		Home \| Contact Us \| FAQ \| Search & Site Map \| Link to Us
		Sign In \| Join \| Other 45 Sites in Network

Discussion Groups

General

General Portable Macs Hardware Networking

Applications

Mac Applications Eudora Firefox / Mozilla Internet Explorer Outlook Express MS Office Entourage Excel PowerPoint Word Virtual PC Media Player Other MS Products

Programming

Mac Programming CodeWarrior Perl

Country Specific

Australian Mac Group UK Mac Group

Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / December 2007

Classic won't run on my iMac

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

itten - 11 Dec 2007 01:44 GMT

I just bought an older iMac with OS 10.3.9 installed. For some reason I
can't get Classic to run on this machine. I have an older version of
Microsoft Office that I want to use on the iMac. I've upgraded the OS and
even dropped down to an earlier version, but I get a message stating
something about a system folder not found in the HD. I have a retail
version of OS 9 and OS 9.2, but can't get any of them to work. I also have
a G5 running OS 10.4.11 and Classic runs fine. What do I need to do to get
Classic to run on my iMac. Thanks.

Reply to this Message

Dave Seaman - 11 Dec 2007 04:07 GMT

> I just bought an older iMac with OS 10.3.9 installed. For some reason I
> can't get Classic to run on this machine. I have an older version of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> a G5 running OS 10.4.11 and Classic runs fine. What do I need to do to get
> Classic to run on my iMac. Thanks.

You might try copying the system folder from your G5 to the iMac.

Signature

Dave Seaman
Oral Arguments in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case heard May 17
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
<http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/>

Reply to this Message

Andreas Rutishauser - 11 Dec 2007 06:22 GMT

Salut itten

> I just bought an older iMac with OS 10.3.9 installed. For some reason I
> can't get Classic to run on this machine. I have an older version of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> a G5 running OS 10.4.11 and Classic runs fine. What do I need to do to get
> Classic to run on my iMac. Thanks.

install Classic Support from the install media that came with the Mac
(optional installs)

Cheers
Andreas

Signature

MacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch>
EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk
Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung
<mailto:andreas@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47

Reply to this Message

Eric P. Peterson - 11 Dec 2007 17:58 GMT

> Salut itten
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Cheers
> Andreas

IIRC, OS 9 has to be at least 9.2.1 to be used as Classic. Always best
to up it all the way to 9.2.2, if possible. When you've got it set up,
we can advise you further on how best to use Classic (or Classic Mode,
if you prefer to have OS 9.x on its own volume, especially if you want
to be able to boot the machine into it at all).

- E

Reply to this Message

Mike Rosenberg - 11 Dec 2007 20:37 GMT

> IIRC, OS 9 has to be at least 9.2.1 to be used as Classic.

That's true with Tiger, 10.4.x, but as I recall, Panther, 10.3.9, only
required 9.1.

> Always best to up it all the way to 9.2.2, if possible.

Agreed.

> When you've got it set up, we can advise you further on how best to use
> Classic (or Classic Mode, if you prefer to have OS 9.x on its own volume,
> especially if you want to be able to boot the machine into it at all).

Having OS 9 on its own volume is irrelevant. You can boot from a OS 9
System Folder as long as it's compatible with the specific Mac
regardless of whether that folder is on its own volume or not, and the
same is true of using it for Classic. (Didn't we just talk about this a
couple of days ago?) Also, you seem to be making some sort of
distinction between "Classic" and "Classic Mode" when none exists.

Signature

<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

Reply to this Message

Erik Richard Sørensen - 12 Dec 2007 09:11 GMT

> Having OS 9 on its own volume is irrelevant.

Mike, there are so much different in running 'classic' and running
'classic Mode' on OS X.

> You can boot from a OS 9
> System Folder as long as it's compatible with the specific Mac
> regardless of whether that folder is on its own volume or not, and the
> same is true of using it for Classic. (Didn't we just talk about this a
> couple of days ago?) Also, you seem to be making some sort of
> distinction between "Classic" and "Classic Mode" when none exists.

If ou install an Os 9.x version directly onto an OS X, some parts of the
OS 9.x system aren't installed, and the use of OS 9.x will be limited.
If you install Os 9.x on it's own partition/disk, you can fully benefit
from _any_ of the Os 9.x possibilities.

