digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

RIP, Classic Mac OS: 1984 - 2007

engadget.com — It's not a huge surprise, but Apple's gone ahead and posted a note confirming that Leopard will not support Classic, even on PowerPC machines. Of course, Intel Macs have never been able to run Classic anyway, so only like Hypercard user groups and the three printshops still running QuarkXPress 4 and will be affected by this...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • macamatition, on 10/28/2007, -4/+31I wonder if digg will still be around when we say goodbye to OS 10...Well RIP OS 9 I hardly knew ye!
    • Elranzer, on 10/27/2007, -5/+15RIP, and good riddance.
    • potp, on 10/27/2007, -22/+4So basically a Mac is Basically a PC?
      • MtheoryX, on 10/26/2007, -3/+15Basically.
      • Balanced, on 10/27/2007, -1/+10As far as hardware, pretty much.

        Hopefully some colleges will keep documentation (The older Inside Mac books, at least) for the Classic Mac OS around for those looking into using ideas from it. The MacOS had some innovative concepts and I'm sure a few just aren't used anymore and would be useful for those looking into designing new systems.
      • Tenoq, on 10/27/2007, -7/+10Kinda makes you wonder how they've got it right in a just a few years and Microsoft still can't get it right. It was never about the hardware, obviously. :p
        • mrsteveman1, on 10/26/2007, -0/+15Because every few years Apple makes significant jumps forward and completely cuts off support for older programs, like you see here.

          Microsoft refuses to do that, so old stuff works and brings all its crap with it.
          • pak314, on 10/26/2007, -0/+15Yes you are right on that. I have an old MSDOS program at work that uses direct access to serial port registers and it still works on my Windows XP command line. Apple tends to break compatibility sooner. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages.
          • tgoose, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5And both are related to market share. If Microsoft drop support for things too soon, they risk losing the companies that only stick with them for continuity.
    • tgoose, on 10/27/2007, -2/+6You hardly knew OS 9? You lucky bastard.
      • LeeSoong, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3apple should make an OS 9 emulator for intel os x.
        • Macskeeball, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2And they should call it "Sheepsaver."
  • GreatDrok, on 10/29/2007, -1/+33Well, I just installed Leopard on my iBook G4 1st gen which is about the lowest spec machine it will run on. I bought this with Panther pre-installed, upgraded to Tiger and now to Leopard. Still indexing for spotlight so can't tell how quick it is but quickly noticed the loss of classic. To be honest, I haven't used any classic apps in a couple of years so it isn't really a loss. Of more note is the loss of the pinstripe look that existed on the first version of OS X. It was tamed in Panther, almost eradicated in Tiger and finally it is completely gone in Leopard. Same with brushed metal. Not sure about the new look, it seems a bit utilitarian but has a pleasing smoothness that is hard to describe.
    • zongamin, on 10/27/2007, -3/+5You mean you weren't using UNO anyway?
      • GreatDrok, on 10/27/2007, -1/+2I've installed and uninstalled UNO a few times. The problem for me is that it didn't ever quite work right. Some apps just looked horrid (Office:mac for example) although losing brushed metal was an improvement. However, UNO never looked as good as Leopard's unified look so I always went back to the normal Tiger look.
    • mrsteveman1, on 10/26/2007, -2/+7Those pinstripes were incredibly annoying even when they were new, so was brushed metal.
    • antdude, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2How much RAM did that iBook have? I was thinking of getting Leopard for my old PowerBook G4 (PPC) 1 Ghz with 512 MB of RAM. Is it worth it? I am still running OS X 10.2.8.
  • ropers, on 10/26/2007, -0/+9The note (which is linked but easily overlooked in the above article): http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303 ...
  • thekaempfer, on 10/28/2007, -11/+81OS9 is dead? Thank God.
    • MeeeepSSB, on 10/26/2007, -17/+4Look, I'm a PC user, I hate Macs.
      I still think that the OS 9 was not that bad, and I wish it wasn't dead.
      I think many people will miss the thing, I kind of do, amazingly.
      • combatchuck, on 10/26/2007, -3/+18You're wrong. OS9 is almost universally reviled. It's technologically inferior to Windows 95. The only thing it had going for it was a decent UI design, and even that has been surpassed by everything on the market today.
        • Charlotte_Web, on 10/26/2007, -1/+7The Mac OS series was also easy to troubleshoot. You could freely move files in and out of the System Folder without fear of completely hosing the system; no DLL's, and no registry. In fact, that was all that Apple's own Extensions Manger utility did, was move files in and out. I was a sys admin back in the day, and there was no question in my mind which platform was easier to work on.

