Snow Leopard and Classic Mac OS

[porter]

I was referring to Classic Macs not being able to run apps off an FTP share.

Mounting a FTP share as a disk is something that came along in 10.4 or 10.5 (can't remember). A Mac Plus can't do that! It has to use a client, and pull the files down to it's on drive first.

FTP was never designed to do that. It is "file transfer protocol", it is not a file sharing protocol. Most file sharing protocols are designed for LANs, not WANs. Also, Classic OS has it's own share of pain through use of resource forks which make no sense to the rest of the planet.

[Charlieman]

Isn't FTP broken? Most contemporary sites require that the client uses SFTP or FTP over SSL. Not easy on a classic or vintage Mac.

[Mac128]

That reminds me, Mac 128, why don't use just use Zterm on your modern Mac, and MacTerminal on the 128?

MacTerminal 1.1 was the GUI Mac-Like plug-n-play interface. It correctly handles the resource forks on the file so that it does not need to be compressed to be transferred (a bit of a hassle on anything less than System 6). So, you basically find the file you want to send and send it. It shows up on the other Mac exactly the way it appeared under the Classic Finder using ClarisWorks, which uses the MacTerminal 1.1 protocol. I could never get Zterm to work as smoothly and the files never made the transition intact. With MacTerminal, you just double click them and they work. I even wrote to the ZTerm people at one point asking them to add the MacTerminal 1.1 protocol, but it never happened, AFAIK. ClarisWorks was the last communications package I'm aware of which supports the MacTerminal 1.1 protocol.

[porter]

Isn't FTP broken?

(a) clear text passwords

(b) unencrypted communications

(c) client acts as server during transfers

[napabar]

That reminds me, Mac 128, why don't use just use Zterm on your modern Mac, and MacTerminal on the 128?

MacTerminal 1.1 was the GUI Mac-Like plug-n-play interface. It correctly handles the resource forks on the file so that it does not need to be compressed to be transferred (a bit of a hassle on anything less than System 6). So, you basically find the file you want to send and send it. It shows up on the other Mac exactly the way it appeared under the Classic Finder using ClarisWorks, which uses the MacTerminal 1.1 protocol. I could never get Zterm to work as smoothly and the files never made the transition intact. With MacTerminal, you just double click them and they work. I even wrote to the ZTerm people at one point asking them to add the MacTerminal 1.1 protocol, but it never happened, AFAIK. ClarisWorks was the last communications package I'm aware of which supports the MacTerminal 1.1 protocol.

Mac128,

This article from Apple states that MacTerminal supports xmodem. So does ZTerm. Did you try send a file xmodem to xmodem?

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html ... 66&coll=ap

[napabar]

Isn't FTP broken? Most contemporary sites require that the client uses SFTP or FTP over SSL. Not easy on a classic or vintage Mac.

You'd be surprised how much regular FTP is still used by companies.

Mac OS 10.6 shares with standard FTP. I am able to access it with a System 6 Mac and Fetch 2.0. Going through the Root and the Volumes folder, I was also able to access my iDisk.

[porter]

You'd be surprised how much regular FTP is still used by companies.

Another word might be "horrified".

If you are using a guest account and downloading freely available information then no problem, eg just as secure as an HTTP download.

[Mac128]

This article from Apple states that MacTerminal supports xmodem. So does ZTerm. Did you try send a file xmodem to xmodem?

Yup. In fact to use MacTerminal 1.1, the protocol is set to XModem. The same is set under ClarisWorks. For whatever reason this did not work in ZTerm. While it may be XModem protocol, it is not MacTerminal 1.1 compatible, meaning it doesn't keep the resource forks intact in a way MacTerminal Xmodem understands them. This doesn't really surprise me as MacTerminal 2.2 is the highest version which can be used on a 128K, so the vintage version of XModem protocol it uses could be different than the a more modern and standardized version used in ZTerm. Also, MacTerminal 1.1 was a Mac-only legacy transfer protocol which was eliminated with ClarisWorks. I have to imagine that Apple modified the XTerm implementation to allow for encoding and decoding of the resource fork, and likely packet size, none of which would have been necessary on the original CP/M format, or PC driven variants which ZTerm claims to largely support. I just don't see anybody continuing a MacTerminal 1.1 legacy standard which was likely mostly usurped by more efficient ones in the late 80s.

