>1) No, you don't have Classic or OS 9.x installed by default. I recently >did a clean install on a blank HD of Mac OS 10.3.9 on an older Dalmatian >iMac. I put in the first install disk of OS X, hit "Install," and let it do >the work. The iMac restarted and ran beautifully, but there was no Classic >and no OS 9.x on the Mac.
Go to your System Prefs, look for the Classic Pref, It will be there. You can't do anything with it except look at it, because it isn't going to find an OS 9 install until you put OS 9 on a drive accessable to it. The System Prefs is the only place you can interact with Classic. Other than there (and digging via the terminal into the nitty gritty guts of OS X), you have no way to see it or know it is installed. When you see an OS 9 system folder on the hard drive, that means OS 9 is installed and now you can actually use Classic. But Classic does NOT equal OS 9, they are two totally different things that just happen to work together. You can have Classic and not OS 9 (it just means you have useless Classic). If you REALLY didn't have it after the first CD, I'd be curious to know what else of OS X was missing. I'm not sure about your installer, but all of my OS X installers have be CD based, and been 2 CDs to install OS X (and you don't have a choice to stop after the first CD... it reboots after the first, but starts up asking for the 2nd CD). Maybe you have a DVD version (also something entirely different then a CD, so I hope you aren't mixing those terms up as well). My Tiger install came on a single DVD... but upon completion of it, There was Classic, ready and waiting in the System Prefs for me to tell it where it could find a copy of OS 9 (see below) >I then put in Disk 2, and hit "Install." I expected that I would get >Classic installed (i.e., support for OS 9.x). When I restarted, I found >that OS 10.3.9 did have 10.3.9, Classic and OS 9.2 on the iMac. I did not >install OS 9.2. It was somehow installed by Disk 2 of OS 10.3.9's >installer. That is truely bizarre, because Apple stopped shipping OS 9 with OS X back with Jaguar (10.2). At least according to Apple, and based on the copies of OS X I've had since then, they appear to be telling the truth. So I'm really not sure where your 10.3.9 installer got its copy of OS 9. I just did a 10.3.5 and Tiger install a few weeks ago, and in both cases, Classic was installed by default, just not OS 9. My Tiger DVD is an "upgrade" version, and requires a previous OS X install to be present (thus why I had to do both) before it will run... once it starts however, it lets you reformat the drive totally wiping out the previous OS X install... so it wasn't an issue of Classic was picked up from the previous install. Once they were done, Classic was there and ready and waiting for me to break out my "OS 9 for Classic" CD I made and toss OS 9 onto the machine (I burned a clean install of OS 9.2.2 that already has any updates needed, as well as non needed extensions disabled, that way I can just drag the folder onto a Mac that needs it... I had to do this, because OS X doesn't have an OS 9 installer any more, and I got sick of having to fight it). What may be possible is, your copy of OS X is a restore CD from a newer Mac. I believe Apple is still supplying new Macs with a way to put OS 9 on from their restore CDs. It is not part of the default install, but has to be done by request. But again, that is OS 9, NOT Classic... Classic is still installed along with OS X. If it helps you think about it correctly, Classic is nothing more then a "control panel" that lets OS 9 run inside OS X. But Classic does not INCLUDE OS 9, you have to put that on by yourself. So all OS X installs HAVE Classic, but not all OS X installs can RUN Classic. >2) I have seen Classic run OS 9.1 and OS 9.2. In my experience, OS 9.2 >runs in Classic better than OS 9.1 does. Correct. Classic will allow OS 9.1 and later to run. OS 9.2.2 is the last version of OS 9 available, and the recommended one from Apple for anyone running OS 9 in Classic as it contains some tweaks to get better performance out of OS 9 when running in Classic. >However, many older applications >written for old Mac OS do not run well in OS 9.2 in Classic. Sometimes, we >find on a dual-boot iMac that an OS 9 PPC-native application will run in OS >9.2, and another OS 9 PPC-native application will not. Correct again. The most common applications to fail in Classic are any that attempt to do direct access to hardware. That isn't allowed in OS X, and Classic is part of OS X. That is why scanners don't work in Classic (and that is why Emailer's direct Modem dialing doesn't work in Classic). But other apps can (and do) fail without it being because of hardware access. Classic is acting as a Virtual Mac for OS 9 to run in, and with that come some new rules and restrictions, and sometimes those break applications that otherwise would run fine in the OS alone. >If we reboot the >iMac directly into OS 9.1 (not OS X with Classic with OS 9.2), then we can >run the application. Once you reboot into OS 9 (like you say, NOT OS X with Classic running OS 9), then you are no longer restricted to Classic's "virtual mac" rules, such as no hardware access. That is why the same scanners that fail in Classic work fine on the exact same Mac when it is booted directly into OS 9. All of the above is expected behavior, and admitted to by Apple. >There is the same variability for old (non-PPC-native) >applications. Most will run in 9.1. Some will run in 9.2. Some will run >in 9.2 in Classic. It's variable. Some won't work at all past OS 8.x. Some of this is Classic's limits, some of it is changes in the OS broke something the application did. And none of it is anything unusual when moving an application between OS versions. I have software that still runs in Classic from the System 6 (and possibly older) days. I also have software that runs in OS X native in Panther, but doesn't work in Tiger. Again, all normal, and expected. Sometimes things work, sometimes they don't. If the developers followed Apple's guidelines, chances are better it will work (provided they aren't doing direct hardware access, or following a guideline that Apple decided to change, as they have been doing often in OS X) And NONE of it has any bearing on if Classic is installed in OS X 10.3.x by default. I stand by my first statement... *Classic* is installed as part of OS X, and you have no choice but to install it. What you have a choice to do is install OS 9 to allow Classic to do something other than chew up a bit of hard drive space and a spot in the System Prefs. When your Apple friend said they don't have Classic installed, what they meant was, they don't have OS 9 installed and as such can not use any non OS X apps. They did NOT mean that the Classic application wasn't installed (ie: no System Pref for Classic). -chris <http://www.mythtech.net> ___________________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe send a mail message with a SUBJECT line of "unsubscribe" to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