          That sort of simplicity is now long gone. Who says that computers are geting easier to work on?
          • mrsteveman1, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3You do realize that Microsoft is not the only or even the first OS to use dynamic libraries....

            EVERYONE uses dynamic libraries, including Apple. I would be extremely surprised if OS9 and prior were completely static binaries, in fact I'm pretty sure they aren't static because that would be incredibly stupid.
          • gbarger, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4Mac OS does and has been using a form DLLs for some time, but unlike Windows, the DLLs are stored in the application packages, so they're not all sharing the library files and it is far less likely to screw up the computer.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3By DLL's, I'm referring to Microsoft's implementation. Of course OS 9 had shared libraries; but they were packaged much more neatly, and were easily identifiable most of the time.

            If a Mac was having problems, I could go into the System Folder and manually start pulling out extensions without fear of screwing up the computer (it was well known at the time which system files were absolutely required to boot). The files, themselves, had information about what they did and often about which program installed them.

            Would you dare attempt such a thing with Windows Vista?
          • Raptor007, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Oh man, I know EXACTLY what you mean!! Troubleshooting under OS 9 was the best!

            And I'm surprised nobody is mentioning ResEdit. Not as useful as a Classic Environment tool, but on a Mac natively booting OS 9, it's a godsend.
    • daridave, on 10/26/2007, -0/+10I'll miss HyperCard! While I started programming the rough way, C & ASM, HyperCard is to me the first "fun time" I ever had playing around with code/scripts. I wonder if those school project diskettes still work ... heh. Good times.
      • nixfu, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5Can still do the same things on OSX: http://www.supercard.us/
        • Charlotte_Web, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Wow, SuperCard is still around?!?

          From $179 to $285... oy!

          I'm a little surprised that it's still Mac-only. Seems like with the education market being the biggest market for Hypercard users, and the mass exodus of the education market away from Apple over the last decade, that creating a cross-platform version of SuperCard would have been a no-brainer. Reviewing the documentation, I also don't see any web publishing features, either. Hmmm...

          I agree with you, daridave... Hypercard was a lot of fun. When I was in college, I used to create stacks to drill myself on the coursework before tests. I just threw out all of my old floppies last year (they weren't working), and my beige Mac last month. So old it's beyond usefulness. :-(
        • Raptor007, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Runtime Revolution is along the same lines as SuperCard, but cross-platform.
    • antdude, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1I thought OS 9 was dead after 10.2.
  • dustPuppy, on 10/27/2007, -2/+46*****.


    I JUST installed Riven.
    • daeggman, on 10/28/2007, -0/+16I foresee a boom in OS9-capable vintage Mac emulators. As long as there are classic games to be played, there will be a way to play them.
      • djpants428, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2I'm sure someone will get Basilisk or PearPC or something similar running in no time flat....
      • techweenie1, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3I actually wasn't a fan of how classic apps were integrated into the OS X environment...would have prefered to have a separate window...since SheepShaver is barely usable, I hope this happens soon.
    • DJCult, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6Oi, no *****. I'm not going to lose Deus Ex and Diablo. Shoot. Guess I'm holding out on Leopard.
      • harryrick, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Nooooooo!! I forgot about Deus Ex and I just installed Leopard! What a fool I am.
  • CATSCEO, on 10/26/2007, -12/+4Mac OS was fun while it lasted :)
  • tbenathan, on 10/28/2007, -2/+25Macintosh System 7 was a brilliant and pioneering operating system when it was released in 1991. Components such as full color QuickDraw and UI, cooperative multitasking, and aliases changed the way modern operating systems worked.

    I recall as a young kid awaiting System 8 - codenamed Copland - with incredible anticipation. The project breakdown became my first brush with vaporware, and the beginning of the end for Apple's "Classic" operating system.
    • phoephus, on 10/28/2007, -3/+25It had a special feature that would crash the computer when you had been working on a project for a long time without saving.
      • RedHerringHack, on 10/27/2007, -6/+28Didn't take microsoft long to steal that idea.
        • mrsteveman1, on 10/26/2007, -7/+0You know, if you admit MS came up with the idea it makes them look worse.

