Classic Goes Out with Nary a Whisper

by Chris Adamson

With the Intel switch finished, Apple no longer sells a machine capable of running pre-2001 Mac software. 17 years of executable Mac history gone. Does anyone care?


65 Comments

Michael Clark
2006-08-12 05:08:18
You are absolutely right. I had to rebuild my Powerbook a few weeks ago, and I decided not to install Classic at all. There were a handful of games I wanted to be able to play, but I really haven't missed them at all.
Tom Davies
2006-08-12 05:14:58
I still play Close Combat: A bridge too far on Classic, but fortunately the game came as a dual Mac/Windows CD, so when I upgrade to an intel mac I'll be able to run it under parallells (or boot camp)
476345
2006-08-12 05:22:59
Actually, you can still run Classic on an Intel machine and someone has written an emulator. See this article.
Erik Husby
2006-08-12 06:00:25
The big thing is not the applications themselves but ones datafiles. I've made sure that I converted all my WriteNOW documents to a format I can use such as RTF.
Chris Adamson
2006-08-12 06:47:15
Oh man, I loved WriteNow. Thanks for reminding me of that. Its disappearance is what made me pick up Mariner Write, which is in some ways WN's spiritual successor (small, fast, focused, and terrific style and stylesheet support)
Mark Stracke
2006-08-12 07:01:24
Some of us still use software that is Classic only with drum scanners. I have an old beige G3 to run my scanner and use the scsi connection that they offer. I also have a few old machine in reserve for when the G3 dies. Newer software exists for Windows, but it runs to $2K+. Having a new machine wouldn't make much difference because scanning won't go much faster on a Mac even with a newer processor. I'd just like to know that when my current stash of machines is used up I might be able to find a replacement.
Kevin
2006-08-12 07:21:53
Chris, you are right on! Some of the most important apps (esp. games) that were "signature" to a Mac is now lost thanks to the transition from System 6 -> Classic -> OSX (PowerPC) -> OSX (Intel). Right now the grassroots approach has been to port those particular apps we miss, such as that awesome game, Dark Castle. One of things that brought a tear to my eye was when I played a remake of Crystal Quest on Xbox Live Marketplace... that came from the Mac! An open source movement to create a Classic emulator might be cool, but I do wonder if there are better ideas.
Flip
2006-08-12 08:02:28
Kevin, A better idea is to keep some old Macs around that you can always boot in Classic.


In my archive I have an SE, SE/30, IIci, 7100, Beige G3 mini tower & B&W G3 tower. :-)

Joe Weaks
2006-08-12 08:35:01
It's very true. The best programs, no matter how old will get Cabonized, Intelized, etc. The best bible program available is Accordance ( http://www.accordancebible.com ), only available on the Mac. It's an old program, but it got Carbonized and more OSX-ified (it even still supports system 7, for the sake of Basilisk emulation), and it runs fine on my iMac core duo, but it will surely become a Universal Binary in time.
Robert Pelletier
2006-08-12 09:30:01
Within the elementary education field, there has been considerably more concern about the loss of Classic. Many schools still run very dated programs such as Hyperstudio, Reader Rabbit and Millie's Math House.

2006-08-12 15:50:25
I have for a long time heard Windows users talk about the stuff they'd not be able to run on the Mac. What amazed me was how much of that was utility software (Anti-virus, system tune-up, etc.) and they just didn't get that Mac didn't NEED that stuff, or already had it baked in (Firewall, Disk Utility). The number of times I heard someone say "Oh I need Norton and Nero, I use these all the time so I can't switch" or similar, is amazing.


Mostly what people who run Windows actually NEED is Office - and lots of them didn't know Microsoft already make Office for the Mac, and they WANT to run games - often quite old games!


A lot of Windows users have the idea that Macs can't open Windows files, Macs can't do email(!) and Macs are hard to use. I've also heard, "you can't upgrade Macs". I have never heard "Macs are just toys" (maybe this is because I use a Mac, and have a bit of a reputation with computers amongst my friends).

Marcos
2006-08-12 17:18:10
The awesome GraphicConverter is a universal binary. I can't remember the last time I used Classic, though I do have it on my iBook G4. Perhaps for some textbook's test bank program, I think. Though, to think that a new Mac has no way of playing the original Myst, that is somewhat sad to me for some reason.


But in general, Classic hasn't been a part of my Mac-life in a long time... though I appreciate that there are those that still use it. But, first gone was OS 9 booting, and now Classic. It didn't take long.

