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.