When you install Os 9.x as 'classic', there will be big limitations ins
personalizing fx. color management, OpengL, OpenTransport and more,
since 'classic' here fully depends on the hidden Os 9.x extensions and
libraries that are installed in OS X. These OS X versions of the OS 9.x
parts aren't OS 9.x compatible.

If you install OS 9.x on it's own disk/partition, you also install the
full OS 9.x system. Then you will be able to fully customize and use
_any_ Os 9.x part in Os 9.x.

I've had both types os Os 9.2.2 on more of my machines, and there are
indeed many differences in how you can use the Os 9.x. - One thing that
I've noticed can give really many troubles if only 'classic' is running
a SCSI scanner with fx. Macromedia xRes, Photoshop 5.5, Freehand 5.x-7.x
- and not at at least InDesign 1.0 or 1.5! If run as 'classic' you get
the dialogs "You can't use this software on this system, because some
parts needed are missing", "this software cannot run on this system",
"This software is incompatible with this system" etc.etc.. - But running
the same apps under 'classic mode' donot give the same errors!

Cheers, Erik Richard

Signature

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rgds. Grüße, Mvh. Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC
<mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk> <http://www.nisus.com>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reply to this Message

J.J. O'Shea - 12 Dec 2007 13:01 GMT

>> Having OS 9 on its own volume is irrelevant.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> If ou install an Os 9.x version directly onto an OS X, some parts of the
> OS 9.x system aren't installed,

Such as? Hint: G5s and iMacs after 1st generation iMac G4s can't boot OS 9,
so certain items won't work with them.

> and the use of OS 9.x will be limited.

In what way?

> If you install Os 9.x on it's own partition/disk, you can fully benefit
> from _any_ of the Os 9.x possibilities.

Such as? Hint: I have several Macs, including a beige G3... and my OS 9
System Folder is in the same partition as the OS X System folder. The only
thing I can think of that I might be missing would be the ability to boot a
different system by holding down the option key on startup... and as I have
an external SCSI drive with a full clone of the internal drive attached to
that G3, I can do that, too.

> When you install Os 9.x as 'classic', there will be big limitations ins
> personalizing fx. color management,

Nope. Classic doesn't do colour management. OS X handles that for it. If I
boot my G3 in OS 9, then it will do colour management. Classic is an
operating environment, not an OS.

> OpengL,

Nope. See above.

> OpenTransport

Nope. OT is networking. Again, OS X handles all networking. If you try to
launch OT components in Classic, you'll be warned that they are not supported
in Classic.

> and more,
> since 'classic' here fully depends on the hidden Os 9.x extensions

Which 'hidden' extensions?

> and
> libraries that are installed in OS X. These OS X versions of the OS 9.x
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I've had both types os Os 9.2.2

There's only one type of OS 9.2.2. The System Folder on my iMac G5 right now
was copied from my eMac, which was copied from my older eMac (which could
boot OS 9...) and which was copied and updated from my beige G3. It's even
got the ROM file from the eMac, 'cause Classic doesn't care and the iMac
can't boot OS 9 anyway.

> on more of my machines, and there are
> indeed many differences in how you can use the Os 9.x. - One thing that
> I've noticed can give really many troubles if only 'classic' is running
> a SCSI scanner with fx. Macromedia xRes, Photoshop 5.5,

Nope. That I can say for absolutely certain is _NOT_ the case.

> Freehand 5.x-7.x
> - and not at at least InDesign 1.0 or 1.5!

Again, that is not the case.

> If run as 'classic' you get
> the dialogs "You can't use this software on this system, because some
> parts needed are missing", "this software cannot run on this system",
> "This software is incompatible with this system" etc.etc.. - But running
> the same apps under 'classic mode' donot give the same errors!

What _are_ you talking about?

> Cheers, Erik Richard

Signature

email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Reply to this Message

Mike Rosenberg - 12 Dec 2007 13:31 GMT

> If ou install an Os 9.x version directly onto an OS X, some parts of the
> OS 9.x system aren't installed, and the use of OS 9.x will be limited.
> If you install Os 9.x on it's own partition/disk, you can fully benefit
> from _any_ of the Os 9.x possibilities.