Magnus
2006-08-12 20:19:18
Personally I've not run Classic at all since I dumped OS 9 for X.
John Faughnan
2006-08-12 21:19:21
Symantec MORE 3.1, one of the great applications of the past twenty years, will now no longer run. Happily OmniOutliner and Inspiration can open MORE outlines (nothing will open the presntations).


Some old MacWrite and MacWrite Pro documents will become inaccessible.

Zeke
2006-08-12 21:55:28
Same here. I didn't jump to OS X until Jaguar, but following that I opened Classic exactly once--just to see how it worked.
DMA
2006-08-13 03:39:32
I think this entire article has been made near redundant as a result of the post by 476345 above pointing out how to get classic up on Intel Mac. Many thanks for the link, very interesting!
Chris Adamson
2006-08-13 03:47:27
DMA: You really think so? Basilisk is for PowerPC machines (which Apple doesn't sell anymore), and SheepSaver requires you have a physical PPC Mac in order to clone its ROM.
Hobbs
2006-08-13 05:51:05
I still use CricketGraph III and MacPlasMap, both scientific software, in classic. There is nothing that comes even close to the ease of use and functionality of these applications.
Raman
2006-08-13 12:06:09
The one program I still use in OS9 is FrameMaker. Unfortunately, Adobe decided to ditch Mac support years ago and it will never get updated. There is still no program that compares to this one for long scientific documents. I may end up having to run virtual Windows on my next Mac.
Michael Heinz
2006-08-13 17:02:29
There's only one piece of "classic" software I use that was never ported - the astronomy software that comes with Orion telescopes is still a Classic application.
Michael Pinto
2006-08-14 02:15:19
It breaks my heart that I can no longer run HyperCard on my new Macbook Pro. I created quite a bit of multimedia software in the 90s that I can't even show to anybody. The sad thing is that running Parallels I can sort of run Windows 98 (but without sound), but not Mac software from the same era.
SvenW
2006-08-14 02:56:42
Raman, you are right - that's the only App I've ever used in Classic and do so regularily. But honestly, I feel using it in Parallels/Windows might be an improvement, as far as the display is concerned - if you don't use higher magnification steps, the text is hardly readable at all - this is much better in Windows, IMHO.


Nevertheless, I always get my hope up for a OSX FM version whenever this "Apple buys Adobe" rumor pops up, at least in the second before reality kicks in and I say to myself "Won't happen".

Erica Sadun
2006-08-14 10:18:03
My 3-year-old son still uses my 10-year-old Mac on a daily basis. As far as he's concerned, OS X is something that still hasn't happened to him yet.

2006-08-14 12:15:41
The last first. The monetary investment in MS Windows Apps is mostly an illusion. What many people have invested is a specific view of computers that they are unwilling to give up. For instance, I know one person that would not switch due to the existence of a certain font, and another that cannot imagine the internet without IE. I had a conversation with another that would not think of using anything else but MS Office. For the most part it seems to be the inertia of the brand name, not the practicality of the alternative


On the main point, I see nothing wrong with stopping support for Mac OS 9. One cool thing about Apple that they do not limit current technology in an effort to support relatively old stuff, while supported the old stuff for a relatively long time. Even though I am not overjoyed with the switch to Intel, I would not have wanted them to not switch due to support for OS 9. That would have made no more sense than demanding that 68K apps be supported. I have machines that will run OS 9 apps, and those machines will be functional for years to come. Likewise, the 2 68K machines probably still run, and a couple years ago I even got the space shuttle game running on the Mac Classic.

Mel
2006-08-14 20:40:34
I'm still going to miss Future Cop and Civilization 2. Call me retro or call me old-fashioned, I don't care; I'm gonna miss them.
Garth
2006-08-15 07:53:21
There are a number of Interactive CDs ("For All Man Kind", "Resident's Freak Show", "Interactive Maus") that use a really, really old version of Shockwave/Flash that don't run on nothin'. At least, I haven't figured a way.
Rex Riley
2006-08-16 10:57:38
I started on mainframes in early 70's before PC's. Jumped on the first portables and settled-in with unix for the long haul. Machines have done our work, faster and cheaper over time by definition, a First Principle.


Backwards compatibility is at the service of this First Principle, until old applications are superseded by better softwares. We have softwares from the 60's running today that are irreplaceable by any software.


