Snow Leopard and Classic Mac OS

[Mac128]

OK, I got MacTerminal 2.2 and ZTerm to work. The correct combination was to set MacTerminal to use MacBinary under the File Transfer options, and send the file from ZTerm as Xmodem. ... I'm going to get a Keyspan USB to serial adapter, and give this a whirl from Snow Leopard and ZTerm to my LC running MacTerminal 2.2. If this works, then it should work on a Mac 128k, since you mentioned 2.2 would work on it.

Apple is unclear about whether a 128K will officially support MacTerminal 2.2. Only that version 2.0 & 2.1 are incompatible with System 4.1. v. 2.2 is compatible and to use v. 4.0 or earlier. However, the 128K will not support System 4.0 and up. So I know that the 128K will support up to v. 2.1. EDIT: This Apple TIL seems to indicate that the 128K will support v. 2.2, but NOT v. 2.3. Guess I'd have to test it to be certain.

Nevertheless, I take it "MacBinary" is available in both v. 1.1 and 2.2 and otherwise the settings are the same. If so, v. 1.1 should work with XTerm as well. One question comes to mind as you are using a significantly more modern LC, running System 6 or 7? And what version of XTerm? What System on your 512K (I presume you were going from the LC to your 512K) – and v.2.2 on both?

I wonder if the 68K version of XTerm on your LC behaves the same as XTerm under Snow Leopard? The reason I wonder is that I'm certain I had MacTerminal set to MacBinary when I first tried to connect with XTerm from TIger using "Xmodem" protocol, though I may not have had that exact combination when I was testing. Perhaps there is an additional setting necessary in the OS X version, not required in the 68K version.

AFP under Snow Leopard
Also, I notice on my "Sharing" pane in System Prefs under Snow Leopard that the "File Sharing" service settings has an "Options" button that allows "Share files and folders using AFP" which was disabled by default. I presume you checked this and it still killed connecting to a legacy system?

[JDW]

I notice on my "Sharing" pane in System Prefs under Snow Leopard that the "File Sharing" service settings has an "Options" button that allows "Share files and folders using AFP" which was disabled by default. I presume you checked this and it still killed connecting to a legacy system?

I don't have 10.6 myself, but I read that AFP support for protocol versions prior to 3.0 was killed, but that AFP itself has not. So I interpret that as saying if we could find a way to get our old Macs to talk AFP3, then all would be well again.

[napabar]

OK, I got MacTerminal 2.2 and ZTerm to work. The correct combination was to set MacTerminal to use MacBinary under the File Transfer options, and send the file from ZTerm as Xmodem. ... I'm going to get a Keyspan USB to serial adapter, and give this a whirl from Snow Leopard and ZTerm to my LC running MacTerminal 2.2. If this works, then it should work on a Mac 128k, since you mentioned 2.2 would work on it.

Apple is unclear about whether a 128K will officially support MacTerminal 2.2. Only that version 2.0 & 2.1 are incompatible with System 4.1. v. 2.2 is compatible and to use v. 4.0 or earlier. However, the 128K will not support System 4.0 and up. So I know that the 128K will support up to v. 2.1.

Nevertheless, I take it "MacBinary" is available in both v. 1.1 and 2.2 and otherwise the settings are the same. If so, v. 1.1 should work with XTerm as well. One question comes to mind as you are using a significantly more modern LC, running System 6 or 7? And what version of XTerm? What System on your 512K (I presume you were going from the LC to your 512K) – and v.2.2 on both?

I wonder if the 68K version of XTerm on your LC behaves the same as XTerm under Snow Leopard? The reason I wonder is that I'm certain I had MacTerminal set to MacBinary when I first tried to connect with XTerm from TIger using "Xmodem" protocol, though I may not have had that exact combination when I was testing. Perhaps there is an additional setting necessary in the OS X version, not required in the 68K version.

AFP under Snow Leopard
Also, I notice on my "Sharing" pane in System Prefs under Snow Leopard that the "File Sharing" service settings has an "Options" button that allows "Share files and folders using AFP" which was disabled by default. I presume you checked this and it still killed connecting to a legacy system?

