Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
OS 9 Businesses Operating Systems Apple

Apple Drops Mac OS 9 675

Posted by pudge
from the bah-humbug-foo dept.
Eugenia Loli writes "MacCentral has the up-to-the-minute updates on the Apple WorldWide Developer Conference. The first big news is that Apple drops Mac OS 9. 'It's time to drop OS 9,' Steve Jobs said. 'We can do things in X that we just can't do in 9... a hundred percent of what we're doing is X only. [...] Mac OS 9 isn't dead for our customers, but it is for developers. Today we say goodbye to Mac OS 9 for all future development,' said Jobs." We all expected this to happen sooner or later, more sooner than later. There's been no new Apple development for Mac OS 9 in some time; only maintenance updates. But I won't stop Mac OS 9 development. You can't stop me! Muahahahaha! Update: 05/06 18:31 GMT by P : More news from WWDC continues to roll in.
Eugenia Loli writes "Probably the really big news is with Jaguar, the codename for Mac OS X 10.2. There is handwriting recognition technology that will be recognized by any application that uses text. Apple also introduced Quartz Extreme, which takes the compositing engine in Quartz, and accelerates it in graphics cards, and combines 2D, 3D and video in one hardware pipeline via OpenGL. 'Everything on the screen is being drawn in hardware by OpenGL.' It requires AGP 2x and 32MB of video RAM. It is not possible on older graphics cards like RAGE 128 cards, said Jobs -- that means it'll work on newer iMacs and eMacs, but not on older machines, he emphasized. Jobs said this puts Apple two years ahead of 'the other guys.'"

Update: 05/06 18:46 GMT by P : An anonymous user writes: "Apple is releasing Mac OS X Rackmount Servers. Also releasing AIM-compatible messaging called iChat; you can create buddy lists of anyone on the local network, and you can use your mac.com username to log in to it."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Drops Mac OS 9

Comments Filter:
  • by arson1 (527855) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:19PM (#3471240) Homepage
    Rendezvous. Dynamic IP discovery. Lets computers "dynamically discover each other and share them." Proposing as a new industry standard. Jobs cited example of multiple Macs working at home sharing MP3 files with iTunes between multiple computers. Demonstrated example of MP3 files streaming over AirPort. Works with any IP-ready device; built into Jaguar and will also be offered as an open industry standard that can be built into specific devices.
  • I for one am glad - both as a developer having to support to highly divergent platforms, and as a unix head who's had to work with the classic OS. I like OS X. It's unix (almost) my mom could use. There's a lot to be said for that.
  • Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gwernol (167574) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:22PM (#3471262)
    This makes huge sense for Apple: their future is Mac OS X and the company has been saying this for some time. I'm glad they are making the cut now, still relatively early in the new OS's life cycle. This will help push developers onto the new platform; in turn this is good for end users because the applications they need to run are more likely to appear on Mac OS X.

    And again it shows that Apple are able to make gutsey decisions and lead the market rather than follow it. Whatever you think of the relative merits of X vs. 9, this is the kind of bleeding-edge decision making that Apple needs if it is to differentiate itself from the Windows platform.
  • by ericdano (113424) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:22PM (#3471265) Homepage
    A lot of things still don't work as well as 9.x yet. For example, a USB laser printer I got for my G4 Cube. It takes longer for it to print under OS X than in 9.2.

    Then there are programs I used everyday, MUSIC programs, like Finale and Digital Performer, that don't work (Performer) in OS X or are buggy (Finale).

    I mean, it's great that they want to move to OS X. It's a great OS. I love running it. I just can't get all the things I need to work on it yet. And, if memory serves me, didn't Apple support System 7.X for a long time after System 8 came out? And when they switched to Power PC Chips from Motorola 680XX chips. We had FAT (68K/PPC) programs for like years.

    What is the big rush Steve?

