Interesting. On Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 05:01 PM, Martin A. Totusek wrote:
> Re: Is a "Mac OS X (Jaguar) Lite" possible? Gene Steinberg says no > > Of course, without a real actual "Mac OS X (Jaguar) Lite", many utility > programs won't ever be able to be run off an OS X "Jaguar" (or later) > bootable CD-ROMs on any Power Macintosh, whether officially > "supported" or not by APPLE. Actually I spoke to the developers of DiskWarrior yesterday about DiskWarrior 3. The great delay for this version update has been that Alsoft wanted DiskWarrior to boot Mac OS X from the CD ROM, this will also be necessary after January. Apple has worked with them to develop a method for creating bootable Mac OS X CD ROMs that will work much as Classic Mac OS CD ROMs have worked in the past. This demonstrates that such a thing as a bootable Mac OS X CD is possible and will be seen soon. The fact that they may very likely not work on legacy PCI Macs is to be expected, Jaguar doesn't work on legacy PCI Macs without a [very good] software hack and a processor upgrade to bring them closer to an officially supported system. > There are zero other options that APPLE has left itself at all, and > since Jobs and Tevanian are more than actively hostile(!) to Mac OS, I > doubt that Mac OS 9.x.x booting will even be remotely considered or > allowed (this is what always happens when any company "puts 100% of > the eggs in only one basket"). I don't think they are any more hostile than the users who realize that Classic Mac OS was developed in such a way that some necessary technologies can never be brought to it. Apple announced this past summer that Macs built from January 2003 on will not boot Classic Mac OS so not only is Apple not considering it, they told us when to expect it. The all eggs in the same basket analogy is poor because maintaining two OSes with two sets of APIs is not a functional business model. MS has tried to merge Win9x and WinNT over six times and finally did with XP. Developers [Adobe, MS, Quark - imagine that, Alsoft, Dantz, FileMaker Corp., Symantec, Macromedia, and others] are all publically outspoken about their support for the decision by Apple to cut out Mac OS 9. Why? Because developers need to do two to three times the work to maintain feature parity, release date parity, and compatibility between the different OSes. David PS What is up with capitalizing APPLE? I mean no one capitalizes MICROSOFT or ADOBE. People do this to MAC too and I never get it, they aren't acronyms ... -- PCI-PowerMacs is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- Sonnet & PowerLogix Upgrades - start at $169 | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> PCI-PowerMacs list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/pci-powermacs.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive:<http://www.mail-archive.com/pci-powermacs%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