On the other hand, I may not have had the settings adjusted exactly right on ZTerm, so it is worth obtaining the latest version and checking it out.

However, one thing Sheepshaver provides for that I do not believe Leopard does is the ability to use MFSLives to read from MFS disk images under the Finder (as Tiger allows). There is a certain amount of corruption that can occur when an HFS only FInder manipulates an originally MFS written file. Of course anything less than OS 8 on Sheepshaver will read an MFS file allowing that file to be loaded by SheepShaver. This also means all original disk images and Classic SEAs, and other archives, etc. can be kept and run in a "native" environment.

[napabar]

This article from Apple states that MacTerminal supports xmodem. So does ZTerm. Did you try send a file xmodem to xmodem?

Yup. In fact to use MacTerminal 1.1, the protocol is set to XModem. The same is set under ClarisWorks. For whatever reason this did not work in ZTerm. While it may be XModem protocol, it is not MacTerminal 1.1 compatible, meaning it doesn't keep the resource forks intact in a way MacTerminal Xmodem understands them. This doesn't really surprise me as MacTerminal 2.2 is the highest version which can be used on a 128K, so the vintage version of XModem protocol it uses could be different than the a more modern and standardized version used in ZTerm. Also, MacTerminal 1.1 was a Mac-only legacy transfer protocol which was eliminated with ClarisWorks. I have to imagine that Apple modified the XTerm implementation to allow for encoding and decoding of the resource fork, and likely packet size, none of which would have been necessary on the original CP/M format, or PC driven variants which ZTerm claims to largely support. I just don't see anybody continuing a MacTerminal 1.1 legacy standard which was likely mostly usurped by more efficient ones in the late 80s.

On the other hand, I may not have had the settings adjusted exactly right on ZTerm, so it is worth obtaining the latest version and checking it out.

Hmmm. I've just been messing around with ZTerm. I ran it on my LC and PowerMac 6500, and used a printer cable to connect. I was able to send files and apps over, and they retained their resource fork. It would be my expectation that a Mac specific app like this would cover those bases. I have MacTerminal 1.1, but it won't run on my LC, even under System 6. I still think there is a way to make this work. You mind emailing me MacTerminal 2.2 to give it a whirl?

I'm also going to send Dave Alverson an email. His last entry on his ZTerm page was a year ago, where he mentioned he was working on a UB for ZTerm. That would be cool, as I didn't install Rosetta with 10.6, and don't plan to.

There are also some other Terminal programs out there, like MacWise I might give a whirl.

[Mars478]

This is a bit off topic
but...
Shouldn't this topic be in either software or General 68kmla news and stuff?

[napabar]

This is a bit off topic
but...
Shouldn't this topic be in either software or General 68kmla news and stuff?

Nope. Without Mac OS 9 connecting to Snow Leopard, there is no way to bridge a Mac 512k, Plus SE, etc....to a modern Mac using AppleShare.

[Mars478]

This is a bit off topic
but...
Shouldn't this topic be in either software or General 68kmla news and stuff?

Nope. Without Mac OS 9 connecting to Snow Leopard, there is no way to bridge a Mac 512k, Plus SE, etc....to a modern Mac using AppleShare.

But doesn't that mean every Machine?
Its not like only the compacts had AppleTalk?

[JDW]

Some here have mentioned that many companies still use FTP, and that you can still use FTP to "access" old Macs from new. Terminal programs have also been mentioned for "access." I myself am well aware of that, but "limited access" is not the same as the robust file transfers one can perform via AppleTalk. I challenge you to drag and drop your SE/30's hard disk partitions (in my case, some being more than 1GB in size) to your OS 10.6 Intel Mac and do a full backup over Ethernet via FTP or Terminal programs! I've done a complete backup of my SE/30 this way, including System 6.x and 7.x and OS 8.1 system folders, with all files, filenames, custom icons, etc. intact after the transfer, with no special compression or encoding required. That is the big difference. Yes, FTP and terminal apps still provide access. But such "limited access" does not excite me.