          Never miss a chance to say MS stole something eh?
    • betobeto, on 10/28/2007, -0/+11I don't know about you, but I certainly don't miss the bomb icon. Oh well, we now have kernel panic screens instead. The more things change...
    • Guspaz, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4Ugh. Please, let us forget co-operative multitasking. Apples' competitors had pre-emptive multitasking far sooner, since Apple kept sticking with co-operative for far too long.
      • spikespeigel42, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1I know what pre-emptive multitasking is, but whats cooperative?
        • Balanced, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6Essentially it required every application to say "OK, now it's someone else's turn."

          The good side was that games (for example) could effectively take over the system for performance. The bad side is that poorly-written applications might 'forget' to let other apps have a turn and cause other processes to bog down.
      • HesNikke, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Apple tried Pre-emptive multitasking (Lisa) a full 12 years before it was all the rage (Windows 95.) this attempt it failed for any number of reasons. like the price tag, ($10000) or the single tasking computer they shipped just a year later - at 1/4 the price (Macintosh - $2500.)

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa
    • SteveMax, on 10/27/2007, -1/+5Not to be a prick, but System7's cooperative multitasking still wasn't up to the same level as the Amiga's preemptive multitasking system that had been around since the mid 80s. That system was the goal that consumer-level OSs had been trying to get to until Windows XP (as the first consumer-level WinNT kernel), OS X or Linux's popularization.
      • Balanced, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4And the Lisa had preemptive multitasking. Cooperative was an outgrowth of the single-tasking early MacOS model.
        • SteveMax, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Exactly. The Lisa was never a consumer-level system; when Apple built its next-gen consumer computer, they dropped multitasking to add a motivation for people to pay the extra bucks for a Lisa. This move wasn't so smart looking back, as the single-tasking GUIs (and their cooperative extensions) died on the market, while almost nobody actually bought a Lisa.
  • ButchersBoy, on 10/26/2007, -5/+10Just gimme AmigaOS4.
    • ilgaz, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Even OS X misses some features of the legendary AmigaOS4. The “Preview any filetype if its plugin installed” was like “EDIT any file if its datatype plugin installed” on Amiga OS 4.
      Of course, those ages there was a true competition....

  • dinostabOMG, on 10/27/2007, -4/+40Personally, the pre-OSX MacOSes were the biggest reason to stay away from Macs for me. I have significantly fewer complaints now; but anyway I am completely underwhelmed by emotion at this announcement.
    • daeggman, on 10/26/2007, -0/+10I liked the pre-OSX Mac OSes, but I will be the first to admit that they had serious problems. I hated how many times I had to restart those bad boys - force-quitting ANY application would more often than not send you looking for a paper clip (stupid recessed reset button on the stupid Rev. A iMac). I loved it when OS X showed up and pretty much did away with the complete system lock-ups for no good reason.
  • daeggman, on 10/27/2007, -1/+13This is unexpected, but not surprising when you think about the fact that it's been more than 6 years since the last update to OS 9. However, I still occasionally play Cliff Johnson's "Fool's Errand" and "3 in Three" and as yet, they are still only playable in Classic, so bring on the unofficial Mac OS Classic emulators!
  • danjal, on 10/27/2007, -18/+8The death of an os... sombody remind me how this isn't a cult religion?
    • uncledeercamp, on 10/27/2007, -2/+27Can't respond. Sacrificing goats to Steve Jobs.
      • Nossie, on 10/26/2007, -3/+5its kinda funny... BeOS, NeXT, AmigaOS (yeah I know its kinda still alive) RiscOS (yes that too), MacOS and many others that I cant remember all had many people mourn their demise .... (people even missed OS2)

