apple's announcement that "OS 9 is Dead"... it's dead as far as developers are concerned. As time goes on, it will be dead for consumers as well.
Re:Mac OS 9 is Dead... So who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is ridiculous FUD to me because most likely someone will create a hack to make the systems run OS 9. Hell, I have OS X running on a Umax S900 Mac clone using software created by OWC's Ryan Rumpel ( http://eshop.macsales.com/OSXCenter/ )
And as for the pricing of Jaguar...Since OS X's initial release it has had 10 upgrades (10.0-10.0.4 then 10.1-10.1.5) given to users for free or at a minimal cost of $20. Apple has charged for major upgrades since System 7. Jaguar is no different, quit whining. The only thing that has changed here is Apple's numbering scheme. Jaguar IS OS X 10.5 but they aren't calling it that. Why? because they want to keep the name OS X as long as possible. It's a cool name and it markets well, a hell of a lot better than OS XI. I imagine we'll see OS X 10.2.1-10.2.5 too...then we'll pay $20 for OS X 10.3...and 10.4 will be a full priced upgrade...get it now??? Just because a company changes it's numbering scheme doesn't mean that your getting ripped off here....look at what's included in the upgrade and then decide to yourself if this is a one point release or a major release....then....
Please people, chill out, sit back and see what happens...then get upset if you need to..worrying without the facts is silly.
Apple knows one thing: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Apple knows one thing: (Score:2)
No, Apple forces them to change, which is just not right. Perhaps if Apple examined the reason that people haven't been upgrading, they might clue into whether or not this is a good thing.
My personal suspicion is that most people haven't upgraded because they're very happy with the way things work right now, except for the speed (speed is always good). Most of the OS9 apps are very stable and don't require much in the way of upgrading.
Forcing change on the users is not a good thing. Let them come to the realization themselves, give them all the incentive in the world to do so, but never force.
Not forced (Score:2)
I.e. if you have to be able to boot to OS9 then don't buy a new machine! (Or if you do then keep your old one around as well).
QED
Re:Apple knows one thing: (Score:2)
It's also not uncommon for minor changes in OS 9 to break certain applications or drivers. I've got some older software that will not run in anything newer than System 7.6, and I've got a couple of things that worked in the first releasse of 9 but don't work well under 9.1 or 9.2.
Removing the ability of new machines to boot into OS 9 is a logical progression in the "coming out" process of MacOS X. At some point in the future, the classic ennvironment will likely disappear altogether. MacOS X is only going to get better as time goes on... look at the improvements that have been made since the Public Beta was released.
All in all, if this is true, it's a good thing for the Macintosh community. It will encourage developers to finish porting their applications to X .
I have not booted my PowerBook into OS 9 in well over a year and that was only for a few minutes. I've been running OS X since the Public Beta and have been running it fulll time since March 24, 2001 or whenever the full version came out. I've got a 2000 Series PB G3 (the one with the bronze keyboard and dual firewire ports and a 400 Mhz processor). I've experienced a few glitches here and there, but nothing to make me want to go back to OS 9.
Re:Apple knows one thing: (Score:2)
I agree with this and I'll explain why I feel this was a good move.
Before I bought my G4 I had a PowerCenter clone, and an old Apple StyleWriter Pro printer. Part of the reason I still had that printer was the fact that it was getting hard to find Mac compatible (serial) printers. Also they cost more! I also wanted a new MS Intellimouse Optical, because my old Logitec Wireless Mouseman wouldn't work with OS 9.
So I bought a $50 USB card and got an Epson USB printer.
When I got my new G4 all this stuff worked. It made me realize that now we have more choices in peripherals than before ... just get almost any USB printer or mouse.
No, Apple sometimes reverses itself (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite. The flack Apple received was not really over the floppy itslef, it was over the complete lack of writable removable media in the early iMacs. People did not eventually agree with Apple, Apple reversed itself and eventually equipped some iMacs with removable writable media, CD-R, and later CD-RW. The original Apple line that all people need is ethernet was a cover story for the fact that rev A iMacs with CD-R would have been too expensive.
