|
Replies
:
9
-
Pages
:
1
-
Last Post
:
Mar 12, 2006 9:52 PM
by: Frank McHugh
|
|
|
Posts:
19
Registered:
Dec 14, 2005
|
|
|
|
Classic on Intel based Macs II?
Posted:
Jan 19, 2006 10:20 PM
|
|
|
Why was the previous topic with this title locked?
G4 533 Digital Audio
Mac OS X (10.3.9)
640 MB Ram, SIIG 133 ATA card
|
|
Posts:
1,608
From:
ends of the earth
Registered:
Aug 19, 2001
|
|
|
|
Re: Classic on Intel based Macs II?
Posted:
Jan 21, 2006 4:46 AM
in response to: daveslc
|
|
|
Why was the previous topic with this title locked?
Someone at Apple didn't like something in one or more posts on the thread. Given the timing, I'd say it was one of the last five, which would include two of mine.
Determining what they didn't like is left as an exercise for the student.
eMac 1.25GHz 2GB
Mac OS X (10.4.4)
|
|
Posts:
1,608
From:
ends of the earth
Registered:
Aug 19, 2001
|
|
|
Posts:
144
From:
California
Registered:
Dec 14, 2005
|
|
|
|
Re: Classic on Intel based Macs II?
Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 3:22 PM
in response to: Charles Dyer
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I made it a point to finally make the leap to OS X and buy one of the last of the non-Intel Macs, knowing that Classic Mode in OS X was going to be dropped by Apple.
I have way too much legacy work and applications that I cannot just throw away.
Granted, OS 9 emulations will come out (Sheepshaver etc.) but I would like to keep things running status quo.
OS X is Ok, but I liked the old days of being to drag/copy files and resources anywhere in the system and easily see everything going on beneath the hood without "hidden files" "root users" and "permissions"... I can only imagine things will get simpler in the interface still, and more obtuse for advanced users in years to come.
iMac G5, iBook G4, iBook G3, Power Mac 8500 Mac OS X (10.4.4) 2.1 gHz
iMac G5, iBook G4, iBook G3, Power Mac 8500
Mac OS X (10.4.4)
2.1 gHz
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
Mar 5, 2006
|
|
|
|
Re: Classic on Intel based Macs II?
Posted:
Mar 5, 2006 6:57 AM
in response to: daveslc
|
|
|
Those who are saying stop whining and get with the program are missing the point. Hardware comes and goes but those of us who have been using the platform for a long time have tons of legacy files and applications that we need to bring with us. I was pleased to find that under Classic some of my oldest applications and utilities came back to life that had stopped working long ago. I have no problem switching to Intel, whatever works best. In fact I'm looking forward to upgrading to the new multi-processor box whenever it comes out, but if classic or something like it is not there I will have to delay that purchase (sale lost to Apple), until a stable work around is available. Of course I will upgrade all my current apps to be native (more $ into microsoft's pockets). But many if not most of the legacy apps are long gone. I don't buy the story that it's too much work to recompile Classic to run on Intel. Apple is keen to tell us how easy it is to port major applications over. Classic is just another OSX Application. No, this has to be a policy decision and I can't fathom what they are thinking. There's something behind this move that hasn't come out yet, maybe some secret deal with their biggest developers in exchange for rolling out new versions?). I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. In the mean time I'm NOT BUYING ANOTHER APPLE until this issue is resolved (is that clear enough for you big brother?).
3xG4s etc.
Mac OS X (10.4.5)
|
|
Posts:
1,608
From:
ends of the earth
Registered:
Aug 19, 2001
|
|
|
|
Re: Classic on Intel based Macs II?
Posted:
Mar 5, 2006 8:48 AM
in response to: RARimmer
|
|
|
Those who are saying stop whining and get with the
program are missing the point.
Doubt it.
Hardware comes and
goes but those of us who have been using the platform
for a long time have tons of legacy files and
applications that we need to bring with us.
Mac user since 17 May 1984. Your point?
