|
Cool Mac Gear• iPod Video • iPod nano • iPod 1G-2G • iPod 3G • iPod 4G • iPod Mini • PowerBook-iBook • Garageband |
Last week Apple Co-founder Steve Wozniak addressed the Rochester, NY, group known as Apple CIDER Inc. at Monroe Community College. Among his remarks, the Woz noted, according to the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle:
Then there was viruses and OS 9:
Looks like OS 9 isn't dead yet as far as the Woz is concerned.
MacNet2's John Manzione takes umbrage at this:
"I know this isn’t going to sit well with many of the Mac faithful, but come on, what’s up with Wozniak these days? Is this guy jealous of Apple, someone who simply doesn’t like change, or is he just...well, dumb?
"Now, okay, I can deal with the fact that Woz simply doesn’t like OS X, but he seems to be implying that OS 9 is more secure than OS X....
"Wozniak’s dislike of OS X is well known, he still hasn’t moved to the platform despite its world-class state-of-the-art version known as Jaguar. I tend to think his dislike for OS X stems from it being developed by Jobs and NeXt, rather than being less secure than OS 9. OS 9 has its roots in the original Apple code that Woz had a hand in, so anything other than Apple’s ancient code just isn’t good enough for him."
"...as a co-founder of Apple, and someone who is still on Apple's payroll I think he has a duty to tell the remaining OS 9 holdouts that it's time to move to OS X. Why? Because there is no going back now, no matter how badly people want it to happen. OS 9 is truly dead and I think some people have forgotten just how bad earlier versions of Mac OS were. How often they crashed, how ugly the interface (though still better than Windows), and how clunky things were getting with new code thrown on top of old code... There is absolutely NO reason to continue using OS 9 unless you simply cannot afford to do it....." Hmmmm. I use OS X almost exclusively now on my production machines, although I still use OS 8.6 daily on my old PowerBook 1400. I love the great things about OS X, but I have to disagree with John on the "NO reason to continue using OS 9 unless you simply cannot afford to do it....." bit. There are plenty of good reasons to upgrade to OS X, and I'm with John on the obvious point that it's the future of the Mac platform, but there are also plenty of good reasons for users to stick with OS 9 if it's working well for them. Not everyone suffers from frequent crashes in OS 9. I've gone 15 days doing production work in 9 myself without a restart, which compares favorably to my uptime performance in OS X before it gets so bogged down with swapfiles and pageouts that I have to reboot (usually 10-12 days). OS 9 is still significantly faster than Jaguar on my G3 machines, although various efficiencies afforded by OS X mitigate the draggy response somewhat. Some of the earlier versions of the Classic Mac OS were indeed pretty awful, but others were quite decent. I've found System 7.5.5, OS 8.1, OS 8.6, and all of the OS 9s (except for 9.0.4 on my WallStreet for some reason) to be quite decent, stable performers. I've gone for over a month with OS 8.6 on my PowerBook 1400, using it a couple of hours a day, without rebooting. I think OS X's Aqua interface looks great, but I never considered any Mac OS GUI "ugly" (even System 6, whose clean simplicity I still relish). And new code thrown on top of old code in OS 9 may have been a programming horror, but it sure works well in OS 9, which is presumably the most horrific in this context of all. That is why "the remaining OS 9 holdouts" (who happen to constutute about two-thirds of Mac users) persist in using the "dead" OS. It just works so darned well for them that they feel no compelling reason to switch. Their ranks will gradually diminish as they purchase new Macs, most of which these days won't boot OS 9, and that evolution is inevitable, but I contend that in the vast majority of cases sticking with the Classic OS is not Luddism. Folks are just happy with OS 9, familiar with OS 9, and in no hurry to move on. I'm not sure why Steve Wozniak is resisting the transition to OS X, and I agree with John Manzione that OS X would be even better, more secure server software than OS 9. However, the Woz was talking about avoidance of email viruses and worms in his Rochester speech, and within that context, OS 9 is just fine. Like many other OS X enthusiasts (and there's plenty to be enthusiastic about), John Manzione seems to be of a mind that continued enthusiasm for the OS that made many of us Mac fans in the first place amounts to treason, perfidy, and perverse backwardness. I beg to differ. I can't imagine now going back to OS 9 for day to day computing on any of my machines that will run OS X half-decently. And there is an inevitable law of diminishing returns setting in with an accelerating drop off in development of up-to-date software for the Classic OS. For example, iCab is the only really current browser still available for OS 9, and fewer email clients support Classic any more. OS 9 users are going to find themselves increasingly shut out of a lot of cool stuff. But for folks who are happy using the software they have, and have no interest in surfing the bleeding edge, OS 9 still can do a fine job. There's no harm in being a fan of both Classic and OS X, IMHO. Dual booting Rebooting Into a Saved State OS 9 non boot Jace's question From: Richard Hallmark Actually, the issue is not DDR RAM. It is the other new hardware features including Firewire 800. It should be noted that the dual boot G4 machines are not the same