This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mac OS 9 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is misleading to state that Network Browser was new to OS 9, as it was introduced in 8.5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachlutz ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 November 2005
Moved this paragraph here until someone comes up with a source:
Apple had actually implemented protected memory into OS 9, but Steve Jobs ordered it pulled, almost certainly in a move to try to make MacOS X look as best as he could.
I remember reading a developer's CV ages ago, saying he had worked on adding protected memory to the old Mac OS. Although IIRC the CV didn't go into enough detail to say whether the work was complete, or to give a reason why it didn't appear in a production release. I seem to remember he was one of the lead developers on the old Mac OS but didn't transfer over to the Mac OS X team if that helps anyone. AlistairMcMillan 01:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey this is funny. Still can't locate the CV I mentioned up above in November 2004. But I did just find someone else who has read it. "A few posts after his, Gordon Hawley posted a link to a homepage of a former OS 9 engineer who claimed that they actually did get protected memory working in OS 9." [1] AlistairMcMillan 23:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a couple problems with this section:
-- Steven Fisher 19:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OS 9 was not the first PPC-only MacOS, that was 8.5.
This is true. But OS 9.2 was the first G3+ MacOS :)
Recent Macs seem to come with a slightly incomplete Classic. They're lacking the Mac OS 9-only control panels such as Memory. I checked, they're not disabled, they're outright missing. -- Steven Fisher 18:21:32, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
The Memory control panel really could only adjust the disk cache and turn virtual memory on/off. Since Classic doesn't support configurable virtual memory ( instead providing what appears to be a slighly less than 1G address space ), Apple stopped distributing it. Stattenf 03:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The bundle that comes with Tiger (9.2.2) is indeed missing many of the extensions and control panels of the complete OS 9.2.1 CD. One example is CD/DVD support, which I discovered missing when I started up in OS 9.2.2. 71.205.1.189 ( talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a common misconception that Mac OS 9 did not support preemptive multitasking. It did! It's just that most APIs could not be called from preemptive threads. I would be great if someone could fix up this misconception in the article.
Here's a post by René Vega, the author of the Mac OS 8.6/9 nanokernel http://lists.apple.com/archives/Mt-smp/2001/May/msg00007.html
- smcbride 2005-08-25
Didn't Mac OS 9 also introduce tabbed windows? Note: I miss them very much. :) -- Michiel Sikma 22:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
In case you're ever going to write something about support for different languages in Mac OS 9, here's a screenshot to go with it which I took today. I'm not sure if it can be used anywhere, so I'll just leave it here in case it's ever needed. -- Michiel Sikma 10:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been meaning to take a new screenshot of a default set-up of Mac OS 9 for a while now, but the screenshots that I make keep getting corrupted. It seems that they get very subtle random noise on some parts of the image that are barely possible to see unless you zoom in. It seems that the corruption is actually the way the interface is being rendered and not due to the way the screenshots are taken or saved, though. Do you guys know if this can be remedied? -- Michiel Sikma 22:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't really make sense, but all right. Lol...
Anyway, I'm a bit disappointed with the Screenshot; shouldn't it be a more standard shot.. maybe the System Folder open, About This Computer, and a view of the desktop with the default name for the HDD? Also, I think "700MB available" looks a little silly. I have a G3 at home running OS 9 with a 40GB and 120GB HDD... but I'm at college right now. What do you think? Dan 05:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
O_O It's a good thing you don't have a Beige G3 (sort of), or else your computer would be going haywire right now, without a battery. Actually, though, that sort of thing can happen by itself, not necessarily due to a dead battery. Either way, the usual replacement time for a battery in macs of that era is ~3 years, though if you have had it unplugged, it could be as little as a couple months.
I think we should just replace the 700MB, simply because it gives the impression that OS 9 is truly 100% obsolete. Dan 18:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC) P.S., I like the Sherlock picture you added.