    • by gwernol (167574) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:36PM (#3471389)
      A lot of things still don't work as well as 9.x yet. For example, a USB laser printer I got for my G4 Cube. It takes longer for it to print under OS X than in 9.2.
      Then there are programs I used everyday, MUSIC programs, like Finale and Digital Performer, that don't work (Performer) in OS X or are buggy (Finale).


      Well the biggest incentive for a developer to port their software to Mac OS X is that Mac OS 9 isn't going to be developed in the future. So their revnue streams dry up if they don't make the leap to the new OS. I'm sure this move is primarily aimed at getting more third party software to X, so it should address your concern.

      I mean, it's great that they want to move to OS X. It's a great OS. I love running it. I just can't get all the things I need to work on it yet. And, if memory serves me, didn't Apple support System 7.X for a long time after System 8 came out? And when they switched to Power PC Chips from Motorola 680XX chips. We had FAT (68K/PPC) programs for like years.

      Apple haven't announced they will stop supporting 9. I would guess (no inside info) that they'll support it for years to come. They've just announced they won't be developing it any further. That means no more releases of 9.x except for bug fixes. This is exactly what happened with the shift from 7.x to 8.x: they continued to support 7.x but didn't release any version after 7.6 (if that's the right number).

      What is the big rush Steve?

      Don't forget this was announced at the developer's conference. The venue is significant. It's Apple's way of telling its third party developers that it is time to port your software to Mac OS X.
    • The problem is always motivated. Personally, I believe that apps likes Performer and Finale have had ample time to get "up to par" and as you've mentioned are not there yet. I think a lot of this complaicency is due to the "our customers haven't really upgraded yet" mentality. Once Jobs says OS 9 is done, you better believe software vendors will put more resources into OS X. Personally, I think this is a great move. I'm a PC guy, and there's been similar problems (especially with hardware) in the music/video arena with Win2K and XP. I'm debating switching my "media machine" to a G4, however, I really want to run OS X. I'll end up going with whichever OS get's their act together.
    • by dhovis (303725) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:38PM (#3471412)
      This is a developer conference, not a user conference. The point is that all Apple developers should be targetting OS X now. If you want to target OS 9 as well, you can use Carbon, but Apple no longer wants developers using the Classic APIs. Porting from Classic -> Carbon is not trivial, but it is not a huge job either.

      Apple will continue to update OS 9 a little, but no new features should be expected, only the occational bugfix and updates to CarbonLib so that OS 9/X compatibility will be maintained.

      I expect that classic will become an optional install (not by default) sometime in 2003 and it will probably be wiped out all together by 2005.

      Also, FWIW, OS 8 was going to be OS 7.7 but Apple decided to call it OS 8. There were not that many changes. It was certainly nowhere near the OS 9 to OS X shift.

      • OS 8 was going to be OS 7.7 but Apple decided to call it OS 8. There were not that many changes.

        While 8.0 was mainly just 7.6 with a Platinum facelift, OS 8.1 (free update) was a big jump. HFS+, control click, etc.

        When Lord Steve first announced Carbon, he promised that Carbon apps would run on 8.1 (and that any G3 would be fully supported in OS X). Yeah, he distorted reality to the point of falsehood. But 8.1 can run the handful of Carbon 1.0x applications that exist.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:24PM (#3471282)
    ...ah, the unprotected memory. The cooperative multitasking. The first one taught me to never make off-by-one errors in CodeWarrior (it also, by proxy, taught me all about MacsBug). The second taught me never to FTP things while typing in a telnet window.

    Yeah, I'll sure miss Pre-X MacOS...
  • *nix marches on (Score:3, Insightful)

    by guacamolefoo (577448) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:24PM (#3471285) Homepage Journal
    Some Apple users may feel abandoned by this news, but it is obviously not unexpected. I suggest a little grief-counseling for the truly bereaved, but I'd bet that there are a lot of people out there who would actually consider buying a Mac now that wouldn't have dreamed it a year or so ago.