Compare and Contrast (Score:1)
Re:Compare and Contrast (Score:1)
Re:Compare and Contrast (Score:2)
And also, Apple has to support the warranty on the new hardware on the off chance that an untested old version of MacOS fries the hardware or nukes the hard drive. Do you honestly expect them to continually make sure that MacOS 9 is compatible with every new release of hardware? Do you think Microsoft tests Windows XP on your 5 year old Dell?
And also, the Windows 95 link you have there is a different situation, that's about microsoft no longer making their most current libraries available for windows 95. A completely sensible thing to do, but assine to do without ample warning time of the change.
t.
Re:Compare and Contrast (Score:2)
We already know that OS X doesn't run on 5 year old Macs.
Its running just fine on my SEVEN year old PowerMac 9500.
The problem is that Apple is just not going to constrain future hardware by legacy OS stuff.
Mcirosoft has spent 10 year moving people to os that is "modern" so that tehy don't ahve this problem.
Apple did it in one OS release. thats' the only diffrence.
Painful for VARs (Score:2, Interesting)
To stay in bisiness, we need to buy components to build our systems.
If we can't boot into OS 9, we can't get at the hardware. Sure, we can re-write our drivers for OS X, but it is going to be a pain to reverse engineer our card vendors' libraries.
Re:Painful for VARs (Score:1)
the real question... (Score:1)
Re:the real question... (Score:1)
I don't think Apple is so stupid as to release full upgrades on a 4 or five month release schedule.
Re:the real question... (Score:2)
I doubt it. Apple usually releases a new OS once a year and an update six months later for free.
So it was like 8.0-8.1, 8.5-8.6, 9.0-9.1, 10.0-10.1, 10.2-10.x
You pay for the first one, and get the next one either free, or for $19.95 with a coupon (like I did with 9.1)
Re:the real question... (Score:2)
Exactly. i think they wanted to get OS X out sooner than later. I had no problem with a few things missing, I could always boot back into OS 9, and I was used to using BeOS and Linux, both of which are less polished than OS 9.
So Apple had a lot of small bug fixes along the way.
i don't personally have any complaints about paying for 10.2. i bought a new mac with 10.0.4 on it and got 10.1 for free. my father however just paid $130 for 10.1 3 months ago, and is now expected to pay another $130 for 10.2. sure, he doesn't have to buy it, but the principle of the thing sucks.
I agree that does suck. When I bought my Mac it came with 9.0.3, so I've done three upgrades so far. 9.1 was $19.95, and I paid for 10.0. I think Apple needs to make some kind of discount for people who bought 10.1 within five months or so.
I'm pretty sure 10.3 will be a paid upgrade. so, is pinot 10.3? if so, it's looking like it's going to be unveiled in January. i suppose that doesn't automatically mean it's going to be RELEASED then.
I think pinot is too soon to be a paid upgrade. The way Apple has always done it is to follow up a major paid release with an update about six months later. I think it will be 10.2.5, or somthing like that. 10.2 is early, but January is too soon for another paid upgrade, unless they are getting greedy! Still, it's nice to have more progress sooner. We could have to wait more than two years between updates like Windows users. ;)
This isn't really news. (Score:3, Informative)
This is not news. It is how it has always been.
Re:This isn't really news. (Score:1)
Of course, this is just from the viewpoint of a Mac Gamer, and this lockout won't affect currently shipping machines, but it sounds like a machine bought next year won't run any old game that isn't Classic compatible, which would likely include most 3D games.
Re:This isn't really news. (Score:2)
Warcraft three runs perfectly fine under OS X.
Hell, I switched to X full time over a year ago and haven't missed it. All the games I care about, Quake 2, 3, Wolfenstein, Warcraft, run fine under it... so does everything else I need to use.
I can understand people who are taking their time upgrading older macs to OS X. but you buy a new mac and you get os x, you shouldn't complain-- you're getting a much better computer. IF your game doesn't work in X, keep your old mac around, to run the game.
Re:This isn't really news. (Score:2)
When System 7 was released all of the new Macs couldn't run System 6 (including the LC 475 I bought). Police Quest won't run properly in 7, so I had to keep my old Mac Plus.