WINDOWS softwares serve a Secondary Principle that they must run on ALL machines. Promiscuity in software was MICROSOFT policy that served a brand loyalty strategy of the business. It didn't necessarily serve to make machines adhere to the First Principle.


Macintosh by Apple was created in the image of the First Principle. Software for the Mac slowly became stranded on hardware or lack of it. Unix came to the rescue in the form of MacOS X providing a bridge across which software from stranded Mac could find a new Life.


The decision to bridge rested with developers. Bridge software in the unix MacOS X would not endure forever. Software has been lost to History. Yes, I lament my personal list of productive applications. But seriously examining the romance of old apps against the realities of modern environments shows them obsolete, out of date and antiquated styles.


Unix provides the promise that the future is obsolete proof for those developers who made the bridge. Intel-switch from little endian to big endian architecture provided a larger opportunity for those developers bridged apps.


MacOS X promises PC switchers a Future of compatible software rather than a policy of backwards compatibilty. It has rewarded Macintosh software users with a 2X performance improvement without the expense of finding replacement software. PC switchers will have a computing environment defined not by backwards compatibility but future compatibility.


PC users don't have to switch. They can be Backwards Compatible forever AND keep all their old WINDOWS software, too.

Doug Noble
2006-08-16 11:49:11
I still use Pagemaker, it's an old friend and I find it easier than InDesign to use. Plus it reads WordPerfect files that lawfirm clients send me for posting to the web and creates nice clean HTML, unlike Word. And then there is MacAuthorize for credit card transactions, which requires a machine that runs OS9, it won't work in Classic as it needs to communicate with a modem directly. I have a couple of old machines that will boot in OS9 that I am keeping around for that purpose.
James Earl
2006-08-16 12:05:09
Apple has done something either very smart, or very dumb. It is updating the computer experience at the expense of the installed base. At the same time, it pandering to the MS Windows community. It risks becoming just another cheap PC vendor.


What's fine about the new Intellies is this: For the new user -- who cares. They have to buy everything from scratch to run the new hardware. So what? Nothing lost here.


For the 30 + million installed Mac users its more difficult. Apple has embarked upon an 18 month OS update cycle, costing users (who want to stay "current") another $129 each time. Then they have started and maintained a 4 year cycle for new hardware. If you want to stay on the bleeding edge: $2,000 each time.


As for productivity software, if you, like me, have spent over $10,000 for programs like XPress, Panorama, Filemaker, Office, and Photoshop among others, and they still provide the features that you actually USE, then the switch is just costs.


I've read, here, that the new hardware is 2x all the older equipment. But, that NOT what real-world tests are showing. Remember, in application, there is the human component. Not every function is a Gaussen Blur in Photoshop. Word processing is not 1% faster on an Intellie. Core Dual does not type any faster than a Mac Plus!


Imagine how long a car company would stay in business if they required you to buy a new car every four years--regardless--because of tire changes? Imagine how long TV companies would last if they required the entire country to buy new ones just because, on a whim of the FCC, they decided to change the carrier signal format? Oh, nevermind.


One final thought, OS-X in NOT an operating system. UNIX is the operating system in X, Apple has only supplied the kernal and the GUI. Most of what people think of OS-X is nothing more than user software that sits on top of everything in UNIX. iLife; iPhoto, iTunes, iDVD, iMovie, etc. has nothing to do with OS-X, they're just user applications.


LONG LIVE THE 80 COLUMN PUNCH CARD!

trevor monroe
2006-08-16 13:14:14
There is a System 9.2 emulator for Intel Macs called Sheepshaver (www.gibix.net/dokuwiki/en:projects:sheepshaver) . I don't own an Intel Mac, so I haven't tried it. Rumor has it that it's slow but serviceable; however, setting it up is a challenge.


Because of one System 9 program, Jim Lietch's Address Book, I am not planning to switch to an Intel Mac anytime soon. There is no phonebook program currently available that is nearly as convenient or versatile. (The amount of information I am able to store in one record is remarkable.) Besides, I have thousands of numbers and lots of other information stored in Phonebook that would take untold hours to re-enter in some program that's not currently out there.


On the Sheepshaver web page, the author complains that Apple is not making his job any easier, because it isn't sharing code with him. How silly! Why can't Apple license there code to a developer who is willing to build a fast emulator?


Apple's arrogance never abates.