Having a separate volume or partition is, as I stated previously,
irrelevant to anything you or Eric said. _How_ you install the OS 9
System Folder is important, but not _where_. A complete, bootable, OS 9
System Folder (as copied from another volume or installed from a full OS
9 install disc) will be bootable whether or not it's on it's own volume
or partition, and an OS 9 installed from a Classic Support option will
not be bootable but will function as Classic from any location.

Signature

<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

Reply to this Message

Erik Richard Sørensen - 12 Dec 2007 15:57 GMT

>> If ou install an Os 9.x version directly onto an OS X, some parts of the
>> OS 9.x system aren't installed, and the use of OS 9.x will be limited.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> or partition, and an OS 9 installed from a Classic Support option will
> not be bootable but will function as Classic from any location.

I donot talk about _copying_ an already existing system folder, but
_installing_ from the original installer CD.

And of course you can boot from a copied OS 9.x system folder as long as
it supports the current computer requirements.

BUT - you can't do it the other way round. - You can't copy a 'classic'
installed system folder to another computer - no matter which one - and
boot from this system folder.

As a test (and as a here-and-now need) I once copied my OS 9.2.2 system
folder from my old PM 9600/350mhz onto my now long gone B&W G3 running
OS X 10.3.9. The 'classic' in 10.3.9 required some updates of various
extensions and libraries to run properly, but even after thaese updates,
which the OS X does itself, the computer couldn't boot into Os 9.2.2.
Also when I then switched from the G3 (upg. to 900mhz) to a Sawtooth G4,
I also copied the same Os 9.2.2 system, 'cause I didn't have the OS 9.x
CD at hand - the G4 was at my now passed away fiancee's house. The Os
9.2.2 functioned partially, but very restricted in many ways - a.m.o
those I already have mentioned in my first reply to your post.

When I then got hold on the Os 9.x CD and installed it on a seperate
partition, booting from the CD, there were no longer those restrictions.

cheeers, Erik Richard

Signature

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rgds. Grüße, Mvh. Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC
<mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk> <http://www.nisus.com>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reply to this Message

Mike Rosenberg - 12 Dec 2007 18:54 GMT

> BUT - you can't do it the other way round. - You can't copy a 'classic'
> installed system folder to another computer - no matter which one - and
> boot from this system folder.

I never said anything of the sort. My point all along has been to state
that it makes no difference whether the OS 9 System Folder is on a
different volume from OS X. You're making this into something
completely different.

Signature

<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

Reply to this Message

itten - 12 Dec 2007 20:32 GMT

I got it working, finally. I just pulled out the System folder on my iMac
and replaced it with one from my G-5, which runs Classic just fine.

>> BUT - you can't do it the other way round. - You can't copy a 'classic'
>> installed system folder to another computer - no matter which one - and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> different volume from OS X. You're making this into something
> completely different.

Reply to this Message

Eric P. Peterson - 15 Dec 2007 16:23 GMT

> > IIRC, OS 9 has to be at least 9.2.1 to be used as Classic.
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> couple of days ago?) Also, you seem to be making some sort of
> distinction between "Classic" and "Classic Mode" when none exists.

I agree about booting, whether OS 9 resides on the same volume as OS X
or not. However, there is indeed a distinction between Classic and
Classic Mode. Any argument against that is moot.

- E

Reply to this Message

Dave Seaman - 15 Dec 2007 16:29 GMT

>> > IIRC, OS 9 has to be at least 9.2.1 to be used as Classic.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>> couple of days ago?) Also, you seem to be making some sort of
>> distinction between "Classic" and "Classic Mode" when none exists.

> I agree about booting, whether OS 9 resides on the same volume as OS X
> or not. However, there is indeed a distinction between Classic and
> Classic Mode. Any argument against that is moot.

Classic is an environment that runs within OS X (10.0 through 10.4 on
PowerPC Macs). Classic Mode refers to a program that is running within
the Classic environment.

Signature

Dave Seaman
Oral Arguments in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case heard May 17
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
<http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/>

Reply to this Message

Eric P. Peterson - 16 Dec 2007 23:56 GMT

> >> > IIRC, OS 9 has to be at least 9.2.1 to be used as Classic.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> PowerPC Macs). Classic Mode refers to a program that is running within
> the Classic environment.

That's not how I define it.