It should be able to, but iBook G4s never shipped with MacOS 9, so you'll have to install it.. Dan 20:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... P.S., it appears I cannot possibly take a screenshot of my old Mac... I forgot, I pretty much modified absolutely everything. Even without the Aqua theme (3rd party), the menus all say different things (like, "Magic" in place of Special, my own name in place of "Window," and "Thresher" in place of "Trash." The icons are also all completely different and custom, and it's all quite different from its default shipping settings. Doh. Dan 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
When referring to Mac OS 9 in this, and other articles, we should ALWAYS use the form "Mac OS 9" not "OS 9". Well before Apple changed the naming scheme from System 7 to Mac OS 8, and thus leading to Mac OS 9, there was OS-9. OS-9 was a completely different operating system that ran on other hardware. There was a failed lawsuit by the property owners of OS-9 to force Apple to use another name. I believe that the lawsuit failed in part because Apple ALWAYS uses the the form "Mac OS 9" and never simply "OS 9". Charles Gaudette
Whatever... the makers of OS-9 tried to sue Apple for this, and it was decided that there wasn't nearly enough of a chance of confusion for the case to be reasonable, and it was thrown out. The point is it really isn't that big a deal, and saying "Mac OS 9" all the time sort of looks stupid. . . I'd never even heard of OS-9 until I heard about the lawsuit a few years ago.. and I've not even heard of it since. Plus, you seem to be getting fairly worked up. . .
P.S., sign your name. Dan 21:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
While this is Apple's line officially, it's worth noting that at least one Mac OS X update since then has dumped a new "enabler" into the Classic system folder. Thus, Apple's Classic development did not stop with 9.2.2 but continued for some time. However, I'm not sure how to integrate this with the article. -- Steven Fisher 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It did, though. It was no long Mac OS 9, it was "Classic", integrated into Mac OS X. This is where you could put it. Dan 18:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
What about the mysterious Mac OS 9.3 "Starlight"?
Sonata was the codename for the final OS release roadmapped by Amelio. Since it was still supposed to be delivered before Copland, which was still Mac OS 8, it's original version number was Mac OS 7.9. It was also called Mac OS 8.7 during development, but then that was the case with 8.5 (8.2 in development) and 8.0 (7.7 in development) as well.
I know... I'm not sure why he changed it. Vandalism, I guess. I had it saying it was originally 8.7, then he changed it to 7.9 ... Dan 16:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because vandals are famous for making notes of their edits in the discussion pages, to explain their actions. Apple doesn't seem to archive their press releases that far back, but some googling shows news reports dating from them referring to Sonata as "a version of System 7"
http://db.tidbits.com/article/770 http://news.com.com/Reengineering+the+Apple+OS/2100-1001_3-260169.html
Google for "sonata keynote amelio" if you want more. There was once a webcast of that keynote, but I haven't been able to find it.
The intended feature list for Sonata certainly changed a lot between the original mention of the name and the final release, but if you want the first mention of the release that eventually became OS 9, that's it.
Wow, way to be an asshole for no reason. When I first started using Wikipedia, I vandalised a few pages and made notes. So it's not exactly out of the question.. esp. since some of the other edits were odd. Dan 21:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Could anyone explain what Reference 1 has to do with protected memory? It looks like it's been vandalised. -- Jrothwell 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Is not supported by Apple, but still used... I think the working state should say "Still used"... Does any one agree? Gumbos 01:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to the Clean Up tag by revising the article. I think the biggest problem was a large amount of esoteric information in the introduction. Features also received significant editing. Many of the features passed as new to OS 9 should not have been included, as they were either introduced in 8.5 or 8.6. Comparing OS 8 to OS 9 is baseless, as OS 8.5 was such a huge update, aka one they charged for. Passing off features such as the Network Browser and revised Appearance Control Panel being introduced in OS 9 is false and misleading. Mac OS 9 did not introduce pre-emptive multitasking. This was done in Mac OS 8.6 by integrating it into the nanokernel. In practice, the system was so hampered by its cooperative multitasking heritage that it's merely an academic point rather than anything useful. I've kept as much of the esoteric information as possible and merged it into an expanded trivia section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zachlutz ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
I kept on seeing all these previews for OS 8 (or maybe it was 8.5) and later 9 that showed large icon support, but to my knowledge nothing ever happened. (Was there some way for OS 9 to support large icons, or did Apple pull that feature from OS 9?) Should the article mention that there were plans that were later dropped?