        You might laugh about the Apple 'religious freaks' but the reality of it is nobody loves Windows enough to miss it ... Windows has no soul. XP could possibly be the first OS that you atheists are going to miss... atleast by experience with Vista so far.
        • Ratteler, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Amen. I have never once been nostalgic for Win95, or 98.
          Vista is just Blasphemy.
          • techweenie1, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2I have a bit of nostalgia for Win 3.x actually but don't miss 95, 98, etc... either
    • RedHerringHack, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4I've been looking all over town for black Nikes.
  • coltrane68, on 10/29/2007, -12/+38This shows why Apple is much more forward-looking than Microsoft. Vista is still saddled with legacy code from a decade ago. Apple has the guts to get rid of a leftover from a prior generation.
    • Tippis, on 10/26/2007, -1/+31They also have the market segment to do it.
      Vista is burneded by legacy code because that's what the bulk of MS' clients (i.e. large corporations) want from it -- it is required to run, or at least access, their sprawling, ancient, and unreplacable office backbone architecture.
      The segments where Apple has made inroads generally don't have these issues with legacy code that *must* keep on running, so Apple doesn't run the risk of alienating 50% of their market everytime they shed some outdated code.

      ...that's another reason why it's a *good thing* that OSX has such a small market share.
      • notadiggtard, on 10/26/2007, -7/+3Um...after OS X came out macs dual booted OS9+OS X for a number of years.Can you play an Xbox game on the Xbox360?Hey they are just gamers,but they are customers too!
        • Ssullivan, on 10/26/2007, -1/+7whoosh... thats the sound of his point going right over your head
    • Murdats, on 10/26/2007, -4/+3right, more forward looking.
      so I take it that noone at all has been bitching that vista is 100% backwards compatible.
      • Nossie, on 10/26/2007, -3/+3I'd like to hope that was sarcasm... Vista 100% compatible? hell no.
    • senatorpjt, on 10/27/2007, -2/+5Even so, I wouldn't say that OSX was really "saddled" with legacy code because Classic ran in a separate memory space from the regular OS, more like the way Wine works on Linux (but not exactly). None of the Classic code was even in memory if you weren't running Classic apps. There's no problem with including legacy code if it's only used when it's actually required.
      • Figs, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2It takes up space...
        • senatorpjt, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3So what? It doesn't take up much space, and it wouldn't have been much harder for Apple to just include it on the DVD and make it optional to install, like X11.
    • domlachowicz, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1Apple still has its share of "legacy code" - the Carbon APIs (even if they're officially frowned upon). These are basically an OS8 emulation layer for MacOSX at the source-code level. This really isn't that different than WinNT preserving the "good" parts of the Win32 API while trending toward using .NET languages.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_(API)
    • ilgaz, on 10/29/2007, -1/+7That is also how why Apple is and will be considered a joke in enterprise and corporate world.
      Do you think MS is just too touchy and nostalgic to support 16 bit Applications on MS Windows Vista? No, they just care about that 100.000 terminal company running VB 6 clients to access their mainframes.

      • tpink, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Vista x64 dropped 16-bit application support.
        • eryximachus, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2And MS gives away Virtual PC for free for people who really need to install an old version of the OS.
    • geoken, on 10/27/2007, -2/+3Your comment shows why a lot of Apple fans get a bad rep. You'll simultaneously digg up a story describing how Vista sucks because some blogger couldn't get a 9 year old app to run properly while praising OS X for dropping support of legacy apps.
      • antitab, on 10/27/2007, -0/+1I nearly dugg you for your good point, but then I thought a bit more on it. The problem with compatibility in Vista is not decade-old apps, but rather current apps whose developers haven't the time nor resources to update for Vista. On the other hand, the transition from OS 9 to OS X was incredibly smooth. OS 9 apps ran perfectly on a completely different system (System Software -> Darwin; compare to Vista, which is only one version of NT above 2000) and continued to do so all the way up until just now, over half a decade later. Come on now.
  • jackmaninov, on 10/26/2007, -3/+7Noooo! I can't play Oregon Trail on my Powerbook G4 after I upgrade!?! *tear*
  • dogearedboy, on 10/26/2007, -0/+22Actually Classic died back in 2002. It's been a zombie OS since then. May it rest in peace.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl7xQ8i3fc0
  • avenu420, on 10/26/2007, -3/+4About 23 years longer than Windows ME's tenure, thank god.
    • davewashere, on 10/26/2007, -0/+8Don't you ever mention that OS in my presence again!
    • ilgaz, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2WTF has MacOS have to do with that horrible schizoid Win98/Win2k hybrid? I am guessing you have never used MacOS and try to find a place in Mac fanboy planet with junk like that.

