Mac OS 10.7 Lion and Classic Macs

[Emehr]

No more running PowerPC apps on Intel? Hopefully this just a beta thing. Otherwise, what the crap? Not that I mind owning more than one Mac but right now I have one Mac for running Classic PPC apps natively, one Mac for running OSX PPC apps natively, and one Mac for running OSX Intel apps natively. If I had any 68k applications that I needed I would have to fire up my Mac Classic to handle those. Sheesh! People accuse Jobs of not being nostalgic but I disagree. Why else would he be trying so hard to make sure we never sell our old Macs! :lol:

But seriously, what's the harm in retaining Rosetta? Hell, make it a separate, windowed environment if they're worried about customers bitching that some apps don't work with Lion's features (if that's the issue).

Let's see: 68K -> PPC -> Intel. What's next and how soon? I need to be prepared so I know not to get too attached to any Intel apps.

 

[napabar]

No more running PowerPC apps on Intel? Hopefully this just a beta thing. Otherwise, what the crap? Not that I mind owning more than one Mac but right now I have one Mac for running Classic PPC apps natively, one Mac for running OSX PPC apps natively, and one Mac for running OSX Intel apps natively. If I had any 68k applications that I needed I would have to fire up my Mac Classic to handle those. Sheesh! People accuse Jobs of not being nostalgic but I disagree. Why else would he be trying so hard to make sure we never sell our old Macs! :lol:
But seriously, what's the harm in retaining Rosetta? Hell, make it a separate, windowed environment if they're worried about customers bitching that some apps don't work with Lion's features (if that's the issue).

Let's see: 68K -> PPC -> Intel. What's next and how soon? I need to be prepared so I know not to get too attached to any Intel apps.

Shouldn't come as any surprise. Apple has been through so many transitions over the years (2 processor changes and 1 OS change) that it's time to clean house. First Classic apps, then PPC Macs, then PPC apps. Also gone in Lion is 32-bit Macs of any kind. I'm sure Carbon and 32-bit Intel apps will be phased out at some point in the future. I think Apple ultimately wants a pure Intel/64-bit/Cocoa environment.

I don't blame them at all for moving forward, and I'm someone who loves collecting old Macs and making them work with today's Macs. My work in these forums proves that. However, I don't expect Apple to cater to my needs in this regard. I actually think they are doing the right thing by cleaning up their environment. That's more than can be said for Microsoft who, because they don't nudge along users like Apple, I'm stuck supporting 16-bit and DOS apps in my job. Fun times. The Macs that I support are getting blissfully clean.

 

[ClassicHasClass]

I posted on this in the other thread, but I really think Apple is dropping Rosetta too soon. I don't see how having an optional install makes anything less clean, and Rosetta integrates with the OS on a much higher level than Classic did, so it's not a question of security or OS hooks. There is a lot of software in use that never was updated for x86, and some of the companies no longer exist; and many people are not going to want to rebuy certain pro apps (hey, I paid my Adobe tax: another reason why I stay on 10.4). The last Power Mac was sold in 2006, but there were still PPC-only apps being released for some time afterwards.

Microsoft has the right idea, allowing people to run XP in a VM on Windows 7. I don't know why Steve-O doesn't allow this, other than spite or a misguided attempt to enforce a unified platform. Rosetta already exists, so if he doesn't want a VM-type system, I don't get why he just can't throw it in.

 

[napabar]

I posted on this in the other thread, but I really think Apple is dropping Rosetta too soon. I don't see how having an optional install makes anything less clean, and Rosetta integrates with the OS on a much higher level than Classic did, so it's not a question of security or OS hooks. There is a lot of software in use that never was updated for x86, and some of the companies no longer exist; and many people are not going to want to rebuy certain pro apps (hey, I paid my Adobe tax: another reason why I stay on 10.4). The last Power Mac was sold in 2006, but there were still PPC-only apps being released for some time afterwards.
Microsoft has the right idea, allowing people to run XP in a VM on Windows 7. I don't know why Steve-O doesn't allow this, other than spite or a misguided attempt to enforce a unified platform. Rosetta already exists, so if he doesn't want a VM-type system, I don't get why he just can't throw it in.

There are many programs that have broken along with Mac OS X updates, and the company is no longer around, or the developer has lost interest. You don't need the loss of Rosetta for that to happen. Rosetta, like Classic, has always been a stop-gap measure. Most of the recent Mac growth has come since the Intel transition, and those folks have newer software. Also, Mac users in general stay much more up to date than their Windows counterparts. It's a smaller, different demographic, and Apple has feels the time is right. There will always be people who disagree, but it surprises me that those same people always seem shocked by what is Apple's routine Modus operandi.

 

[Emehr]

Cocoa PowerPC apps should be able to run on the Cocoa-based OS X. That's all there is to it. It's surprising to me that some of us accept that this will no longer be the case. Stop-gap or not, Rosetta works and it works seamlessly. There is no convincing reason to eliminate it. They can certainly discourage further PPC development, but hamstringing the existing apps like this for a tidier Expose and prettier version of Launcher is simply unbelievable. I can see this happening in Mac OS 11, but not now in this arbitrary moment.