I was
pleased to find that under Classic some of my oldest
applications and utilities came back to life that had
stopped working long ago. I have no problem switching
to Intel, whatever works best. In fact I'm looking
forward to upgrading to the new multi-processor box
whenever it comes out, but if classic or something
like it is not there I will have to delay that
purchase (sale lost to Apple), until a stable work
around is available.
My eMac just went belly-up. It's undoubtably a manufacturing defect; a large number of eMacs of similar age (purchased between July and September, 2004) have the same problems. (Sudden and complete lockupm with, perhaps, screen artifacts if you were doing something graphics-intensive) Several people have reported that the problem appears to be leaking or completely blown capacitors on the motherboard. I _know_ that _my_ eMac has leaking caps; I took it apart and looked. The local Apple Store didn't come out and say that it was bad caps, but they did say that I needed a new motherboard (duh!) and that as the replacement would cost $720, if it were _their_ machine they'd not be wasting money on a new board. As I _have_ to have Classic I got the very last of their floor-model iMac G5s (after a bit of a refurb, that is.) instread of the MacBook Pro that I'd intended to get. Apple has _already_ lost several hundred dollars because of this... (Yes, I'm ****** at Apple because of this. And especially because the only reason my eMac was not covered by AppleCare, which would have made this _Apple's_ problem, not mine, was because Apple did not offer AppleCare in Florida until December 2005... three full months after my warrenty expired. And you can't get AppleCare once your warrenty is dead.
I'd been planning to keep the eMac and use it to run Classic, as necessary, but to get a nice MacBook and use that as my main Mac. Now that the eMac's had it, and Apple does not appear likely to fix it unless I fork out some cash, the 'new' iMac will be my main Mac for the forseeable future, and Intel Mac purcahses, if any will be delayed until at the very earliest December, probably more like next year around this time or later yet.
Of course I will upgrade all my
current apps to be native (more $ into microsoft's
pockets). But many if not most of the legacy apps are
long gone. I don't buy the story that it's too much
work to recompile Classic to run on Intel.
You don't understand the problems involved. It's not a recompile, for one thing.
Apple is
keen to tell us how easy it is to port major
applications over. Classic is just another OSX
Application.
err... no, it's not. Classic is an, ahem, 'operating environment'. It's several apps, and other stuff, and quite a bit of Classic is tied closely to hardware. Classic does interesting things with PPC and 680x0 code. (Well, okay, mostly PPC) Doing the same tricks on Intel is a non-trivial task. Yes, Apple could do it if they really wanted to. No, they don't want to. What's in it for them? (I can see what's in it for _me_; my old apps will continue to run. What's in it for Apple? Anyone still using a Classic app is using that app because either the app has been abandoned or they're too cheap to buy a replacement. Every single one of the Classic apps I use has been abandoned, some of them as far back as the early 90s! It's in Apple's interest to support decade, or even decade and a half, old applications which I didn't even buy from them, how?)
No, this has to be a policy decision and
I can't fathom what they are thinking.
They don't want to get into the Windows trap of supporting decade-and-a-half-and-more-old software which they didn't make any money on in the first place.
There's
something behind this move that hasn't come out yet,
maybe some secret deal with their biggest developers
in exchange for rolling out new versions?).
Let's not go off the deep end, now.
I'm
waiting for the other shoe to drop. In the mean time
I'm NOT BUYING ANOTHER APPLE until this issue is
resolved (is that clear enough for you big brother?).
Your choice, of course. I know one guy who declined to move to System 7. He used his IIcx for well over a decade. There was, of course, a slight shortage of System 6-compatible software and hardware starting within a few months of System 7 hitting the streets, and when he did upgrade, he had to upgrade _everything_ at once. He went from System 6 to OS X, one jump. I know another guy who used an original IBM PC-AT, the version which had the 6MHz 286 and the 20MB hard drive, until it literally fell apart. (He had to swap out the hard disk a few times early on, but that was the only problem he had with it over a period of about 20 years. He had Lotus 1-2-3 and Wordstar on it, and he didn't care what anyone else used, that was good enough for him.)