I had assumed you had used MacTerminal 2.2 on your Mac 128k before. Is this not the case?

MacTerminal 1.1 crashes on my LC running system 6, so I had to fire it up in Mini vMac. It does not have a MacBinary option. There are more options in 2.2, including MacBinary. That was the ticket.

My setup is as follows. LC running System 6 with MacTerminal 2.2. I set MacTerminal to connect to "Another Computer" instead of "Modem", set baud rate to 19200, The protocol to "MacBinary", turned on "Local Echo" and tuned Handshake to "XOn/XOff"

I connected the LC using standard Apple Din-8 printer/serial cable to my PowerMac 6500.

On the 6500, I am running ZTerm 1.1B7 (PowerPC Classic Mac OS version). This is the same version as the Mac OS X version. The developer decided not to have a unified Carbon version for technical reasons.

The ZTerm settings are also 19200, Local Echo, and XOn/XOff. I send and receive using XModem.

I did some more tests tonight. I was able to send and receive files from my LC and MacTerminal to network shares on my 6500 using ZTerm. Resource fork included. Freakin' sweet! Mac 128k to iDisk, here we come!

[Mac128]

I had assumed you had used MacTerminal 2.2 on your Mac 128k before. Is this not the case? ...

Duh, it's in French! LOL

[1.1] does not have a MacBinary option. There are more options in 2.2, including MacBinary. That was the ticket.

According to Apple it should work, so French or not, I'll be trying it out as soon as I can. I think v.2.2 has more automation as well. I need to find some old MacTerminal books and dig into it more since this is likely to be the only method available on a stock 128K or 512K for some time (indeed any 68000).

It's great that I can bypass Sheepshaver. It is unfortunate that MFS Lives is not compatible with Leopard since that would mean one could simply open a 400K MFS disk image and load a file directly into XTerm, keeping everything native. I guess for now all MFS disk images will have to be copied onto HFS disk images and loaded from there. It's just sometimes those files introduce corruption, especially the System files.

Napbar, make sure you use the MFS 800K disk hack with your 128K. It really saves time giving you over 400K more disk space to copy files onto. Theoretically you can have over 1.6MB of storage using it, that's like a hard drive for a 128K.

[napabar]

I had assumed you had used MacTerminal 2.2 on your Mac 128k before. Is this not the case? ...

Duh, it's in French! LOL

[1.1] does not have a MacBinary option. There are more options in 2.2, including MacBinary. That was the ticket.

According to Apple it should work, so French or not, I'll be trying it out as soon as I can. I think v.2.2 has more automation as well. I need to find some old MacTerminal books and dig into it more since this is likely to be the only method available on a stock 128K or 512K for some time (indeed any 68000).

It's great that I can bypass Sheepshaver. It is unfortunate that MFS Lives is not compatible with Leopard since that would mean one could simply open a 400K MFS disk image and load a file directly into XTerm, keeping everything native. I guess for now all MFS disk images will have to be copied onto HFS disk images and loaded from there. It's just sometimes those files introduce corruption, especially the System files.

Napbar, make sure you use the MFS 800K disk hack with your 128K. It really saves time giving you over 400K more disk space to copy files onto. Theoretically you can have over 1.6MB of storage using it, that's like a hard drive for a 128K.

Hey, I figured it out! It's not that hard! Just look at the English 1.1 version. Almost identical (expect for the transfer option, but most of that is in English on 2.2)

Yes, this will be the only direct connection option for a Mac 128K, 512K/512Ke. A Mac Plus can do TCP/IP and Ethernet, so Fetch works just fine and Snow Leopard shares over FTP.

Speaking of MFS not working, it gets worse! I just found out that Snow Leopard treats old HFS disks as read only, and the Disk Image Utility will no longer create HFS disks!! Only HFS+!!! Yikes!! HFS has been MFS'ed!!!! LOL!!!!

I don't have a 128K or 512k yet. I'm doing preliminary experiments before I commit to purchasing a fully serviced 128K and or 512K. $$$$$! But I'll try the 800k trick if I get hold of those special 800k drives!