  • rowlodge, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1ohh, classic, thought it was my g4, that was out.
  • Ninjaneer, on 10/27/2007, -11/+35So let me get this straight...it's ok for Apple to kill an OS, but Microsoft gets condemned to the lowest circle of Hell for doing the same thing?
    • betobeto, on 10/26/2007, -2/+1You may find your answer some posts above this one, young grasshopper
      http://urltea.com/1w2u
    • Nossie, on 10/27/2007, -7/+7yup... because nobody loves Windows enough to miss it
      • wilhoitm, on 10/26/2007, -2/+1Speak the truth brother! Some people do not like to hear it but it is true!
    • daeggman, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3On the whole, and given enough time, I think Mac users are more likely to move on and upgrade than Windows users.
      • Ninjaneer, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2But it's the Mac community (and Linux community, lets be fair) that bashes MS for cutting ties with something old in attempt to gloat about it all.
    • GOVStooge, on 10/26/2007, -1/+5Every pre-XP fersion of windows needs to die.

      Everything that came before OS X needs to die
    • supaklaw, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2Yes, yes we do.

      P.S. Good luck installing Direct X 10 on your WinXp system dummy. Thxkbai.
      • GOVStooge, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2I will gladly sacrifice DX10 to not have a giant turd sandwich installed on my system
        • Atomic1fire, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2who needs dx10 anyway
          opengl manages cross platform support
    • wilhoitm, on 10/26/2007, -2/+1It is because Windows XP is the only Micro$oft OS that works, well sort of works!
    • erkokite, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Classic MacOS was crap. Nobody is sad to see it go. OS X is an excellent OS that is leaps and bounds ahead of Classic. Windows 2000 and XP are solid OS's, but Vista is garbage. People are upset because MS is phasing out good products in an attempt to force people to use a crappy product just to make money.
  • toxicityj, on 10/27/2007, -9/+3That's what OS 9 looked like? Jesus. no wonder no one liked macs.
  • redxxx, on 10/27/2007, -0/+23"the three printshops still running QuarkXPress 4 and will be affected by this..."

    Dugg for making me laugh, I used to work there. Good riddance.
    • zonk3r, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4I work at a printshop and sadly I'm forced to still use QuarkXPress 4 due to a single customer (otherwise I would get rid of it entirely as there is no reason to upgrade to 7 for just them). I also have over 10 years of ancient PageMaker files that I've been updating for the last few years to InDesign. Fortunately I've gotten most of the important stuff done but our customers have come to rely on us having ***** from years ago and wanting reprints so I keep finding more stuff to bring into the future. I've also been warning customers against getting into PageMaker and get into InDesign. Sadly, many state workers use PageMaker and aren't likely to change soon and these are the bread and butter of our customer base due to our location.

      I'm hoping the fact that Vista won't even install PageMaker nor run it and now that Classic is dead too that PageMaker will go away soon... Backwards compatibility can be a horrible crutch when it is allowed to go on too long.
  • fLUx1337, on 10/26/2007, -4/+3It was crap then, it is crap now, god knows why it wasn't dead years ago!

    Anyway, who acctully still uses it? (I know someone will reply saying they do, obviously because they can't afford a computer made in the last 7 years...)
    • threemagic, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4Lots of print shop still do. Not only do they have to upgrade all their hardware, they have to upgrade all their software. For small shops with 6-10 machines that's a HUGE expense.

      Not everyone who uses machines sits at home...
      • directrix13, on 10/27/2007, -8/+0Cry me a river, or start using a Free OS and Scribus so this doesn't happen again ;-).
      • chad78, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1are the machines breaking down? Why do they "have to" upgrade their hardware and software? If it's that big a deal, make the machines last longer - at least until you have the money to upgrade.
    • fr34k5h0w, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2My old high school still has Automated Accounting for classic because they have yet to buy new books
    • chad78, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2And there is also no RealProducer for Mac OS X. That's why we have to run Classic at work.
    • schlongmeister, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4I still have to use OS 9 at work on an old Bondi Blue G3 to cut vinyl on a Roland plotter. It's not that we can't afford a new computer, it's that the drivers for the CAD cutter are so expensive that we can't justify buying a new Mac and a new driver for OS X. Plus, that's the computer that still has Freehand 9 installed on it in order to open up and convert those old backed up files.
    • ilgaz, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Could you imagine some people hates the fact that Apple does NOTHING to get respected in Enterprise World and misses every opportunity easily rather than being horribly poor?
      I am typing this from a $10k Worth Quad G5 Video Workstation and decision to drop classic rather than “let it live with couple of line changes” really sucks. Note that my machine can’t even boot anything earlier than 10.4.6 which came pre installed.
      This “can’t afford” junk really becoming irritating even for Mac scene. Ever seen an AVID Mac based HDTV edit facility? Some are like $400K/$1M worth and they are running MacOS 8.6 at most.