- E

Reply to this Message

Erik Richard Sørensen - 17 Dec 2007 00:48 GMT

>>>>> IIRC, OS 9 has to be at least 9.2.1 to be used as Classic.
>>>> That's true with Tiger, 10.4.x, but as I recall, Panther, 10.3.9, only
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> That's not how I define it.

Right so Eric, - I think we're thinking equally here.:-)

Classic = Mac OS 9.x installed directly onto an already existing OS X
disk/partition. This installation will restrict what is installed, and
Os 9.x can't boot the machine.

Classic Mode = OS 9.x installed to a seperate disk/partition. This
installs the full bootable OS 9.x system without any restrictions.

Classic can be installedto any PowrMac that is capable of running OS 9.x
within OS X - right from G3 to G5.

Classic Mode can only be installed on G3s and G4s that are able to boot
into Os 9.x

A classic Mode installation can be copied onto G4s and G5 that can't
boot into Os 9.x and there be used as 'Classic'.

Cheers, Erik Richard

Signature

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rgds. Grüße, Mvh. Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC
<mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk> <http://www.nisus.com>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reply to this Message

Mike Rosenberg - 17 Dec 2007 01:32 GMT

> > That's not how I define it.
>
> Right so Eric, - I think we're thinking equally here.:-)

Yeah, well, you two can define it however you want in private
discussions, but please leave the rest of us out of them.

> Classic = Mac OS 9.x installed directly onto an already existing OS X
> disk/partition. This installation will restrict what is installed, and
> Os 9.x can't boot the machine.
>
> Classic Mode = OS 9.x installed to a seperate disk/partition. This
> installs the full bootable OS 9.x system without any restrictions.

Sorry, but this is a load of bull. It makes no difference whether OS 9
is installed on the same disk/partition as OS X or not. Any PowerPC Mac
capable of booting OS X can run OS 9 as Classic regardless of where the
OS 9 folder is located.

If a Mac is capable of dual booting and a full OS 9 System Folder is
present _anywhere_ the Mac can use it either to boot in OS 9 or to use
at for Classic. Same drive/partition, separate drive/partition, makes
no difference.

Signature

<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

Reply to this Message

J.J. O'Shea - 17 Dec 2007 02:11 GMT

>>> That's not how I define it.
>>
>> Right so Eric, - I think we're thinking equally here.:-)
>
> Yeah, well, you two can define it however you want in private
> discussions, but please leave the rest of us out of them.

They won't.

>> Classic = Mac OS 9.x installed directly onto an already existing OS X
>> disk/partition. This installation will restrict what is installed, and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Sorry, but this is a load of bull.

Agreed.

> It makes no difference whether OS 9
> is installed on the same disk/partition as OS X or not. Any PowerPC Mac
> capable of booting OS X can run OS 9 as Classic regardless of where the
> OS 9 folder is located.

That's absolutely correct.

> If a Mac is capable of dual booting and a full OS 9 System Folder is
> present _anywhere_ the Mac can use it either to boot in OS 9 or to use
> at for Classic. Same drive/partition, separate drive/partition, makes
> no difference.

And _no-one_ but those two think different.

Signature

email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Reply to this Message

J.J. O'Shea - 17 Dec 2007 02:09 GMT

>>>>>> IIRC, OS 9 has to be at least 9.2.1 to be used as Classic.
>>>>> That's true with Tiger, 10.4.x, but as I recall, Panther, 10.3.9, only
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> disk/partition. This installation will restrict what is installed, and
> Os 9.x can't boot the machine.

Bullshit. My old eMac had OS 9.x installed directly unto an already existing
OS X disk, and it most certainly could boot OS 9. My beige G3 _still_ has an
OS 9 System Folder on the same partition as the OS X System folder, and has
no problems whatsoever.

And that's not Classic. That's OS 9.x. Period.

> Classic Mode = OS 9.x installed to a seperate disk/partition. This
> installs the full bootable OS 9.x system without any restrictions.

Bullshit. I've not had separate partitions on any Mac hard disk since the
advent of HFS+. I have _never_ had any problems with OS 9 on any Mac capable
of booting OS 9.

> Classic can be installedto any PowrMac that is capable of running OS 9.x
> within OS X - right from G3 to G5.

Just install an OS 9 System Folder. Problem done.