Thanks,


Trevor Monroe

Jack Martin
2006-08-16 14:39:03
I still use Wordperfect for the Mac in my law practice. I am comfortable with it, like its leanness, and it does all I need it to do. I do use Word as well, but revert to Wordperfect whenever I get into a wrestling match with paragraph numbering on Word. I am worried about what I will do down the road. I am relieved to see that AbiWord can open Wordperfect files. Even if I don't switch to that program, I can at least use it to open and read the Wordperfect files, to convert them to text (quicker and less cumbersome than MacLink) or to cut and paste what I need into another program.
Jonathan Saltzman
2006-08-16 14:55:22
I still use Classic (on a PowerMac G4, which can still boot into OS 9 for troubleshooting purposes). I'm not a gamer, so I don't care about the loss of a game on the Mac. However, I do use my Mac to earn my income as a book typographer and designer. I have been with OS X since Jaguar, but I still use Classic every day. Here's why:


1. The control panel "AppleTalk" to set up my "Chooser" for my PostScript-Level 2 printer on a PCI Ethernet Card. This is the only way I can print from the following program:


2. QuarkXPress 4.11. Yes, there are the OS X versions (6 and 7), but they are HIGHLY unstable, particularly with fonts. I know no one at Apple cares about the industry that made the Macintosh possible (nothing glitzy about print media compared to iGarage, iTunes, iMovie, iWeb, iThis, iThat), but 4.11 was the last stable version of QuarkXPress, and subsequent upgrades to OS X have proved frustrating. (And yes, I have InDesign CS, but the learning curve is ridiculously time-consuming.)


3. Res Edit.


4. WordPerfect 3.5e. Yes, I have Microsoft Office 2004, but only because most of my clients use Word. Many of my authors still use WordPerfect on the PC, and WordPerfect on the Mac can open most of their files, whereas MS Word cannot (or will not).


5. ATM Deluxe, still the best font manager around, the easiest to use, and yet no OS X version exists. Instead, I have had to use Font Book (slow, unreliable), and buy Font Agent Pro, Extensis Suitcase, Font Reserve... all with unsatisfactory and unpredictable results.


6. Bring back the simplicity of the OS 9 Finder. It was just so much easier than all the useless bells and whistles of OS X (the Dock, the Dashboard, Spotlight, and now Time Machine for those too lazy to do a backup).


All I ask for are programs that are reliable and tested to perform as advertised. The OS X versions of the above apps (if they exist) are not stable. Until they are, I have to rely on Classic to earn my livelihood. (After the Intel announcement, I bought an older iBook G4 and a Mac Mini just so I could use Classic for the next 3 years or so.)


Sorry for the long rant, but I have been with OS X for 3 years now, and I really haven't seen much beneficial change in terms of productivity for those of us who still work in the print and publishing field.

Jonathan Saltzman
2006-08-16 14:55:22
I still use Classic (on a PowerMac G4, which can still boot into OS 9 for troubleshooting purposes). I'm not a gamer, so I don't care about the loss of a game on the Mac. However, I do use my Mac to earn my income as a book typographer and designer. I have been with OS X since Jaguar, but I still use Classic every day. Here's why:


1. The control panel "AppleTalk" to set up my "Chooser" for my PostScript-Level 2 printer on a PCI Ethernet Card. This is the only way I can print from the following program:


2. QuarkXPress 4.11. Yes, there are the OS X versions (6 and 7), but they are HIGHLY unstable, particularly with fonts. I know no one at Apple cares about the industry that made the Macintosh possible (nothing glitzy about print media compared to iGarage, iTunes, iMovie, iWeb, iThis, iThat), but 4.11 was the last stable version of QuarkXPress, and subsequent upgrades to OS X have proved frustrating. (And yes, I have InDesign CS, but the learning curve is ridiculously time-consuming.)


3. Res Edit.


4. WordPerfect 3.5e. Yes, I have Microsoft Office 2004, but only because most of my clients use Word. Many of my authors still use WordPerfect on the PC, and WordPerfect on the Mac can open most of their files, whereas MS Word cannot (or will not).


5. ATM Deluxe, still the best font manager around, the easiest to use, and yet no OS X version exists. Instead, I have had to use Font Book (slow, unreliable), and buy Font Agent Pro, Extensis Suitcase, Font Reserve... all with unsatisfactory and unpredictable results.


6. Bring back the simplicity of the OS 9 Finder. It was just so much easier than all the useless bells and whistles of OS X (the Dock, the Dashboard, Spotlight, and now Time Machine for those too lazy to do a backup).


