There seems to be considerable interest to run the new Apple Mac Intel
(OS X 10.4.4) from a firewire hard drive to enable PPC.
This is a similar concept.
Remember the G5 with OS 10.4 and 9.2.2 ... running simultaneously?
On 20" Imacs, you could have Safari (10.4) and Netscape, IE or Firefox (9.2)
on the desktop, next to each other and switch back and forth with a
click of the mouse.

Not expecting anything that lofty on the new Mac Intel ... but does
anyone have any possible solutions for running 9.2.2 from an external Firewire hard drive?
Apple says it can not be done because the Intel Macs cannot 'see'
classic environment.
I have to believe ... there is a way.

You can look into emulators like Basilisk II and Sheepsaver.

Trevor

Classic is never going to run on an Intel Mac. But Classic is not the only MacOS 9 (or MacOS 8) emulator in town. Your most likely scenario is that SheepShaver — a product that exists for PC Linux builds, Windows, and has also been ported to the PowerPC Mac, and which emulates a PowerPC Mac for purposes of running MacOS 8.6 or 9.0 —*will be ported to the Intel Mac. You can't run the PPC version of SheepShaver because it doesn't emulate the chip, it depends on the native PPC chip to execute the CPU instrux. But the Intel versions — for Linux and for Windows — do emulate the PowerPC CPU, and I'd be astonished if someone wasn't already partway done with the port to OSX/Intel.

Here is a good starting point to find up-to-date info on that kind of thing. This forum is chock-filled with PC users emulating Macs, with a decent smattering of Mac users emulating PCs and whatnot.

Dang it, Trevor! ::mutter sulk sulk fast-on-the-draw showoff sulk mutter::

Nah--no need to mutter. You gave the better AND more complete answer.

Trevor

running OS 9 (Classic) on an Intel Mac?
 

:cool: I appreciate the feedback ...
To clarify: the terminology 'Classic' is another way to say OS 9.

To be specific as to the implementation, it would be an external
Firewire hard drive (2 - 300 GB) with it's own operating system:
OS 9.2.2 which would have been loaded into the Firewire from a
PPC platform (G5). Of course in a G5, you could run it as a
start up disc.

Ideally, on an Intel Mac, would be a solution that would let it run
natively and preferably without any cloning.
If anyone has attempted this and had any level of sucess ...
it would be quite interesting to know how they accomplished it.

No.

Heck, that won't even work on a modern PowerPC Mac! Do you think if you took a copy of the Amiga operating system and put that on an external FireWire drive, you could boot as an Amiga?

It doesn't work like that. All software operating systems have a very finite number of physical devices that they can boot. Everything up until early System 7 would only boot on an old Mac with 680x0 chips (Mac SE, Mac II, Quadras, etc). MacOS 8.6 and all flavors of MacOS 9 will only boot on PowerPC Macs (and not the ones manufactured in the last couple years, certainly not G5 PowerMacs). OS X, up until the very recent Intel-compiled versions of Tiger were released, was also strictly a PowerPC OS, and the Mac had to be from the PCI era (no NuBus PowerMacs will boot OS X). And the Intel-compiled version of OS X 10.4 will only boot on Intel (or Intel-compatible) computers.

You could load each and every one of these operating systems onto external FireWire drives (or external SCSI drives) and hook them to a number of computers, but for each OS only a few computers will be able to boot from that drive.

It's very confusing to people for you to use the term that way. 'Classic' is the environment that lets you run MacOS 9 as a process from within OS X. That's a different matter from booting OS 9 natively. I have a SCSI flatbed scanner and a serial port printer, neither of which will work under Classic: I have to have a computer that can actually boot MacOS 9 in order to use them. My new computer, which runs Classic just fine, can't boot OS 9, so I have to switch to an older computer to use those devices. Meanwhile, my Dell-using associate has SheepShaver on his PC and he can run MacOS 9 applications with it, but he neither has Classic nor boots OS 9, he runs it in emulation instead.

Which is what you're going to have to do if you want to run OS 9 apps on an Intel Mac.

AHunter3
.
That is an excellent explanation ...
and thinking about it, it makes absolute sense.
How else could you switch between OS 9 & OS X on the same desktop.
You really can not ... OS 9 is actually running in OS X through
emulation (on for example: Imac G5 20").
That is preferable to rebooting through a different start up disc.
I remember that was the way those colorful G3 Imacs worked.
.
So ... the mistake here was trading in the G5 Mac 20"
for the Intel Mac 20".
Hindsight always outperforms foresight.
.
Thank you for the advice.
It is truly appreciated.:)

SheepShaver for Intel-based Macs appears to be available now.