[Mac128]

I just found out that Snow Leopard treats old HFS disks as read only, and the Disk Image Utility will no longer create HFS disks!!

Oh you have got to be KIDDING ME! Seriously? So Snow Leopard can no longer create an HFS disk for use with an older Mac? What the hell is wrong with them? I mean imagine ... you need to prep a disk for use with an older Power PC. I mean this is really taking the forced upgrade thing way too far. What is the harm in allowing HFS? It's simply a file structure. I have hope that if MFS could be implemented under Tiger that someone will add HFS to Snow Leopard, which (as I've pointed out) is still currently far more useful and relevant.

Thank GOD for Mini vMac. At least HFS & MFS disk images can still be manipulated. But here's a real problem. You won't be able to put files directly into an HFS disk image for use within Mini vMac. It will have to be manipulated directly within the application. But when did HFS+ become available? I think it was OS 8.1, which I don't think any 68000 will boot. This means HFS & HFS+ files will have to be manipulated in Sheepshaver or Basilisk II. What a fricking nightmare. I do believe Paul Pratt has enabled a way for files to be imported and exported to and from Mini vMac directly into OS X, so that may become a larger component of the system now. Brother ...

EDIT: I just checked, Paul's file importer doesn't import a stand-alone file with the resource fork intact. He recommends using an archive for that reason. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a good way to create an archive under OS X which can be opened under System 7.5.5 or less. Fortunately Paul is currently working on a Macintosh II emulator. Theoretically that emulator could use a IIfx ROM like the SE/30 & IIx which would allow for the use of HFS+ under 8.1. So the Mac II emulator becomes the most important Mini vMac emulator in order to maintain the original 68000 emulators. Of course Basilisk II and SheepShaver are alternatives which need to be further explored under Snow Leopard. I've already determined that some aspects of SheepShaver have been crippled by SL, like serial port access. Unfortunately neither has been touched since 2006.

But I'll try the 800k trick if I get hold of those special 800k drives!

Actually, not a very "special" drive. Fortunately, the UniDisk used that drive since 1985 and Apple switched to the same drive mechanism both internally and externally by September 86. So it is the most widely available 800K drive. The disabled header models were used only briefly in the Mac Plus and original 800K external drive.

[porter]

[quote="Mac128What the hell is wrong with them?[/quote]

(a) time only goes in one direction

(b) there is no money in it

You aren't obviously "thinking different" enough.

[JDW]

Oh you have got to be KIDDING ME! Seriously? What the hell is wrong with them? I mean this is really taking the forced upgrade thing way too far. What a fricking nightmare. Brother ...

All excellent sentiments I enjoyed reading because I for one share them. It's not about time (it probably took longer to axe features than retain them), money (you don't make or lose on something that's been there for years) or progress (as if retaining AFP and HFS compatibility for older Macs would have somehow held back OS X from moving forward). No, it's about engineering foolishness. Nevertheless, Steve Jobs has the power to be as big a fool as he sees fit.

"Stay Foolish."
— Steven Jobs, Stanford University commencement address, June 12, 2005

[napabar]

I just found out that Snow Leopard treats old HFS disks as read only, and the Disk Image Utility will no longer create HFS disks!!

Oh you have got to be KIDDING ME! Seriously? So Snow Leopard can no longer create an HFS disk for use with an older Mac? What the hell is wrong with them? I mean imagine ... you need to prep a disk for use with an older Power PC. I mean this is really taking the forced upgrade thing way too far. What is the harm in allowing HFS? It's simply a file structure. I have hope that if MFS could be implemented under Tiger that someone will add HFS to Snow Leopard, which (as I've pointed out) is still currently far more useful and relevant.

It gets worse, but I have to disagree with you on this being Apple's desire to force us to upgrade. These Classic Macs are NOT our production machines! The very reason we have them is because they are antiques, and we like fooling around with them. Cutting off support to them isn't going to make us buy a new machine! We have them because they are what they are.