> Classic Mode can only be installed on G3s and G4s that are able to boot
> into Os 9.x

Bullshit. I've got the same OS 9 System Folder on my new eMac and on my iMac
G5 as I had on my old eMac... and the new eMac and the iMac can't boot OS 9.

> A classic Mode installation can be copied onto G4s and G5 that can't
> boot into Os 9.x and there be used as 'Classic'.

So what's the freaking difference?!

There is only Classic, which is OS 9 running under OS X, and OS 9. Period. If
the Mac can boot OS 9, the exact same System Folder which can be used for
Classic will work for OS 9. If the Mac can't boot OS 9, then the Mac can run
Classic... if it's a PPC Mac. If it's not a PPC Mac, it needs Sheepshaver or
Basilisk or similar. There is no 'Classic Mode'. Period. You're talking out
your a.s.

> Cheers, Erik Richard

Signature

email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Reply to this Message

Dave Seaman - 17 Dec 2007 03:25 GMT

>> >> > IIRC, OS 9 has to be at least 9.2.1 to be used as Classic.
>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>> PowerPC Macs). Classic Mode refers to a program that is running within
>> the Classic environment.

> That's not how I define it.

There are some Carbon applications that can run either under OS 9 or OS
X. For such applications, there is also a third mode of operation.
Under OS X you can do a "Get Info" on the app and choose to have it run
under Classic. Hence, for such an app, there are three modes of
operation:

    1. OS 9 mode.
    2. OS X (native) mode.
    3. Classic mode.

Signature

Dave Seaman
Oral Arguments in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case heard May 17
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
<http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/>

Reply to this Message

Eric P. Peterson - 19 Dec 2007 18:23 GMT

> >> >> > IIRC, OS 9 has to be at least 9.2.1 to be used as Classic.
> >> >>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> 2. OS X (native) mode.
> 3. Classic mode.

I understand that. Based on all the responses in this part of the
discussion, it appears to me that not all of us are on the same page.
Each participant appears to be approaching the whole OS 9 to OS X
relationship from a different angle *shrug*

- E

Reply to this Message

Mike Rosenberg - 15 Dec 2007 16:51 GMT

> However, there is indeed a distinction between Classic and
> Classic Mode. Any argument against that is moot.

Well, now you have me wondering whether you know the definition of
"moot." Anyway, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_(Mac_OS_X)

"Classic, or Classic Environment, is a hardware and software abstraction
layer in PowerPC versions of Mac OS X that allows applications
compatible with Mac OS 9 to run on the Mac OS X operating system."

Run you're running OS 9 on a Mac booted in OS X via that hardware and
software abstraction layer, you can say you're running Classic or that
you're running OS 9 in Classic Mode. So, okay, in that regard there's a
distinction, but you seem to be saying that they're two different ways
of running OS 9, and that's not so.

Signature

<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

Reply to this Message

Eric P. Peterson - 17 Dec 2007 00:00 GMT

[snip]

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_(Mac_OS_X)
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> distinction, but you seem to be saying that they're two different ways
> of running OS 9, and that's not so.

The distinction I make refers to the way OS 9 is configured, when
running under OS X. It can apparently be handled in two "similar, yet
different" ways.

- E

Reply to this Message

Dave Balderstone - 15 Dec 2007 18:15 GMT

In article
<ericp06-4361BD.08231215122007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, Eric P.
Peterson <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> However, there is indeed a distinction between Classic and
> Classic Mode.

Please, elucidate. I don't understand the distinction and wish to be
enlightened.

What, precisely, is the difference between "Classic" and "Classic Mode"?

Signature

Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Reply to this Message

Eric P. Peterson - 17 Dec 2007 00:02 GMT

> In article
> <ericp06-4361BD.08231215122007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, Eric P.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> What, precisely, is the difference between "Classic" and "Classic Mode"?

Mr. Sorensen can explain it better than I can, and I defer to his
experience in this matter.

- E

Reply to this Message

Erik Richard Sørensen - 17 Dec 2007 00:51 GMT

>>> However, there is indeed a distinction between Classic and
>>> Classic Mode.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Mr. Sorensen can explain it better than I can, and I defer to his
> experience in this matter.