    OS X brings Apple into a larger community and out of isolation. It may take some time for all of this to become apparent, but I think it is pretty obvious that everyone involved (Apple evangelists, *nix evangelists) will be better off with this move.

    Guac-foo.
  • by murr (214674)
    I've programmed in classic MacOS for 17 years, and I've actually contributed to MacOS 9. However, I upgraded my home Mac when 10.1 came out and never looked back.

    MacOS 9 had a great existence, but MacOS X is superior in every way.
    • Superior in every way except interface speed, that is. And still to a certain degree, simplicity.
    • MacOS X is superior in every way

      Until OS X has a tool comparable to FinderPop [versiontracker.com], it is not strictly superior to OS 9. It's that simple.

      p.s. Navigation in the OS X file dialog is freaking miserable. What are the keyboard shortcuts? AFAICT, any key other than Tab or Return is linked to the command "jump to random location that the user doesn't want".
  • As stated, 'twas gonna happen sooner or later. My thinking is that the notification of OS 9 being shelved is of only passing interest, as it is passe' itself.

    OTOH, being an embedded systems developer, I know the havoc that can be caused by a vendor pulling a platform from under your feet. Are there actually any (commercial) developers who will be adversely affected by this? Does anyone really care that it's on its way out?

    My own opinion is that OS X has so many advantages that it's a hands-down winner 'twixt the two.

    Shine on, OS X!
    • by MouseR (3264) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:47PM (#3471472) Homepage
      Dropping OS 9 has big implications on developers.

      For our Mac version of the product, we had just decided (last week!) to drop support for Mac OS 8.6. Carbon on 8.6 was a major pain.

      By going 9-up only, it'll spare us about 4 weeks testing.

      Now that Apple itself is dropping support for Mac OS 9, it'll be easier on us to talk about dropping 8.6 support.

      We'll continue supporting Mac OS 9 for this release, but for the next release, we'll have ample munitions to entirely drop classic Mac OSes. That ought to trim the application code by about 10%, and accelerate the runtime because of all the IF X switches in the code.

      Might not sound like that big of a deal, but when your networking stack checks, at runtime, which layer you're using (Mac TCP for 8.6, OpenTransport for 8.6 up to X, and BSD for X), this really adds up. Let alone all the Classic vs AQUA UI tweaks.

      Out of curiosity, I just grepped our sources for this specific runtime switch. There are 87 occurences of it!
      • Couldn't you just do the test once and set some function pointers which all subsequent code would use?
  • I'm very impressed by Apples willingness to sacrifice backwards compatibility to make a better platform.

    It's a risky move on a business level, but on an engineering level, it makes a lot of sense. I just have to hope that good design will beat questionable marketing.
    • ... willingness to sacrifice backwards compatibility to make a better platform.

      It's not the first time they did this... remember when they switched from the 68xxx series CPU to the PowerPC based CPU? That was quite gutsy as well as they had to use emulation to support the old 68xxx for quite some time after those machines ceased production.

      I wonder if anyone is masochistic enough to attempt run an old 68xxx application in emulation mode in OS9 while running that under classic mode in OSX :)

      • Re:Gutsy move (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 06, 2002 @03:00PM (#3471601)
        "I wonder if anyone is masochistic enough to attempt run an old 68xxx application in emulation mode in OS9 while running that under classic mode in OSX :"

        I just couldn't let this one pass by unchallenged. My first Mac was a Quadra 700 and the software I used then was WriteNow (68K Assembly ), FoxBase+ (68K) and I added
        Cyberdog as a browser with OS 8 on my PM6500. All run flawlessly under OS X 10.1 on my G3 400 PowerBook. In fact they a much more stable and I don't notice any
        difference in speed. My hat off to Apple Enginerring. An incredible feat of backwards compatability.
      • If you want to talk backwards, compatible, I have DESK ACCCESSORIES from 1985 that run without a problem on my iBook and iMac today.