I don't expect Apple to support Classic, period, beyond OS X 10.5. If, indeed, it makes it into 10.5. I'm now a lot less sure that there'll be Classic in 10.5 than I was even a few months ago. If Classic is dropped come 10.5, I guess that I'd have to just not update 10.4 on one of my external drives and boot from that drive when I need to run Classic. Double-booting is annoying, but I already have to do that when I want to run Linux on one of the Windows boxes so I'm used to it.
eMac 1.25GHz 2GB, iMacG5, assorted Windows boxes
Mac OS X (10.4.5)
semi-dead eMac due to blown caps on logic board
|
|
Posts:
19
Registered:
Dec 14, 2005
|
|
|
|
Re: Classic on Intel based Macs II?
Posted:
Mar 5, 2006 9:15 AM
in response to: Charles Dyer
|
|
|
Apple has _already_ lost several
hundred dollars because of this...
QED. You have proved the point as to why Apple should support classic.
I'd been planning to keep the eMac and use it to run
Classic,
Okay, so there seems to be a reason that you like classic.
Intel Mac
purcahses, if any will be delayed until at the very
earliest December, probably more like next year
around this time or later yet.
Another rea$on for Apple to have classic support. They would have sold you an Intel machine.
What's in it for them? (I can see what's in it for
_me_; my old apps will continue to run. What's in it
for Apple?
They sell more computers to you and me and others that like classic. They don't make money off of third party software anyway, so your argument about them not caring applies to Intel boxes as well. They do care because the more programs their hardware supports, the more versatile it is, and the more they sell. Again you delayed in buying an Intel mac because it didn't support classic. If it had, Apple would have more $$ in their pocket.
It's in
Apple's interest to support decade, or even decade
and a half, old applications which I didn't even buy
from them, how?)
Because they sell more hardware which is where they make their money. They are agnostic to whether or not you use old software or new that isn't Apple software.
Double-booting is annoying,
Yes it is.
G4 533 Digital Audio Mac OS X (10.3.9) 640 MB Ram, SIIG 133 ATA card
G4 466 Digital Audio
Mac OS X (10.3.9)
640 MB Ram, SIIG 133 ATA card
|
|
Posts:
572
Registered:
Sep 25, 2005
|
|
|
|
Re: Classic on Intel based Macs II?
Posted:
Mar 11, 2006 8:51 PM
in response to: daveslc
|
|
|
but they do care if you have a older Mac capable of running the newest os X like my beige that i had tiger on this in my sig a few times and ran great on only had a few problems with the optical drive not mounting anything. they should have supported the Beige up to tiger
Beige Power Macintosh G3 ALL-IN-ONE rev b rom, rev 2 logic board, OS X 10.2.8 Mac OS 9.2.x G3 466mhz, 448mb ram, 6mb vram, 120gig hdd, ATI radion 7000 ME, Pioneer DVR-110D
|
|
Posts:
13,496
Registered:
Jul 28, 2000
|
|
|
|
Re: Classic on Intel based Macs II?
Posted:
Mar 12, 2006 6:41 AM
in response to: Frank McHugh
|
|
|
The whining never stops, does it, Frank? If the Beige had been supported up to Tiger, in a few weeks or months you'd be whining because it wasn't supported up to 10.5, or 10.6, or 11. Apple is a business, not a charity, and there are real hardware-based reasons why computers become obsolete. Get over it.
TiBk1Ghz/512M; PTProG3/500MHz/768M
Mac OS X (10.3.9)
film & flatbed scanners, projector, tablet, laser & photo printers
|
|
Posts:
572
Registered:
Sep 25, 2005
|
|
|
|
Re: Classic on Intel based Macs II?
Posted:
Mar 12, 2006 9:52 PM
in response to: eww
|
|
|
i dont care about 10.5 support ive ran tiger on this beige G3 and it runs way better than 10.2.8 it had speed that jag didnt have im not really whining i just wonder why apple didnt support the system up to tiger. yea it dont have usb or firewire but they can be added. so cant a faster cpu video card 768mb ram so on and so forth
beige power macintosh G3 ALL-IN-ONE rev b rom, rev 2 logic board, OS X 10.2.8
Mac OS 9.2.x
266mhz, 448mb ram, 6mb vram, 120gig hdd, ATI radion 7000 ME, Pioneer DVR-110D
|
|
|