Is done Mr. Peterson.:-)

cheers, Erik Richard

Signature

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rgds. Grüße, Mvh. Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC
<mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk> <http://www.nisus.com>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reply to this Message

Dave Balderstone - 17 Dec 2007 13:07 GMT

In article
<ericp06-23180B.16021616122007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, Eric P.
Peterson <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > In article
> > <ericp06-4361BD.08231215122007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, Eric P.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Mr. Sorensen can explain it better than I can, and I defer to his
> experience in this matter.

Mr. Sorenson's "explanation" is a warm, steaming pile of horse turds.

Signature

Help improve usenet. Kill-file Google Groups.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Reply to this Message

J.J. O'Shea - 17 Dec 2007 13:31 GMT

> In article
> <ericp06-23180B.16021616122007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, Eric P.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Mr. Sorenson's "explanation" is a warm, steaming pile of horse turds.

It's not even that good.

Signature

email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Reply to this Message

Eric P. Peterson - 19 Dec 2007 18:25 GMT

> In article
> <ericp06-23180B.16021616122007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, Eric P.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Mr. Sorenson's "explanation" is a warm, steaming pile of horse turds.

Perhaps, then, we should defer to your personal experience with said
turds.

- E

Reply to this Message

J.J. O'Shea - 15 Dec 2007 22:37 GMT

> I agree about booting, whether OS 9 resides on the same volume as OS X
> or not. However, there is indeed a distinction between Classic and
> Classic Mode.

There is? What is it, pray tell?

> Any argument against that is moot.

I don't think that 'moot' means what you think it means.

Signature

email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Reply to this Message

Eric P. Peterson - 17 Dec 2007 00:04 GMT

> > I agree about booting, whether OS 9 resides on the same volume as OS X
> > or not. However, there is indeed a distinction between Classic and
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I don't think that 'moot' means what you think it means.

Inconceivable! ;)

Yes, I felt iffy when I wrote that. A different word would surely convey
my intent more accurately, but that was the first thing to pop into my
head, and I clicked on Post in haste. Sorry about that!

- E

Reply to this Message

J.J. O'Shea - 17 Dec 2007 02:12 GMT

>>> I agree about booting, whether OS 9 resides on the same volume as OS X
>>> or not. However, there is indeed a distinction between Classic and
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> my intent more accurately, but that was the first thing to pop into my
> head, and I clicked on Post in haste. Sorry about that!

You haven't defined the difference between Classic and Classic Mode. Possibly
because there is no such thing as Classic Mode.

> - E

Signature

email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Reply to this Message

Eric P. Peterson - 19 Dec 2007 18:31 GMT

> >>> I agree about booting, whether OS 9 resides on the same volume as OS X
> >>> or not. However, there is indeed a distinction between Classic and
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> > - E

Granted, it's not necessarily an industry-standard term. It's just a
label applied to a fully independent installation of OS 9 that can ALSO
be used as Classic under OS X. When you're using Classic, you're not
using 100% pure OS 9, as OS X handles certain system components itself.
Should we make a distinction, then? Perhaps, but only in a case where
the user wishes to have both Classic functionality and a full, bootable
OS 9. Maybe there's a better way to express it. I don't know.

- E

Reply to this Message

Mike Rosenberg - 19 Dec 2007 18:57 GMT

> Granted, it's not necessarily an industry-standard term.

It's not a term used by anyone except the Eri[c/k]s that we're aware of.

> It's just a label applied to a fully independent installation of OS 9 that
> can ALSO be used as Classic under OS X.

Only by the Eri[c/k]s, and please bear in mind that the other Eri[c/k]
has repeatedly reported alternate realities over the years.

> When you're using Classic, you're not
> using 100% pure OS 9, as OS X handles certain system components itself.

Yes, there are certainly OS 9 extensions and control panels that simply
have no function in Classic.

> Should we make a distinction, then? Perhaps, but only in a case where
> the user wishes to have both Classic functionality and a full, bootable
> OS 9. Maybe there's a better way to express it. I don't know.

The thing is that "a full, bootable OS 9" only means something on Macs
that are capable of booting OS 9 in the first place, which are only Macs
manufactured prior to January 2003 and the June 2003 MDD G4s. All of
these Macs _will_ have full, bootable OS 9 System Folders since they
came with full, bootable OS 9 already installed, and the restore disks
that came with those Macs install full, bootable System Folders, as do
the retail version OS 9 discs. So there is no distinction unless you go
out of your way to render the System Folder non-bootable or copy one
from another Mac.