        Try that, Windows boys ;-)

        -jon

        • by joshv (13017)

          If you want to talk backwards, compatible, I have DESK ACCCESSORIES from 1985 that run without a problem on my iBook and iMac today.
          Try that, Windows boys ;-)

          Actually I've run Windows 1.0 in a window on top of windows 2000. The applets, write.exe, calc.exe, and paint.exe - all work fine. No overlapping windows though - damn that Apple lawsuit...

          -josh
  • by waldoj (8229) <(waldo) (at) (jaquith.org)> on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:27PM (#3471311) Homepage Journal
    You might want to rethink that new Mac OS 9 [slashdot.org] category, then, huh?

    :)

    -Waldo Jaquith
  • Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats (122034) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:28PM (#3471328) Homepage
    At last, we can say goodbye to what Mac developers knew as the Mess Inside. It's one of those great moments in programming, like when you could finally stop worrying about supporting the 16-bit x86 version of your code.

    Down inside, the original MacOS was a lot like DOS - single-application, single thread, and no memory protection. Over the years, multiple applications were retrofitted to the thing, resulting in a horrible mess. CPU dispatching was the worst part. "Cooperative multitasking" wasn't enough. But instead of putting a real scheduler, all sorts of "tasks" (timer tasks, vertical blanking interval tasks, system tasks, deferred tasks, multiprocessor tasks, Open Transport tasks, etc.) were added over time. Each of these had a different set of restrictions on what it could do. It would have been far simpler to put in a real CPU dispatcher early on.

    Better late than never, I suppose.

  • Why the icon? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperguyA1 (90398) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:29PM (#3471338) Homepage
    O.K. Moderators have your fun with me, but I can't help but comment on the new OS 9 icon where the only story under the topic is the end of OS9. Wouldn't this be better placed under Apple:)
    • Especially since this one story in this topic is announcing the end of the particular item that the topic portrays. Sheeesh!
    • Well, you see, when slashdot introduced apple.slashdot.org [slashdot.org] they also created a whole slew of Mac-specific icons. The idea being, I presume, that if you have a whole sub-site dedicated to Apple, it will be more interesting to look at if every story isn't stuck with the same generic icon. Hence, OS X icons, OS 9 icons, iMac icons, iPod icons, etc [slashdot.org]. Of course, in practice they seem to only be using either the generic Apple icon or the standard slashdot icons used on the rest of the site.
  • by ackthpt (218170)
    But
    I won't stop Mac OS 9 development. You can't stop me! Muahahahaha!

    You're mad! Mad, I say, mad!

    BTW, how long till the first OS-9 emulator hits the fan? ;)

  • by eXtro (258933) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:38PM (#3471411) Homepage
    Jobs spoke about including peer-to-peer networking in the next full release of MacOS X and even included sharing MP3 as an example of how it could be used. Speaking technically thats a minor thing, there are many applications that are capable of doing this, such as LimeWire. Not many companies are willing to include this as a feature though, its too risky with both the MPAA and RIAA convinced peer-to-peer is evil.


    Apple seems to be taunting them on purpose, consider their "Rip. Mix. Burn." ads. Gateway payed Apple the sincerest form of flattery with their later ad campaign, but still Apple was the first to stick their neck out.

    • Jobs spoke about including peer-to-peer networking in the next full release of MacOS X and even included sharing MP3 as an example of how it could be used.

      Um... I don't think so. I'm not there or anything, but I don't believe that's what happened.

      Steve was talking about a home environment with several Macs using iTunes on one of them to stream MP3s over AirPort to the others. Rendezvous would make it easier to get something like that going, because the Macs would all be able to automatically discover one another without anybody having to manually set up IP stuff. Similar to DHCP, but without the server.

      This is really different from peer-to-peer file sharing over the internet.

