This discussion is locked
Peter Cole2

Q: Classic & Intel Macs

Is it correct that Classic is not available on Intel Macs? Any other important incompatibilities?

Posted on Feb 17, 2006 6:41 PM

Close

Q: Classic & Intel Macs

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

Previous Page 2 of 3 last Next
  • by MarkDouma®,

    MarkDouma® MarkDouma® Jun 5, 2006 8:28 AM in response to Peter Cole2
    Level 6 (9,850 points)
    Jun 5, 2006 8:28 AM in response to Peter Cole2
    I'm currently making this post from Mozilla 1.2.1 running on OS 9.0.4 in Sheepshaver 2.3 running on OS X 10.4.6 on a 17" MacBook Pro.



    Works fairly well...



    Dual 2.7GHz PowerPC G5 w/ 2.5 GB RAM; 17" MacBook Pro w/ 2 GB RAM -   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  
  • by andyclarinet2003,

    andyclarinet2003 andyclarinet2003 Jun 5, 2006 8:24 AM in response to Allan Eckert
    Level 1 (25 points)
    Jun 5, 2006 8:24 AM in response to Allan Eckert
    Allen - Yes, it's an almost dead horse - but I am very comfortable with some OS9 applications that have no equals (in my opinion) on either an OSX or Intel platform.

    The concept of phasing out software by making new machines that no longer run those applications is quite bothersome to me. I loved how OS X was introduced, allowing older OS 9 (and earlier) apps to run in a classic environment.

    This Intel chip design deviates from that approach, and Apple has disapointed me by their decision.
  • by andyclarinet2003,

    andyclarinet2003 andyclarinet2003 Jun 5, 2006 8:31 AM in response to MarkDouma®
    Level 1 (25 points)
    Jun 5, 2006 8:31 AM in response to MarkDouma®
    Wow - this looks exciting - basically you can use the new Intel equipped Mac machines, and with this setup (Sheepshaver) you can still run an old OS 9 application, right?

    Well, this is what I was hoping would happen.

    I am sure it's not blazing fast - but it still works. Thank you for this news.
  • by Allan Eckert,

    Allan Eckert Allan Eckert Jun 5, 2006 9:27 AM in response to andyclarinet2003
    Level 9 (53,800 points)
    Desktops
    Jun 5, 2006 9:27 AM in response to andyclarinet2003
    Hi Andy;

    I wasn't refering to OS 9 as a dead horse from your point of view but from Apple's point of view. I understand that there are users that find OS 9 useful but that does not make it a viable product for Apple.

    Allan
    tiger

    If you are interested in donating your spare CPU cycles to science, please try
    http://teammacosx.homeunix.com/index.html
  • by kfinn,

    kfinn kfinn Jun 12, 2006 3:37 PM in response to eww
    Level 1 (8 points)
    Notebooks
    Jun 12, 2006 3:37 PM in response to eww
    I agree, party, with your comment: "I don't feel Apple owes me any further consideration for OS 9. I've gotten my money's worth all down the line."

    And I, too, have spent a bundle on hardware and software going back to the Mac II and SE's. And Macs helped me earn a good living for some twenty years.

    However, what I like about about the Classic Environment, and am disappointed to find that the new iMac doesn't have it, is that I don't have to worry about converting my legacy files to new applications.

    I'm looking at the latest iMAC 20” 2GHZ Intel Core Duo to, hopefully, be my last hardware upgrade. However, I don't know, for example, if iPhoto will convert Photoshop files, and I've got 3,823 of them on my drive, not counting CD archives.

    And if I go over to Microsoft Office, I know their filters won't properly convert WordPerfect 3.1 files, and I've got something like. . . oh, well, you get the idea.

    So the problem, to me, isn't that I'm all that in love with my early apps (although I love the ease of use of WP and ClarisDraw for example), it's getting my legacy files easily converted to new apps.