Signature

<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

Reply to this Message

Eric P. Peterson - 28 Dec 2007 03:46 GMT

> > Granted, it's not necessarily an industry-standard term.
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> out of your way to render the System Folder non-bootable or copy one
> from another Mac.

Makes sense. My experience is limited to pre-Intel machines. By the time
I'm ready to buy a more recent computer, everything that's currently
commercially available will appear as archaic as my first computer
(9500/132, running OS 8.6). For me, it's relevant to make the
distinction of a bootable OS 9, as both my G4s can boot with that
system, internally or externally (by virtue of my FW HD). Anyway, sorry
to contribute to spinning off the main thread here.

Happy holidays,
Eric

Reply to this Message

J.J. O'Shea - 20 Dec 2007 13:25 GMT

>>>>> I agree about booting, whether OS 9 resides on the same volume as OS X
>>>>> or not. However, there is indeed a distinction between Classic and
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Granted, it's not necessarily an industry-standard term.

You and your friend are the _only_ people that I've seen use it in all the
time that OS X has been around.

> It's just a
> label applied to a fully independent installation of OS 9 that can ALSO
> be used as Classic under OS X.

That's called an OS 9 System Folder by the rest of the world.

> When you're using Classic, you're not
> using 100% pure OS 9, as OS X handles certain system components itself.

Everyone already knows this, or should. And, as Classic doesn't load those
particular items, it is perfectly all right to just use a plain OS 9 System
Folder, one which _does_ have, for example, the networking components
installed, as the System Folder from which Classic runs. Classic doesn't
care. Classic merely locks off access to those items so that the unwary can't
do anything silly... but if your Mac can boot OS 9, those items are still
there and will work just fine _once booted OS 9_.

> Should we make a distinction, then?

No.

> Perhaps, but only in a case where
> the user wishes to have both Classic functionality and a full, bootable
> OS 9.

Merely doing an OS 9 install does that. And by far the simplest way to do an
OS 9 install is to drag over an OS 9 System Folder, and then do an update if
necessary. Which I know works all the way up to iMac G5s, because that's
exactly what I did. I didn't need to do an update because, well, iMac G5s
can't boot OS 9. I _did_ have to do an update on my old eMac, because, well,
the old eMac _can_ boot OS 9; the drag-installed from a beige G3 System
Folder worked just fine in Classic, but wouldn't boot properly until I did
the update. Among the items changed by the update were the Mac OS ROM file.
That file is _still_ in my System Folder on my iMac G5, unchanged, because
Classic frankly cares only that there's such a file there, not which machine
it came from.

> Maybe there's a better way to express it. I don't know.

How about referring to it as, oh, a System Folder? Or an OS 9 System Folder?
There is no such thing as Classic Mode. There is Classic. There is OS 9.
There is OS X.

Signature

email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

Reply to this Message

Eric P. Peterson - 28 Dec 2007 04:01 GMT

> >>>>> I agree about booting, whether OS 9 resides on the same volume as OS X
> >>>>> or not. However, there is indeed a distinction between Classic and
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
> There is no such thing as Classic Mode. There is Classic. There is OS 9.
> There is OS X.

Could call it that, with no worries, I suppose. I just got into the
habit of referring to it the other way. That's why, if I see someone
else using the term "Classic mode," my mind translates that as "bootable
OS 9" or "OS 9 System Folder" (see, I can learn new tricks).

OK, so silly question here: Classic can run on some systems without
needing an OS 9 System Folder? If that's so, where does it keep the
relevant files? While I'm at it, with such a configuration, I suppose
the user needn't ever change RAM allocation to apps (or increase the
numbers in the SIZE resources) to improve performance, as OS X would
dynamically manage memory. Is that how it is?

Thanks,
Eric

Reply to this Message

David Empson - 28 Dec 2007 06:44 GMT

> OK, so silly question here: Classic can run on some systems without
> needing an OS 9 System Folder?

No. Classic requires a valid Mac OS 9 System Folder.

That system folder might not be able to boot the computer, but it needs
to at least have the System and Finder files, be blessed, and probably
requires a fair number of extensions for Classic to work.

On PowerPC models which cannot boot Mac OS 9, the main thing preventing
them booting is lack of Mac OS 9 driver support for new hardware and/or
no recognition of the specific machine. Apple probably also started
removing firmware support for Mac OS 9 at some stage.