Also, I remember reading rumors that at one point Apple was going to release OS 9.3 which would be a non-bootable Classic-only release, and give Classic apps OS X-like Aqua functionality. (appearance as well as things like dialog and Save & Open boxes) If it ever existed, it was understandably pulled as it would have discouraged OS X development. Did it ever exist, or was that just speculation and not some project from Apple? The company has a lot of secrets and I wish they'd let us know about some of this stuff several years later. What would be the harm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.117.209 ( talk) 04:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it looks as if the large (48x48) icons were to be incorporated into classic Mac OS [2] and the screenshot [3] was likely Rhapsody [4], though I'm not clear if 8.5 actually supported them [5]. Had Mac OS X been delayed long enough for there to be something after OS 9, then 48x48 icons might have been fully supported, but then I'm just speculating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.112.215 ( talk) 02:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
iirc 48x48 icons were officially supported but there was no flag in the filesystem to turn them on in finder —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.193.197.88 (
talk)
13:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Some of the last macs to ship with 9.2.2 and the last os 9 based mac test pro did have a few newer files mainly drivers and the system file / mac os rom then the 9.2.2 download on apple site and that may of had a code name of 9.3 or 9.2.3-- Joe The Dragon ( talk) 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The table showing compatibility in this article is just ridiculously/unnecessarily huge and detailed. None of the other articles for any other version of Mac OS Classic or even Mac OS X have such a monstrous thing embedded in them. Somebody should clean this up, consolidate it down to only the most important information, or get rid of it entirely. Maybe even split it into a different article? Or link to a similar online location to find the information, of which there are many. Dpaanlka ( talk) 17:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Keith claims controversy on: Apple had actually implemented protected memory into OS 9, but Steve Jobs ordered it pulled, almost certainly in a move to try to make MacOS X look as best as he could.
I worked on, was one of the prime developers of the nanokernel project, designed/implemented the built-in multitasking and memory protection interfaces. I did develop a memory protection prototype for the blue task in the form of overlay address spaces for the apps (RW for their own memory, RO for the rest of the common address space). So yes, it existed in dev form, no, it did not go alpha, beta or production because there were a myriad of compatibility issues that needed to be resolved, and yes, I was told to stop working on that (though not by Steve Jobs) in order to create a strong distinction between the legacy Mac OS and the then new MacOS X. All this is an interesting bit of history, but it can be said that the old MacOS was long in the tooth. Modern concepts were increasingly difficult to deliver in that heavily tricked up OS. It is why the Copland project was started. It is why MacOS X finished that modernization process. There comes a time where the decades long effort to maintain deep compatibility makes an OS, or any complex system, very brittle. MacOS was in that state.
So, the accurate statement would be: Apple had actually implemented protected memory into a development version of OS 9, but management ordered it pulled, almost certainly in a move to try to make MacOS X look as best as it could. --ReneV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.251.185.158 ( talk) 20:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I know about how Mac OS 7.5.4 was pulled just before release due to missing components in the installer, but what about Mac OS 9.0.1? -- danikayser84 ★ 21:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mac OS 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.macintouch.com/m90.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
This article repeatedly features confusing wording, referring to the original versions of Mac OS X as "macOS" (the new name given to their latest release of the OS). An example can be seen at the top of the article:
Apple discontinued development of Mac OS 9 in 2001, transitioning all future development to macOS, then named Mac OS X.
As far as I know, this name only refers to the latest release of Mac OS X, and applying it to the early releases of Mac OS X is not only incorrect usage but also creates confusion as to what is actually being talked about. Should this be corrected (refer to the original releases as "Mac OS X")?
Memfrob ( talk) 21:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mac OS 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The Xserve G4 and G5 are not listed in the Apple compatibility page used as the main source for the chart, and they shipped with Mac OS X Server, which didn't come with the Classic Environment by default, but Classic Environment support could be installed on Mac OS X Server up through Server 10.4 (allowing Mac OS 9.2.2 to run in the Classic Environment), and the desktop versions of Mac OS X (with the Classic Environment) could also be installed on an Xserve G4 or G5; either of these routes would allow an Xserve G4 or G5 to run 9.2.2 in the Classic Environment, so should we add the Xserve G4/G5 to the compatibility chart? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 23:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mac OS 9 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is misleading to state that Network Browser was new to OS 9, as it was introduced in 8.5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachlutz ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 November 2005
Moved this paragraph here until someone comes up with a source:
Apple had actually implemented protected memory into OS 9, but Steve Jobs ordered it pulled, almost certainly in a move to try to make MacOS X look as best as he could.