:cool: Hello to all of you who read these posts ...
.
Seems that it is always 2 hours after I should have been asleep,
when these posts get written.
.
First, please accept my apology, for using the terms: OS 9 and
Classic, incorrectly. They are not interchangeable.
.
.
Earlier, while reviewing some information (link: rentzsch.com/tidbits/
intelbasedMacBootIncompatibility), an interesting idea came to
mind.
.
A few fearless Apple fanatics have actually been able to 'boot' both
versions of OS 10.4.4 (Intel & PPC) from Intel Macs by partitioning
the hard drive and loading the two OS's on different partitions ... or
by using an external hard drive loaded with the PPC version of 10.4.4
and connected with USB 2.0.
.
That being the case, OS 10.4.4 (PPC) already includes Classic (emulator)
to run OS 9.2.2 applications. The conclusion seems to be that the
new Intel Imacs are capable of running as if they were G5 Imacs or
of course, as Intel Imacs, as you wish ... Incredible.
.
.
Well now, maybe I can expect something as lofty as PPC 10.4.4 and
9.2.2 displayed and functioning at the same time (on this Apple, that
this post reply is being written on: the Intel Imac 20"), after all!
.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :D :D :D

You have misunderstood what you read.

The article is about how you can't just partition a single drive and put the Intel OS X on one partition and the PowerPC OS X on the other, because they use different partitioning schemes.

And then goes on to describe a workaround by which you can do it after all.

They most definitely did not boot a PowerPC version of OS X from an Intel Mac.


Did you read what I posted above about SheepShaver for Intel Macs?

Mavrick,

The primary misunderstanding that you seem to have is that because an Intel Macintosh can run OS X, that it is running a PPC version of OS X. That is incorrect. When Intel Macs run OS X, they are running a binary of OS X compiled for Intel chips.

There is no binary of OS 9 compiled for Intel chips, nor will there ever be. If you would like to run OS 9 on an Intel, you will need to use an emulator such as Basilisk or Sheepsaver, as AHunter3 and I have pointed out already.

Trevor

Hmmm...

Interesting question raised by this thread...

If you copied the Classic Startup.app from System/Library/CoreServices from a PPC Mac to an Intel Mac, what would it take to get it to run under Rosetta?

The combined efforts of God, Yhvh, Allah, Buddha, and Brahma. Classic depends on a processor that does not exist on an Intel Mac.

Trevor

A processor that's emulated by Rosetta.

Rosetta: What Can Be Translated?
Trevor

What is there about SheepShaver that you Intel-Mac folks have such a dislike for? I know it's not quite Classic (no networking support, for one thing; and the Finder isn't transparent as it is with Classic, so you don't get the same sense of running OS X and OS 9 apps side by side), but it does work, and Classic rather emphatically does not.

Trevor & AHunter3 ...
.
.
Both of you have at least 10 times the knowledge about computers,
operating systems, etc. that I do. It is likely that you would be right
99 times out of 100, compared to me.
.
On the other hand, somehow I was blessed with an ability to see
into things ... to see potential solutions that fly in the face of
convention. Some years ago, I designed an award winning power
amplifier for the audio industry. When formally trained engineers
had a look at it, they typically responded that it could not work,
it was not possible. Actually, it worked quite well and among
solid state designs, it reproduced sound quality of the highest level
available at the time (even today).
.
My feeling about booting Intel Macs from a PPC loaded external hard
drive is that; it is not impossible ... rather, quite possible, even to
the point that it has already been done by both methods as detailed
in my previous post.
Would you consider having a look at the site I mentioned and also
at the posts on this forum under 'Mac OS X hints', topic: '10.4: Boot
Intel Macs from iPods and FireWire drives' from 22 & 23 Feb 2006?
.
Please tell us what your take on this information is.
Thank you in advance. :cool:

Hi Mavrick,

I'm sorry, but you're misunderstanding the page that you linked to: http://rentzsch.com/tidbits/intelbas...ncompatibility

What that page is saying is that if you have a single hard drive with two partitions on it, there must be a way to have a PPC partition so that when you connect that drive to a PPC Mac you can boot the PPC Mac, and when you connect that drive to an Intel Mac you can boot that one too. He has discovered a way to do that--to make a single drive with two partitions, one of which can boot PPC, the other which can boot Intel Macs.

What he does not say is that you can boot an Intel Mac with a binary of OS X that is compiled for PPC. Because you can't.

Does that help clear it up for you?

Of course, if you would like to try to do it, despite what everyone is telling you, then by all means try it.

Trevor

The Mac OS X Hints article is also talking about the same thing. For example:

Note where it says, "boot either current PPC hardware or current Intel iMac hardware from different partitions on the same physical disk".

Trevor

This thread is going all over the place. At the risk of taking things further off course...

From what has been in the news, (though I may be misinterpreting it as well), it would appear that Intel version of "Tiger" itself is made up mostly of universal rather than Intel only binaries, and the only reasons it won't directly boot a PPC Mac is because the PPC version of hardware drivers (naturally) weren't shipped with the Intel Macs. There is also the issue of the differences in the... is it partition scheme? used on a PPC vs Intel Mac. So while the standard "Tiger" (PPC) definitely can't boot an Intel Mac (because it isn't universal), the "Tiger" that ships with an Intel Mac, with a little mixing and matching, can apparently be used to boot a PPC Mac.
http://www.macintouch.com/readerrepo...topic2076.html
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~admor...ithRadmind.pdf

As far as "Classic" on an Intel Mac, I'm not sure why it can't be done, as "6502" says in emulation under Rosetta - maybe there is a technical reason, I don't know, but regardless, Apple has chosen not to develop the feature so it's moot. The advantage of Classic on PPC was that System 9 was not running under emulation according to Apple, ie. Classic wasn't emulating PPC hardware. Since System 9 would have to be working under emulation on an Intel Mac anyway, I don't know if there would be any advantage to doing it hypothetically under the Rosetta emulator vs using the Sheepshaver emulator which is available now.

