At 14:48 -0700 9/10/06, Sam Beard wrote: > This is intriguing to me. My understanding was that Classic, and >therefore OS 9, wouldn't run on any of the later machines, particularly >any Intel-based machines. Are either of you running one of these? What >machines are you running? Are you running OS 9 in emulation of some sort >or as a stand-alone OS, that you can choose upon start-up? > In other words, more details, please! ;-P
I can see where some of this confusion is coming from. First off, Sam, your initial assertion of 'Tiger does NOT support OS 9 in any form' is misleading (forgive my bluntness): it's not a Tiger (i.e. OS) restriction, but a hardware restriction. All versions of OS X have supported OS 9 in its Classic form, a software wrapper that allows a full OS 9 to run within the OS X environment. And within that, FrameMaker runs just fine, as long as you follow the guidelines given here: <http://www.fm4osx.org/classic.html> What *is* true is that none of the most recent range of Intel-chipped Macs run Classic. This is hardware issue: Apple chose not to port Classic to these machines. This is a situation that a lot of clever people are working on, as Apple appears to be unaware that many Mac users are still dependent on legacy software. But for FrameMaker, the option at present on these machines is to run one of the software solutions that support Windows or Windows apps: <http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/> <http://www.parallels.com/en/products/desktop/> <http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/> Finally, Peter Gold's point about dual-boot Macs only applies to older hardware models. I forget when the last dual-boot Mac was dropped, but you should be able to find out here: <http://www.apple-history.com/> Fwiw, I have a 2000-vintage Cube that is dual boot, and a 2004-vintage G4 that is not, so it was sometime between those years. -- Steve
