X Should not have Classic Mode

natepalmer

Registered
Mac OS X should have the ability to run Classic application without bring up Mac OS 9. They should use a compatibility layer much like Windows NT. The additional time and memory requirement to load up Mac OS 9 under Mac OS X should be avoided. I feel like i'm running virtual pc to run a different platform but both of these Operating Systems are made by apple they need to merge the two a bit better so you don't have to have a copy of OS 9 to run classic applications.



 

wmoss

Registered
Obviously, if you think the Classic environment is too slow there's nothing that anyone can say to contradict this. Since it's a matter of perception, I can't say that you should percieve it faster :)

Think of Classic as an "above and beyond" sort of step. Apple has provided the API continuity for developers with Carbon (which is roughly akin to what Microsoft offered to get apps onto NT) and then they went one step beyond and offered the full older OS but placed in a nice little compatability cage so that it couldn't kill the other "well behaved" apps on the system. It even went one step further than that and made the two share the same screen and some of the same interface elements. That's a big feat in my book.

With that said, I'm not certain that I want to run Classic on my machine. I don't want ANY app that isn't built upon carbon or cocoa and it'd be nice to have a way to keep from accidentally launching the Classic mode since I don't want the compatability and I don't want the performance hit.

I did have a great idea that Apple should port the emulator for the old Apple //gs to the Mac and have it run in a similar way to Classic ("green box?"). That'd be impressive that they can now offer backwards compatability for customers since 1976 and might even be helpful for a few schools who still have to rely on old, out of date machines because they can't get decent software budgets even if they had hardware to upgrade.

The whole subject of compatability is a fascinating one and though I will make sure the apps I use don't rely on the compability boxes, I think that Apple has gone above and beyond the call of duty with what they have offered end users in Mac OS X.
 

natepalmer

Registered
I agree with you on one thing I would much rather run Carbon and Cocoa apps exclusively. But the problem being. First of all there is going to be a period when all of your software is going to be changing from Classic to Carbon to Cocoa. And the only applications that are going to do that are applications that are currently in developement. Now rules out software the is still useful but no longer in development. I use the example of StarCraft a game I still use and there are many many more that do. Now is there going to be a push for Blizzard to convert an old, dare I say, outdated application like that? There isn't any reason why they would want to.

Now I started doing the MCSE training about a year and a half ago, then bought my first mac and lost interest. But with working with windows NT, they ran Windows 3.1 apps in a compatibility layer not loading up Windows 3.1 but probably using the specific API's from Windows 3.1. This would increase speed and would give Mac OS X the ability to run Classic applications faster, and bring us compatibility for old applications that we can't currently run natively on OS X.

Yes, the major applications are going to be converted very quickly, less popular slowly. In the companies point of view they are going to look at it. Is it going to be worth out companies time to re-release software in Carbon? If the software is no longer in development it's a re-release where the end user would probably have to pay for the upgrade. Not very appealing to a company.



 

csajovic

Registered
fcuk classic support. its hack anyway who wants to load an os inside an os. switch between interfaces. and deal with all the inconsistancies and incompatabilities.

So I say fcuk classic. spank the developers until they port to carbon!!!

Native OSX ROCKS!!
 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
Hey you dope, how about people who rely on softwindows to
get some of their work done ? Or hobbyists that use emualtors
of other OSs ???

If the switching b/w interfaces confuses you then dont use
an emulator but please dont make unilateral decisions and
conclusions about other people.

If there was no classic people would be faced with the linux situation. All the software they have bought up till now wont work...this does not make people happy...THINK man THINK!
 

natepalmer

Registered
I don't think you got the point here. Softwindows and any other EMULATOR is meant to emulate some type of hardware in order to run a certain type of software. I use Virtual PC myself so I can run windows programs. Classic mode is running OS 9 (built for the same hardware) under OS X (same hardware) There is no emulation here. I don't want to run Windows programs natively or any other hardware specific software.

Mac OX X is the version after Mac OS 9. Yet it cannot run OS 9 programs natively. Although there may be a technical reason for this that I may not know. But I know that apple can make it run natively. That was my point, to have it run in a compatibility layer much like Windows NT running Windows 3.1 programs. It would preserve the memory management OS 9 is used to.

Apple decided to address this issue in two ways. First they make it easy for existing companies toport their software over to X by using the Carbon libraries. And second for software that is not currently in development they can run it under Classic.

 

AdmiralAK

Simply Daemonic
Mon ami,
Softwindows was juuuust an example, and indeed Softwindows does emulate Hardware but all emulators emulate hardware. They also emulate software. How about MOL ? I mean you DO run MacOS on LInux through emulation yet the hardware is there.
I do agree that OS 9 should not be run under some sort of emulation, I think that OS 9 apps should run without any overhead from emulation, but classic is here, classic is the way apple did it, and we should accept it how it is UNTIL apple makes something better of it, people should not just say "get rid of it and let the people with older software screw themselves!"... it just does not happen that way!
 

natepalmer

Registered
True. Mac On Linux is an example, also VMWARE on the intel side. I have since come to the conclusion (after posting this) that that way Apple has done this is probably the best way. Running an app in Carbon is better for the program being able to take advantage of OS-X 's better memory management and the likes. And for applications that don't update they can still run under classic mode. It would probably the best way to do it to also promote better and new ways of doing things. I mean you can still run old dos programs in Windows (though not all in WIndows ME) and I think that may have stumped growth.

 

jlvanw

Registered
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
 

jlvanw

Registered
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

Simply Daemonic
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

Registered
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

Simply Daemonic
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

Registered
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

Registered
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
 
Top