-
Hello MLAers! We've re-enabled auto-approval for accounts. If you are still waiting on account approval, please check this thread for more information.
Snow Leopard and Classic Mac OS
- Thread starter napabar
- Start date
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.
"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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Last edited by a moderator:
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!
Duh, it's in French! LOL
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!
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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
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!
Similar threads
