X only in '03
 

How is apple's decision to sell machines that will only boot into OS X going to affect you. I can't see that it will change my work environment one bit since I rarely use classic let alone boot into 9.

I could see problems with education and some offices, where you only buy a new computer once in a while, in that it will require a substantially larger commitment to maintain a uniform standard than it would with machines that are backward compatible. Still, OS 9 broke a lot of the things I used in 8.6. And 8.6 broke a lot of things from 7. Conversly, 10.1 added a lot of support of things that 10.0 didn't have, and reports from 10.2 are that it also has hardware solutions for more things that 10.1 had (CUPS for printing comes to mind).

There is a lot of whining and flat out flaming on a couple of the other boards, and I thought it would be interesting to see how the same discussion goes amongst the more sane participants who typically reside here.

My main concern is with customers who have to maintain a mixed 9-X environment for a while because of budgetary constraints.

The main thing being with application software like Office and FileMaker, and making sure things stay sane on both systems during the transition.

Otherwise, following Apple's historical patterns, this is about due now. It will be interesting to see if there are changes in the hardware architecture coming that will mandate this, or at least preparation for such changes.

This was bound to happen sooner or later, but I thought it would be much later so I'm kind of surprised by it.

It's probably a non-issue for most of the people who post here regularly, as we're probably spending most of our time in OS X anyway. It's hard to imagine people waiting until next year to buy a new Mac to use to boot up OS 9.2, but apparently there are some. But if the net result is hardware that will be more suitable for OS X, then I can see the wisdom in Apple's move. Even if they're "force-feeding" OS X, that's understandable, too.

Hmmm, 'force-feeding' would have been doing this last January; this is pretty normal for the product life-cycle.

I've been doing a number of XP upgrades to systems that were purchased in 2001 for my largest current customer. You know what they say: "Why is it so slow?" Sound familiar? And if I tried to install '98 on the systems bought recently, a good portion of the devices wouldn't be supported (like 1394 or USB 2.0 or the current video chipsets).

It's the same way all over; that's the way this business works. Match the system to the machine of the same vintage, and all is well. Mix and match, then be prepared to make some extra time and effort to make things work.

I'm guessing that the folks that make DiskWarrior (and other software companies) that will have to really twist Apple's arm regarding allowing them to create OS X bootable CD's with their diagnostic/repair apps on them.

Agreed, Craig. What's actually surprising in many ways is how much faster and smoother OS X works on mid-range and lower-end Macs with each update/upgrade.

By the "force-feeding" comment, I meant only that Apple's decision might not be hardware-related, but more directed toward giving developers and the Mac community a very clear picture about where their OS policy stands. And that would make sense and be justified, although we both know that there are many who resent the "death" of OS 9.x.

Phil: yes, I've heard rumors such people exist. I remain unconvinced they aren't all different versions of the same person. ;)

Besides, if I can still run 6.0.8 today, folks should be able to keep running OS 9 for another decade just the way they are now. The machines may feel about as useful by then as a Mac Plus does now, but the choice is going to be there for some long time to come.

Rusto: I've already run an OS X bootable CD with TechTool on it; I shouldn't think that DiskWarrior would be that much harder. The hard part was getting the RAM disk capability for scratch files and ramBunctious has been around for a while now, and seems to work OK in 10.2.

The big hangup is still device drivers and the cost of upgrading a lot of software at once.

Craig,

Yes, YOU can make a bootable OS X disk, but Apple has not authorized 3rd party software makers to do so, hence this pronouncment:

"Symantec has publicly stated that the reason they don't have a Mac OS X Boot CD is because Apple doesn't provide the the capability to them to do it. "

All I need is Starry Night and I'm golden.

just like old times...
 

I see no difference between this and history.

Do beige G3s boot system 7.x? No, they never have, they booted 8 and higher only.
Will any G4s boot MacOS 8? (maybe 8.6). Nope.
How much stuff broke from 7 - 8? 8 - 9? (yes, I know there were 7.5, 7.6, and 8.6 in there, but you get my point).

Things broke because either developers were using depreciated calls, or apple changed the APIs. From this stand point, going from 9 to X, as a developer, is no different.

I'll admit, that changing a few calls to make (hypothetically) a broken photoshop that ran in 7 run in 8 was probably trivial compared to what happened this time, but developers have known about X for a LONG time, and it has been out for over a year now.