      Incidentally, what Steve described is exactly how I'm set up right now. I've got about 12 GB of MP3s on my iMac (most of 'em ripped by me from my collection of 200+ CDs) and I stream 'em over AirPort to my other Macs, including the iBook I'm using to write this. The only difference is that I'm not using iTunes to serve streams, obviously, because it doesn't do that yet.
    • Apple has and always will be (at least partialy) a pirate company (their first flag over the apple HQ was a skull and cross-bones). Apple really does want to see what the maximum limits of technology are and want to see technology be part of your life. As has been noted here before, they aren't very keen on making sure everyone else is happy. They really just do what they think is the best for the industry. If Apple pisses off the RIAA it really doesn't matter to them. In fact, I think it could be really good for "fair use advocates". If the RIAA specificaly starts targeting computer companies (such as Apple) they will be visciously attacked by users, more so than currently.
  • by gwernol (167574) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:40PM (#3471427)
    For good minute-by-minute coverage of the keynote, commit HTTP to Apple Confidential [spymac.com]. The latest news (as I post this) is iChat a new Apple IM client built into the 10.2 release of Mac OS X. I know the lead engineer on that project and I expect it will be pretty sweet.
    • They're the ones who released those phony pics of an Apple branded PDA last year. Whether it was a publicity stunt or they were deceived (my money's on the former), Spymac is NOT a good source for Mac news.

      Try macnn.com [macnn.com] instead.
      • Re:Spymac is bogus (Score:2, Informative)

        by gwernol (167574)
        Spymac is NOT a good source for Mac news

        I agree and I didn't say there were a good source of news. The rumors they post are highly unreliable.

        But they did have good minute-by-minute coverage of the keynote, which is what I posted about.
  • by tps12 (105590) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:40PM (#3471429) Homepage Journal
    Since OS 9 is no longer being supported, and OS X is not supported on any of the beige (or black, for Powerbooks) Macs, I guess the era began with the Ugly Yellow Box is finally at an end.

    With it go some of the things that Mac users have come to love about their quirky boxes...high quality (but expensive) parts, Easter Eggs, strange homebrew interfaces (ADB, anyone?), tiny screens, humorous error messages that convey no information...everything that at one point made Apple Apple.

    Well, I don't like it. You can have your protected memory. And while you're at it, you can remember to take your preemptive multitasking, too. We Mac users have always maintained that that kind of stuff just isn't needed for the home user, and I stand by it, even if Steve Jobs won't.

    Call me crazy, but I appreciate an intuitive interface; yeah, that's right: intuitive. Since when does it make sense for "Shut Down" to be classified under a little picture of an Apple? How is your average Joe or Jane going to find it there, when it clearly should be labelled "Special". There was a time when the Apple icon was reserved for "Chooser" and "Calculator", but that time has come to pass.

    Not to mention the new "brushed metal" appearance of the Apple CD player. Once upon a time, a user could choose (yes, remember choice?) from an extensive handful of horrid, non-standard color schemes for the late, great Apple CD Audio Player.

    So let's raise our glasses in honor of Mac OS 1-9, the interface we hated to love for so many years. And let us launch off our Holiday Rockets in honor of Steven Jobs, our own great Lincoln, liberating the slaves of the antebellum command line. And raise too our voices, for tonight we give thanks where none thanks have dared yet go.

    Thank you, Macintosh, for everything. The Last Mac Purist,

    • Re:goodbye beige (Score:2, Informative)

      by jmertic (544942)
      Actually... both the G3 All-in-one [lowendmac.com] and original G3 [lowendmac.com] were both fully supported in OS X by Apple, while the 7500-9600 series where able to use X thanks to XPostFacto [macsales.com]
    • Re:goodbye beige (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall (25149) on Monday May 06, 2002 @03:19PM (#3471761)
      Another poster already covered this sort of, but... how is shutting down your computer "special"?

      I personally think the way they have menu layouts now make more sense - all system stuff (shutdown and restart) under one easy to find and always availiable apple menu. Then really common app things like preferences or services (and YES that is an app specific menu, read the UI development guidelines) or Quit belong under an app menu, followed by all the other menu items an app might need.