[napabar]

Some here have mentioned that many companies still use FTP, and that you can still use FTP to "access" old Macs from new. Terminal programs have also been mentioned for "access." I myself am well aware of that, but "limited access" is not the same as the robust file transfers one can perform via AppleTalk. I challenge you to drag and drop your SE/30's hard disk partitions (in my case, some being more than 1GB in size) to your OS 10.6 Intel Mac and do a full backup over Ethernet via FTP or Terminal programs! I've done a complete backup of my SE/30 this way, including System 6.x and 7.x and OS 8.1 system folders, with all files, filenames, custom icons, etc. intact after the transfer, with no special compression or encoding required. That is the big difference. Yes, FTP and terminal apps still provide access. But such "limited access" does not excite me.

Dude, you've already made that point earlier in this post. No one is arguing with you. We're just discussing alternatives.

[napabar]

This is a bit off topic
but...
Shouldn't this topic be in either software or General 68kmla news and stuff?

Nope. Without Mac OS 9 connecting to Snow Leopard, there is no way to bridge a Mac 512k, Plus SE, etc....to a modern Mac using AppleShare.

But doesn't that mean every Machine?
Its not like only the compacts had AppleTalk?

Re-read my post. The compacts would get to 10.5 through an OS 9 machine as a bridge. Now they cannot. This is a Compact Mac problem. It qualifies.

[Mars478]

bbbbut
don't all of the Machines built in that time period apply as well?
Am I missing something?

[napabar]

bbbbut
don't all of the Machines built in that time period apply as well?
Am I missing something?

I'm missing your point. What is it? Why do you care?

[Mars478]

bbbbut
don't all of the Machines built in that time period apply as well?
Am I missing something?

I'm missing your point. What is it? Why do you care?

Well it would mean that this is in the wrong sub-forum! You know what er just forget it...

[JDW]

No one is arguing with you. We're just discussing alternatives.

Indeed. But your reply indicates you have misinterpreted my intentions. My repeated posts in this thread were aimed at emphasizing my own personal sorrow over Apple's foolish decision to kill of AppleTalk in OS 10.6. Additionally, I in some small way hoped to stimulate further discussion on "real alternatives" to what I in the past had accomplished with a Tiger Mac and an SE/30 via AppleTalk -- namely, the convenient means of speedy drag-and-drop file transfer for a large number of files. But so far, I have not seen any genuine "alternatives" presented here to the functionality that the AppleTalk protocol provided. FTP and Terminal apps are not complete alternatives to the functionality that AppleTalk gave us.

The removal of AppleTalk (especially for printing) from OS X is quite simply a blunder by Apple. Steve Jobs isn't killing AppleTalk so the Mac OS can move forward, as if "maintenance" or "compatibility updating" for the AppleTalk protocol had in any way delayed the release dates of any version of OS X. Jobs did it merely to slash-and-burn the past. Indeed, such also explains why it has taken the man took this long to OK a tablet design. Jobs hated every technological idea related to John Sculley and you will recall how short a time it took him to end axe the Newton (which still bests the iPhone/iPodTouch in some respects). Steve Jobs may be a genius about aesthetically pleasing industrial designs that sell, but he is also a man of extreme pettiness. I therefore am not among my Mac lovers who fear the day Steve Jobs is no longer at the helm in Cupertino. Indeed, it may be of some benefit to see him go. And I say this without ignoring the benefits he has brought to Apple, including the tremendous value he has directly and indirectly brought to the AAPL shares I own.

As to truly off-topic chit chat of whether this thread belongs in the compact Mac forum or not, that is a decision for ~tl alone to decide. As for me, I personally do not think it out of place as it pertains to old compact Macs more than newer Macs. Further, of all the forums on 68kMLA I prefer the Compact Mac forum. It excites me to get the oldest Macs to do things they were never intended to do, which includes networking compact Macs with even the newest Intel Macs running Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard.

[napabar]

No one is arguing with you. We're just discussing alternatives.