That being said, I've ran into some more challenges with Snow Leopard. First, the disk mounting utility doesn't seem to launch Disk Copy 4.2 images or older anymore. Disk Copy 6 images mount ok.

2nd, I have a folder where I keep my classic apps and installers. Many are stuffed, but many are just laying around in folders. I noticed most of my un-stuffed file are not showing up correctly. Several apps appear as text files now. Even if I take them to my 6500, and rebuild the desktop, they don't work. It seems the resource fork has been screwed up. A few seem OK, though, so I'm not sure what the difference is. Point is, we can no longer trust that the resource forks are going to work when the bare files are exposed in 10.6.

Solution: On a OS 8.1 or later Mac, create a Disk Image with Disk Copy 6.3.3 large enough to house your retro files. Format it HFS+, and copy all your files to it. Next, covert the image to read only. Now place this image on 10.6, and mount it. As read only, the resource forks will be safe. From this mounted disk image, they can be shared with ZTerm directly to the Mac128k.

Why HFS+ instead of HFS you ask? After all, HFS mounts as read only in 10.6 to begin with. Well, I figure, how much longer will Mac OS X read HFS disks? HFS+ is still the foundation of OS X, and I figure it will be with us for many years as a supported format. A lot longer than HFS I would gather!

[napabar]

All excellent sentiments I enjoyed reading because I for one share them. It's not about time (it probably took longer to axe features than retain them), money (you don't make or lose on something that's been there for years) or progress (as if retaining AFP and HFS compatibility for older Macs would have somehow held back OS X from moving forward). No, it's about engineering foolishness. Nevertheless, Steve Jobs has the power to be as big a fool as he sees fit.

Steve Jobs is not a fool, and was not involved in this technical kind of a decision. I've already dispelled your argument earlier in this thread.

[napabar]

Steve also didn't like Amleio, but our Finder icon is still from his era too.

Actually the Finder icon is from the Spindler era, first being used with the release of System 7.5 in 1994.

I believe it first showed up in 7.5.3 splash screen, which was released around the time Amelio took over. I wasn't implying that Amelio personally designed the icon, just that it is most closely associated with his tenure at Apple.

[JDW]

I've already dispelled your argument earlier in this thread.

You have not dispelled any such thing in my mind, as evidenced by my continued posting on the subject. Your previous post contained your own speculation about Mr. Jobs and the fish he prefers to fry (and perhaps even the oil he uses for the frying).

You and I simply have a difference of opinion on the matter.

[napabar]

Well, hold your horses on my resource problem. I re-downloaded some of them from the internet, and they seem to be fine. It's quite possible I screwed something up along the way. My disk image thing would be the safest, but it may not be necessary. I'd like some more input on this from other Snow Leopard users. Have you seen resource forks go bad after upgrading?

[napabar]

I've already dispelled your argument earlier in this thread.

You have not dispelled any such thing in my mind, as evidenced by my continued posting on the subject. Your previous post contained your own speculation about Mr. Jobs and the fish he prefers to fry (and perhaps even the oil he uses for the frying).

You and I simply have a difference of opinion on the matter.

So you really believe he was on his death bed waiting for a liver transplant, and he PERSONALLY made sure legacy support was dropped????

[JDW]

So you really believe he was...

First of all, you underestimate Steve Jobs.

Second, our "difference of opinion" is largely irrelevant to how I (and perhaps a few others here) personally feel about the loss of AFP (prior to ver.3) and HFS compatibility as discussed in this thread. As my earlier post clearly stated, I merely felt the same remorse that Mac128 did. I posted that without having any desire to inflame your passions or debate you about Steve Jobs.

I come back to this thread in hopes of seeing how others are finding solutions for the unfortunate decision Apple engineers made (with or without the prodding of Mr. Jobs himself). And I wish to thank Mac128 for partly answering my question about OS 10.6 compatible emulators possibly being a solution for my connectivity aims.

[napabar]

So you really believe he was...

First of all, you underestimate Steve Jobs.

