From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <dirtydiapers-EED9AD.18565022072003@nnrp06.earthlink.net>,
Poopie Diapers <dirtydiapers@nospam.com> wrote:

In article <bfk570027e4@enews3.newsguy.com>,
Stephen M. Adams <adamst@no.spam> wrote:

Poopie Diapers <dirtydiapers@nospam.com> writes:

So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode >and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb. For >users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators. For new >Mac users, they could care less.

68K emulator? I don't think that's been around for several releases.

As for classic support, it will be around for a while, several years
most likely.

I sure hope you are wrong. Some of us have been Mac users for many
years and have many apps that are not X compatible and may never be, or
the cost would be a fortune for me to upgrade to all native versions. I prefer new Mac users not reply to my posts, since there only concept of
the Mac is OSX and they have not a clue about anything else.

I'm curious: what software do you have that you think might not ever be upgraded to run in Mac OS X natively?

I've been using Macs since 1994. Not as long as some, longer than
others, and I do not use any Classic apps at all. I've been Mac OS X
exlusively on my Pismo since 10.1 came out.
Michael


[snip]

--
My email address is ROT-13 encoded. Decode to send email.

Mac users enjoy a love-hate relationship with Microsoft - in which love is defined as "resigned tolerance" and hate as "lava-hot rancor fueled by the fire of a thousand burning suns."
~ Macworld

GnuPG Public Key ID: C6E230A12F07FE72
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Poopie Diapers <dirtydiapers@nospam.com> writes:

Stephen M. Adams <adamst@no.spam> wrote:

As for classic support, it will be around for a while, several years
most likely.

I sure hope you are wrong. Some of us have been Mac users for many
years and have many apps that are not X compatible and may never be, or
the cost would be a fortune for me to upgrade to all native versions. I >prefer new Mac users not reply to my posts, since there only concept of
the Mac is OSX and they have not a clue about anything else.

I wrote my first Mac program in 1985. Used Apple ][ before that. OS X
is a major improvement. I'm sorry you don't appreciate it. Yes, it has quirks. Yes, it is different. But overall, it's a major positive.

While I sympathize with your situation, providing backwards compatibility
and supporting it forever is not going to fly. For a wonderful, real
world example of how this can hose a company, read the history and story
of Prime Computer. They basically backwards compatibilitied themselves
to death.

In the end, Apple will judge the cost of continuing to support classic
against the potential gain. Every single day, the equation weighs more
and more towards dropping support as a business decision.

-Stephen
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Poopie Diapers <dirtydiapers@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<dirtydiapers-82BDAA.11243422072003@nnrp06.earthlink.net>...

So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb. For users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators. For new
Mac users, they could care less.

PC' have the capability to run DOS and old pre XP software. One thing I like better about XP is that when you run in classic compatibility mode
to run a Win 95 app, its not as obvious as on the Mac.

I doubt Apple can or will do such a thing.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <230720031019237980%zcoevgg@znp.pbz>,
Michael Allbritton <zcoevgg@znp.pbz> wrote:

In article <none-046EF8.08211223072003@corp.supernews.com>, McTech ><none@nospam.com> wrote:

In article <220720031157097644%zcoevgg@znp.pbz>,
Michael Allbritton <zcoevgg@znp.pbz> wrote:

There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since
Mac OS 8.5.

You're completely wacked. I run 68000 code on my OS 9 box all the time.

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to what "68K emulation" means.
I never said there was no 68K CODE in Classic Mac OS; the legacy 68K
code in Classic Mac OS is what allows old 68K apps to run.

What the 68K emulation did was allow newer versions of the Mac OS, such
as 7.5.x, to run on both the new PowerMacs that were coming out in 1994
and older machines with 680x0 (non-PowerPC) processors. This emulation
was removed from Mac OS 8.5 when Apple dropped official support for
680x0 processors from the OS.
Michael

That's not emulation. Back in those days, the processor support was
called "Classic 68K", "CFM-68K", "Fat", and "PowerPC". Around the time
of 8.5, the OS stopped being "Fat". They also stopped supporting the
original Mac hardware emulator for pre-System 6 apps around that time.

We get to do this all over again now with 64 bit versus 32 bit. The
code isn't the same and IBM states pretty much everywhere that they
don't intend to make dual mode chips like the G5 forever. What I
_really_ hope for is a way for Apple's installer to compile applications
on the target system - The developer would run a compiler that produces simplified and an encrypted source code. The installer would then
compile the encrypted code as needed for installation. No "Fat" apps
headache again.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since
Mac OS 8.5.