I remember reading a developer's CV ages ago, saying he had worked on adding protected memory to the old Mac OS. Although IIRC the CV didn't go into enough detail to say whether the work was complete, or to give a reason why it didn't appear in a production release. I seem to remember he was one of the lead developers on the old Mac OS but didn't transfer over to the Mac OS X team if that helps anyone. AlistairMcMillan 01:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey this is funny. Still can't locate the CV I mentioned up above in November 2004. But I did just find someone else who has read it. "A few posts after his, Gordon Hawley posted a link to a homepage of a former OS 9 engineer who claimed that they actually did get protected memory working in OS 9." [1] AlistairMcMillan 23:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a couple problems with this section:
-- Steven Fisher 19:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OS 9 was not the first PPC-only MacOS, that was 8.5.
This is true. But OS 9.2 was the first G3+ MacOS :)
Recent Macs seem to come with a slightly incomplete Classic. They're lacking the Mac OS 9-only control panels such as Memory. I checked, they're not disabled, they're outright missing. -- Steven Fisher 18:21:32, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
The Memory control panel really could only adjust the disk cache and turn virtual memory on/off. Since Classic doesn't support configurable virtual memory ( instead providing what appears to be a slighly less than 1G address space ), Apple stopped distributing it. Stattenf 03:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The bundle that comes with Tiger (9.2.2) is indeed missing many of the extensions and control panels of the complete OS 9.2.1 CD. One example is CD/DVD support, which I discovered missing when I started up in OS 9.2.2. 71.205.1.189 ( talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a common misconception that Mac OS 9 did not support preemptive multitasking. It did! It's just that most APIs could not be called from preemptive threads. I would be great if someone could fix up this misconception in the article.
Here's a post by René Vega, the author of the Mac OS 8.6/9 nanokernel http://lists.apple.com/archives/Mt-smp/2001/May/msg00007.html
- smcbride 2005-08-25
Didn't Mac OS 9 also introduce tabbed windows? Note: I miss them very much. :) -- Michiel Sikma 22:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
In case you're ever going to write something about support for different languages in Mac OS 9, here's a screenshot to go with it which I took today. I'm not sure if it can be used anywhere, so I'll just leave it here in case it's ever needed. -- Michiel Sikma 10:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been meaning to take a new screenshot of a default set-up of Mac OS 9 for a while now, but the screenshots that I make keep getting corrupted. It seems that they get very subtle random noise on some parts of the image that are barely possible to see unless you zoom in. It seems that the corruption is actually the way the interface is being rendered and not due to the way the screenshots are taken or saved, though. Do you guys know if this can be remedied? -- Michiel Sikma 22:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't really make sense, but all right. Lol...
Anyway, I'm a bit disappointed with the Screenshot; shouldn't it be a more standard shot.. maybe the System Folder open, About This Computer, and a view of the desktop with the default name for the HDD? Also, I think "700MB available" looks a little silly. I have a G3 at home running OS 9 with a 40GB and 120GB HDD... but I'm at college right now. What do you think? Dan 05:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
O_O It's a good thing you don't have a Beige G3 (sort of), or else your computer would be going haywire right now, without a battery. Actually, though, that sort of thing can happen by itself, not necessarily due to a dead battery. Either way, the usual replacement time for a battery in macs of that era is ~3 years, though if you have had it unplugged, it could be as little as a couple months.
I think we should just replace the 700MB, simply because it gives the impression that OS 9 is truly 100% obsolete. Dan 18:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC) P.S., I like the Sherlock picture you added.