      Just because you are used to doing something a certain way does not make it more "intuitive" for new users. I herald the approach of systems with a whole new level of rationally thought out intuitive and powerful interfaces - sure there will be missteps but it's time for a breath of fresh air in something that has been written in stone for fifteen years without question. Do you really think that ideas for UI's developed on computers that long ago need no more rethinking? Even the constitution has amendments, and the way you govern people doesn't change as fast as computers do.
    • .Since... OS X is not supported on any of the beige Macs,

      Umm... I believe my biege G3 is still officially supported. Unfortunately it uses ADB ports rather than USB so my Wacom tablet doesn't work on X, but everything else seems to work fine.
    • by Phroggy (441) <slashdot3@nOSPam.phroggy.com> on Monday May 06, 2002 @04:57PM (#3472610) Homepage
      Since when does it make sense for "Shut Down" to be classified under a little picture of an Apple? How is your average Joe or Jane going to find it there,

      Damn straight. Everyone knows it should be listed under "Start".
  • Gee, Thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TotallyUseless (157895) <tot@NosPAm.mac.com> on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:41PM (#3471434) Homepage Journal
    A. Next time, wait till the keynote is over, dont just post the first thing that happens and then have to go back and keep updating the article. There is always lots of interesting stuff said in the keynotes, no point jumping the gun.

    B. Thanks for getting the maccentral.com link hammered halfway through the keynote. I always enjoy having my keynote newspage refreshing session destroyed by a few million of the unwashed slashdot masses, half of whom are probably just trying to read the article to find trolling material. This ties back to A. in that if you had waited to post this till after the keynote, those of us that *really* care would have been able to finish getting updates about the keynote before the link was trampled.

    Mod me down, I don't care. I'm frustrated.
  • I'm thrilled to see spring loaded folders coming back!
  • OS-X is based on a lot of open-source code. Time for payback! Open-source the OS9 code (and its predecessors)!

    BTW, guys, I like the 'Aqua' slash theme... but won't you get sued [slashdot.org]?

  • Dammit! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jchristopher (198929) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:49PM (#3471492)
    It is not possible on older graphics cards like RAGE 128 cards, said Jobs -- that means it'll work on newer iMacs and eMacs, but not on older machines, he emphasized. Jobs said this puts Apple two years ahead of 'the other guys.'"

    WTF is that?!? The iBook, a machine they are selling RIGHT NOW does not meet those specs. So basically their current 'entry level' model is never going to have accelerated video? This is ridiculous.

    I had one, it was so slow that I sold it. This video driver issue is probably the reason why.

    Macs last longer than PCs, huh? How long is an iBook with no video acceleration going to be able to keep up with OS X? Apparently by "two years ahead", Steve means "you'll need the machine we'll be selling two years from now to keep up with the OS we're selling today".

    • I've got an iBook2 Rev1, which I bought less than a year ago for nearly $2k. Granted, the Rage M3 video card that Apple included was never the fastest mobile video chipset out there, but it SHOULD support at least some hardware acceleration - it certainly could under OS 9. My iBook's box had a nice big decal on it that said, "Made for OS X" - this should mean that the mature version takes full advantage of my hardware, not completely leapfrogs over it. When I bought this computer, DVD playback and CD burning were not supported, and now they are. I don't think I'm being unreasonable by expecting that some level of video acceleration will be added too.
    • Re:Dammit! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by melatonin (443194) on Monday May 06, 2002 @04:37PM (#3472427)
      I had one, it was so slow that I sold it.

      Heh, you're a slow learner, aren't you?

      Notebooks are crap. They have the worst possible ROI. You pay the extra money for a cute portable system, that's a bitch to upgrade and a fixed video system.

      Back in '95, our family bought a 7200/90. The next year I bought a PB 1400/117 (first rev). They were at par with each other (601 vs 603e). Then we put an L2 cache in the 7200. Holy shit. And now it's hosting several GB of HD space. My PowerBook is still stuck with it's 740 MB HD and 32 MB of RAM; and I'm not spending a dime to upgrade those. The battery's dead, and that bugger itself is too expensive. Who wants to work on a 117 Mhz PPC with no L2 cache? The 7200 still runs Office and we use it daily.

