Apple has posted a chart in its Applecare Knowledge Base that outlines which Mac will support which releases of Mac OS 9, all the way up to the current machines which will not boot into OS 9 at all.
Apple has posted a chart in its Applecare Knowledge Base that outlines which Mac will support which releases of Mac OS 9, all the way up to the current machines which will not boot into OS 9 at all.
I am not too familiar with this…does it mean that:
1. They won’t provide a factory option to boot OS 9 and you’ll have to add the option to the boot menu yourself or…
2. There will be some sort of hardware lock that prevents booting into OS 9 period? ie, I couldn’t wipe the HD, install OS 9 and have it boot.
I am aware that you’ll be able to load the “Classic” environment w/in OS X.
It is the second. They have “locked it”, in order the MacOSX market get a boost and convert as many users as they can, as 2 years after the OSX release, it’s on 25% of the Mac market (OS9 still has 75% of the Mac market).
Also, it is much cheaper to only support one OS, instead of two. Basic economics really.
Cheaper to support one OS instead of two is proven at MacFixit.com today. Sure, it’s only $100 less than the dual boot system, but its money saved in this economy.
Why would someone want to boot into OS9 instead of OSX?
Apple are getting attacked quite a bit for this on some Mac boards, but it’s not something Apple have never done before. It wasn’t long after the release of System 7 that some Macs weren’t able to run System 6. IIRC every powerbook after the original PB100 couldn’t boot it and I doubt you could run it on any 040 Macs. I remember at the time a lot of people were furious, there were quite a few apps that wouldn’t run in System 7 and System 6 was much faster and more stable.
Considering how few apps have a problem with classic and how few advantages Mac OS 9 has over OS X, this seems quite trivial in comparison.
Because:
1. OS9 is more responsive overall.
2. An application that is OS9-native, will run faster under OS9. Don’t forget: the people who have stayed with OS9 are companies, which run specific software needed for their jobs.
3. No need to upgrade. Cheaper to stay on OS9 (no need to teach your employees OSX, or buy new hardware or software), if it works ok for these companies.
4. Pure habit.
5. The application that the companies need to run, doesn’t run under OSX/Classic.
6. Old hardware.
7. They happen to not like OSX for some reason.
8. Some printers/scanners or other hardware don’t have support yet for OSX.
As I said, the people who _mostly_ stayed with OS9, are companies. Companies are slow on migration, naturally.
>There will be some sort of hardware lock that prevents booting into OS 9 period?
It is possibly a BIOS lockout and not a hardware per se.
I’m not Eugenia, but I’ll answer:
1.) Better performance.
2.) Quark XPress
3.) “Better GUI” (personally, I hate the MacOS9 GUI, but other people think it’s the best of all times. It’s a matter of taste, I don’t whant to start a flame war here.)
As a recent “switcher” I found several occasions wher OS 9 is required;
An openfirmware flash upgrade.
A flash upgrade for an internal modem.
Two games, while carbon upgrades are available for download, the original install was required.
The former two, Apple SHOULD have prevented while the latter were third party out of Apples control.
OS 9 will remain on my drive for sometime to come; even though I’ve never used a Mac (extenively at home) until OS X.
They may not boot into OS 9 but… as far as i know they can still run teh classic environment.
Apple knows that everybody will run Mac OS X eventually as soon as their computers outlive thier usefulness. It might take a few more years, but it’ll happen. I don’t really care that my new 12″ Powerbook doesn’t boot Mac OS 9, X does everything I want. It’s too bad that companies like Quark are ruining the migration process for a lot of Mac users.
The new machines from Apple in the last month have had new hardware that is not supported by OS 9. So far, this includes new video, 800 Mbps Firewire, Airport Extreme, faster ATA, and Bluetooth. In the next few months, Apple is expected to support USB 2 and new processors (the G5 from Motorola and the 64-bit 970 from IBM). Apple has limited resources does not want to support their legacy OS9 on the new hardware. Such suppport would slow down development of the hardware and of OS X. So they drew the line at January 2003 for hardware support for booting into OS 9. This was announced several months ago, and as controversial as that decision is, they appear to be sticking to it.