hardware configuration as those released in January 2003. They are an older design released about a year ago. It is my understanding that no machine that has Firewire 800 can boot into Mac OS 9. Steve Jobs made a management decision not to rewrite Mac OS 9 to work with the new hardware. As I work deeper and deeper into Mac OS X, I realize the wisdom of this decision. It is simply not a good business decision to continue to develop an outdated operating system. Mac OS X is the future, Mac OS 9 is dead, or at least, dying. As a business man and an Apple stockholder, I applaud the decision to focus on the future instead of the past. This is not to say that Apple could not have made the Firewire 800 G4 Macs bootable in Mac OS 9. I am sure they could have. What Steve Jobs said over a year ago was that Mac OS 9 development has ended. Mac OS Classic is a different animal than Mac OS 9. They may look more or less the same but they deal with hardware configurations in a different manner. Classic can't talk directly to the hardware. It accesses the hardware through the other layers of Mac OS X. Since Classic sees the hardware in an indirect manner, hardware configuration is hidden from the OS. One of the key features of the Mac OS going back to 1984 is the tight integration of hardware and software. Mac OS 9 needs to understand the hardware to properly operate. One of the problems with the pre Mac OS X versions of Mac OS is that there was significant code that simply could not be fixed to accommodate a modern OS. Memory management and other aspects of Mac OS 9 are simply no longer useable. I would also add that Mac OS 9 remains a very useful operating system. Much work can still be accomplished using this OS. There are, however, things that can be done with Mac OS X that could NEVER be done in Mac OS 9. The Super Computer Cluster being constructed at Virginia Tech is one example. While one might argue that most of us will never have access to a cluster of 1,000+ Macs, some to the things that clusters can do can be effective on a smaller scale. The next version of Mac OS X provides developers with tools that are truly unimaginable in Mac OS 9. Most Macintosh users will never need to understand how the UNIX underpinnings of Mac OS X work to benefit from these capabilities. The beauty of Mac OS X is that is finally makes UNIX useable by people who have no idea of how to access the command line. My colleagues in the scientific and academic communities LOVE Mac OS X since it finally gives them an environment where they can use the millions of UNIX tools at the same time they can run modern GUI applications.
Richard K. Hallmark, Ph.D.
Hi Dr. Hallmark;
Thank you for this note. Your erudition is appreciated. I am a fan of your columns from way back when.
Excellent point about the FireWire 800 issue.
As I've stated in OS X Odyssey many times, I have no quarrel with Apple discontinuing development of OS 9, or dual booting if there is a substantial engineering obstacle to doing so. I do take issue with arbitrary firmware blocks on machines that would otherwise still be able to boot OS 9, or that could be made to with relatively trivial driver development.
I don;t dispute that OS X is a superior OS, and its "UNIX for the masses" characteristic is an underrated feature, although appreciated by more and more folks in the UNIX/Linus communities. It's what I use by choice now, but as you say, OS 9 is still a very useful operating system.
Charles
From David Schwartzstein I read your September 12 article about dual booting Macs between OS 9 and OS X. I'm guessing it's an arbitrary firmware / software block. The best example is the current stock of eMac. The 1 GHz Combo Drive eMac can boot OS 9 but the 1 GHz SuperDrive model cannot. The only differences as far as I can tell is the optical drive and the hard drive size. Granted that perhaps they're just too lazy to make a driver for the DVR-105 or whatever model of SuperDrive they're using in the eMac for OS 9, but then again, I suspect that they'd have to have made OS 9 drivers for the CD and Combo drives because I sincerely doubt they're still using the same model drives as when Steve threw OS 9 in the coffin over a year ago. I'd be curious to see if someone could drag a OS 9 system folder over from a Combo Drive eMac to a SuperDrive eMac and see if it'd boot. I'd assume it should, since both models are 1 Ghz with 133 Mhz bus / SDRAM. I remember back when the OS X Only G4s came out that there were reports that service providers had Mac Test Pro disks that could boot into OS 9, and although I never confirmed that myself, that says to me Apple's sending a message loud and clear, "You want the latest and greatest software, you want the OS X. We'll say it again, OS 9 is dead." -- Dave
Hi Dave;
Thanks for the info. I had forgotten about the dual boot dichotomy between the two eMac models, although I think I noted it in the release info when thry came out.
I agree with your analysis, and I think that MacFixIt also reported a while back that those Test Pro disks also exist for the non dual boot flat screen iMacs. As I said, the probable reason Apple hasn't killed dual booting on the base eMac and iBook is that a lot of their education channel customers wouldn't stand for having their Classic software obsoleted. The TiBook still dual boots because it's at the end of the road development-wise, and the Power Mac towers are dual bootable because there are still a substantial number of graphics and prepress professionals who haven't upgraded to Quark 6. At least that's my considered deduction.