      Two years later, my bro bought a PB G3/233 (Wallstreet). Damn nice. Same price as my PowerBook, whose performance was going in the gutter. We also bought a Beige G3/233 MT that year.

      The MT is still running; 256 MB of RAM, Rage 128 and a 400 MHz G3. It's got USB too now. My bro's PowerBook is pretty much stuck with its initial config (more ram, better HD- but still a slow notebook HD). It's not a fraction of the machine that the MT is.

      Notebooks cost more, they use non-standard, fragile, expensive parts, and they last two years if you're lucky. This is standard fair.

      Macs last longer than PCs, huh?

      That 7 year old 7200/90 is chugging along just fine. My Powerbook makes a very pretty doorstop (it's got one of them BookCover things; I put a Craig Mullin's Oni painting-printout in there).

      Notebooks are great if your company pays for one. Hell, it's a win-win for companies, take your work home with you! Do it on the train! In the airport! Otherwise they suck.

      yet i'm still tempted to buy an ibook.

  • There's still a few important apps that have yet to migrate, after which I will probably only boot into OS 9 to remind myself how snappy everything responded:

    • Pro Tools: Last I checked, no OS X support for the defacto standard in professional audio engineering (not to mention the huge amateur market that uses Pro Tools, esp. Pro Tools Free). This is a BIG app... creative/audio professionals depend on it.
    • Digital Performer: They're promising OS X, but nothing yet
    • Various other soft synths: Reason, Supercollider, Reaktor, etc....


    Yeah, they're all audio apps, and the funny thing is, OS X is supposed to have inherited a kick-butt set of classes/APIs for dealing with Audio and Music (MusicKit), but I haven't seen a whole lot come of it yet. Hmmm
    • Reason (Score:2, Informative)

      by BlameFate (564908)
      Reason 2.0 has entered final Beta testing now; check it out here [propellerheads.se].

      It's fully OSX native and has two more instruments over and above Reason 1; a new graintable synth and an advanced sampler. The OSX drivers for my Roland UM1 midi interface are also in beta now and can be downloaded here [edirol.com].

  • I am glad to see OS 9 as 'dead' because this forces developers to start creating more native support for OS X and not settling for 9 compatibility. As of right now, I have an Epson scanner with no native X drivers.

    On the other hand, I am very concerned of the loss of support for 9 users. One example that comes to my mind is the Western Michigan University Theatre department [wmich.edu] which run 9 on all of their Apple computers, most of which can't even run 10.1, let alone the new demands of 'Jaguar.' Also, all of the major programs (besides Office) are either not available in X or require a major upgrade to become X compatible. That's a lot of money to spend, epically when most of your computers can't run in X. The question can be raised that the department needs to update their hardware, but when the current setup is fully functional, why spend the money to change it all?

    I believe this move is to create a focus for developers to develop support of X that take charge of very innovative technologies that X has to benefit the users. I only hope that we 9 will still be supported and at least welcomed. Hopefully someone will visit the retirement home once-in-a-while and say hello to 9.

  • by toupsie (88295) on Monday May 06, 2002 @02:51PM (#3471514) Homepage
    From the session notes:
    iChat: AIM-compatible messaging built in to Jaguar. Can create buddy list of anyone on the local network, as well. You can use your Mac.com name and don't need AOL account. Sorting. "First time AOL has let anyone under the tent," said Jobs (although others have reversed-engineered AIM compatible chat apps).

    I think this is a huge announcement from Apple. With AOL taking Netscape/Mozilla and using it as its Web App replacing IE, we saw the first shot across the Microsoft bow by Case. Now Jobs and Case are teaming up to make AOL IM a bundled part of Mac OS X. Taking Microsoft's game and shoving it right back them. I assume this is why MSN has finally started supporting Mac OS with their service. They are reading the writing on the wall.