This may suck, but its nothing new.
This article is moronic. (Score:3, Insightful)
For the non-expert mac users, let me explain.
MacOS only boots motherbords it was designed to support. Mac Mobos aren't like PCs, they change (sometimes significantly) with each model. Virtually everytime a new mac comes out, Apple has to tweek the OS to run on it correctly. That's why new macs always ship with the brandspankingest new version of MacOS: because that's the only thing that will boot on it.
All this really means is that Apple isn't going to continue tweeking MacOS 9 for new hardware.
That's no surprise, they said they were stopping development on it months ago.
Since every Mac knows in it's ROMs what the lowest version of MacOS it can boot is, these new macs will refuse to boot MacOS 9. Just like how you can't run System 7.5.5 on a classic iMac, but you can run OS X.
terrible! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:terrible! (Score:1)
Mod Parent Up. (Score:1)
Re:terrible! (Score:2)
The sad thing here is that it will actually run!
Re:terrible! (Score:2)
Grudgingly, I upgraded to 6.0.8 (ugh, I just hate the inefficiency of MultiFinder!)
Feel free to turn it off, then. Or bet yet, use MiniFinder. It's not like you had to go to something only 11 years old like System 7.0.
Never in my life (Score:2)
No dual boot? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:No dual boot? (Score:2, Informative)
Some points. (Score:5, Insightful)
First off this story's premise flat out WRONG. Apple is not going tweak the hardware to prevent OS 9 from running. Apple doesn't work that way-- hell they went out of their way to make OS X work on machines that aren't officially supported (like my 9500) by providing drivers for hardware they haven't shipped yet.
OS 9-- and OS's 8 all the way back to the original Macintosh contain hardware specific code. Whenever Apple released a new version of the hardware, they'd release an extention to the OS to support it. So, it was very common to have hardware that couldn't run some versions of the OS without extensions.
All apple is doing is that going forward, they are not going to constrain their hardware by the design assumptions of OS 9. OS 9 is 1984 technology and assumes its in control of the hardware. Under OS X the hardware is far more abstracted.
So, Apple is going to design its hardware to run OS X and not *worry* about OS 9. Given the way Apple migrates its computers, if there's some controller chip for which 9 is not compatible, it will still take a year before the whole line is refreshed and os 9 will likely run on those new machines that don't yet have the controller chip, while it doesn't run on other new machines with the newer controller chip-- even though none of them are "officially supported"
The reason windows 95 runs on current hardware is that there has been no innovation in PC hardware. Clock rates have gone up, but nothing new has been done.
Finally this article is full of errors large and small (the coffin was not rolled onto stage-- why include a detail like that to make us think you were there and not making it up, and then get it WRONG?)
That a newspaper publisher in florida is stuck on 9 is NOT news. Check out "Crazy Apple Rumors Site" for a great parody of this kind of reporting.
It will take time for all the applications to migrate, but OS X is clearly moving in the right direction.
To characterize this as apple "tweaking" teh software so it won't run on hardware is to flat out lie about what's going on, and is unfair as well.
This is the kind of bullshit reporting that mac users have to deal with-- if its not claiming that apple is bankrupt when they have $5 billion in the bank, its claiming that apple or steve jobs go out of their way to annoy people, when in fact there's a much more plausible business decision behind it. This is a great example of the idiots at eWeek not understanging anything about how OS 9 works and how hardware is designed and integrated with the OS.
Re:Some points. (Score:2)
Where by "havent shipped yet" I meant "haven't shipped for a long time".
Doh!
Fan the flames... (Score:2)
Man, this latest "Apple will use x86 chips eventually" sure has some legs.
Re:Some points. (Score:3, Insightful)
PC hardware today ships with USB2, FireWire, AGP, much improved disk controllers, 100Mb and Gigabit Ethernet, graphics accelerators, new power management hardware, accelerated audio hardware, and lots of other stuff. Windows 95 knows nothing about most of these.
The reason why you may be able to install Windows 95 on new PC hardware is because, for better or for worse, a lot of that hardware has backwards compatibility modes and because Microsoft does, in fact, support their software for many years beyond when it is discontinued.