In Classic, Mac OS 9 runs on a virtual machine which has consistent
identification and reasonably consistent virtual hardware
characteristics across a wide range of Mac models, so only one "build"
of Mac OS 9 is required to support it. A Mac OS 9 System Folder which
works in Classic on one Mac will almost certainly work in a different
Mac model. It is set up to support the virtual machine, not the real
one.

> If that's so, where does it keep the relevant files? While I'm at it, with
> such a configuration, I suppose the user needn't ever change RAM
> allocation to apps (or increase the numbers in the SIZE resources) to
> improve performance, as OS X would dynamically manage memory. Is that how
> it is?

Classic sets up a virtual machine for Mac OS 9 which appears to have 1
GB of RAM. Within that virtual machine, Mac OS 9 applications behave
just like they do when running on a real Mac OS 9 system: they have
fixed size memory partitions (determined from an allowable range and
available memory "holes" at the time the application is launched), which
are configurable by the user.

The memory configuration for Classic applications is set in the Get Info
window in the Mac OS X Finder, in a similar manner to how it is done if
you boot directly into Mac OS 9.

Signature

David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Reply to this Message

Erik Richard Sørensen - 12 Dec 2007 08:24 GMT

>>> I just bought an older iMac with OS 10.3.9 installed. For some reason I
>>> can't get Classic to run on this machine. I have an older version of
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> if you prefer to have OS 9.x on its own volume, especially if you want
> to be able to boot the machine into it at all).

Both and Eric... Up to OS X 10.3.5 it only needs Os 9.1. 10.2.5 to
10.4.1 can run with 9.2.1, 10.3.0 and up to 10.4.11 can run with 9.2.2.

First thing to remember is to open the 'classic' systempane and select
the Os 9.x system folder that's gonna be used. If no Os 9.x systemfolder
has been selected, no Classic or ClassicMode can run under any OS X.

Cheers, Erik Richard

Signature

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rgds. Grüße, Mvh. Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC
<mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk> <http://www.nisus.com>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reply to this Message

Eric P. Peterson - 15 Dec 2007 16:32 GMT

> >>> I just bought an older iMac with OS 10.3.9 installed. For some reason I
> >>> can't get Classic to run on this machine. I have an older version of
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Cheers, Erik Richard

Yeah. My thought about the version of OS 9 needed to be installed and
used under OS X is limited to my experience: I officially re-entered the
OS X world with Tiger, after avoiding any use of OS X in the aftermath
of horrible, destructive experiences with an early full version
(non-beta) of OS X on my G4 Sawtooth. Thanks for clarifying!

- E

Reply to this Message

You'd like to know, eh? - 16 Dec 2007 12:51 GMT

> I just bought an older iMac with OS 10.3.9 installed. For some
> reason I can't get Classic to run on this machine. I have an older
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> runs fine. What do I need to do to getClassic to run on my iMac.
> Thanks.

Do you have an Intel iMac or a PPC iMac?
If you've got an PPC iMac, it should run.
Classic is not available on Intel Macs.

Signature

I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

Reply to this Message

You'd like to know, eh? - 16 Dec 2007 12:56 GMT

> In article <C38355A9.DA7F%itten@comcast.net> itten
>> I just bought an older iMac with OS 10.3.9 installed. For some
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> iMac.
>> Thanks.

Signature

I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

Reply to this Message

Dave Seaman - 16 Dec 2007 13:35 GMT

>> I just bought an older iMac with OS 10.3.9 installed. For some
>> reason I can't get Classic to run on this machine. I have an older
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> runs fine. What do I need to do to getClassic to run on my iMac.
>> Thanks.

> Do you have an Intel iMac or a PPC iMac?

Intel Macs can't run 10.3.9.

> If you've got an PPC iMac, it should run.

Only if you have a System Folder. You can copy one from another Mac and it
should work for Classic.

> Classic is not available on Intel Macs.

Signature

Dave Seaman
Oral Arguments in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case heard May 17
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
<http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/>

Reply to this Message

Sign In

Join

My Latest Posts

My Monitored Threads

My Photo Gallery

My Homepage

Start New Thread

Enable EMail Alerts

Rate this Thread

©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use

This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.