    We have been seeing Apple getting more aggressive in dealing with Microsoft. Jobs balked at the Microsoft/DOJ "Give the Kiddies Windows" settlement, Apple's website now shows you that Mac OS X kicks XP's butt, the famous Photoshop "bakeoffs" and now the AOL IM in Jaguar. What next?

  • Why not some support for the XDarwin project [xdarwin.org]? This would give an easy way to bring Linux GUI developers on board, without making them unlearn open source gtk to learn the very much closed source Cocoa. The world of X11 apps is very much larger than Cocoa apps at this point (compare versiontracker's cocoa app list to FreshMeat's X11 section), and will be for the forseeable future. Why? Non-North-American countries which have a lot of developers (Poland, Germany, India) find it a lot easier to buy into hardware that runs X11.
    • Apple doesn't want developers to write weird-looking X11 apps; they want native apps. And as a long-time Mac user, I completely agree. Give me fewer, more beautiful apps any day.
  • I recently went from a 200 mHz dual processor Mac to a new Quicksilver 933.

    As far as complaints about speed goes, I cannot see them. Of course, I never boot into OS 9 on the 933, so it is hard for me to compare. OS X on the 933 is definitely fast enough for me.

    I have come close on several occasions to deleting OS 9 completely from the new Mac. I do not need it, and I hope to never have to boot into it. Most of the programs I use on a daily basis have been moved over. I am glad to see Apple pushing developers so hard to move over the rest of the programs out there.

    The most telling thing I can say is that if I find I need/want a program that will only run under Classic, I find an alternative or I do without it. I think that more and more Mac users would agree with that, and Apple is finally telling the developers that.

    One concern I have is with the new chat program that is going to be released. I currently use Adium, which is a simply *fantastic* program. I never knew how good chatting could be until I used it. The current AIM client for Mac OS X is apparently pretty bad (it does not support logging, which is needed for me, and the reason that I never gave it a chance, so I cannot say based on my experience).

    I would really like to see iChat take some cues from Adium.

    Hopefully speed will also be covered in 10.2 so as to keep all of the whining to a minimum.

    As far as everyone calling for open-sourching MacOS 9, I am not sure that Apple is going to give away quite that much. I think that calling for an open-souce 7.6.1 or so would be doable. Apple gives away 7.5.3 for free, as it is.
  • I have a question for the OS X experts:

    Ok, is Quartz-Extreme going to be our only option for 2D acceleration in 10.2? Right now there isn't any 2D acceleration from the video card on OS X, and it shows any time a user tries to do much 2D anything, especially on the slower Powerbooks and iBooks, which do not have the video requirements to handle Quartz-Extreme. Does this mean that only people with higher-end Macs are ever going to be able see any decent performance when web-browsing on OS X?
  • I noticed that this is the one and only OS 9 related article to use the Slashdot OS 9 icon. Pretty funny to click on it and see that the only story is that OS 9 is being killed. Heh.
  • by KFury (19522) on Monday May 06, 2002 @05:11PM (#3472719) Homepage
    What really got me excited today was the news about Inkwell, the handwriting recognition engine for 10.2.

    I'm excited because it's so useless. There is no way that Jobs would put his people through the effort of bringing handwriting recognition to OS X unless it was a precursor to the iPad [fury.com]. My guess is October, January at the latest.

    Soooooo happy.
  • by Mac Nazgul (196332) on Monday May 06, 2002 @06:11PM (#3473173)
    According to Apple's Mac OS X new version page (http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/), Quartz Extreme's supported video cards are:
    nVidia: GeForce2MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 Ti, GeForce4 or GeForce4MX. ATI: any AGP Radeon card. 32MB VRAM recommended for optimum performance.

    RECOMMENDED, NOT REQUIRED

    Check the info before you start the next flame war.

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

Working...