It should be able to, but iBook G4s never shipped with MacOS 9, so you'll have to install it.. Dan 20:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... P.S., it appears I cannot possibly take a screenshot of my old Mac... I forgot, I pretty much modified absolutely everything. Even without the Aqua theme (3rd party), the menus all say different things (like, "Magic" in place of Special, my own name in place of "Window," and "Thresher" in place of "Trash." The icons are also all completely different and custom, and it's all quite different from its default shipping settings. Doh. Dan 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
When referring to Mac OS 9 in this, and other articles, we should ALWAYS use the form "Mac OS 9" not "OS 9". Well before Apple changed the naming scheme from System 7 to Mac OS 8, and thus leading to Mac OS 9, there was OS-9. OS-9 was a completely different operating system that ran on other hardware. There was a failed lawsuit by the property owners of OS-9 to force Apple to use another name. I believe that the lawsuit failed in part because Apple ALWAYS uses the the form "Mac OS 9" and never simply "OS 9". Charles Gaudette
Whatever... the makers of OS-9 tried to sue Apple for this, and it was decided that there wasn't nearly enough of a chance of confusion for the case to be reasonable, and it was thrown out. The point is it really isn't that big a deal, and saying "Mac OS 9" all the time sort of looks stupid. . . I'd never even heard of OS-9 until I heard about the lawsuit a few years ago.. and I've not even heard of it since. Plus, you seem to be getting fairly worked up. . .
P.S., sign your name. Dan 21:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
While this is Apple's line officially, it's worth noting that at least one Mac OS X update since then has dumped a new "enabler" into the Classic system folder. Thus, Apple's Classic development did not stop with 9.2.2 but continued for some time. However, I'm not sure how to integrate this with the article. -- Steven Fisher 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It did, though. It was no long Mac OS 9, it was "Classic", integrated into Mac OS X. This is where you could put it. Dan 18:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
What about the mysterious Mac OS 9.3 "Starlight"?
Sonata was the codename for the final OS release roadmapped by Amelio. Since it was still supposed to be delivered before Copland, which was still Mac OS 8, it's original version number was Mac OS 7.9. It was also called Mac OS 8.7 during development, but then that was the case with 8.5 (8.2 in development) and 8.0 (7.7 in development) as well.
I know... I'm not sure why he changed it. Vandalism, I guess. I had it saying it was originally 8.7, then he changed it to 7.9 ... Dan 16:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because vandals are famous for making notes of their edits in the discussion pages, to explain their actions. Apple doesn't seem to archive their press releases that far back, but some googling shows news reports dating from them referring to Sonata as "a version of System 7"
http://db.tidbits.com/article/770 http://news.com.com/Reengineering+the+Apple+OS/2100-1001_3-260169.html
Google for "sonata keynote amelio" if you want more. There was once a webcast of that keynote, but I haven't been able to find it.
The intended feature list for Sonata certainly changed a lot between the original mention of the name and the final release, but if you want the first mention of the release that eventually became OS 9, that's it.
Wow, way to be an asshole for no reason. When I first started using Wikipedia, I vandalised a few pages and made notes. So it's not exactly out of the question.. esp. since some of the other edits were odd. Dan 21:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Could anyone explain what Reference 1 has to do with protected memory? It looks like it's been vandalised. -- Jrothwell 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Is not supported by Apple, but still used... I think the working state should say "Still used"... Does any one agree? Gumbos 01:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to the Clean Up tag by revising the article. I think the biggest problem was a large amount of esoteric information in the introduction. Features also received significant editing. Many of the features passed as new to OS 9 should not have been included, as they were either introduced in 8.5 or 8.6. Comparing OS 8 to OS 9 is baseless, as OS 8.5 was such a huge update, aka one they charged for. Passing off features such as the Network Browser and revised Appearance Control Panel being introduced in OS 9 is false and misleading. Mac OS 9 did not introduce pre-emptive multitasking. This was done in Mac OS 8.6 by integrating it into the nanokernel. In practice, the system was so hampered by its cooperative multitasking heritage that it's merely an academic point rather than anything useful. I've kept as much of the esoteric information as possible and merged it into an expanded trivia section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zachlutz ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
I kept on seeing all these previews for OS 8 (or maybe it was 8.5) and later 9 that showed large icon support, but to my knowledge nothing ever happened. (Was there some way for OS 9 to support large icons, or did Apple pull that feature from OS 9?) Should the article mention that there were plans that were later dropped?