Second, our "difference of opinion" is largely irrelevant to how I (and perhaps a few others here) personally feel about the loss of AFP (prior to ver.3) and HFS compatibility as discussed in this thread. As my earlier post clearly stated, I merely felt the same remorse that Mac128 did. I posted that without having any desire to inflame your passions or debate you about Steve Jobs.

I come back to this thread in hopes of seeing how others are finding solutions for the unfortunate decision Apple engineers made (with or without the prodding of Mr. Jobs himself). And I wish to thank Mac128 for partly answering my question about OS 10.6 compatible emulators possibly being a solution for my connectivity aims.

I started this thread. My discussion was technical in nature. This argument only started when you brought up personal insults to Steve Jobs, which has no place in this forum. I would be glad to getting back to a technical discussion. I consider this debate between us closed.

[napabar]

All right, scratch my 10.6 resource fork worry. I went into my Time Machine backup, and they were screwed up long before I upgraded to Snow Leopard. Whew!!!!!

[JDW]

Far be it from me to offend the reigning author of a 68kMLA thread over my inadequate reverence of a mere mortal, Steve Jobs. Although some may choose to differ, my personal belief is that he is flesh and blood. None of my words concerning the man in this thread could in any way be construed as libelous, although they would not be in line with the tremendous reverence an Apple worshiper may demand. And since my words were speculation over why certain features of 10.6 were removed, it cannot properly be said that such comments (however personal they may have been) were "excessively off-topic." My words merely excited the emotions of at least one here, which is a bit surprising to me.

I love Apple Macs, both new and vintage. And I have paid my "respect" to Mr. Jobs and company in cold hard cash through many years of purchases, and my respect for his genius continues to this day. I never had a formal "debate" with the author of this thread to begin with, nor do I or any other 68kMLA member owe excessive respect to anyone for their merely having started a particular thread. This is an open forum for members to discuss issues pertaining to a given topic, which I and others have done even if the author or a select few others personally feel otherwise. Even so, the author of this thread has participated in it very well, offering insight into his own personal testing, for the good of the community. I have great respect and thanks for that.

I once again offer thanks to those who so kindly reply with great wisdom and knowledge in this thread and others, concerning the things which I and the author of this thread write about. We are a community united by our love for old Macs. But that doesn't mean we must agree in all cases. If we did agree on most things, we would probably all be Windows users, for goodness sake.


Mac128, had I copy of 10.6 myself I would give the emulator a try. But for now I look forward to hearing your findings. Thank you also for speaking to Paul Pratt concerning Mini vMac on that issue.

Sincere thanks to all for the information in this thread (even the comments that are not 100% of a technical nature).

[NeverGoBack88]

Darn, I was just getting ready to set up a network with my SE/30, Orange iMac, and Macbook...
Guess I'll have to stick to the old floppies and zip disks then. $1 to anybody who can guess what my avatar is!!

SneakerNet, with a pass-thru a Mac that handles floppies or Zips and USB thumbdrives, - I use my Pismo, less high tech than a network, but at least I get to run the machines for another good reason.
I'll PM you about your avatar, but you can keep your $1...

[Mac128]

SneakerNet, with a pass-thru a Mac that handles floppies or Zips

Nope. That won't be happening either.

Since Snow Leopard only reads HFS, there will be no writing to disks, external 1.44MB floppy, ZIP or otherwise for use with any Mac which cannot run System 8.1. That rules out all the Compacts (with the possible exception of the 8.1 hack for the SE/30 and possibly CC/CC II & Classic II), which is where this topic is posted.

So no, Apple has effectively eliminated Snow Leopard as a practical platform from which to maintain a vintage Compact Mac. A suitable emulator like Mini vMac should allow disk images to be manipulated and then read directly into ZTerm for serial modem transfer, however, there is no way to write those files to a physical HFS disk in order to use the "SneakerNet" (that is sooooo 1984). In fact those files under Mini vMac will already have to exist on HFS images in order to even get them into Mini vMac (which does not yet support OS 8.1). In the interim, SheepShaver can be used (the latest 2006 build still mostly works under SL) to read HFS+ disks and transfer them to HFS. However, anything that can run 8.1 will also not be able to work with MFS disks, so keep Mini vMac handy (much more stable under SL anyway).