Indeed. But your reply indicates you have misinterpreted my intentions. My repeated posts in this thread were aimed at emphasizing my own personal sorrow over Apple's foolish decision to kill of AppleTalk in OS 10.6. Additionally, I in some small way hoped to stimulate further discussion on "real alternatives" to what I in the past had accomplished with a Tiger Mac and an SE/30 via AppleTalk -- namely, the convenient means of speedy drag-and-drop file transfer for a large number of files. But so far, I have not seen any genuine "alternatives" presented here to the functionality that the AppleTalk protocol provided. FTP and Terminal apps are not complete alternatives to the functionality that AppleTalk gave us.

The removal of AppleTalk (especially for printing) from OS X is quite simply a blunder by Apple. Steve Jobs isn't killing AppleTalk so the Mac OS can move forward, as if "maintenance" or "compatibility updating" for the AppleTalk protocol had in any way delayed the release dates of any version of OS X. Jobs did it merely to slash-and-burn the past. Indeed, such also explains why it has taken the man took this long to OK a tablet design. Jobs hated every technological idea related to John Sculley and you will recall how short a time it took him to end axe the Newton (which still bests the iPhone/iPodTouch in some respects). Steve Jobs may be a genius about aesthetically pleasing industrial designs that sell, but he is also a man of extreme pettiness. I therefore am not among my Mac lovers who fear the day Steve Jobs is no longer at the helm in Cupertino. Indeed, it may be of some benefit to see him go. And I say this without ignoring the benefits he has brought to Apple, including the tremendous value he has directly and indirectly brought to the AAPL shares I own.

As to truly off-topic chit chat of whether this thread belongs in the compact Mac forum or not, that is a decision for ~tl alone to decide. As for me, I personally do not think it out of place as it pertains to old compact Macs more than newer Macs. Further, of all the forums on 68kMLA I prefer the Compact Mac forum. It excites me to get the oldest Macs to do things they were never intended to do, which includes networking compact Macs with even the newest Intel Macs running Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard.

Would it be cool if 10.6 had an AppleShare 1.x server and could share to a Mac 512k? You bet it would! Should it at least share back to Classic Macs capable of AppleShare/IP like 10.5 did? Yes. Am I slamming my fists on the table about it? No. Tech moves on and part of that makes the challenge for us to work around it.

I seriously doubt Steve Jobs is PERSONALLY killing off old AFP versions. He really isn't that technical. He's not sitting around the table saying, "Johnny, I want you to kill AFP 1.x in Panther. Phil, kill off AppleTalk for file sharing in Tiger. Bertrand, kill off AFP 2.2 in Snow Leopard." Steve's got bigger fish to fry. These decisions are being made my Apple's software engineers based on real world use vs. testing time. I've said before, only old Apple nerds like us give a damn. Apple sells millions of Macs every year now. How many people play with classics Macs? Honestly?

The Sculley era is filled with many crippled Macs and a geuine inabilty to move forward with new ideas. My God, man, did we really need to run 7.5.5 on a Mac Plus? That's 11 years of support! For what? It ran horrible on 8 MHZ Macs.

Steve's hatred of all things Sculley has been overrated by many. If he hated all things Sculley, why didn't he axe Quicktime? Quicktime was a great technology, and it stayed and evolved to be the backbone of Apple's media services. The reason the Newton was killed is because it WASN"T SELLING WELL. Shocker, I know.

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

[JDW]

Tech moves on and part of that makes the challenge for us to work around it.

"Work around it" has been the inspiration for my posts in this thread. I am curious to hear what robust networking solutions there are beyond FTP and Terminal apps for OS 10.6 to 68k-Mac communication via Ethernet.

Having a number of classic Macs myself I've never had much need to run emulators, although I've launched vMac about a dozen times or so in the past. Is there an emulator that I can run on Snow Leopard that will allow use of the AppleTalk protocol to communicate with my SE/30, such that I can perform all the networking tasks I was able to do previously (such as dragging and dropping entire disk partitions from the SE/30 to make a backup on the modern Mac)?

[beachycove]

I see from Googling that Snow Leopard will also not print to an Appletalk printer. X.5, by contrast, will even print to a localtalk printer (with an Appletalk Router on the network).

There are, of course, workarounds like print servers, but for most people, this kind of tinkering is beyond reach.

IT types may rejoice at the demise of Appletalk, but it is bad for the ordinary user. Appletalk was an excellent protocol for the ordinary user.