 

[ClassicHasClass]

Also, Mac users in general stay much more up to date than their Windows counterparts.

To which the counterpoint is the large number of people who keep old Macs around to run old software. So clearly there is a need. I'm not surprised, just disappointed. I'm on 10.4 because of my Classic needs, and it seems I bet right.

But hey, it's not your call or mine and obviously Steve made his. It's only making me more interested in just keeping this G5 running, however. When it stops and there are good choices in Linux-based ARMbooks, I'll be going that route.

 

[Gorgonops]

arbitrary moment.

The word "Arbitrary" pretty much defines the choices Apple has made with regards to what they decide to render obsolete in successive versions of the MacOS ever since... eh, I'll say "Leopard".

Prior to Leopard I for the most part could agree with the reasoning behind, for instance, the choices Apple made when killing off support for older machines, IE, deep-sixing "Old World" machines with Panther, and killing off some more awkward "transitional machines" with Tiger. (I was actually somewhat surprised the B&W G3 and Yikes! G4 made the Tiger cut, since they share the same architecture as the machines they killed. My guess at the time was it would of been politically incorrect to depreciate a G4 model since the G4 was still their bread-and-butter CPU, so because of the "Yikes!" the B&W barely made it under the wire.) When Leopard came out I wasn't particularly surprised by the death of the G3, but what I failed to understand was the *completely arbitrary* CPU speed-based cutoffs. Something sensible like requiring "AGP or better video" or even "Quartz Extreme",would of been justifiable, but what they did created the bizarre situation in which computers *in the same hardware family* could either run Leopard or not depending on what CPU the buyer ponied up for when they bought it. There's no developer/support resourcing justification for that.

Frankly, if this was going to be their modus operandi I'd go out on a limb and say that perhaps what Apple should of done is made Leopard Intel-only and announced that official support for Tiger/PPC would be ending in two or three years from the Leopard introduction. (Within that period there would be regular backports of items like Safari.) The one thing Apple *never* does is give out product timelines or support roadmaps, but this would of been the ideal time to make an exception. Would that have pissed off anyone that bought a G4 or G5 from an Apple store a mere year ago when Leopard came out in 2007? Yeah, no doubt. But, hey, perhaps what they could of done was delay Leopard another six months or so until it was actually finished thus negating the need for ""Snow Leopard" and making a "two year" support cutoff for Tiger that much more justifiable. (It is worth noting that less than two full years elapsed between the discontinuation of the last 68k Mac and the introduction of an OS that ran on PowerPCs only.) If developers had had a clear statement that there was no guarantee that "Rosetta" would be supported in any OS Apple released after, say, July 4th 2010, then it would of been obvious to both vendors and customers that releasing PPC-only software was unacceptable beyond the point that said announcement was made.

 

[napabar]

If developers had had a clear statement that there was no guarantee that "Rosetta" would be supported in any OS Apple released after, say, July 4th 2010, then it would of been obvious to both vendors and customers that releasing PPC-only software was unacceptable beyond the point that said announcement was made.

Releasing PPC only software after the Intel transition was announced in 2005 was unacceptable. For crying out loud, there were Universal Binaries out from some developers prior to the first Intel Macs shipping! Apple had it's act together for developers for the PPC to Intel transition in a way the NEVER did for the 68k to PPC transition. Those two hardware transitions were only superficially similar.

 

[Gazhay]

Firstly, the debate about "more" common and "less" common is lame. I've said my piece, if you are wed to ftp, so be it, it's retro tech.

Secondly, Apple deciding to drop legacy platforms and code is actually a good point, imho.

It is pretty much still possible for you to install Windows 1, and upgrade it all the way to windows 7.

That's twenty plus years of code and files. No-one needs that. (Yes, there is a guy who recently did it, and some windows 2 apps still ran in windows 7)

Apple draws a line in the sand, drops all the old stuff and moves forward. It makes sense. Sure, their lines are a bit arbitrary, come without warning, and can be a tad annoying, (The original iMac with pretty much no way of getting data off it on media) but we adjust fairly quickly.

The floppy decision was right, the Intel decision was right. It's five years since Apple produced a G5 powermac, that's an age in computing, and I'm not surprised that support for PPC apps is gone.

It's always been the Apple way. You get their experience, the way they want you to have it, or not at all.

 

[MacJunky]

(Yes, there is a guy who recently did it, and some windows 2 apps still ran in windows 7)

He used VMware. That is cheating.