You're completely wacked. I run 68000 code on my OS 9 box all the time.

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to what "68K emulation" means.
I never said there was no 68K CODE in Classic Mac OS; the legacy 68K
code in Classic Mac OS is what allows old 68K apps to run.

What the 68K emulation did was allow newer versions of the Mac OS, such
as 7.5.x, to run on both the new PowerMacs that were coming out in 1994
and older machines with 680x0 (non-PowerPC) processors. This emulation
was removed from Mac OS 8.5 when Apple dropped official support for
680x0 processors from the OS.
Michael

That's not emulation. Back in those days, the processor support was
called "Classic 68K", "CFM-68K", "Fat", and "PowerPC". Around the time
of 8.5, the OS stopped being "Fat". They also stopped supporting the original Mac hardware emulator for pre-System 6 apps around that time.

mac os 8.5 dropped support for 68k macs, which is probably what you
refer to as the os no longer being 'fat.' however, it still *runs* 68k
apps thru the included 68k emulator. furthermore, some parts of the os
are still 68k, even in os 9, like the part that loads and runs 68k
apps, for instance.

pre system-6 apps still run just fine. infact, every once in a while i
launch lode runner which came out in 1985, and it runs perfectly.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <mcmurtri-5563D1.13382923072003@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote:
......

...... What I
_really_ hope for is a way for Apple's installer to compile applications
on the target system - The developer would run a compiler that produces >simplified and an encrypted source code. The installer would then
compile the encrypted code as needed for installation. No "Fat" apps >headache again.

This would be very nice. The installation process could optimize on the
fly for a given platform. Similarly, it would be nice if the operating
system installation could optimize for the install platform.

--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <230720031501020198%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

In article <230720031019237980%zcoevgg@znp.pbz>, Michael Allbritton <zcoevgg@znp.pbz> wrote:

In article <none-046EF8.08211223072003@corp.supernews.com>, McTech <none@nospam.com> wrote:

In article <220720031157097644%zcoevgg@znp.pbz>,
Michael Allbritton <zcoevgg@znp.pbz> wrote:

There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since
Mac OS 8.5.

You're completely wacked. I run 68000 code on my OS 9 box all the time.

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to what "68K emulation" means.
I never said there was no 68K CODE in Classic Mac OS; the legacy 68K
code in Classic Mac OS is what allows old 68K apps to run.

What the 68K emulation did was allow newer versions of the Mac OS, such
as 7.5.x, to run on both the new PowerMacs that were coming out in 1994
and older machines with 680x0 (non-PowerPC) processors. This emulation
was removed from Mac OS 8.5 when Apple dropped official support for
680x0 processors from the OS.

you say there is legacy 68k code in classic mac os - so how can that
code run on a power pc chip without the 68k emulator?

system 8.5 and later do not run on 68k macs, but the 68k emulator is
still there to run old apps (and portions of the system itself which
never was converted).

I see what I did here. When the OP mentioned "68K emulation" I thought
of emulation that allowed newer versions of Mac OS (ie: OS 7.5.5, for
example) to run on both 680x0 and PowerPC processors. This is obviously
not what the OP meant. Entirely my mistake.

The above type of "emulation" is what I meant when I said the Mac OS
had not had "68K emulation" since OS 8.5. I did NOT mean that Classic
Mac OS could not run 68K apps. Obviously it can.
Michael

--
My email address is ROT-13 encoded. Decode to send email.

Mac users enjoy a love-hate relationship with Microsoft - in which love is defined as "resigned tolerance" and hate as "lava-hot rancor fueled by the fire of a thousand burning suns."
~ Macworld

GnuPG Public Key ID: C6E230A12F07FE72
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <230720031019237980%zcoevgg@znp.pbz>, Michael Allbritton <zcoevgg@znp.pbz> wrote:

There is no 68K emulation in Mac OS 9, and there hasn't been since
Mac OS 8.5.

You're completely wacked. I run 68000 code on my OS 9 box all the time.

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to what "68K emulation" means.

Yes, and I think it's on your part. Whether on purpose or not, you're spreading false information, and you need to educate yourself.