    Early G3   Mac OS 9.2.x  
  • by Rohan Stevenson1,

    Rohan Stevenson1 Rohan Stevenson1 Sep 9, 2006 5:26 AM in response to Allan Eckert
    Level 4 (3,175 points)
    Sep 9, 2006 5:26 AM in response to Allan Eckert
    Exactly, what do you have to run that requires "Classic"?


    quark 4 and 5. (i am writing this on behalf of my wife who has just taken delivery of intel macs for her packaging department - helping out a little).

    they have to use 4 and 5 because of compatiblity issues with supplier in the far east who are still on g3's and older computer and running even older versions of quark xpress. in fact, the ability to run classic was a prerequisite and its seems she was badly informed.

    the issue is a lot of aertwork created over here for UK based companies have to be sent to the far east where their technology is not up to speed, and you can understand why. exchange rates and income levels are a fraction of what they are in western countried despite the fact that as an economy china and other similar countries are catching up fast. the reason so much work is sent to these countries is precisely because they are much cheaper and therefore they don't have the cash spend on the latest and greatest.

    the latest os x quark is £1200 or so. ridicilous.

    looks like i will be recommending to my wifes company that they send the intel macs back for PPC ones.
  • by amy1209,

    amy1209 amy1209 Sep 18, 2006 12:29 AM in response to Peter Cole2
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Sep 18, 2006 12:29 AM in response to Peter Cole2
    hi, are u talking about classic environment OS 9?
    cuz i just got a new macbook pro..i was trying to install a online game, but it won't install...because i don't have classic on my computer..
    that's weird.. the game worked on my old ibook..but not on macbook pro..
  • by andyclarinet2003,

    andyclarinet2003 andyclarinet2003 Sep 18, 2006 12:43 AM in response to amy1209
    Level 1 (25 points)
    Sep 18, 2006 12:43 AM in response to amy1209
    hi, are u talking about classic environment OS 9?
    cuz i just got a new macbook pro..i was trying to
    install a online game, but it won't install...because
    i don't have classic on my computer..
    that's weird.. the game worked on my old ibook..but
    not on macbook pro..


    Apparently, some 3rd party folks have created a way to emulate Classic (OS9) environment, and thus allow these older programs to run on the new Intel based machines.

    As you read this thread, many folks seem to feel that OS9 has lived it's life and it's time to let it die a quiet death.

    I think It's a better philosphy to offer backward compatability rather than have to buy new software with the new hardware.
  • by amy1209,

    amy1209 amy1209 Sep 18, 2006 1:10 AM in response to andyclarinet2003
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Sep 18, 2006 1:10 AM in response to andyclarinet2003
    well..yep.
    i agree with you lo..
    thanks alot...=)
  • by Allan Eckert,

    Allan Eckert Allan Eckert Sep 18, 2006 6:25 AM in response to andyclarinet2003
    Level 9 (53,800 points)
    Desktops
    Sep 18, 2006 6:25 AM in response to andyclarinet2003
    Hi andyclarinet2003;

    Sad part of your idea is that Apple doesn't think the same way. They have stated that the amount of the market share that OS 9 has is not worth the amount of effort it will take to maintain it.

    Allan
    tiger
  • by eww,

    eww eww Sep 18, 2006 7:19 AM in response to andyclarinet2003
    Level 9 (52,994 points)
    Sep 18, 2006 7:19 AM in response to andyclarinet2003
    I think It's a better philosophy to offer backward compatability rather than have to buy new software with the new hardware.


    A word in Apple's defense. These views are purely my own:

    Apple has offered backward compatibility with OS 9 (in the form of Classic) for five years now, through the first five major versions and more than two dozen incremental updates of OS X. Customers were warned very publicly several years ago that all of Apple's OS 9-related software development efforts had ceased for good, and that Classic would not be supported indefinitely. The decision not to invest Apple resources in accommodating Classic operation on the radically new architecture of the Intel Macs was completely consistent with those much earlier announcements.