All I ask for are programs that are reliable and tested to perform as advertised. The OS X versions of the above apps (if they exist) are not stable. Until they are, I have to rely on Classic to earn my livelihood. (After the Intel announcement, I bought an older iBook G4 and a Mac Mini just so I could use Classic for the next 3 years or so.)


Sorry for the long rant, but I have been with OS X for 3 years now, and I really haven't seen much beneficial change in terms of productivity for those of us who still work in the print and publishing field.

Lawrence Rhodes
2006-08-16 15:11:43
Two words: Learning curve. Replacing Classic software you're skilled at costs much more than the often expensive upgrade or replacement price, because you have to rewire your brain to use it, and many user interfaces have not been improving. Some programs won't even read files from their earlier versions. Also, I have special interest programs that have not made the jump to OS X, two of which I use in production. Not that I'm complaining that much -- the old stuff runs like lightning on the latest PPC hardware and I won't have to switch for years.


I too am a fan of WriteNow, but, while it does fine at reading RTF, the RTF it writes is buggy and may take some repair in whatever word processor you're transferring documents to (even WriteNow!). The main problem is that its RTF never erases a tab once set; you can fix this with a text editor by inserting "\pard"s where the ruler changes.

Stuart Gitlow
2006-08-16 16:03:40
Why would I fuss? I've got a dozen older Macs that I can use to run OS 9.2 or earlier, none of which are worth more than a few dollars on eBay. The problem as I see it isn't so much that I can't run HyperCard on my Intel Mac, though that bothers the heck out of me, but that once my old computers die, my files will be gone as well. I've been using Macs since 1985, and I have no interest in translating my MacWrite documents from '85-'90 to Word, my HyperCard documents from '87 to '05 to SuperCard, or my original Apple Camera photos into something viewable. It would take way too much time/money to do so. But I regret that every 20 years or so, we're simply going to lose everything we've done 20 years before. I've got all my business records from the mid 60s to the mid 80s, all my photos, and all my cassettes and reel-to-reel tapes - all still accessible although it's getting tight with the rtr's. But from the mid 80s to date, it's all dependent upon whether I made the mistake of using WingZ or Claris Resolve instead of Excel, or HyperCard instead of ... oh, wait, there wasn't really an alternative to HyperCard. The only reason there's been little fuss is that compared with how many people now own Macs, there just aren't that many who have been there since '84, who have piles and piles of floppies, who have enormous numbers of files from work and play that can't be accessed anymore. Thanks to my SE/30, IIx, 840av, 8500, etc. etc., all still operational, I can read almost anything. Yes, it would be nice to do it all on one machine, and Apple should have thought of that somewhere along the way. But they're not perfect.
Rob
2006-08-16 16:13:27
My wife and I use FrameMaker heavily for all our documents and sadly I've had to deal with the Intel switch issue while my wife still gets away with a G3 and G5. I tried sheepshaver (thanks for it) to run FM, but it is too unstable, some documents have weird errors and SS can't see most of my disk which forces me to make extra copies or move and upset my directory structure. So I reluctantly bought the windows version (7.2 up from 6.0) and I run it in Parallels on winxp. Some 6.0 documents crash FM when trying to save them tho so I have to take a detour to use them. I log onto my wife's G5, run FM in Classic, access documets on my macbook, save them in the interchange format (MIF), then open them with FM in winxp/parallels and save them in 7.2 format. Not only ugly but state of the art ugly. The thing that gets me is that apple pdf documents are produced using FM! What do they do?


Rob

ReginaldW
2006-08-16 17:05:43
First computer was an Apple ][+ back in 1979 and I still miss the //-series. Still have a couple Apple //e's but they haven't been powered up for ages and I'd have to hunt through a pile of boxes to find 5-1/4" disks that might still run. Some day I might actually set it back up again but too many current things to do and get done. Life goes on.


I'm still running OS 8/OS 9 systems and a couple OSX sytems. Life is slowly migrating over to OSX but until about 3 years ago, I was still using an SE30 with a 2GB hard drive as a file server. Upgrade as one can afford it, as one needs it, as one can use and understand the new toys. No Intel Macs here as of yet, and none likely for a year or two as other things have priorities here. The business still uses a couple old Pentium's running DOS due to the software running on them.


Software is what makes the computer more than a paperweight. If the software is useful, it will be used. If something replaces it that is better, or just uses the newer hardware better than the old software can use the newer hardware, it will be used.