I never said there was no 68K CODE in Classic Mac OS; the legacy 68K
code in Classic Mac OS is what allows old 68K apps to run.

Sorry, legacy 68K code in the system has nothing to do with letting 68K
apps to run. They would both need to be emulated on a PPC processor.

What the 68K emulation did was allow newer versions of the Mac OS, such
as 7.5.x, to run on both the new PowerMacs that were coming out in 1994
and older machines with 680x0 (non-PowerPC) processors.

No, 68K emulation allowed ANY 68K code, whether part of the system or
part of a 68K application, to run. 68K code CANNOT run on a PPC chip!
That's like trying to put a VHS tape in your DVD burner -- even if it
would fit, it wouldn't do anything. Emulation was required to form a
bridge between the chip and the software -- kind of like running a
cable from your VCR to the DVD burner.

Older machines with 68K processors had no need of emulation whatsoever.

This emulation
was removed from Mac OS 8.5 when Apple dropped official support for
680x0 processors from the OS.

I believe you're conveniently blind to the fact that McTech says he
runs 68K code on OS 9 all the time. How could he do this without
emulation?

Apple dropped support for 68K chips from the OS, since keeping support
for 68K chips would require all new PPC code to be duplicated in 68K
code. (Or a PPC emulator to be written for the 68K chips, which would
never happen.)

--
-Thomas

e-mail me at thomasareed at philadelphia.net minus phil
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

I doubt it. I think Apple will turn Classic into an unsupported
standalone package that people can install if they wish. It will run forever but not gain any new features. They might even open source it.

And I doubt that. Apple doesn't use OpenSource as a dumping pit.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <230720031021526869%zcoevgg@znp.pbz>, Michael Allbritton <zcoevgg@znp.pbz> wrote:

I'm curious: what software do you have that you think might not ever be upgraded to run in Mac OS X natively?

MacDraw?
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Mark Schonewille <Europe@iHUG.org> writes:

"David C." wrote:

On the other hand, I've got first-generation Mac apps (like
StuntCopter) which run just fine (but without sound) on my G4
system with MacOS 10.2.6.

That's funny. StuntCopter crashes my iMac with MacOS 9 and I have to
run vMac to play StuntCopter, but eventually vMac will crash too :-(

Never tried it on 9. My hardware skipped that generation. Started
with an SE running 6/7.5.5, then a Q840av running 7.6.1/8.1, then a
QuickSilver G4 running 9.2.2 and 10.x.

Although the G4 boots 9, I never actually do so. (Before Disk
Warrior 3 came out, I would boot a 9.2.2 CD in order to do
maintenance, but that was about it.)

-- David

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <36260f0d.0307231146.772b98c5@posting.google.com>,
jwolf6589@aol.com (nospam) wrote:

Poopie Diapers <dirtydiapers@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<dirtydiapers-82BDAA.11243422072003@nnrp06.earthlink.net>...

So does Apple have plans to elliminate the classic compatibility mode
and the 68K emulator from future Macs? If they do, they are dumb. For users who own lots of Mac software, we need those emulators. For new
Mac users, they could care less.

PC' have the capability to run DOS and old pre XP software. One thing I like better about XP is that when you run in classic compatibility mode
to run a Win 95 app, its not as obvious as on the Mac.

I doubt Apple can or will do such a thing.

They *could*, but not at anything resembling a reasonable cost.

More than anything else, though, this may be saying more about
how little progress there has been in Windows' user experience
than anything else.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <230720032220168973%4ad1qx6b02@sneakemail.com>, Philo D <4ad1qx6b02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

In article <230720031021526869%zcoevgg@znp.pbz>, Michael Allbritton <zcoevgg@znp.pbz> wrote:

I'm curious: what software do you have that you think might not ever be upgraded to run in Mac OS X natively?

MacDraw?

You are probably correct that MacDraw will not ever be ported to Mac OS
X. :-)

But you can't find a more current app that will do what you want? What
about AppleWorks? Doesn't that have a drawing component similar to
MacDraw?
Michael

--
My email address is ROT-13 encoded. Decode to send email.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
~ Theodore Roosevelt (Republican)

GnuPG Public Key ID: C6E230A12F07FE72
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

mac os 8.5 dropped support for 68k macs, which is probably what you
refer to as the os no longer being 'fat.' however, it still *runs* 68k
apps thru the included 68k emulator. furthermore, some parts of the os
are still 68k, even in os 9, like the part that loads and runs 68k
apps, for instance.

pre system-6 apps still run just fine. infact, every once in a while i
launch lode runner which came out in 1985, and it runs perfectly.