For my... non-nice take on this, try http://kenneyc.blogspot.com/
I'm warning you, this is my rant page, so I pull no punches.

Rusto: a good theory, except that it's Micromat who made the CD. Just like the bootable Drive 10 discs.

I would also expect that DiskWarrior 3.0 will have a boot CD when it ships this winter.

I wonder if Symantec's response could be restated as: Symantec doesn't provide a Mac OS X boot CD because Apple has bundled versions of TechTool with AppleCare and is now offering Virex and Backup to .Mac customers, and Symantec is venting because of this.

While I swear by Symantec's Windows product line, I've always sworn at their Mac products (except NAV), all the way back to S.U.M. Not to mention killing off Lightspeed Pascal and Think C. :mad: So I'm a little biased about them.

Here is a rather interesting article about OSX only booting in Jan'03.

Moore

He's a little pissed off and it gives you an idea of how upset some people are. Unfortunate. I do hope new hardware is on the horizon.
Right now I'm running 10.2 with little or no problems. Speed is not an issue, although I use G4's.
It would be a pity if some of the 80% of Mac users who haven't adopted OSX decide to migrate the Windows/Linux way.

Craig R. Arko
Makes sense to me.

I probably am going to buy the most powerful MacOS9-capable PowerBook that Apple makes as soon as they release the verse 'book that won't boot 9. Might do likewise for a desktop (those duals look nice!). That should handle my backwards-compatibility needs for as long as it matters.

(It's all a matter of hardware drivers for peripherals, really. I have a pair of Epson serial-port injet printers good for another year or two; an extremely rugged and dependable UMAX UC 630 3-pass color SCSI scanner that will probably still work in 2017; a SyQuest drive; and oh yeah, let's not forget my enormous and antediluvian DaynaFile 360K 5.25" drive for compatibility with the world's supply of PC minifloppies :) ...ever seen a PowerBook sporting an external 360K drive? Can you believe the System-6 era drivers for this sucker will work in 9? )

All I can say is thank goodness I bought this G4 when I did! It has been a long and expensive road to upgrade everything (and I do mean everything!) to become OS X compatible, and after throwing 1/2 a year and several thousands of dollars into the upgrades, I'm not even done yet!

There are some apps I'm still waiting on upgrades. I still have to drop to OS 9.2.2 to scan (my new scanner is absolutely dead in OS X). I finally upgraded Microsoft Office to the X version, but I'm having to use my old copy of Word to reformat a few things because the transition upwards isn't perfectly smooth (thanks Microsoft). And while I have the latest and greatest copy of Photoshop, not all of my plug-ins and filters have been upgraded yet, and I simply cannot do without them. I check BoxTop Software religiously, hoping they'll finally release an OS X verison of PhotoGIF and ProJPEG filters. I cannot live without them. So I still have to use my old copy of Photoshop in Classic mode even though I have upgraded Photoshop itself.

I simply could not even imagine what it would be like to come home with a brand-spankin' new Mac in which nothing I currently owned would run on it: software or hardware! It was only through dual boot into Classic mode that allowed me an upgrade path. I slowly, methodically, and consistantly upgraded one app after another until I am now running about 95% OS X.

I appreciate progress and all, but I think Apple is making a mistake. If the hardware and software were ready for OS X, then I'd be more than willing to jump on the bandwagon. But it's not. And so I'm not either.

I hear you. The only reason I was able to foot the bill for the switch is because I use the the two OS X mac I own for work. They were a justified business expense. I had to have a Mac for backward compatibility, but I had to have the Unix for hardcore science apps. With OS X, rather than having to buy an SGI workstation AND a mac, I could buy the only Mac and save about $10K.

Getting my boss to switch may be a little more tricky, but he's talking about it now. I pitty the support people that he will call after I leave....

Why are people upset? Don't buy a new computer then.

I "play" with OS X, but as far as getting any work done, I boot into OS 9 because I don't have the cash to buy $4,000 worth of OS X software right now.

If someone's computer is working fine with OS 9, keep the status quo. It isn't like 733MHz is SLOW, and I work on some pretty hefty Photoshop files...

At least they gave warning, so that anyone that DOES need a new system soon, but still wants/needs OS 9, has time to get a G4 before G4/OS9 all go bye-bye.