Eugenia,
You said
“1. OS9 is more responsive overall.”
2. An application that is OS9-native, will run faster under OS9.”
Point 1 is true if your only using one app.
Point 2 is true again if your only running one app. OS X multi-tasks very nicely so you can do multiple things at once.
In cases where your running multiple apps, OS X will be faster than running multiple apps in classic.
– Mark
Yes, but when the studios are basically run a single app (QEXpress or Photoshop), OS9 is fine enough for them.
And in fact, as a plain user, I found web browsing being way faster with OS9 than with *any* OSX browser.
This is something that will happen to you (as history shows). One day Apple just announce that they will not support your current hardware. You must buy new Mac, You must Buy new OS, you say; you just bought it last month?, F*ck it.. You must..!…You must !..:)
Yes, they can do that. Simply because they monopolyzed everything.
btw> Nothing will prevent you to boot DOS on your Pentium 3 – 4000 MHZ
What the hell do you think will happen with Microsofts Palladium (or whatever the next so called secure version of windows is) when it is released?
You must buy a new machine in order to run that new bright and shiny OS. Your old computer which you just bought will not be able to run it either.
Which brings me to the new media edition of XP. Per Microsofts sight YOU HAVE TO BUY A NEW MACHINE IN ORDER TO RUN IT! You can not install it over an existing XP system (mind you this is per Microsoft). I know of two hacks which have made it possible but big deal. You can buy third party hardware and software (for a lot less if you know what you are looking for) to create that new shiny XP Media Center experience.
Besides old Macs and PC’s never die, people like me turn them into mail routers, firewalls, print servers, Linux boxes serving as a small company internal web server.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, it’s the old version of Mac OS that isn’t going to be supported. Apple aren’t saying that they’re not going to support older hardware, or forcing people to buy new Macs.
In general Apple aren’t too bad at supporting old hardware, it’s not much different to the Windows world. If you want to run Windows XP at a decent speed you need a recent PC, just like Mac OS X needs a recent Mac.
I don’t know about anyone else… but I found web browsing to be much faster in OS X on a dual chip machine.
I run Windows XP on a Celeron 566 with 128 mb of RAM and the computer runs just fine, does alot better then Windows 2000 did on the same machine. Microsoft support for older machines is still there.
This thread is going in the wrong direction. Both Apple and Microsoft give their customers fair warning far in advance of OS changes that will require newer hardware. The idea that Apple has ever pulled something like that is ridiculous. What do you mean “as history shows”? Let’s have some facts.
Why would somebody want to boot into OS 9? Speed, for one. Familarity another. But ultimately, compatibility. Many have hardware that doesn’t have OS X drivers, many too have apps that only runs on OS 9. So in other words, Apple is actually hurting themselves cutting OS 9 because there are so many not ready to switch. They should make it easier for people to switch as oppose forcing them to switch.
I’ll continue running OS 9 until my iBook gives up.
But I have bought my last Mac.
I now prefer to run Linux/KDE on PC Hardware.
All, except one, of the people I know that bought and upgrade to Windows XP (as opose to buying a new machine that comes with it) all have hardware that comes from the first iMac days (1998) and one even 6 years old. Yes, the upgraded by adding more RAM, but that’s about it. Windows XP isn’t a resource sucker for CPU time, only RAM.
btw> Nothing will prevent you to boot DOS on your Pentium 3 – 4000 MHZ
And who gives you the DOS or Win3.11 Driver for your GeForce4 Titanium and your superduperSoundblaster 2003 ? 😉
You guys have probably all seen this one. There’s a 2nd one that I was only able to find on heavy.com and I can’t link to it.
http://www.fandango.net/switched.mov
Are you saying OS 9 is as old as Windows 3.1? Man, the arguments you guys give..
[ I run Windows XP on a Celeron 566 with 128 mb of RAM and the computer runs just fine, does alot better then Windows 2000 did on the same machine. Microsoft support for older machines is still there.]
The current topic is not a question of supporting old hardware with new software, it is an issue of supporting new hardware with old software.