I was basically pointing out that a "Mac OS X (Jaguar) Lite" must be possible, in response to a Mac writer stating otherwise.
My position was (that is an old Email from last year that you are replying to) was and still is that both Mac OS and OS X should be supported and remain bootable at this time. My own field is now unfortunately moving strongly, or being pushed, towards Windows, as an immediate reaction to the "no-Mac-OS-booting" policy; 80+% of the professional programs and hardwares are not functional and/or supported under OS X (including OMS and FreeMIDI and/or anything that required them...), including under any "Classic" Emulation Environment, and all the softwares will have to be completely re-written totally from scratch in completely native code (which takes years), which APPLE was repeatedly very strongly warned about by many users and developers... I've spoken with the staff before at MicroMat (I'm a registered owner of a number of their programs), and they had many problems with TechTool Pro 3.x.x CD-ROMs being able to boot the correct version of Mac OS in older machines, including PCI Power Macintosh machines upgraded with G3 or G4 CPUs (I noted the very same problems with Alsoft DiskWarrior 2.1.1, CD Revision 19, and/or other Mac OS utilities that ship on bootable Mac OS CD-ROMs), due in main part to issues caused by APPLE. They developed most of what they did, without much help or responses from APPLE. Given APPLE's recent behaviors and recent history, I suspect that the method for creating bootable OS X CD-ROMs that will work much as Mac OS CD-ROMs have worked in the past, is mostly from Micromat, rather than from APPLE. APPLE originally promised to support the 604 and 604e CPU machines (following their broken promises that all Power Macintoshes would be supported), and then Jobs claimed that by changing the name from "Rhapsody", etc., to OS X, that they where no longer obligated to keep their promises (I have quite a number of older Mac publications covering these issues). Re: "MS has tried to merge Win9x and WinNT over six times and finally did with XP." MS (even with it's huge R & D budget, predatory monopoly etc.) very clearly demonstrated that it took over seven years to transition from DOS-based Windows OSes to kernel-based NT/2000/XP Windows, and that the only way they did it was to have equal resources devoted to both a DOS-based Windows (moving Win 3.x and up to the umpteenth final Win 95 update, then to 98, and then to that yucky Win ME), and to NT-based Windows development all that time (I live in Seattle and know quite a few folks involved in those projects). APPLE is trying to do the equivalent of moving Win 3.11 code-base to Windows 2000/XP code base, and running into exactly why MS didn't do it that way. Note that neither MS or Intel are so stupid as APPLE, as to order firmware blocks to prevent installing and booting from Win 3.11 up to the present! You can still install Win 3.11 and above, you can still install IBM PC-DOS, and boot from them, etc. MS's pressure on APPLE to drop the Mac OS and Mac OS booting, and to go OS X only, is not necessarily motivated from any real strong desire to help APPLE or APPLE's customers, especially now that they have actually been rewarded for breaking the law (to quote even conservative Judge Bork of the "founding fathers original intention only" position), but note that even as part of the crappy "settlement" from Ashcroft, Bush and Co., MS is still required to support all builds of Windows from the early 1990s up to the present for a number of years into the future (and that also establishes a federal legal precedent for older OS support). Re: "What is up with capitalizing APPLE"? Just an old habit that I picked up from back when APPLE did it on their site, besides being a way many musicians have written about Apple (the record company) and APPLE (the computer company), etc (remembering the old lawsuit). I note that I usually see Microsoft represented as "MS" in capitols letters online... -Martin Totusek "David M. Ensteness" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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
