Re: [G3-5]Re: Updates for Mac OS X?

[MaGioZal]

On 7/18/12 4:17 AM, Brian Christmas at  wrote:

> I'd rather the existing situation than be stuck on Classic OS 9.2.2 forever
> though. Power to the people still using it, but the world moves on. Even OS X
> will disappear one day, and it will be exciting to see the OS that will
> replace it!

But anyway, as the same way I think people are free to use old socks, they
are also free to use old OSes. ;-P
 




-- 
MaGioZal.




-- 
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for 
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list

Re: [G3-5]Re: Updates for Mac OS X?

[Cameron Kaiser]

> Question: Why did Apple remove Classic support from Mac OS X 10.5? The two 
> architectures (PowerPC and Intel) are different anyway:

I fully agree that dropping Classic in Leopard was absolutely arbitrary on
Apple's part. In fairness, Classic requires significant hacks to the kernel
and low-level operating system and these may not have been UNIX 03 compliant,
but the PowerPC version of Leopard isn't technically anyway even without
Classic (only the Intel version), and your other disparities are spot-on.

But it's water under the bridge now.

-- 
 personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- This message will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, Jim. -- M:I 

-- 
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for 
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list

Re: [G3-5]Re: Updates for Mac OS X?

[Mac User #330250]

--  Original message  --
Subject: Re: [G3-5]Re: Updates for Mac OS X?
Date:Wednesday, 18. July 2012
From:Brian Christmas 
To:  g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
> And I personally wouldn't have it any other way. The main reason we're
> going through an upheaval with Mountain Lion is because of all 64 bit
> addressing in the OS, and more importantly, the requirement of a suitable
> Graphics card. Even then, ML will run on mid 2007 iMacs up, tho sans some
> features apparently.

That’s an excuse. It is just convenient for Apple to have to some degree a 
reasonable explanation for abondoning hardware that is still very usable 
today.

The true reason is of course that it’s too much work for them to make it 
happen (or that it’s simply easier to remove stuff and to abondon the old[er]) 
and that at the same time they can make people buy newer Macs even if the 
older ones would suffice still.

Apples software policy is purely motivated by their selling perspective. No 
more than that.

> Compare this to the upcoming release of Windows 8, where I've read many
> PC's even less than a year old won't be able to run it.

Microsoft recommends:

1 GHz or faster processor
1 GB RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver 

That sounds quite okay to me.

> In 2014 we might see an OS that handles things like touch screens, and 3D
> graphics, and retina displays, that even 2012 Macs won't handle. Who
> knows? It's a complete guessing game.

I understand that new technologies need software that supports it. But 
abondoning old hardware for no reason is something completely different.

> I'd rather the existing situation than be stuck on Classic OS 9.2.2 forever
> though. Power to the people still using it, but the world moves on. Even
> OS X will disappear one day, and it will be exciting to see the OS that
> will replace it!

Why would you want to be stuck with 9.2.2?

At the same time: why would you want to be forced to abondon older but good 
functioning software on newer Macs?

Now, a lot of people had good working software for Mac OS Classic, either 68k 
or PPC, which they liked using and would hate to abondon – sometimes very 
simply owed to the fact that their files could not be converted to similar 
solutions on the newer OS, e.g. Mac OS X.

The solution could be something like the Classic Environment. The Classic 
Environment was a good solution.

Question: Why did Apple remove Classic support from Mac OS X 10.5? The two 
architectures (PowerPC and Intel) are different anyway:
1.) On Leopard/Intel-x64 you’ll have Java 6, on Leopard/PowerPC you’re stuck 
with Java 5.
2.) On Leopard/Intel you’d have Rosetta for Mac OS X/PowerPC applications. On 
Leopard/PowerPC this is obviously not needed.
3.) On Tieger/PowerPC you have the Classic Environment, which was not 
available on Tiger/Intel (but could have been ported, like there is 
SheepShaver and PearPC and Baselisk which still supports Mac OS/68k and Mac 
OS/PowerPC on Intel-Macs).

The answer is as simple as shocking: because Apple decided so. Because Apple 
wants to abondon. Because Apple is ONLY looking forward, which makes us either 
also look forward (and abandon the old and good) or be angry at Apple!


> I've got an iPad (or rather, my Wife's got an iPad, that I happen to own,
> and see occasionally), and to see how my grandkids, and elderly friends
> take to the iOS like a duck to water makes me realize how important a
> simple OS is to the majority of people. The vast majority can't handle a
> complex OS like Classic, or even OS X, and I can see why Apple seem to be
> moving to a multi-level choice of how an OS behaves; beginner,
> intermediate, and pro users. Retrocompatability with anything existing
> today will be out the window, and rightly so.

And this is what some consider to be wrong.
What’s wrong with being simple and at the same time allowing for professional 
tasks as well?

On Mac OS X (10.0 through 10.5) I can use the simple and intuitive GUI and at 
the same time I can launch the Terminal and do some UNIX style command-line 
business.

I can go deeper into the system and see what’s making the applications “tick”.

The good thing about Mac OS X: it just works, even if you don’t know what 
makes it “tick”.

> Who on Earth would want to see OS X.8 running on a Tangarine iMac? Talk
> about boringly slow!