      • Spelvin, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1ilgaz, just curious, but how is any Mac that is capable of running 8.6 natively able to handle the throughput needed for 1080i uncompressed streams? This is not a knock, it is an honest question. Back in '91 when I saw full uncompressed NTSC video played at 640x480 live on a IIsi from a raid of external drives I was very pleased at the ability to handle the data. But what kind of additional hardware do the AVID systems need to handle all that data on the bus. I thought the G3 towers, which I believe were the last to be able to run OS8 only had a 66mhz bus speed.
  • GOVStooge, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4MacOS is what kept me from purchasing a Mac. Once OSX was out, Apple's platforms made it on my radar for the purchase of my next PC. Since then, I am on my second Apple laptop and am considering replacing my XP gaming box with a mac pro thanks to Bootcamp.
    • zongamin, on 10/26/2007, -4/+1You shouldn't be buying a PRO machine for games.
      • GOVStooge, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3It's the only machine they make that can handle them...
    • avihappy, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Games are not a strong point of Macs. They beat Windows in many ways, games is not one of them. In the Mac Pro, you will have issues putting an 8800 or something into it (driver issues). The Mac Pro is for professional users (like scientists or graphic pros). Not for gamers.

      You COULD play many games on it, like Half-Life 2, The Orange Box, Bioshock. Nothing intense like Crysys, the video cards are not good enough. Those 8 cores are not video cards. The best you can get is a 4 x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB. It won't play Crysis at any high settings.
      Anyways, good luck. I would get a Mac (and it is my primary box), but not if I have gaming high on the requirement list.

      For you, keep the XP box and get an iMac. :)
      • GOVStooge, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2I have essentially dumped all windows functions except for games. Any Mac Pro I ended up buying would serve that role via BootCamp. This is essentially the same way I handle things on work travel with my MacBookPro. The limited available video cards for the MacPro is the only thing preventing me from purchasing one now. The PC box was built when the nVidia 7800 GTX came out, it's now running 2 in SLI mode. I give it at most one more year of life before an upgrade becomes absolutely necessary. More options should be availabel for the Mac Pro by then.
  • Dolomite, on 10/27/2007, -9/+3kinda ***** they are killing off classic without so much as a warning. why are they screwing over their loyal fans?
    • Balanced, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4It's been years. it's not exactly without warning. It's a feature that wasn't on Intel macs anyway.
    • arbulus, on 10/26/2007, -3/+1They already screwed them.
    • GOVStooge, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1apparently Moore's law is completely overrated since people apparently insist on sing software that is nearing a decade in age.
      • tpink, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Yeah.. Moore's Law has nothing to do with software.
  • kickarse, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2Excellent news! It's about damn time. Besides, who uses Quark at all? The program is horrendous!
    • Balanced, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Quark (around 3.3r1) was really, really good. Since then, it's had a lot of ups and downs, but if you need it, it's important.
      • kickarse, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1I must admit I haven't used Quark 3.3r1 but I have used 4 and 5 and both are equally buggy.
    • ilgaz, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1“sides, who uses Quark at all?”
      Your daily newspaper?
    • tpink, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3"Besides, who uses Quark at all?"

      Professionals? I understand that it might not appeal to teenagers who got it in their torrent pack with Photoshop, though.
  • conceptdev, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1I haven't used classic in a few years, but the loss is still all of the old Photoshop plugins that is good riddance to the crashes I had.
  • PhireN, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4oww, sniff I never got to use MacOS 9.0, or even 8.5, 8.0 :-( now its too late.