(And I'm sure you'll be able to get G4/OS9 machines at below cost for months to come after the beginning of the year from various resellers, etc.)

But yes, I agree that this is the natural evolution of things--nobody threw a fit when my "new" G4 didn't run OS 8.6 like my iMac did....

:)

G.--

I don't have much sympathy for the average user who is whining about this. I do see where some people will have major budget problems. Take a typical school, for example. Budgets don't allow for more than a couple of new computer purchases per year. And less for new software. If your computer pool is a mix of OS 9 Macs (for which you have a volume license for Office 98) and Windows machines (for which you have a volume license for Office 97), do you (a) want a machine that requires users to "boot" classic to support your existing software; (b) want to pony up and buy a new Mac AND all the software to run native (not usually a fiscal possibility); or (c) buy a wintell that runs your existing software base seemlessly? And I'm not just talking about wanting faster machines. Computers in an academic setting get trashed pretty quickly. They need to be replaced once in a while.

Classic is fine for most people, but when you are trying to keep some kind of uniform standards, it adds one more level of difficulty: Not everything works in classic the same way it works when booted into OS 9.

To me (although I AM a Mac fan), the choice is simple; (c) allows me to maintain a more uniform platform without blowing my budget for the year on software that I already have.

Same goes for higher ed. We can't use general research grants for computers and such (there are exceptions, but very few exceptions). That means that even the richest research groups don't have the money to completely retool. If you want to stay with Mac, the next time you replace a computer you will also have to replace a lot of software. In my experience, running word/endnote/ppt, etc under classic is not a long term option.


Is there a good way for this transition to happen? No. These are the growing pains one should expect when transitioning to an entirely new OS. Will this be a long term problem? Perhaps. Perhaps not. They will lose some academic share, however. The question is whether or not they can get it back in a few years.

This is my concern. But not just for the academic market share. I'm concerned in general that Mac users will find themselves without an upgrade path to the extent that it makes it unreasonable for them to buy a new Mac.

I don't consider this concern to be whining or throwing a fit. I believe such thoughts are very shortsighted. I want Apple's market share to increase, not decrease, and I think removing the upgrade path when the software it not yet ready is a mistake. Look at all of the reports of problems printing and scanning with drivers not available yet, for example. Look at the results of the poll, Are you classic free in which 28% of the people who responded said they could not become Classic free because they are still waiting on software to be upgraded. These people aren't saying they don't want to become Classic free or can't afford to become Classic free. They are saying that they will lose functionality without using Classic. This isn't a matter of whining or throwing a fit. It's a matter of whether the entire environment -- OS, hardware, and software -- is ready. In my opinion, it is not ready. Therefore, dropping Classic will block some people from buying a new Mac which may cause Apple to loose market share.

I hope to find that my concerns are unfounded.

Classic and OS 9 are not the same thing. Classic runs under OS X. OS 9 requires a reboot into the OS. So, the OS X only machines will still run Classic apps.

But my experience has been that things don't run quite the same under classic as they do when booted into OS 9.

Having to use classic is another level of support that IT people need to deal with.

Other than that, I agree with you, Vicki. On the other hand, the move sort of forces developers to stop dragging their feet and put out the missing drivers, etc.

BTW: Regarding scanners and lack of drivers, Epson maintains that the TWAIN standard has not yet been fixed for OS X and that is why the drivers are still only beta. The TWAIN homepage, however, says that the drivers are available for OS X. I don't know which is correct. Probably the TWAIN page.

That's an excellent point! Perhaps I have misunderstood Apple's intentions. Are they totally removing OS 9 or just making it so you can't boot in OS 9?

If all Apple is doing is removing OS 9 from the startup disk options -- while still leaving Classic functional -- then I'll no longer be concerned. Although, I have to question why would they remove the "dual boot" function within startup disk if they are still maintaining OS 9 on the hard drive? That doesn't seem to gain very much. Besides, as long as OS 9 is on the hard drive, surely there would be an easy workaround to allow people to boot in OS 9, bypassing the startup disk option built into OS X.

So I guess I'm a little confused now as to exactly what Apple plans to do. Are they dropping OS 9 completely (no dual boot and no classic) or are they simply removing the dual boot option (leaving OS 9 available for classic, but removing OS 9 from the startup disk options)?