I had a bunch of favourite clothes that I can no longer fit in now. Yes I pine for those smaller me days but life goes on, as it does with computers and software. Does it hamper me? Not really, since I do have a pile of older machines that I can use if I need to. Until I get rid of them all, they are usable including the software.

ReginaldW
2006-08-16 17:23:21
First computer was an Apple ][+ back in 1979 and I still miss the //-series. Still have a couple Apple //e's but they haven't been powered up for ages and I'd have to hunt through a pile of boxes to find 5-1/4" disks that might still run. Some day I might actually set it back up again but too many current things to do and get done. Life goes on.


I'm still running OS 8/OS 9 systems and a couple OSX sytems. Life is slowly migrating over to OSX but until about 3 years ago, I was still using an SE30 with a 2GB hard drive as a file server. Upgrade as one can afford it, as one needs it, as one can use and understand the new toys. No Intel Macs here as of yet, and none likely for a year or two as other things have priorities here. The business still uses a couple old Pentium's running DOS due to the software running on them.


Software is what makes the computer more than a paperweight. If the software is useful, it will be used. If something replaces it that is better, or just uses the newer hardware better than the old software can use the newer hardware, it will be used.


I had a bunch of favourite clothes that I can no longer fit in now. Yes I pine for those smaller me days but life goes on, as it does with computers and software. Does it hamper me? Not really, since I do have a pile of older machines that I can use if I need to. Until I get rid of them all, they are usable including the software.


2006-08-16 18:26:15
I already think the answer is no, based upon previous web-searching I have done.  But to ask anyway, are there any virtualizations/emulators (even just on PowerPC) that will run OS X?  For wacky reasons, I'd love to be able to run an app from 10.2.x on current releases (that depends upon frameworks in the base system).
Micke
2006-08-16 22:17:44
It made me switch from Mac to Windows in my business. Im still able to use the latest hardware on the PC/Windows (HP/AMD x2) and still run the software I also used on the G4 with classic mac os 9. Rest In Peice "Next", ops sorry, apple I meant. I would not be suprissed if there will be more switchers from Mac to Windows than there are switchers from Windows to Mac.
Julian Skidmore
2006-08-17 01:42:50

I've always considered that Apple has a low priority for backwards compatibility of old apps ever since I saw MacPaint 1.0 running with scrambled video on a Mac II. And I think it's a good idea on the whole, since it allows Apple to make a break with the past and move on. Otherwise, like PCs we'd be booting up in 1981-style Monochrome Text mode 25 years later.


But it does give us a new justification for petitioning Apple to release 8.1 (or even 9.1) as a free download :-)

Paul C. Pratt
2006-08-17 04:13:30
You can still use the very oldest Macintosh software with Mini vMac, a Macintosh Plus emulator that I maintain, at minivmac.sourceforge.net . Besides playing old games, it can also be used to view old files, such as from HyperCard and WriteNow.
Parr
2006-08-17 04:51:04
I've met quite a few Windows users that are so used to wiping the system when somethig goes wrong (Virus, Spyware, DLL Hell, Registry Hacks) That they never really had that much older info saved, just their one quicken file saved on a floppy.

The only changes I see to that recently, is individuals with a library of dubious quality MP3's that are aquired through BitTorrent, LAN parties etc.. . And those files wil play with all current music players (iTunes) And now many applications are web hosted, requiring a 'Current' browser supporting newer web pages. Many Windows users simply don't build large libraries of documents requiring older applications.

Bill DeFelice
2006-08-17 06:01:01
I think there are still many people who may still be using Classic/PPC software just because of a comfort factor or that there's not an acceptable substitute. I use Macromedia's very dated SoundEdit 16 for editing multitrack audio because I haven't found a reasonably priced replacement application with the features I need. I do use more modern audio software (which is expected to become a universal app) which I have yet to load on my new MacBook but I still plan on keeping my Quicksilver box around until I upgrade to a different software package, be it Windows or MacOS based. While I'm sure my own application is a very small niche I'm sure there are other holdouts for similar reasons depending on the application they use. Sadly, I will either have to convert all my mix files to a more common file format or lose them to the bit bucket.
Grungy
2006-08-17 07:45:11
Thanks for the wake-up call.
I hadn't thought about it, but I do have some data that can't be read in OS X, and I was just trying to look at it - images from a QuickTake camera.
I need to convert them to something current.
Fortunately, all but one of my many Macs can still boot into OS 9, and the other can run Classic.
There's going to be a lot less for historians to search for in the future - no shoeboxes of old photos in the closet - just 1s and 0s on unreadable media - unless we consciously keep moving the data to new formats.
I can't play back my mother's wire recorder spools either...
Peter
2006-08-17 08:01:27
http://minivmac.sourceforge.net/beta/index.html