 

[JDW]

FTP is FTP

And quite painful it is too. I recently tried to connect my OS 9 PB G3 Wallstreet to my Intel iMac running Lion. NetPresenz 4.1 running on the Wallstreet allows my iMac to see it via Panic's Transmit. However, I absolutely hate FTP. If I drag and drop files from my Lion Mac into Transmit, they get copied right over to the Wallstreet. But then when you double-click on any apps, they don't launch. I'm assuming that it's either the resource fork or the file type/creator data that is being stripped away by the lovely FTP protocol -- something that never happens when you use AppleTalk. And although it can be said that compressing the files will protect them, such is unreasonable if you have numerous files to copy that are in the hundreds of megabytes. You have to compress all that junk and wait until it's done, then copy it all over, then decompress on a much slower CPU (in my case, a Wallstreet).

I am left to wonder, is there no better way?

And no, I am fully away of using a Tiger intermediary machine. But I am asking if there is a better way than FTP to transfer files directly over Ethernet from say a Wallstreet to an Intel Mac running Lion?

 

[beachycove]

Does AppleShare IP work? That is, can a X.7 machine see a machine running it and connect to it?

The latest OS I run is Leopard, but I am able to connect to my ASIP6.3 box from everything I own.

 

[PowerPup]

I think they stripped AppleShare IP out of Mac OS X in Snow Leopard. (Original AppleTalk was available last in what, 10.2 or 10.3?)

One of us need to create a "Netatalk for the rest of us" guide so we can bring back AppleTalk and AppleShare IP for SL and Lion. (I could figure out and make a guide for Tiger, but I don't have 10.5/6/7. )

 

[beachycove]

ASIP will share using both AppleTalk and TCP/IP protocols. There is no file sharing via the AppleTalk protocol from X.5, yet i can connect to my server in X.5, so I can't see why it wouldn't work in X.7.

The other advantage of using ASIP is that it can be an LPR print server for any AppleTalk printer.

For my needs, it is the perfect bridging product.

 

[JDW]

ASIP will share using both AppleTalk and TCP/IP protocols. There is no file sharing via the AppleTalk protocol from X.5, yet i can connect to my server in X.5, so I can't see why it wouldn't work in X.7.

Please provide a direct download URL to the specific software you are recommending.

Or are you speaking of this?:

http://www.os9forever.com/ASIP.html

 

[beachycove]

I am speaking of Apple's late 90s product, AppleShare IP, which came in several iterations (versions 5, 6, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3). I have version 6.3 installed on an 8600/300 604ev running 9.1. It has been stable and very robust for me; others seem to like 6.2 (note that 6.2 has OpenDoc dependencies and cannopt be installed on anything higher than 8.6), but I found the latter somewhat unreliable.

I run this at home, in conjuction with a separate localtalk-ethertalk bridge, meaning that I can connect to the ASIP server from, for instance, a Classic II (and mount a 500 GB drive, which the Classic II, running 7.1, handles perfectly), as well as from Leopard on a MCP or a G5 tower. By the same token, I can connect to the machine over the internet from my office across the city. I seem to recall mounting a share from a Snow Leopard machine in a shop on one occasion, but I cannot swear to it.

It will work very nicely on any G3, 604 or 604e machine capable of booting into 9.1, though it also runs/ staggers along on 601 and select 603ev machines (I think only the 6400 and 6500). It would run fine on your Wallstreet, and with localtalk bridge, or using the built-in AppleTalk multi-homing feature, would allow you to connect to it centrally from just about any machine on your network.

 

[JDW]

I now have AppleShare IP 6.3.3 running nicely on OS 9.2.2, on my Wallstreet. My Wallstreet is connected via Ethernet cable to my Ethernet hub, which in turn connects to my Intel iMac running OS X 10.7.2. The AppleShare server is up and running, and yes I have it setup to allow TCP or AppleTalk connections. I also allow Windows users to connect. I even enabled the FTP protocol. But I cannot connect to the Wallstreet from the iMac.

On the iMac, in a Finder window, after clicking on SHARED in the left sidebar, I can see "All..." I then click on that, and in the right part of the same window it shows me a little computer/blue-screen icon, which is what normally appears when you are connecting to Windows machines. To the very right of that tiny icon is the correct IP address for my Wallstreet. But for whatever reason, it displays with back-slashes, as follows:

192\.168\.24\.53

And under "Kind" it says "PC."

When I double-click it, it tells me "Connection Failed."

Since that didn't work, I click on the Go menu and choose "Connect to Server." I type in the following:

afp://192.168.24.53

But when I click the Connect button, I get an error dialog that says:

There was a problem connecting to the server "192.168.24.53."

The version of the server you are trying to connect to is not supported. Please contact your system administrator to resolve the problem.

What must I do now?

 

[beachycove]

AFP must be the problem. Try entering the IP address only?

 

[beachycove]

Scratch that.

Changes to AFP authentication/ security in Lion are a likely source of trouble. You could try this; it would be interesting to know if it worked for ASIP shares.

 

[protocol7]

It might be overkill, but another option is to run a Linux virtual machine with Netatalk. Use the VM's shared folder option to add your Mac's hard disk (or folders) and share it out via netatalk. I use a similar system here on Windows 7. It's connectible from System 6 to Lion.