Getting back to the original, original question... So Rosetta, running on an Intel Mac, emulates a PPC processor, basically, translating instructions from PPC programmes into something that an Intel processor understands. Rosetta itself is a programme running on a system booted in "Tiger". Take that away, and a programme designed to run on PowerPC has no way of communicating with an Intel chip - it is completely foreign. SImilarly, even if Classic (or System 9 - both PPC programmes) could be made to work under Rosetta (big if at this stage), there is no way that an Intel Mac could be booted into System 9 because OS X + Rosetta (ie. the translation layer) would be absent so System 9 would be unable to communicate with the Intel chip.

:cool: Well now, your point is beautifully made ... and, based upon
.
the information I gave in the last post and no more,
.
you are absolutely correct.
.
The article referred to; was about booting hardware and does not
.
say that the Intel Macs will boot from OS 10.4.4 PPC as you have
.
stated correctly and I incorrectly stated (remember, software writing
.
and binary code is not my forte) by omission.
.
So, how about this additional piece of missing information.
.
Originally, I was hoping for someone to tell me how to run
.
32 & 64 bit Apple OS PPC on the Intel Imac.
.
No one did, so I was forced to put enough pieces of the puzzle
.
together, to figure it out for myself.
.
If you partition the hardrive in the Intel or an external hard drive
.
connected via USB 2.0 as follows:
.
partition 1: OS 10.4.4 Intel (10gb)
.
partition 2: OS 10.4.4 PPC (10gb)
.
Partition 3: OS 10.4.4 Universal (10 gb)
.
Partition 4: Blank (130 - 220 gb)
.
Hold down 'c' upon turn on and select ) OS 10.4.4 Universal
.
as the start up disc.
.
The Intel Mac will start and run both PPC & Intel apps.
.
"Can not be done ... impossible."
.
Yes it can ... here is a hint: the secret is binary.
.
Can anyone figure it out?
.
.
Details in my next post. :) :D :)

Point of clarification ...
this post above is directed to Trevor.

Are there really reasons to run five year old programs? I mean, I gave Classic a try once to turn something that wasn't available for OS X, and it was just so horrible. But then I never liked Mac OS before X, so maybe it's just me. But those programs are so different and so foreign in an X interface. Doesn't make sense to me.

And are there really programs for OS 9 that have never been replaced?

> And are there really programs for OS 9 that have never been replaced?

Off the top of my head...?

Hundreds of Photoshop, VST, ProTools, AE plug-ins (we're gonna have that problem with the Intel transition, too).

ResEdit, SoundEdit (simple, cheap, multitrack -- when Amadeus does multitrack, we'll be there), various font apps, DiskDoubler, Canoma, Infini-D, Hypercard, ShrinkWrap (nothing opens old-format disk images and ShrinkWrap images under OS X... 'had to boot into OS 9 to get it to work), Corel WordPerfect (bloody hard to open some WP files on a Mac without it), QT Make Ref Movie, Morph, PageMaker (lots of people still using it), QuickTime with Indeo and Cinepac codecs...

I've just gotten to the point that I hardly ever run 68K applications any more.

Hello Mavrick,

Thank you for your posting.

Using an emulator, you can in general translate binary applications written for one processor to run on another, incompatible processor. The emulator take significant processing of it's own to operate, but this is feasible. Virtual PC on the PPC Macs is an example--at the base of it is an emulator. Then you install Windows (or another x86 operating system) on the emulator to give you the Windows environment. THEN, you can run most Windows programs on your Mac, although they are slowed down by the emulator.

Or if a program is written in an interpreted language, you can run a program on any processor that has the correct interpreter. For example, BASIC tends to be interpreted (with some exceptions). So a simple BASIC program should run anywhere that you have a BASIC interpreter.

Or if you have the source code to a compiled app, you can compile it using a compiler specific to the processor used. This is how most open source programs are distributed--the reason you can run something like The Gimp in OS X is that the authors of it have released the source code. So even though the authors of The Gimp write primarily using Linux on x86 boxes (I think), we can run it in OS X by taking the source code and compiling it for PPC (or ironically, x86, if you've got an Intel Mac), using a compiler designed for that purpose. The compiler takes the source code and translates it into a binary for the processor being used.

Although I look forward to your next posting, and I hope that you find a way to do what you are trying to do, I'm going to have to stop posting to this thread. I'm finding myself tempted to argue, and really I'm not very interested in arguing about this. If there's something that I can do to help, or answer factual questions, let me know, but I'm not going to post any more to this thread regarding running Classic on an Intel Mac.

Trevor

.
:cool: :cool: _______________________________________
.
The details on running OS X PPC & Intel will be be posted on
a new thread: G5 & Intel Macs ... Cross Platform Possibilities.