    This is not to say that there's no place in the world any more for people who want (or need) to use OS 9-based applications: I still use several Classic applications heavily myself, and I'd be crippled without them. Nor is it to say that there's anything wrong with third-party developers trying to provide options in which Apple declined to invest during this major hardware transition. Three cheers for Sheepshaver and the people who are developing it. If it meets your needs, use it in good health. If it doesn't — either because there are glitches in it, or because the Classic programs you'd like to run aren't compatible (like many games, in particular) — well, at least the introduction of the Intel Macs has made it cheaper than ever to buy and keep an older Mac that will run Classic and/or boot into pure OS 9. Given that one can start up in some version of OS 9.1-9.2.2 on nearly every Mac model introduced from the spring of 1994 through late 2003, and every Mac built from early 2001 until early this year can run Classic, it's hard to fault Apple for inadequate attention to backward compatibility over the long run. Its record has been pretty good.
  • by Daniel Kaplan,

    Daniel Kaplan Daniel Kaplan Sep 18, 2006 12:44 PM in response to Peter Cole2
    Level 1 (59 points)
    Wireless
    Sep 18, 2006 12:44 PM in response to Peter Cole2
    Classic doesn't run, but I'm successfully running SheepShaver on a new MacBook Pro. This is a PowerPC emulator and I've managed to install OS 9.0.4 on it.

    There is one important bug: file transfer via the "Unix" virtual disk drive (the folder I'm sharing between SheepShaver and Mac OS X) reverses the characters in both the file type and creator. For example, I copied the "Trackpad" control panel from the Mac OS X side, and on the SheepShaver side its type was "vedc" (should have been "cdev") and its creator was "dapt" (should have been "tpad"). When I used FileBuddy to change the type and creator to what they should have been, the file was properly recognized by the Finder as a control panel.

    Doing this for every file that one transfers is a workaround (but a somewhat cumbersome one).

    As a Unix expert pointed out to me, this is (almost) the old "nuxi" bug! In other words, comparing the PowerPC and the Intel processors, one of them must be "bigendian" and the other "littlendian," so that character strings get reversed going from one to the other.

    This needs to be fixed! Or else, Apple should help those of us who still have essential OS 9 software.

    PowerBook G4 15 (Titanium) Mac OS X (10.4.7)

    PowerBook G4 15 (Titanium)    
  • by eww,

    eww eww Sep 18, 2006 1:55 PM in response to Daniel Kaplan
    Level 9 (52,994 points)
    Sep 18, 2006 1:55 PM in response to Daniel Kaplan
    But Dan, Apple announced at least four, maybe five years ago that it was all done fixing things in OS 9, and it announced when the Intel Macs came out that Classic mode and OS 9 apps weren't going to be supported — at least not by Apple. Other developers are welcome, obviously, to provide fixes and patches that will make OS 9 apps usable on MacIntels. But if you're still expecting Apple to help with that, what part of "no" don't you understand?
  • by andyclarinet2003,

    andyclarinet2003 andyclarinet2003 Sep 18, 2006 11:55 PM in response to Daniel Kaplan
    Level 1 (25 points)
    Sep 18, 2006 11:55 PM in response to Daniel Kaplan
    Gee, this SheapShaver gives hope to those of us that are still enjoying their 10.3x world on iMac machines that just love having Classic as an emulated OS, along with the several great apps that we know and love.

    Until that dreadful day our machine dies - and we are plunged into a market where there is no OS9 - (unless you run this SheepShaver, or something else that will be similar that will probably come along).

    Not running ny Unix stuff, I see no problem with the bug Daniel writes about on reversing characters in file type and creator.

    iMac   Mac OS X (10.3.9)   likes some favorite OS9 stuff
  • by Daniel Kaplan,

    Daniel Kaplan Daniel Kaplan Sep 20, 2006 10:44 AM in response to eww
    Level 1 (59 points)
    Wireless
    Sep 20, 2006 10:44 AM in response to eww
    Some of us die-hard Apple users still need OS 9, and we're very happy and appreciative that SheepShaver allows us to stay productive while remaining in the Macintosh fold.

    My appeal is simply for the developers of SheepShaver to fix their bug.

    Why is it, eww, that this seems to offend you? As far as I can tell from your post, it has nothing to do with you. I don't understand why you zealots continue to preach from your soapboxes!
Previous Page 2 of 3 last Next