I can vouch for this. I still regularly open files created with a 1991
copy of Microft Works for MacOS, running in 'Classic' MacOS 9.2 under
MacOS X on a Powerbook G3. They run a little slowly, but they run. Maybe
about the same speed as they did on the Centris 610 the software came
with... ;)

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <nunya-137BD4.08170224072003@28-72.newscene.com>,
Jim <nunya@business.net> wrote:

.....

No, they COULDN'T care less. If you COULD care less, that means you
care. Get it?

Thank you for pointing this out.
This error is particularly irritating to me.

When someone states that they could care less,
I often ask just how much less could they care.

--
Daniel Packman
NCAR/ACD
pack@ucar.edu
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <mcmurtri-5563D1.13382923072003@typhoon.sonic.net>,
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@sonic.net> wrote:

We get to do this all over again now with 64 bit versus 32 bit. The
code isn't the same and IBM states pretty much everywhere that they
don't intend to make dual mode chips like the G5 forever.

According to the PowerPC architecture manual, the user mode instruction set is the same, but for a few instructions which only run on 64-bit
processors.

--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

They *could*, but not at anything resembling a reasonable cost.

More than anything else, though, this may be saying more about
how little progress there has been in Windows' user experience
than anything else.

And erase compatibility for all the apps that are not X? I can see where this guy is coming from. He's got many apps that do not have X versions, may never have X versions, or the cost for an X version will be way too high.

I agree with the previous posters. Apple will probably not do such a thing. They have mainted 68K compatibility thus far. PC's have Windows 9.x and DOS compability. Most DOS/9.x apps will run on a new PC.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <230720031617256875%zcoevgg@znp.pbz>, Michael Allbritton <zcoevgg@znp.pbz> wrote:

I see what I did here. When the OP mentioned "68K emulation" I thought
of emulation that allowed newer versions of Mac OS (ie: OS 7.5.5, for example) to run on both 680x0 and PowerPC processors. This is obviously
not what the OP meant. Entirely my mistake.

Well I _still_ don't completely understand what you thought you were
trying to say... :-)

But it's always refreshing to see someone on Usenet own up to their
mistake, rather than blaming everyone else for their lack of reading comprehension, etc.

Don't recall seeing your name here before - welcome!

--
Jim Glidewell
My opinions only
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I'm curious: what software do you have that you think might not ever be >upgraded to run in Mac OS X natively?

Stratego, Stratega, Grolier Encyclopedia, and a host of other apps.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I have a copy of MS Word for DOS version 5.5. Can't be installed
under NT/2000/XP.

Perhaps you are ignorant of PC's.

I have friends that can use old DOS apps on newer XP systems easily.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I highly doubt Apple will eliminate Classic. Not for many more years.

Afterall, they ARE still supporting 68K emulation even in Classic
mode. That's pretty amazing if you think about it. The other day, I
popped a CD-ROM from circa 1995 into my TiBook running OS X just for
fun and it ran fine! We're talking about binaries for a different
processor and OS altogether running on PPC running OS X!

IMO, they're not gonna throw all that away.

-j
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

That's an interesting idea. I think that would work out well for Apple
and the end users.
Michael

I doubt Apple will do this. MS supports pre XP/NT/2000 apps.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <jimglidewell-2407031341050001@green.sdc.cs.boeing.com>, Jim Glidewell <jimglidewell@attbi.com> wrote:

In article <230720031617256875%zcoevgg@znp.pbz>, Michael Allbritton <zcoevgg@znp.pbz> wrote:

I see what I did here. When the OP mentioned "68K emulation" I thought
of emulation that allowed newer versions of Mac OS (ie: OS 7.5.5, for example) to run on both 680x0 and PowerPC processors. This is obviously
not what the OP meant. Entirely my mistake.

Well I _still_ don't completely understand what you thought you were
trying to say... :-)

But it's always refreshing to see someone on Usenet own up to their
mistake, rather than blaming everyone else for their lack of reading comprehension, etc.

I do what I can for the people. :-)

At first I couldn't figure out what all the hub-bub was about. After
all I knew exactly what I meant, what was the problem. Then I realized
what I'd done so I figured I'd better try to sort it out.