[Mac128]

Some here have mentioned that many companies still use FTP, and that you can still use FTP to "access" old Macs from new. Terminal programs have also been mentioned for "access." I myself am well aware of that, but "limited access" is not the same as the robust file transfers one can perform via AppleTalk. ... I in some small way hoped to stimulate further discussion on "real alternatives" to what I in the past had accomplished with a Tiger Mac and an SE/30 via AppleTalk -- namely, the convenient means of speedy drag-and-drop file transfer for a large number of files. But so far, I have not seen any genuine "alternatives" presented here to the functionality that the AppleTalk protocol provided. FTP and Terminal apps are not complete alternatives to the functionality that AppleTalk gave us. It excites me to get the oldest Macs to do things they were never intended to do, which includes networking compact Macs with even the newest Intel Macs running Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard. ... Yes, FTP and terminal apps still provide access. But such "limited access" does not excite me.

First, accessing any files in a method that approaches anything close to the ease of AppleTalk on 128K or 64K ROM MFS system excites the hell out of me! Until I get MacServe 1.0 running on my 128K, MacTerminal will continue to be extremely exciting for me.

Second, I agree, it's really the compact Macs, the 68000 chips that are the most challenged when dealing with AppleTalk issues associated with OS X, and to a lesser degree the 24-bit IIx challenged Macs, of which the SE/30 is one. Any Mac that can run OS 7.6.1 or OS 8 does not necessarily face these issues in the same way and would have a somewhat different discussion.

As for solutions, I still vote for the easiest, which means an intermediary. All 10.6 has done is forced a 10.3 intermediary between 10.6 and the earliest Macs. So a 512K would need to go to an OS 8.1-9.2, to a 10.3, to a 10.6. I have two PowerBooks which would serve this function easily and quietly.

But like you I want to go directly from one into the other.

Is there an emulator that I can run on Snow Leopard that will allow use of the AppleTalk protocol to communicate with my SE/30, such that I can perform all the networking tasks I was able to do previously (such as dragging and dropping entire disk partitions from the SE/30 to make a backup on the modern Mac)?

Yes, Sheepshaver will do that. I can just as easily run AppleTalk out of that environment and share with older partitions. You may not be able to open the connection from the SE/30, but it should work bi-directionally once initiated from the OS X Mac. Of course, 10.6 has broken a number of things, so that is something that will have to be tested and fixed. I'll start looking at SheepShaver to see what can be done with it on 10.6. Of course, any emulator which wants to grab the serial driver for itself, might be able to manipulate the USB/Serial adapter I use with MacTerminal to drive real AppleTalk over the port.

I've asked Paul Pratt to look into this specifically for Mini vMac due to the fact that OS X continues to leave the real Macs further and further behind and no one else seems to be interested in maintaining Apple's Classic environment on the Intel platform.

[LCGuy]

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.

[napabar]

This article from Apple states that MacTerminal supports xmodem. So does ZTerm. Did you try send a file xmodem to xmodem?

Yup. In fact to use MacTerminal 1.1, the protocol is set to XModem. The same is set under ClarisWorks. For whatever reason this did not work in ZTerm. While it may be XModem protocol, it is not MacTerminal 1.1 compatible, meaning it doesn't keep the resource forks intact in a way MacTerminal Xmodem understands them. This doesn't really surprise me as MacTerminal 2.2 is the highest version which can be used on a 128K, so the vintage version of XModem protocol it uses could be different than the a more modern and standardized version used in ZTerm. Also, MacTerminal 1.1 was a Mac-only legacy transfer protocol which was eliminated with ClarisWorks. I have to imagine that Apple modified the XTerm implementation to allow for encoding and decoding of the resource fork, and likely packet size, none of which would have been necessary on the original CP/M format, or PC driven variants which ZTerm claims to largely support. I just don't see anybody continuing a MacTerminal 1.1 legacy standard which was likely mostly usurped by more efficient ones in the late 80s.

On the other hand, I may not have had the settings adjusted exactly right on ZTerm, so it is worth obtaining the latest version and checking it out.

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. Once I did that, the resource fork remained and everything was fine! There may be other configs that work, but the few i tried resulted in the file coming over and loosing the resource fork.

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.