• Re: Apple's plans

    From Michael Allbritton@zcoevgg@znp.pbz to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 10:21:52
    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 Stephen M. Adams@adamst@no.spam to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 18:38:35
    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 jwolf6589@jwolf6589@aol.com (nospam) to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 12:46:56
    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 Kevin McMurtrie@mcmurtri@sonic.net to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 20:38:29
    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 nospam@nospam@nospam.invalid to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 16:59:29
    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 pack@pack@eos.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 23:00:48
    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 Michael Allbritton@zcoevgg@znp.pbz to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 16:17:25
    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 Thomas Reed@thomasareed@dont.spam.me to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 00:03:40
    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 Steven Fisher@sdfisher@spamcop.net to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 01:43:33
    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 Philo D@4ad1qx6b02@sneakemail.com to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 22:20:16
    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 shamino@shamino@techie.com (David C.) to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 23:30:49
    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 Steve Hix@sehix@garlic.com to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, July 23, 2003 20:56:31
    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 Michael Allbritton@zcoevgg@znp.pbz to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 06:41:57
    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 chris@chris@nospam.mediascot.org (Chris Byrne) to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 15:39:08
    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 pack@pack@eos.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 14:56:00
    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 russotto@russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:26:20
    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 crucifyself03@crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk (Crucifyself03) to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 16:28:57
    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 jimglidewell@jimglidewell@attbi.com (Jim Glidewell) to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 20:41:05
    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 crucifyself03@crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk (Crucifyself03) to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 21:45:16
    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 crucifyself03@crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk (Crucifyself03) to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 21:48:40
    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 yellmug@yellmug@netscape.net (Jay) to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 14:53:19
    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 crucifyself03@crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk (Crucifyself03) to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 21:56:13
    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 Michael Allbritton@zcoevgg@znp.pbz to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 14:57:15
    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 Michael Allbritton@zcoevgg@znp.pbz to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 15:11:23
    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 andrew@andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) to comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 25, 2003 00:17:12
    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 andrew@andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 25, 2003 00:18:04
    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 crucifyself03@crucifyself03@aol.comnojunk (Crucifyself03) to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 23:21:10
    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 Steve Hix@sehix@garlic.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 16:53:44
    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 Steve Hix@sehix@garlic.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 16:56:36
    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 Steve Hix@sehix@garlic.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 16:58:14
    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 shamino@shamino@techie.com (David C.) to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 22:00:03
    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 shamino@shamino@techie.com (David C.) to comp.sys.mac.system on Thursday, July 24, 2003 22:01:36
    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 Gregory Weston@gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 25, 2003 12:52:05
    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 Gregory Weston@gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 25, 2003 12:57:07
    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 Michael Allbritton@zcoevgg@znp.pbz to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 25, 2003 06:53:34
    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 Steve Hix@sehix@garlic.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 25, 2003 08:53:08
    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 Gerry Scott-Moore@222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 25, 2003 10:06:41
    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 grapeape@grapeape@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) to comp.sys.mac.system on Saturday, July 26, 2003 01:37:10
    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 Kevin McMurtrie@mcmurtri@sonic.net to comp.sys.mac.system on Saturday, July 26, 2003 09:23:09
    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 Gregory Weston@gwestonREMOVE@CAPSattbi.com to comp.sys.mac.system on Saturday, July 26, 2003 11:40:11
    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