# Mac OS 10.2.3!



## Stridder44 (Nov 15, 2002)

Mac OS 10.2.3 is supposed to come out around december/January and will include intense iChat updates and improvments (will be iChat 1.1) along with other minor system improvments. It's also said that a possible ICQ integration will be included as well...


----------



## wtmcgee (Nov 15, 2002)

i've also heard that this will be the release that will kill the ability to boot into os 9.  i'm not sure if that's true or doable... just what ive read in a lot of places.


----------



## Jason (Nov 15, 2002)

hmm im not gonna like that if that happens


----------



## Stridder44 (Nov 15, 2002)

Really!? Ew...I don't think a whole lot of people would like that if that were to happen ( I dout that they would do something like this this soon...but you never know). Apple, I'm sure, would get alot of complaints. People still use OS 9 to a degree for various reasons.


----------



## wtmcgee (Nov 15, 2002)

keep in mind this is only what ive read in a few forums... this is nowhwere close to a fact  - just rumors ive read.


----------



## edX (Nov 15, 2002)

i can't imagine system software that would keep your mac from booting up in os 9. maybe keep you from booting up classic, but not os 9. keep in mind that os 9 and classic are not exactly the same. 

still , that would be a bad move as far i'm concerned. and frankly, i don't understand why apple would have to remove the ability to use classic at any point in the foreseable future. there are still too many mac users who haven't switched to osx and taking away classic would only make many of them put the move off further.


----------



## wtmcgee (Nov 15, 2002)

they'll never get rid of classic IMO.... i think that's one of the best things about OSX - the compatibility between the old and the new.


----------



## MisterMe (Nov 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by wtmcgee _
> *i've also heard that this will be the release that will kill the ability to boot into os 9.  i'm not sure if that's true or doable... just what ive read in a lot of places. *



Anyone who has ever booted into MacOS 9 on a computer that has MacOS X installed knows that it is impossible for MacOS X to prevent booting into MacOS 9. Speculation to the contrary is just plain silly.


----------



## fryke (Nov 15, 2002)

OpenFirmware.

A simple update to your computer decides on whether you'll be able to boot from anything but X.

Just like the firmware decides, whether an iBook can use monitor spanning or not. (You'll find info about that hack on some forums. Guess here, too...) Then again, I guess there'll be a hack to boot OS 9 afterwards, too.

Also, Apple has clearly stated that new machines released starting in 2003 will only boot in X and not in 9. They didn't say they would change anything in your current hardware to prevent booting to 9. Would also make no sense, as the 'upgrade' could then very well be subject to some lawsuits, because such behaviour would basically 'break' your machine, if you're used to work in 9 and 10 together.

So don't fear.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## ddma (Nov 15, 2002)

I don't care about OS 9 any more. Since 10.1.x, I have no OS 9 installed. I would love to see if ICQ  would be intergrated! ICQ is my primary IM tool but yet the client is so buggy. Also, it would save my dock if I had to only open iChat


----------



## Urbansory (Nov 15, 2002)

Well if you eat a monkey, eat that Anahiem Angel rally monkey, i hate that corny thing, well you can't blame it, just the people who thought it was a good idea. Anyway, I still have to boot into 9 to burn CDs, which is a pain, but i have no other options since QPS won't release a driver.The ability to have daul boot isn't hurting X, so why should they remove it. If they sell computers without it, fine, i guess they will try to make extra profit by selling it. Imagine that, Classic Mac, maybe with a new interface or appearance theme and stability enhancements that will allow it to run in X as if it were booted under 9, that would be worth $30.


----------



## MisterMe (Nov 15, 2002)

Posted by mistake.


----------



## wmono (Nov 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by wtmcgee _
> *i've also heard that this will be the release that will kill the ability to boot into os 9.  i'm not sure if that's true or doable... just what ive read in a lot of places. *



No, it doesn't make sense that OS X can prevent booting into OS 9.  Are you thinking of the announcement that Macs announced starting next year won't have ROM support for OS 9?  Here's the announcement: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/sep/10macosx.html


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## chevy (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by wmono _
> *No, it doesn't make sense that OS X can prevent booting into OS 9.  Are you thinking of the announcement that Macs announced starting next year won't have ROM support for OS 9?  Here's the announcement: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/sep/10macosx.html *



It's quite easy to make new mac non-OS 9 compatible: yes, change the ROM, or... change the memory management model, or another peripheral... or change the file system. We don't know what OS-X is able to do.