:)

Jon the Heretic
2006-08-17 13:44:57
I couldn't DISAGREE with you more. I think Apple should be kicked solidly in the ass for having the arrogance to obsolete over 20 years of some really great (some of it simply irreplaceable) software. It is despicable that Intel Macs have better compatibility with Windows apps than with the vast majority of Mac software that has ever been written. I want better compatibility (Mac and Windows), not less than I already have.


I have used Macs since 1985, and owned over a dozen, including hardware upgrades (SE to SE/30, for ex). I feel pissed on by Apple, as a long-standing, loyal Mac fanatic. If you hear only a "whisper", it is because you aren't listening. You are listening to Apple 2.0, NeXT reborn, and to "Switchers" who haven't a clue about what has been lost or why MacOS X, with its many fine and wonderful enhancements, has an absolutely horrid Finder, once the Mac's crown jewel. I wouldn't use it for crown molding.


Apple isn't going to hear a lot from me, because I am not buying a new Mac. I'd rather take my dollars to people who give a crap. Why should I buy a computer that doesn't even run my existing software? And if I wanted Windows, I would buy a (still) vastly cheaper Wintel box.


Classic: We are talking a SOFTWARE only solution here, running in a condom-like wrapper, a virtual environment actually safer for running apps that software written for Jaguar (an older X release). This is hardly rocket science. Since Apple doesn't care about its long-standing Mac users, only about switchers and teeny punks too young to remember the real Mac, why should I care about them? Any whisper I say about Apple's arrogant move to kill Classic would begin with a fricative, as in "F..." But you needn't listen anymore than I need to give my money to Apple.


Patrick McKinnion
2006-08-17 14:42:33
Will I miss Classic? Yes. And that's speaking as someone who first used Mac 512e's and Mac XL's.


Yes, that's 22 years of experience with Macintosh.


However, things changed. I remember people complaining about System 7 and how different it looked and acted to System 6 and older.


It took me a year to get used to OS X. But I did, and I haven't looked back. I like the fact it's rock solid and stable, and I can measure it's uptime in days and months now. And Mac OS X kicks Appleshare IP big time as well.


Some of the old timers despair at OS X or anything that smacks of it. They remind me of the Amiga users, still clinging to their old hardware and Workbench, still swearing it's better than anything else out there. And if you wanted the Macintosh to be like the Amiga - a dead hardware platform nursed along by fewer and fewer dedicated fans, then we would still have OS 8 or 9.....and less and less available for it.


Yes, I'm an old-time Mac user. The type that bled five colours. Times change, and so does the Macintosh. And there's a lot of us oldtimers that wouldn't give up OS X at all. People - and computers, adapt and change, or they die.

Bill
2006-08-17 15:14:34
IIRC, Classic mode was a real kludge under OS X, so I'm not surprised Apple dumped it.


That said, G3 is dirt cheap, and G4 hardware is getting cheaper, so you will be able to run Classic (or OS 9) for at least a decade before ebay will run out of pre-Intel Macs.


How cheap?


In the last month I've bought Wallstreets for $25, and a Gigabit Ethernet G4 tower for all of $75.


I predict G4 towers will be nearly free this time next year.

Mike Perry
2006-08-18 14:07:16
Framemaker is one of the few powerful Classic applications for which there's no real replacement. For me that's bad news, since I've got some 20 books that only exist in FM. I've written Adobe, suggesting that it might be in their interests to help WINE/Codeweaver raise the compatibility of FM from Bronze to Gold. Once that's done, we could run Windows FM on Intel Macs without running Windows and incurring the hassle and risk of viruses. Mac users would be happy and they'd sell more copies of Framemaker. I know I'd buy.


For now, I'm going to keep my PPC Mac mini around to run Classic. One of the advantages of a very small computer is that it doesn't get in the way if you keep it around after getting a new computer. Leopard may even let me run it over Ethernet without a keyboard, mouse or screen. That'd be nice.


--Michael W. Perry Untangling Tolkien