Apple evidently doesn't worry as much about backwards compatibility in their hardware. That may be fine, too, for Apple's market. I am glad to see Mac OS 9 go, which was an antiquated and unreliable system that should have been retired a decade ago, and it's the first thing I removed from my OSX-based Mac.
But your assertion that the PC hasn't innovated except for faster clock speeds is just completely off the mark. Quite to the contrary, a lot of the PC innovations have been picked up by Apple--much of the Macintosh platform is now a well-designed, high-end PC that happens to have a PowerPC for its processor. As a Mac user myself, I often feel that one of the worst things about the Mac is the large number of zealous but uninformed users that hang on to it.
Re:Some points. (Score:2)
Huh? I responded to a direct quote from you; your claim that "there has been no innovation in PC hardware" is completely bogus.
Re:Some points. (Score:2)
Yeah, I love that you cite Firewire, an Apple invention, as proof of "innovation in PC hardware".
That's great.
Re:Some points. (Score:2)
Re:Some points. (Score:2)
Firewire IS an Apple invention. Firewire was invented by apple, and released to the IEEE standards process. Firewire is a trademark of Apple, and was employed on apple hardware before Sony adopted it.
USB is quite different- it is not a fast serial bus (not even 2.0 is even, as its not close to firewire speed).
Firewire is a clear, in FACT, Apple invention. To claim you were using it as a "General term" is silly.
Re:Some points. (Score:2)
I've written Matt Rothenburg directly a number of times trying to correct him on errors and misrepresentations he's made. From the simple mistakes to the serious gaffs, he has turned out to be not only unwilling to learn the necessary technology, or read the relevant material-- but to be completely without care for accuracy at all.
He's make this point explicit. He doesn't care, his only goal is to sell page views.
That he has written for MacWeek doesn't tell you that he knows squat about what he's writing about, or technology in general. In fact, to this date I've yet to meet anyone who writes for a living (other than tech manual writers) who knows technology-- usually if you're competent, you get a better job working with technology than writing about it.
Sorry, you can write for Mac Week, you can claim to be a mac fan, but when you screw up-- AND you don't care about the fact, then you get no slack from me-- you might as well be a windows zealot.
Hell, the first time I wrote him he was complaining because Apple hadn't kept the "commitment" to ship system 8 when it was *rumored* to. He actually took an editorial position that apple wasn't letting rumor sites dictate its shipping date was proof of poor execution on their part. Thats pathetic and desperate.
The only thing that keeps me from thinking this is a conspiracy to bash the platform, is the fact that x86 platform coverage from these same people is just as incompetent.
I don't mind that reporters are ignorant. I expect it. What I mind is that they are also arrogant shitheads who believe what they WANT to believe over scientific proof or the facts that contradict them.
Basically their attitude is "I can write whatever I want, its freedom of the press, it doesn't matter if its accurate or not-- my readers are too stupid to be able to tell."
You take that attitude and I will call you and idiot, and Rothberg took that attitude with me.
Oh, marketshare-- that's an excellent point-- another lie. You claim they have half the market share, but I've never seen any factual evidence to support this. Rothberg and idiots all over quote "%5" but this is a made up number.
I don't even know of any organization that TRACKS this figure. IDC, Gartner, et al, only track NEW PC SALES from major distributers.... which means they ignore all sales of Macs thru the apple site, apple stores and independent apple sellers. That apple has "%5 of new pc market share when only counting ingram micro and compusa" does not mean they have only %5 of market share of the currently operating computers in the world. Ignoring most apple sales, and only looking at new computer sales (ignoring the fact that Macs go obsolete half as fast as PCs) is going to under-report market share.
Hell, by that figure, a reasonable guestimate is that the other half of apples sales (stores, online and local independents) makes the new CPU sales %10 of the market, and the fact that macs last twice as long, would bring total market share up to %20.
But its convenient for you, Matt Rothburg, and other anti-mac people to believe apple only has %5 so keep believing it. Just recognize that it is not a fact-- it is an unsupported belief.