Don't recall seeing your name here before - welcome!

I've actually been mostly lurking on usenet for almost a decade, since
I got my first Macintosh back in 1994. I don't participate in the
discussions much because the signal to noise ratio can be so out of
control. So when I do decide to break my silence I pretty much make
myself look silly. Oh, well, at least I'm good looking. :-)
Michael

--
My email address is ROT-13 encoded. Decode to send email.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
~ Theodore Roosevelt (Republican)

GnuPG Public Key ID: C6E230A12F07FE72
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <20030724174516.04924.00000537@mb-m26.aol.com>,
Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

I'm curious: what software do you have that you think might not ever be >upgraded to run in Mac OS X natively?

Stratego, Stratega, Grolier Encyclopedia, and a host of other apps.

I don't know for sure about the games, but I'll bet you can fine
analogs that are for OS X. I do know there are other encyclopedias
available for Mac OS X. Here are 2 for sale on the Apple Store: <http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72602/w o/eE24nFPzvIvU2X7kDNu137n8jVE/0.0.7.1.0.5.11.1.0.1>

The apps are there for OS X if you want to upgrade. But if you don't
want to upgrade that's your choice.
Michael

--
My email address is ROT-13 encoded. Decode to send email.

"...and on the 7th day, God turned off his Macintosh."
~ Anonymous

GnuPG Public Key ID: C6E230A12F07FE72
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

I doubt it. I think Apple will turn Classic into an unsupported standalone package that people can install if they wish. It will run forever but not gain any new features. They might even open source it.

it already does everything it needs to do - run os9. there really
aren't any more features to add.

it will be revved to work with later versions of osx, but so will
everything else, like itunes and safari. and no, they won't open source
the classic layer.

Why wouldn't they opensource the classic layer? For one thing it only
works on PowerPC machines and most of them are sold by Apple. Secondly, Mac-on-Linux does the same thing and works well.

Apple could very well gain a lot by opensourcing Classic, if only by
making it possible to merge Mac-on-Linux code with Classic code and
improve both.

--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

That's an interesting idea. I think that would work out well for Apple
and the end users.
Michael

I doubt Apple will do this. MS supports pre XP/NT/2000 apps.

Confused...

What does the second sentence have to do with the first or the quoted
text?

--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Find me a Stratego clone for Mac OSX. They do not exist. Therefore classic will never leave any mac I own.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <20030724174738.04924.00000538@mb-m26.aol.com>,
crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk (Crucifyself03) wrote:

In the end, Apple will judge the cost of continuing to support classic >against the potential gain. Every single day, the equation weighs more
and more towards dropping support as a business decision.

-Stephen

Then Apple will be dead.

Like it has been since, what, 1978? Get a grip.

You wont see Windows doing such crazy things.

You already have, and will continue to see it happen in future.

There are millions of PC users, and dropping support for pre Windows XP/NT/2000 apps
is out of the question.

Microsoft has already dropped support for Windows pre-98. Not even
they can afford to continue support forever.

Some older applications won't run under XP/NT/2K...that's the way
the cookie crumbles.

Apple drops backward compatibility Apple will die.

There is no support for Apple// and /// software. Apple isn't dead.

Applications that didn't follow the guidelines sometimes do not
run in more recent versions of MacOS. Apple isn't dead.

If Apple drops Classic support in four or seven or ten years,
Apple won't die from doing so.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <20030724174840.04924.00000541@mb-m26.aol.com>,
crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk (Crucifyself03) wrote:

I have a copy of MS Word for DOS version 5.5. Can't be installed
under NT/2000/XP.

Perhaps you are ignorant of PC's.

I have friends that can use old DOS apps on newer XP systems easily.

But not *all* old apps, and certainly not in all cases.

If an old app continues to run, count yourself lucky. Don't
expect MS to guarantee them all to run, much less count
on third-party developers to do the same for old applications.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <20030724192110.05067.00000513@mb-m26.aol.com>,
crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk (Crucifyself03) wrote:

Find me a Stratego clone for Mac OSX. They do not exist. Therefore classic will never leave any mac I own.

You had better treat your old machines *very* well.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk (Crucifyself03) writes:

I have a copy of MS Word for DOS version 5.5. Can't be installed
under NT/2000/XP.

Perhaps you are ignorant of PC's.

I have friends that can use old DOS apps on newer XP systems easily.