Also, I remember reading rumors that at one point Apple was going to release OS 9.3 which would be a non-bootable Classic-only release, and give Classic apps OS X-like Aqua functionality. (appearance as well as things like dialog and Save & Open boxes) If it ever existed, it was understandably pulled as it would have discouraged OS X development. Did it ever exist, or was that just speculation and not some project from Apple? The company has a lot of secrets and I wish they'd let us know about some of this stuff several years later. What would be the harm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.117.209 ( talk) 04:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, it looks as if the large (48x48) icons were to be incorporated into classic Mac OS [2] and the screenshot [3] was likely Rhapsody [4], though I'm not clear if 8.5 actually supported them [5]. Had Mac OS X been delayed long enough for there to be something after OS 9, then 48x48 icons might have been fully supported, but then I'm just speculating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.112.215 ( talk) 02:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
iirc 48x48 icons were officially supported but there was no flag in the filesystem to turn them on in finder —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.193.197.88 (
talk)
13:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Some of the last macs to ship with 9.2.2 and the last os 9 based mac test pro did have a few newer files mainly drivers and the system file / mac os rom then the 9.2.2 download on apple site and that may of had a code name of 9.3 or 9.2.3-- Joe The Dragon ( talk) 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The table showing compatibility in this article is just ridiculously/unnecessarily huge and detailed. None of the other articles for any other version of Mac OS Classic or even Mac OS X have such a monstrous thing embedded in them. Somebody should clean this up, consolidate it down to only the most important information, or get rid of it entirely. Maybe even split it into a different article? Or link to a similar online location to find the information, of which there are many. Dpaanlka ( talk) 17:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Keith claims controversy on: Apple had actually implemented protected memory into OS 9, but Steve Jobs ordered it pulled, almost certainly in a move to try to make MacOS X look as best as he could.
I worked on, was one of the prime developers of the nanokernel project, designed/implemented the built-in multitasking and memory protection interfaces. I did develop a memory protection prototype for the blue task in the form of overlay address spaces for the apps (RW for their own memory, RO for the rest of the common address space). So yes, it existed in dev form, no, it did not go alpha, beta or production because there were a myriad of compatibility issues that needed to be resolved, and yes, I was told to stop working on that (though not by Steve Jobs) in order to create a strong distinction between the legacy Mac OS and the then new MacOS X. All this is an interesting bit of history, but it can be said that the old MacOS was long in the tooth. Modern concepts were increasingly difficult to deliver in that heavily tricked up OS. It is why the Copland project was started. It is why MacOS X finished that modernization process. There comes a time where the decades long effort to maintain deep compatibility makes an OS, or any complex system, very brittle. MacOS was in that state.
So, the accurate statement would be: Apple had actually implemented protected memory into a development version of OS 9, but management ordered it pulled, almost certainly in a move to try to make MacOS X look as best as it could. --ReneV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.251.185.158 ( talk) 20:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I know about how Mac OS 7.5.4 was pulled just before release due to missing components in the installer, but what about Mac OS 9.0.1? -- danikayser84 ★ 21:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mac OS 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.macintouch.com/m90.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
This article repeatedly features confusing wording, referring to the original versions of Mac OS X as "macOS" (the new name given to their latest release of the OS). An example can be seen at the top of the article:
Apple discontinued development of Mac OS 9 in 2001, transitioning all future development to macOS, then named Mac OS X.
As far as I know, this name only refers to the latest release of Mac OS X, and applying it to the early releases of Mac OS X is not only incorrect usage but also creates confusion as to what is actually being talked about. Should this be corrected (refer to the original releases as "Mac OS X")?
Memfrob ( talk) 21:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mac OS 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The Xserve G4 and G5 are not listed in the Apple compatibility page used as the main source for the chart, and they shipped with Mac OS X Server, which didn't come with the Classic Environment by default, but Classic Environment support could be installed on Mac OS X Server up through Server 10.4 (allowing Mac OS 9.2.2 to run in the Classic Environment), and the desktop versions of Mac OS X (with the Classic Environment) could also be installed on an Xserve G4 or G5; either of these routes would allow an Xserve G4 or G5 to run 9.2.2 in the Classic Environment, so should we add the Xserve G4/G5 to the compatibility chart? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 23:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)