    Time to pull out my old LC III, with OS 7.5.3. Then again, windows xp is so much more stable than the old macOS's, and Linux and osX even better still. I miss crashing computers, made life interesting.
    • sequentious, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3"I miss crashing computers, made life interesting."

      I still save whatever I'm working on excessively often. :w and CTRL+S are hard-wired in like nervous twitches. Thanks MS Works for Windows 95!
    • Nossie, on 10/27/2007, -3/+6get vista then and you'll be back in your wonderful world of hurt :D
      • chugger1992, on 10/27/2007, -2/+1err...no, I'm afraid that's not how it goes.
    • avihappy, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4You can still emulate OS 9 on any platform (even Windows, Intel Macs, and Linux. All you need is an OS 9 ROM. http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/08/7352/
  • blackmage439, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6I work at a school, and I can tell you Classic isn't dead yet, and neither are the "iGlobe" iMacs in all their fruity colors. I know of a couple instructors who still uses Works 4.0...
    • Balanced, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3They won't be running Leopard then, will they?
  • neostryder, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5Yeah, right...MacOS9 will never die! Enter SheepShaver:
    http://gwenole.beauchesne.info/en/projects/sheepsh ...
    • chad78, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3That's how I've been running Classic ever since I got my MacBook. There's a torrent called "Classic on Intel" and I think it had the words "Chubby bunny" in it. It's version 4.0.1 - anyway, it makes SheepShaver / Classic a drag and drop install.
      • Nossie, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3shame its only 9.0.2 though right?
        • chad78, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1well, I guess. I don't know of any major changes between 9.0.2 and 9.2, really. I started working on Macs in 9.0.1 and upgraded all the way through 9.2 before making the JUMP to Tiger. I didn't notice anything changing in the way I worked between 9.0.1 and 9.2. Maybe it had some bug fixes or was a tad more stable. I don't really know.
        • jonshipman, on 10/26/2007, -0/+19.2 was for Classic on OSX to work.
        • ShinRaTDR, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1from my experience a bunch of apps required 9.2.2, thats the main reason I haven't installed SheepShaver
  • senatorpjt, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3If there's any app that's so critical you have been using it without upgrading since OSX came out, Pre-OSX used macs are cheap anyway.
  • MacParrot, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3I started off with 6.04 on a Mac Plus. Moved to System 7 on a Performa 575, used 8 and 9 on a couple of Mac Clones and stayed with that until I got a 933 QuickSilver Tower which I put 10.2 on. As much as I enjoyed all those systems (especially Carmegeddon), I didn't miss the daily crashes. Strata's VideoShop was especially frustrating (though a great interface).
    Goodbye Classic Mac OS. Most will remember you with nostalgic fondness, but wouldn't go back to you if their lives depended on it.
  • AoSDFA, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3SheepShaver FTW!
  • roberto_deneero, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2This is about 6 years too late.
  • stelth, on 10/26/2007, -3/+8I only started using a Mac in 1999 so I cut my teeth on OS9 and coming from a Windows background I just couldn't believe how terrible it was. I was in awe of how people kept raving about how awesome Macs were. I thought they were retarded until OSX came out and suddenly it all made sense. They knew that in which I did not. Now OSX clearly eclipses Windows in pretty much every way.
  • canadianbaking, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2I will miss the classic MacOS 9 'bomb' (the equivalent of the blue screen of death). It would typically occur on my machine around 2:00AM when I was logged into a customer's site. "Excuse me sir, I have to reboot my Mac' became my late night mantra.
  • reuscel, on 10/27/2007, -3/+10"so only like Hypercard user groups"

    So you're like a like professional like writer, right? Like awesome.
    • ilgaz, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1I am just hoping that Apple doesn’t take such decisions based on these “oh my iPod is cooler than you” idiots who can’t even properly write couple of sentences and yet bitches about Quark 4 using professionals.

  • jordan314, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4goodbye barrack and carmageddon! You were two great games.
  • DOGPARTY, on 10/26/2007, -3/+5Classic is not dead!!!!!