No one.
Who would want Classic on Mac OS X 10.5/PowerPC? Everyone.
Who would appreciate Classic and Rosetta on Mac OS X/Intel? Some Apple fans 
from over decades.
Who would want Mac OS X 10.6 to work on Core i-Macs from 2011: some 
professionals (and there is no technical reason for this not to work, except 
that Apple forbids it!).
Who would want Mac OS X 10.8 run on the first Intel-Macs from 2006?

Re: [G3-5]Re: Updates for Mac OS X?

[Mac User #330250]

--  Original message  --
Subject: Re: [G3-5]Re: Updates for Mac OS X?
Date:Wednesday, 18. July 2012
From:MaGioZal 
To:  g3-5-list@googlegroups.com

> The strange thing is that up until this year (I had to re-install the OS in
> this HD) you could use Software Update to download software even in Mac OS
> 9!

Yes. In december last year (2011) I reinstalled 10.2 and 10.3 and I was able 
to use Software Update normally.

So the server must have been disconnected just recently, in the first half of 
this year.

I checked: 10.4 updates are still supported via Software Update. Question is: 
for how long?

Cheers,
Andreas  aka  Mac User #330250

-- 
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for 
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list

Re: [G3-5]Re: Updates for Mac OS X?

[Brian Christmas]

> On 18/07/2012, at 4:41 PM, MaGioZal wrote:
> 
>  Long are gone the times when a Mac OS version (7.5.5) could run from a Plus
> to a multiprocessed 9600 machine... And this was used as selling point in
> "Why Mac?" brochures!
> 
> But Steve Jobs, despite saving, ressurecting and rebranding Apple, gradually
> killed retrocompatibility. And Tim Cook seems to continue this policy. I bet
> that in 2014 any Apple product bought in 2010 will be unsupported,
> unupgradebable and useless...
> 
> -- 
> MaGioZal.
> 


And I personally wouldn't have it any other way. The main reason we're going 
through an upheaval with Mountain Lion is because of all 64 bit addressing in 
the OS, and more importantly, the requirement of a suitable Graphics card. Even 
then, ML will run on mid 2007 iMacs up, tho sans some features apparently. 

Compare this to the upcoming release of Windows 8, where I've read many PC's 
even less than a year old won't be able to run it.

In 2014 we might see an OS that handles things like touch screens, and 3D 
graphics, and retina displays, that even 2012 Macs won't handle. Who knows? 
It's a complete guessing game.

I'd rather the existing situation than be stuck on Classic OS 9.2.2 forever 
though. Power to the people still using it, but the world moves on. Even OS X 
will disappear one day, and it will be exciting to see the OS that will replace 
it!

I've got an iPad (or rather, my Wife's got an iPad, that I happen to own, and 
see occasionally), and to see how my grandkids, and elderly friends take to the 
iOS like a duck to water makes me realize how important a simple OS is to the 
majority of people. The vast majority can't handle a complex OS like Classic, 
or even OS X, and I can see why Apple seem to be moving to a multi-level choice 
of how an OS behaves; beginner, intermediate, and pro users. Retrocompatability 
with anything existing today will be out the window, and rightly so.

Who on Earth would want to see OS X.8 running on a Tangarine iMac? Talk about 
boringly slow!

Regards

Santa



-- 
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for 
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list

Re: [G3-5]Re: Updates for Mac OS X?

[MaGioZal]

On 7/13/12 4:13 PM, Koralatov at  wrote:

> It isn't much of a burden at all, but Apple has made it pretty clear over
> the last couple of years that they *really* don't care about legacy
> machines.


Long are gone the times when a Mac OS version (7.5.5) could run from a Plus
to a multiprocessed 9600 machine... And this was used as selling point in
"Why Mac?" brochures!

But Steve Jobs, despite saving, ressurecting and rebranding Apple, gradually
killed retrocompatibility. And Tim Cook seems to continue this policy. I bet
that in 2014 any Apple product bought in 2010 will be unsupported,
unupgradebable and useless...
 




-- 
MaGioZal.



-- 
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for 
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list

Re: [G3-5]Re: Updates for Mac OS X?

[MaGioZal]

On 7/12/12 12:02 AM, Richard Gerome at  wrote:

> 
>  I used to go to Apple's archives to get the combo updates... I used to
> also save them on my desktop and I might have Jaguar somewhere and I maybe
> could email it to you? I don't have Panther... I think Tiger is still
> available on Apple's website? Let me pull out my Clamshells and check? I also
> might have it on my old iPod too?
> 
> 

And I don't have any 10.4 combo update saved here. :-/
 




-- 
MaGioZal.



-- 
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for 
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list

Re: [G3-5]Re: Updates for Mac OS X?

[MaGioZal]

On 7/11/12 2:21 PM, Kyle Hansen at  wrote:

> That is pretty normal. Mac OS 10.2 was released almost exactly one DECADE
> ago. The Software Update servers usually only hold updates from the last
> few years. After that you have to navigate to Apple and do it manually. It
> is a huge burden on a company to support things back over a decade, so I
> am just happy that Apple is cool enough to even have the updates available
> in it's downloads page. It is in all of our best interests that Apple does
> NOT overburden itself with support for legacy products. They have more
> important things to be doing. ;)


The strange thing is that up until this year (I had to re-install the OS in
this HD) you could use Software Update to download software even in Mac OS
9!
 




-- 
MaGioZal.



-- 
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for 
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette 
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list