X Should not have Classic Mode

[jlvanw]

You folks are haveing quite a time puting forth an argument. It is helpfull!
As far as runing programs in clasic mode under OsX , I find they run better, and less problems.
My only problem with OSX is I can't use my printer.
John

[AdmiralAK]

MY prob is that I can't connect and get online :P

[jlvanw]

To admiral AK
when I installed OSX Beta it picked up my internet config and I have no problem there. in fact it works better in OSX than straight Os9. you can set ip up by using prefences in OSX

[AdmiralAK]

Originally posted by jlvanw
To admiral AK
when I installed OSX Beta it picked up my internet config and I have no problem there. in fact it works better in OSX than straight Os9. you can set ip up by using prefences in OSX

So use internet config ???
I am not on a network, so I rely on dial-up connections, I have my network panel to "no connection" (as it should be..right?) and my connectppp has all the correct info needed... telephone #, name, password, and the DNS addresses, I even supplied a domain.... it connects fine, or so it thinks, it thinks it has a live connection, but no data comes through. I send data, or so X thinks, but no data comes in, so my IE says "site could not be located"
weird


Admiral

[jlvanw]

Admiral AK
Are you able to send through the server on OSX?
the way you dsescribe the config I would say the problem is with the server

I run a G3/300 /128m( which dosen't mean any thing)

[AdmiralAK]

Originally posted by jlvanw
Admiral AK
Are you able to send through the server on OSX?
the way you dsescribe the config I would say the problem is with the server

I see... maybe I'll call em up to see if they changed DNSs or something...

Thanks

[rsteed]

I think you guys have missed some of the issues regarding Classic compatibility on OS X. Classic comprises both software AND hardware emulation. The original MacOS was written for Motorola 68k chips and much of the OS resided on ROM. As the platform developed, the OS was extended by the system software, but some API's still accessed the original MAC ROM. The ROM has remained on Apple motherboards until the introduction of the UMA chipset.

Still, when Apple moved from the 68k CISC architecture to the PowerPC RISC architecture, they did not completely rewrite the OS to be PowerPC native. Rather, Apple included a 68k emulation layer which provided compatibility for 68k applications AND the Mac OS itself.

Apple was in fact writing a new OS for PowerPC hardware, recognizing the deficiencies in the MacOS of old. These efforts eventually led to the purchase of NeXT (which had recently been bought by Sun) and the acquisition of their OS.

Apple has provided a reasonable upgrade path by including the classic environment, especially considering the sensitivity of applications to the availability of extensions and control panel settings under OS 9. This is necessary for applications which will not be upgraded, or users who don't want to upgrade all their software.

As for developers, Apple provided Carbon. Carbon comprises all the original API's which did not require access to ROM, or directly access the hardware. Most applications were no longer using the incompatible API's, so the upgrade path is fairly simple, considering the underlying OS is _completely_ different.

As far as comparisons to Windows NT are concerned, NT still has to run DOS applications in a virtual DOS machine (NTVDM). Microsoft also included an upgrade path for developers, but many still have not followed that path. Despite NT's growing market share, there are many aspects of the OS which are not mature. It would be a tremendous advantage to NT users to be able to run DOS/95/98 apps in an environment which they know works, rather than screwing with settings under NT.

Lastly, there has been no mention of the advantage Apple has provided regarding the upgrade path for OS X; The classic environment uses your original system folder, leaving it completely intact. The installation of OS X does not preclude you from running under OS 9 ever again, and if you do need to go back to OS 9 you can usually accomplish the same thing from the classic environment first!

There are certainly improvements to be made. Personally I would like Classic to inherit the multiple user states that users have been using in OS 9; it seems rather backwards to have prepared users for OS X's multi-user functionality by including these features in 9, then exclude it from the upgrade path to Classic. I have voiced this concern, and others, to Apple's Mac OS X feedback site and suggest that you do the same.

In conclusion: Classic is good for users, Carbon is good for upgrading old software, Cocoa is good for new software, and hey, maybe that UNIX thing will bring a few good apps too eh!

Regards,
Robin

[rsteed]

I think you guys have missed some of the issues regarding Classic compatibility on OS X. Classic comprises both software AND hardware emulation. The original MacOS was written for Motorola 68k chips and much of the OS resided on ROM. As the platform developed, the OS was extended by the system software, but some API's still accessed the original MAC ROM. The ROM has remained on Apple motherboards until the introduction of the UMA chipset.

Still, when Apple moved from the 68k CISC architecture to the PowerPC RISC architecture, they did not completely rewrite the OS to be PowerPC native. Rather, Apple included a 68k emulation layer which provided compatibility for 68k applications AND the Mac OS itself.

Apple was in fact writing a new OS for PowerPC hardware, recognizing the deficiencies in the MacOS of old. These efforts eventually led to the purchase of NeXT (which had recently been bought by Sun) and the acquisition of their OS.

Apple has provided a reasonable upgrade path by including the classic environment, especially considering the sensitivity of applications to the availability of extensions and control panel settings under OS 9. This is necessary for applications which will not be upgraded, or users who don't want to upgrade all their software.

As for developers, Apple provided Carbon. Carbon comprises all the original API's which did not require access to ROM, or directly access the hardware. Most applications were no longer using the incompatible API's, so the upgrade path is fairly simple, considering the underlying OS is _completely_ different.

As far as comparisons to Windows NT are concerned, NT still has to run DOS applications in a virtual DOS machine (NTVDM). Microsoft also included an upgrade path for developers, but many still have not followed that path. Despite NT's growing market share, there are many aspects of the OS which are not mature. It would be a tremendous advantage to NT users to be able to run DOS/95/98 apps in an environment which they know works, rather than screwing with settings under NT.

Lastly, there has been no mention of the advantage Apple has provided regarding the upgrade path for OS X; The classic environment uses your original system folder, leaving it completely intact. The installation of OS X does not preclude you from running under OS 9 ever again, and if you do need to go back to OS 9 you can usually accomplish the same thing from the classic environment first!

There are certainly improvements to be made. Personally I would like Classic to inherit the multiple user states that users have been using in OS 9; it seems rather backwards to have prepared users for OS X's multi-user functionality by including these features in 9, then exclude it from the upgrade path to Classic. I have voiced this concern, and others, to Apple's Mac OS X feedback site and suggest that you do the same.

In conclusion: Classic is good for users, Carbon is good for upgrading old software, Cocoa is good for new software, and hey, maybe that UNIX thing will bring a few good apps too eh!

Regards,
Robin