    Windows is the NEW CLASSIC!
    • ilgaz, on 10/26/2007, -2/+3“Classic” was NEVER Windows. I think Windows switcher, current fanatics doesn’t know Classic. First of all, it was a all 32bit operating system which also supports SMP in later incarnations. It never had y2k problem. It was EASIER than OS X in some areas, it is still in use after all that decade on professional environments.
      Windows had to run on DOS until Windows NT 3.51 or usable Windows NT 4.x shipped, Mac never had “DOS” at first place. There are still hacks applied to past 640KB memory limit while on Vista boot, believe or not.
  • DarK1217, on 10/27/2007, -9/+1DEATH TO APPLE~
  • shootsfired, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3wheres that story about the lady using a mac classic for 15 years to do accounting and her mouse finally broke...thats a true classic user!
  • Subassy, on 10/27/2007, -1/+5As a former Apple employee I may have a unique perspective (I worked for AppleCare for about 10 months). I hated OS classic because I got so few calls on it and had a whole separate line of troubleshooting. Drove me nuts. Around the time I left Apple made a separate group to JUST handle OS Classic.

    On a semi-related note as someone who used OS X 10.3 and 10.4 forty hours a week for 10 months straight and an otherwise Windows-only guy I have to say I wasn't really that impressed with it. Certainly didn't convince me to switch in any case. In fact OS X 10.4 and XP Pro seemed amazingly similar to me. Except OS X is really easy to troubleshoot with the .plist file dropping and a few other things.

    Of course, working for Apple could disillusion anybody after a while. It goes from a fantastic magic box to just another computer that happens to run that other OS. I suppose I'll be dug down for this (I'd expect nothing less) but at least I'm being honest.
    • radish01001, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2That's really all it is.

      People treat it as if it's some sort of culture movement.
  • h2g242, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2noooo how will iplay oregon ttraaillll
  • wblackh, on 10/26/2007, -0/+0bye bye illustrator 8 the only one that ever output spot colors correctly.
  • ontheplains, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2so who is going to port an exact replica of the old OS9 game Oregon Trail?!?!
  • seraph582, on 10/27/2007, -2/+2buried for use of "like" in description. GET A ***** BRAIN.
  • thentro, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3I still miss Mac OS 7.5.2
    Those were the days.
    • Spelvin, on 10/26/2007, -0/+37.5.5 had better TCPIP support

      Hotline and Carracho servers could run months without a reboot.
    • thentro, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1(7.5.2 was one of the worst apple ever made)
      • Raptor007, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Never had that particular version. I had 7.5, 7.5.3, 7.5.5. They were all pretty awesome.

        Actually I had 6.0.7, 7.0, 7.1, 7.5, 7.5.3, 7.5.5, 8.0, 8.1, 8.5, 8.6, 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.2.1, 9.2.2. Maybe I missed a few in this list, but I know I had at least those.

        The amazing thing is, usually I could drag the entire System Folder from one Mac to another and have it run perfectly. I miss booting to classic.
  • ilgaz, on 10/27/2007, -6/+4It looks like Apple fanatics has no respect to 20.000 titles which are dead with Leopard.
    Apple really knows their customer base so they can take stupid decisions like these... One more excuse for MS salesman “See? They even dropped support to their legacy OS while we still support DOS applications in Vista. They are a iPod company rather than a computer company. What will you do if your current Applications stop working in next release?”.
    This is happening right now. Believe me.

    • daeggman, on 10/26/2007, -0/+320,000? Does that number take into account the applications that were properly updated at least to Carbon?

      Besides, do you really expect Apple fans to "respect" developers who completely ignored the platform's direction and didn't bother to update their applications at ALL in 6 years? Apple gave developers every opportunity to release versions of their apps that are compatible with OS X.

      In any case, do you honestly think that a person who HAS to be running that Classic application is going to have a system that can even RUN Leopard? If you're stuck running a stale Classic app, then why would you bother upgrading to the newest version of the operating system you don't actually need?
    • tpink, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4Microsoft dropped support for 16-bit applications (all DOS and Windows 3.1 applications) in Vista x64, so what's your point?
  • frostedflakes, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1That was REALLY cheesy.
  • pyrates, on 10/26/2007, -2/+1Goodbye and good riddance.
  • deathsquadx, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Quark 4! I feel bad for those people.
  • troymccluresf, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Hey! Don't knock 7.1 & 7.5!
  • brundlefly, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Nooooo! How will I run Word 5.1?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.