Charles From David Chilstrom Jonathan Boyd takes issue with my suggestion for Apple providing a means on logout to save the state of currently running applications to disk. I can't take credit for the idea as this was, I believe, an intended feature of Apple's Copland OS. I'm not sure that it would be as difficult to implement as Jonathan suggests. He is right that the mechanism as described by me would restore a memory leaking application to its previously bloated state, thus conferring no benefit in that department. As for upgrades to currently running applications, I don't see a problem with running an older version from the disk memory cache despite the fact that the application has been updated. I wasn't proposing that any aspect of the OS itself be restored from a disk cache. I would use the multi-user feature of OS X more if logging out and back in weren't such a chore. Further, in a multi-user scenario, the preferred state to leave the computer in may be to always logout and leave the computer at the login screen. While Panther will take much of the sting out of multiple users sharing a computer without constantly disrupting each other's work, I suspect that many users will dutifully continue to log out completely either out of habit, a desire to leave things tidy or fear that another user might crash the computer and corrupt their open documents. The very stability of OS X encourages users to go hog wild running many applications and introduces the welcome problem of how to easily restore a complex mix of running applications and documents on reboot or logging back in. While Jonathan thinks what we want is the ability to save document sets from within applications (which would be nifty) what is desired here is the ability to shut down a Mac and upon rebooting have the previous state of the computer (leaks and all) restored.
Regards,
Hi David;
As noted in my response to your previous letter in this topic, I agree that this would be a killer feature. I'm not knowledgable enough about programming to debate the problems and issues that would be encountered in implementing it, but it would be wonderful if they could be overcome. I absolutely HATE logging out or rebooting. I tend to have 20 or more appications open all the time and perhaps 50-65 processes on the go. A reboot, from the time the system starts shutting everything down to when I get everything back the way it was (not counting browser pages that have been lost in the process) takes 20 minutes to half an hour of time that I can usually ill spare.
Charles From Darren Varner your quote
What quandary could they be in? They like OS 9, all of their stuff still works, why do they feel the need to change if they are so happy with the old OS and old equipment. Don't get caught up in this flap trap. Most of us believe it is time to move on and are very comfortable with OS X all by itself....and the new hardware, etc that most often times must come with it. I have an iMac that is going on 4 years old now and it runs OS X very well. Sounds like things will even get better with Panther. (I also have a 12" PB.) I have to wonder if you have a computer that is a lot older than that and does not run OS X or still rely totally (or almost so) on old software, then you should be questioned if you even support Apple or just love it in the past tense. Keep using what you have if you must. If you want what is new, buckle up and quit the whining. It's all good.
Peace.
Hi Darren;
The answer to why the quandary is that what started this thread of discussion and debate was the issues experienced by a person whose old iMac suffered an internam hardware meltdown this obliging them to replace it with a new flat-panel iMac that can;t dual-boot, thus the dillemma of non-compatibility with legacy software and compatibility with older peripherals. It is all well and good to just say they should upgrade their software and buy new printers, scanners, etc., but that represents a substantial financial outlay perhaps in excess of the cost of the new computer iteslf.
I'm not sure you're correct that most Mac users have decided that it's time to move on. Most will eventually, but as it stands, about two-thirds are still running OS 9 or earlier versions of the Mac OS.
As for me, I'm essentially switched. My production computers are a nine month old iBook and a three year old Pismo. Both run Jaguar tolerably well, especially the iBook with its Quartz Extreme support, although OS 9 is still significantly faster. But then people with dual procesor G4 towers have told me that OS 9 is faster on those machines as well.
Most of the software I use for production is the latest, bleeding edge versions, and the two applications I still haven't found satisfactory OS X native analogs for are both lightning quick in Classic Mode.
Charles From Chris Charles: FYI: I presently have OS X 10.2.6 and OS 9.1 on my PowerMac (B&W G3 with a G4/400 upgrade). Classic works fine using OS 9.1 (I haven't bumped it up to 9.2 for older game compatibility reasons). 9.1 was installed with 10.2 and then 10.2 was bumped to 10.2.6 with a combo update. I think that her model 'Book shipped with 9.1, so it isn't as if it isn't supported by her hardware. Jace would only need to do an X reinstall if her X-only disk doesn't have the OS 9 drivers on it. I'd tell her to use CCC to copy it, and then reformat the drive with OS 9 drivers using Disk Utility. One possible way to install 9.1 on the Powerbook using the software restore disks is to mount the 'book as a FW disk on her PowerMac. If 9.1 needs to be bumped to 9.2.2, let Jace know that it is a very big (84MB) download.
Peace,
Hi Chris;
Thanks for the observations and tips.
Charles
The OS X Odyssey archives may be accessed here: Note: Letters to Moore's Mailbag may or may not be published at the editor's discretion. Correspondents' email addresses will NOT be published unless the correspondent specifically requests publication. Letters may be edited for length and/or context. Opinions expressed in postings to Moore's MailBag are those of the respective correspondents and not necessarily shared or endorsed by the Editor and/or Applelinks management. If you would prefer that your message not appear in Moore's Mailbag, we would still like to hear from you. Just clearly mark your message "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," and it will not be published. CM
Page: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 |
| ||||
|
| ||||||