FTP works from the Mac Plus forward, thought not as elegant as AFP. Just out of curiosity, we know for sure they have dropped support for AFP 2.x and earlier? I know AFP 3.0 corresponds with OS X, but it had roots in OS 8 & 9, right? So did they essentially remove AFP support prior to the introduction of HFS+ with 8.1? If so there's an interesting parallel with dropping AFP on any System which did not support HFS (i.e. 128K/512K & MFS). Perhaps AFP 3.0 requires HFS+ files structures only to be optimized?

Here's an interesting articleabout losing legacy support under SL.

[napabar]

SneakerNet, with a pass-thru a Mac that handles floppies or Zips

Nope. That won't be happening either.

Since Snow Leopard only reads HFS, there will be no writing to disks, external 1.44MB floppy, ZIP or otherwise for use with any Mac which cannot run System 8.1. That rules out all the Compacts (with the possible exception of the 8.1 hack for the SE/30 and possibly CC/CC II & Classic II), which is where this topic is posted.

So no, Apple has effectively eliminated Snow Leopard as a practical platform from which to maintain a vintage Compact Mac. A suitable emulator like Mini vMac should allow disk images to be manipulated and then read directly into ZTerm for serial modem transfer, however, there is no way to write those files to a physical HFS disk in order to use the "SneakerNet" (that is sooooo 1984). In fact those files under Mini vMac will already have to exist on HFS images in order to even get them into Mini vMac (which does not yet support OS 8.1). In the interim, SheepShaver can be used (the latest 2006 build still mostly works under SL) to read HFS+ disks and transfer them to HFS. However, anything that can run 8.1 will also not be able to work with MFS disks, so keep Mini vMac handy (much more stable under SL anyway).

FTP works from the Mac Plus forward, thought not as elegant as AFP. Just out of curiosity, we know for sure they have dropped support for AFP 2.x and earlier? I know AFP 3.0 corresponds with OS X, but it had roots in OS 8 & 9, right? So did they essentially remove AFP support prior to the introduction of HFS+ with 8.1? If so there's an interesting parallel with dropping AFP on any System which did not support HFS (i.e. 128K/512K & MFS). Perhaps AFP 3.0 requires HFS+ files structures only to be optimized?

Here's an interesting articleabout losing legacy support under SL.

I'm confused by what you mean about dropping AFP. AFP has never been dropped. AFP is just another name for AppleShare. AppleTalk has been dropped as a low level protocol, and replaced with IP, but AFP (AppleShare) is still with us. Nevertheless, 10.6 seems to require AFP 3.0, and dropped support for AFP 2.1 and 2.2 (Which could use IP instead of AppleTalk).

Mac128, have you gotten the new build of SheepShaver from 2008? It's at this link.

http://www.emaculation.com/doku.php/sheepshaver


Random notes:

Mac OS X will let you format a USB floppy with HFS+. Classic Mac OS would never let you do this. HFS+ floppies can be read by System 8.1 and up.

Classic Mac OS let's you share USB floppies over AppleShare, but won't share internal floppies. Mac OS X won't share USB floppies.

What's happened to HFS disks mirrors what happened to MFS disks. Starting with 7.6, MFS floppies were read only. 6 months laster, by System 8, they were unreadable and ejected upon insertion.

My gut feeling, Mac OS 10.7 will require a 64-bit Intel processor, will not support Rosetta (optional already in 10.6), and not read HFS disks.

10.8 drops Carbon apps. The transition Apple is trying to make will be compete!

Just my two cents. Thoughts everyone?

[Mac128]

I have to disagree with you on this being Apple's desire to force us to upgrade.

You are correct of course, but the net effect is that anyone still using HFS must upgrade. And anyone who does not need a more advanced system or features might opt out because they do want to maintain backwards compatibility. Is that going to be a large number of users? No. But there are still plenty of people running G4s & G5s with Leopard (or Tiger with Intels) because they want Classic compatibility for use with old software (some of it custom for which there is no OS X counterpart) that continues to work. But imagine if you will that you have a number of drives which you have carried forward since 1995 (think ZIP disks and removable drives for which there are USB counterparts now) and continued to use in their originally Mac formatted HFS. No harm no foul. They continued to work normally as OS X happily reads and writes those files. Now, a user might be faced will converting all of those drives needlessly, because Apple felt like eliminating a perfectly useable file system which wasn't harming anybody.