----------



## scruffy (Nov 16, 2002)

Or, just make it that little bit more difficult - just remove the option in the startup disk prefs to choose OS 9 volumes.  Then you'd have to boot from an OS 9 CD to select an OS 9 volume - that would be enough to put most people off using 9.


----------



## jeepster485 (Nov 22, 2002)

It figures that 10.2.3 is gonna come out in the next couple months - I just upgraded my iMac to 10.2.2 earlier this week...


----------



## ddma (Nov 22, 2002)

Only Macintosh computers releasing in 2003 will not be able to boot into Mac OS 9. Current Macintosh are still bootable to OS 9.

Think about this: if Apple removed the ability for currect Macs, many people would sue Apple because their Macs was said to support Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X.


----------



## fryke (Nov 22, 2002)

That's what I said before, but I'm glad you're repeating it. But that people really are so afraid of Apple taking 9 away scares me a bit, I must say.

I really do hope Quark gets its act together and does what was said a few weeks ago: Quark 6 is going to be Mac OS X only. Whether that means a clean Cocoa version (would be sweet if that would mean they license WebObjects or YellowBox for the Windows version, eh?) or at least a good Carbon app, it's a good sign that they leave OS 9 behind. It'll mean a big jump forward for the print industry (for those who haven't switched to InDesign, which is a big jump forward for design beauty and creativity - at least was for me, I could never go back to XPress and PageMaker now...).


----------



## ddma (Nov 22, 2002)

Yeah, I think most of the members here are wrongly leading by new OS or new Macintosh. Steve said all new "Mac" in 2003 will only boot into OS X but not OS X will remove the ability of booting up from OS 9. Prehaps any new version of OS X will disable the feature to choose start up from OS 9 while pre-2003 Mac still can start up/choose to boot up with OS 9 by external devices (CD/FW/USB HD) or start up boot menu.


----------



## TommyWillB (Nov 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by wtmcgee _
> *they'll never get rid of classic IMO.... i think that's one of the best things about OSX - the compatibility between the old and the new. *


Of course they will...

At some point in the future Apple will release hardware the is not compatible with OS 9 (either OS 9 boot or Classic)... They will stop updating OS 9 to work with new hardware and stopy making it possible to use (on the new hardware).

I don't think this will be a software issue, but instead hardware... My guess is this will happen when the come out with 64 bit CPU's. Why would the bother trying to redo OS 9 to work with that?

This is the same reason OS X is not supported on older CPU's...


----------



## fryke (Nov 24, 2002)

No, THAT's because Apple wanted us to leave our G2 PowerMacs and buy G3s.


----------



## TommyWillB (Nov 25, 2002)

Need new hardware to run the new software...

Only new software runs on the new hardware...

$ame game.


----------



## Krevinek (Nov 26, 2002)

Heh, it wasn't the processor that made Apple say 'no' to pre-G3s, it was the system bus archs.

Compared to even the Beige G3, the system bus is underpowered in my 8600/300, and the mobo isn't designed well enough to let me OC it to even 54Mhz from 50Mhz. It just gets too unstable.

OS X isn't CPU-hungry per se, but it is definitely bus hungry, and when the bus clogs, the CPU lags and you notice it.

I have a G4/400 in here, and it still can't hold a candle to a Yikes! G4/400 running the same software on the same video card.

Yes money was involved, but to move certain things forward, they had to realize requirements on system resources OTHER than the CPU would dramatically increase.


----------



## fryke (Nov 26, 2002)

That's true, too... But then you'd have been able to decide for yourself that you needed a new machine...

However, making only new software run on new hardware helps mostly Microsoft, Adobe and Macromedia. At least more than it helps Apple. It might even _hurt_ Apple as long as Quark doesn't deliver XPress 6, which is still some months away according to the latest statements of Quark officials in MacUser UK and on their website.


----------



## neutrino23 (Nov 26, 2002)

Almost all new Macs cannot boot the previous versions of OS 9 (8, 7, 6,...). After a new Mac comes out you generally need to wait for a new version of the OS to come out which knows about the peculiarities of the new machine.

The last version of OS 9 came out sometime last year. It cannot be used to boot the new iMacs. These come with their own version of OS 9. 

To make the new computers not boot OS 9 Apple doesn't have to do anything special. They just have to not update OS 9 for the new computer.

There is no indication Apple will do anything at all to prevent existing computers from booting existing versions of OS 9. That idea is just silly.


----------