Perhaps you can't read.

I have personally tried to install Word 5.5 on NT, on 2000 and on XP.

The installer crashes after the second floppy.

Now if you think I'm lying to you, you're welcome to your opinion,
but don't go making blanket assertions that are simply not true.

-- David
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Steve Hix writes:

Crucifyself03 wrote:

Find me a Stratego clone for Mac OSX. They do not exist.
Therefore classic will never leave any mac I own.

You had better treat your old machines *very* well.

You assume that Classic is going to go away.

I don't think it will.

-- David
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <20030724192110.05067.00000513@mb-m26.aol.com>,
crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk (Crucifyself03) wrote:

Find me a Stratego clone for Mac OSX. They do not exist. Therefore classic will never leave any mac I own.

<http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/17097&vid=73360>
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <20030724174738.04924.00000538@mb-m26.aol.com>,
crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk (Crucifyself03) wrote:

In the end, Apple will judge the cost of continuing to support classic >against the potential gain. Every single day, the equation weighs more
and more towards dropping support as a business decision.

-Stephen

Then Apple will be dead. You wont see Windows doing such crazy things. There
are millions of PC users, and dropping support for pre Windows XP/NT/2000 apps
is out of the question.

Apple drops backward compatibility Apple will die.

Perhaps you misunderstood the implications of Stephen's last line. What
he indicates is that at some point the expenditure of resources from supporting Classic is going to outweigh the benefits in doing so. If
there are enough users dependent on Classic such that Apple would die by eliminating it, then that point has not been reached yet.

Apple stopped shipping an OS that booted 68k machines. They did not die.
The eventual elimination of Classic is the same kind of thing. I would
say that elimination is assured. I would not say that it's assured
within the viable lifetime of the relatively new machine on which I'm
typing.

G
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <gwestonREMOVE-8D33DD.08521125072003@netnews.attbi.com>,
Gregory Weston <gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com> wrote:

In article <20030724192110.05067.00000513@mb-m26.aol.com>,
crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk (Crucifyself03) wrote:

Find me a Stratego clone for Mac OSX. They do not exist. Therefore classic
will never leave any mac I own.

<http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/17097&vid=73360>

That's what I was looking for yesterday!
Michael

--
My email address is ROT-13 encoded. Decode to send email.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
~ Theodore Roosevelt (Republican)

GnuPG Public Key ID: C6E230A12F07FE72
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <m2ispr2wlb.fsf@qqqq.invalid>, shamino@techie.com (David C.)
wrote:

Steve Hix writes:

Crucifyself03 wrote:

Find me a Stratego clone for Mac OSX. They do not exist.
Therefore classic will never leave any mac I own.

You had better treat your old machines *very* well.

You assume that Classic is going to go away.

I don't think it will.

Eventually, it will go away.

By which time, the machines that currently run his Stratego
app will likely be very old.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <20030724174738.04924.00000538@mb-m26.aol.com>,
Crucifyself03 <crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk> wrote:

Apple drops backward compatibility Apple will die.

I love easy calculations.

I assume it's a matter of how important ye olde programs are. Some are certainly important to ye olde users. But as each day passes, ye olde
users represent a smaller and smaller percentage of the user base. And
many of them, such as my self, can live with giving up a few old
programs.

My uncle told me 30 years ago that we'd always need typewriters and
hand-crank calculators if I wanted to get into a stable business.

--
///---
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I'm curious: what software do you have that you think might not ever be upgraded to run in Mac OS X natively?

Microsoft Internet Explorer, past Version 5.2.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <20030725213710.09785.00000408@mb-m11.aol.com>,
grapeape@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) wrote:

I'm curious: what software do you have that you think might not ever be
upgraded to run in Mac OS X natively?

Microsoft Internet Explorer, past Version 5.2.

Yeah, that's a shame. IE might be a nice browser once the 8-CPU G7 Macs
come out.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <20030725213710.09785.00000408@mb-m11.aol.com>,
grapeape@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) wrote:

I'm curious: what software do you have that you think might not ever be upgraded to run in Mac OS X natively?

Microsoft Internet Explorer, past Version 5.2.

Shouldn't be a problem; my understanding is that IE will still exist and
be updated as part of MSN. It just won't be available, supported or
(most likely functional) as a standalone product. IE was free for as
long as it needed to be to establish dominance. Quelle surprise.

G
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113