I'm confused by what you mean about dropping AFP. ... 10.6 seems to require AFP 3.0, and dropped support for AFP 2.1 and 2.2 (Which could use IP instead of AppleTalk).

That's what I meant. I went on a search for dates the various versions were released and came up dry. So when did AFP 2.1 appear? OS 7.5? What version appeared with OS 8.1, and 9?

Mac128, have you gotten the new build of SheepShaver from 2008?

Thanks for that link. I had been going to Gwenole Beauchesne's site.

My gut feeling, Mac OS 10.7 will require a 64-bit Intel processor, will not support Rosetta (optional already in 10.6), and not read HFS disks. 10.8 drops Carbon apps

Yeah I think that's about right.

However, with any luck, Paul Pratt will finish his Mac II emulator before that happens and all the built-in vintage Mac support anyone needs will be in it and it will play nice with OS X 10.6 and up. The problem of course will be that there will still be no way to write to physical media like ZIP disks and floppy disks. Theoretically couldn't a disk copy program write the correct data to a disk from an image made in an emulator like Disk Copy does for MFS under 8.1+? That would solve at least part of the problem of transferring files out, but not necessarily transferring them in. I wonder if it's possible for Mini vMac to tap into the USB ports and control external drives directly? Probably need some custom drivers. The best thing would be for Mini vMac to access the serial drivers directly and use good old fashioned AppleTalk, slow but functional.

Yup. Dropping HFS has pretty much made a requirement an intermediary OS X Mac running Leopard or less to work with any vintage Macs running a 68030 or less. The only positive is that there are numerous Macs available that can likely run 10.7 & 10.8 as well as 10.5 and serve this function. Once the next generation of Macs requiring Snow Leopard hits the streets, the writing will truly be in the snow.

[napabar]

That's what I meant. I went on a search for dates the various versions were released and came up dry. So when did AFP 2.1 appear? OS 7.5? What version appeared with OS 8.1, and 9?

Mac128, check out your email. I sent something you might find useful about AFP......

[JDW]

Apple felt like eliminating a perfectly useable file system which wasn't harming anybody.

Which causes one to recall what OpenStep developers did when they took over at Apple and released the OS X Beta: the Apple menu was gone and a new Finder (from OpenStep) came on the scene. However, due to a user outcry, a more traditional Mac OS Finder and something similar to the traditional Apple menu were restored in OS 10.0. (Even so, Apple never did put the Trash back where it belongs.)

Such a glorious turnabout unfortunately won't happen now with respect to the loss of AFP 2.x and full HFS disk support due to an insufficient number of us crying out about it, but the loss is nevertheless something to openly mourn. For truly AFP and HFS were not harming any users, but it so very clearly was harming the agenda (and "not invented here" mentality) of those who gave birth to OS X.

[H3NRY]

I haven't seen anybody mention the fact that Snow Leopard is a from-scratch 64-bit Intel rewrite of most of MacOS. Now given that your job is to write the network stack for OS 10.6, you're going to write a modern TCP/IP stack and test and debug it. Would you take on the additional task of writing a new AppleTalk stack? This isn't a case of some old feud resulting in code getting ripped out, it's new code not being developed. Same for file system support. And the brand new Finder looks just like the old Finder except has different bugs. If you don't like 10.6, don't upgrade. Or at least wait till 10.6.5 or so when things have settled down.

It just means that same as 10.4 and 10.5, you need an intermediate machine or two to get stuff from the early OSes to your shiny new Mac. A G3 or G4 which can boot either OS9 or OSX is your friend. I keep intending to look into XModem file software for OSX for file transfers to Apple][s and early Macs. I hope there's a good thread or two on this forum to help. (Noob here.)