I'm not saying the marketshare is %20. I'm just saying we don't know. Last time I saw real marketshare numbers, Apple had more of the market with its current OS than Windows current OS, because nobody was upgrading their windows boxes.
To get real market share numbers, someone would have to actually survey the market somehow. The number of machines in use in the field (rather than new sales) is relevant because when you decide on platform support, you want the size of the market you're selling into. People don't buy software only the first year they bought the computer.
Apple may be smarter than we think... (Score:1)
The real reason is security (Score:1)
-an
Re:The real reason is security (Score:2, Insightful)
What about us techs? (Score:1)
For this reason, I don't think Apple will *keep* new machines from booting into OS 9. They may de-bundle OS 9, so it doesn't come with the machine. But sure as hell hope they let it boot into OS 9.
Of course, I could just pull the hard drive out and pop it into an older machine to run utilites... =P
Mr. Spleen
Re:What about us techs? (Score:2)
The OS X install CD has DriveUtility on it, you can boot and run that, or if the Mac boots at all from the hard drive, boot into single user mode and run fsck.
Also for diagnostics, most new Macs come with the hardware check CD
But this is nothing new. The Norton 5 CD wont boot, or fix my G4, and even some of the newer NUM CDs wont boot some newer machines.
I suppose by that time new bootable utility CDs will be out.
Re:What about us techs? (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're going to be working on a new machine such as these much ballyhooed ones, then why not just use an external firewire device? These new machines are most certainly going to have the ports to do so.
Install OS X onto an external drive, put your favorite utilities on there, and have at it.
As a tech now, I look forward to the day when I can eliminate my CDs from my toolkit, and use strictly an external drive. Easier to update the software, and much quicker than running from CD.
whatever (Score:1)
apple isn't going to tweak the hardware just to prevent people from booting into classic. it's not that kind of company.
silly pudge, I'll bet he just wanted to make use of that OS 9 category he made for this [slashdot.org] article =P
Hmmm.. (Score:1, Insightful)
System Security? (Score:4, Insightful)
Currently, dual boot OS X and 9 systems can be trashed by booting up in 9. Single boot OS X systems can be "rooted" instead by booting up with a CD that boots up on System 9 with the right key sequence at powerup. I don't deny that not having to support older software on newer hardware may play a role, but the security issue may also be a big part for Admins who want to lock down publicly accesible systems.
Re:System Security? (Score:2)
If you have physical access to any machine enough to boot it up from a drive of your choice, you have the ability to control that machine no matter what OS is running on it.
That really throws a wrench into it. (Score:3, Informative)
Apple, please, no! (Score:2, Insightful)
OSX has already won.
Software developers are forced to make the OSX transition because the competition is doing the same in most software categories.
Most Mac users are learning to appreciate the features and look of OSX, and use OS9 because they need to for hardware, software compatibility. As an OS9 user i don't expect new drivers for an OS which will eventually be abandoned, nor i demand support from Apple for issues with old OS9 software. If i needed to change machine and the new ones couldn't boot OS9 i'd settle for an used mac, would it be healthy for Apple sales?
If letting OS9 boot on newer machines has a big cost for Apple, please open the project up as it has been done for darwin (and Mac on Linux, in a different way) and let the community do the work, but please don't limit the possibilities for new Macs.
Re:Why don't you just get a REAL operating system. (Score:1)
Besides, if OS X isn't a real OS, what is?
Re:Why don't you just post a REAL comment (Score:1)
Re:Why don't you just get a REAL operating system. (Score:1)
Re:Why don't you just get a REAL operating system. (Score:1)
No. Do you?
That doesn't make sense. Proof-read your comments, for goodness sake.
*cough*
Re:Why don't you just get a REAL operating system. (Score:1)
It should system "get REAL hardware" or "a real computer" or whatever.
You have just slagged someone because you claim that they didn't proof-read a comment, and then you post a comment that you, quite obviously, haven't proof-read.
Re:All I have to say is... (Score:2)
This is one way Apple is pushing the issue. Not the only way. But the adoption of OS X must take place in a widespread fashion, and soon.
This just makes sense. For Apple to survive / profit, folks must move to OS X en masse. They're not just being mean!
blakespot