Thread
Mac OS 10.7 Lion and Classic Macs
Hey guys, just installed the developer release of Lion and here are my findings so far:
1. AppleShare. Starting with 10.6, Classic Macs were no longer able to connect to modern Macs using AFP with TCP/IP. However, Mac OS 9 was able to share using AFP with TCP/IP. This is no longer the case. The last AFP link to the Classic Mac OS is gone. It looks like it's FTP only from now on. I expected this to be the case with Lion, which is why I've so heavily invested in my FTP experiments some of you may have read about.
2. FTP. To make matters worse, FTP is no longer an option to share files on Lion. It's just AFP and SMB. This perplexed me. Perhaps it will be added later, but I doubt it. Rumpus sales will be up!
3. Power PC and Classic apps. No more Rosetta. Power PC apps have a line through them just like Classic Mac apps do. Launching them produces a message that says PPC apps are no longer supported. I also expected this one. At least Lion still detects Classic Mac apps for what they are. I figure someday resource forks are going to go away, and they'll just look like unknown documents.
4. HFS disks. Yup, they still mount as read only, but at least nothing has changed here since 10.6. I expect this to hang around for a couple more releases, before going the way of the 400K MFS disk, and be unreadable.
1. AppleShare. Starting with 10.6, Classic Macs were no longer able to connect to modern Macs using AFP with TCP/IP. However, Mac OS 9 was able to share using AFP with TCP/IP. This is no longer the case. The last AFP link to the Classic Mac OS is gone. It looks like it's FTP only from now on. I expected this to be the case with Lion, which is why I've so heavily invested in my FTP experiments some of you may have read about.
2. FTP. To make matters worse, FTP is no longer an option to share files on Lion. It's just AFP and SMB. This perplexed me. Perhaps it will be added later, but I doubt it. Rumpus sales will be up!
3. Power PC and Classic apps. No more Rosetta. Power PC apps have a line through them just like Classic Mac apps do. Launching them produces a message that says PPC apps are no longer supported. I also expected this one. At least Lion still detects Classic Mac apps for what they are. I figure someday resource forks are going to go away, and they'll just look like unknown documents.
4. HFS disks. Yup, they still mount as read only, but at least nothing has changed here since 10.6. I expect this to hang around for a couple more releases, before going the way of the 400K MFS disk, and be unreadable.
Having used a few dev releases in the past it isn't uncommon for whole features to come and go.
It doesn't surprise me about backwards compatability, its in part a marketing decision.
Ftp is an 'older' protocol now, so i could see it being dropped. If the underlying tech is gone i'm sure there are plenty of alternatives. Pureftpd springs to mind first.
I'm sure the built in web server will remain, so there is still the option to dump files in that directory and download with a browser, a simple script would enable the reverse to allow uploads.
It's going to be more uncomfortable, but not impossible.
It doesn't surprise me about backwards compatability, its in part a marketing decision.
Ftp is an 'older' protocol now, so i could see it being dropped. If the underlying tech is gone i'm sure there are plenty of alternatives. Pureftpd springs to mind first.
I'm sure the built in web server will remain, so there is still the option to dump files in that directory and download with a browser, a simple script would enable the reverse to allow uploads.
It's going to be more uncomfortable, but not impossible.
I doubt FTP's age had anything to so with it. It's still the most widely used protocol for file transfers. It wasn't added into the OS until Mac OS X, so it's much "newer" to the Mac OS than AppleShare/AFP, and FTP and UNIX are joined at the hip in terms of history.
I'm about as jaded as they come on the subject of the "new" Apple's blatant policy of shoving planned obsolescence down our throats as fast as possible, but... I'll admit that even surprises me a little. It's been less than five full years since the last new PowerMac left an Apple showroom. (I'd swear Apple store still had them as refurbs into 2007, for that matter.) I wonder if anyone mentioning "PowerPC" at Apple headquarters in anything but a spiteful tone now is immediately given demerits and forced to stand in a corner for twenty minutes. :^b
I haven't seen it first-hand yet, but the "Lion" feature that simply cracks me up every time I hear it described is "Full Screen Apps". Granted Apple has been spitting all over the idea of adhering to anything approaching "User interface guidelines" ever since they put those vertical window controls into iTunes, but the idea of encouraging application writers to take over the whole machine with their own "kiosk mode" interfaces is, uhm... an abomination? Can you say "DOS"? I knew you could.
Word is that there is only 64-bit support too. I'm not really sure what that means in the Apple world as the C2D in my MacBook is 64-bit but the EFI is 32-bit. So not only is PowerPC/Rosetta gone, but possibly the early Intel generations are too.
Edit: Just saw imac600's review and he appears to have the same MacBook as I have. So maybe it is just the Core Duos and below that are affected.
Edit: Just saw imac600's review and he appears to have the same MacBook as I have. So maybe it is just the Core Duos and below that are affected.
Switching between "full-screen apps" was pretty easy with Software Carousel or DESQview as well. That didn't improve the level of UI consistency between the programs you ran under them much. ;^)
Partially what I find funny about this is not that long ago I was dealing with having to set up a Mac Mini to drive a television to display web-based monitoring statistics, and the coworker who'd done several previous setups was using a complicated "zoom" hack to make Firefox "look" fullscreen because Kiosk mode explicitly *didn't* work on normal Mac browsers. Luckily I found this to use instead. It just amuses me how Apple's pendulum has swung so far the other way; now any silly "trendy" and "gadgety" thing they dream up for their iPod/phone interfaces makes it into "Real" OS X sooner than later. (Remember how insanely excited Apple was over shoehorning "Cover Flow" into every freaking part of iLife and the OS they could a few years ago?) When it comes to consistency over time they're worse than Microsoft now, if that's at all possible. Of course, I guess if your goal is to keep reselling to the "it's newer and shinier, it must be better!" crowd then you don't have a whole lot of choice.
Partially what I find funny about this is not that long ago I was dealing with having to set up a Mac Mini to drive a television to display web-based monitoring statistics, and the coworker who'd done several previous setups was using a complicated "zoom" hack to make Firefox "look" fullscreen because Kiosk mode explicitly *didn't* work on normal Mac browsers. Luckily I found this to use instead. It just amuses me how Apple's pendulum has swung so far the other way; now any silly "trendy" and "gadgety" thing they dream up for their iPod/phone interfaces makes it into "Real" OS X sooner than later. (Remember how insanely excited Apple was over shoehorning "Cover Flow" into every freaking part of iLife and the OS they could a few years ago?) When it comes to consistency over time they're worse than Microsoft now, if that's at all possible. Of course, I guess if your goal is to keep reselling to the "it's newer and shinier, it must be better!" crowd then you don't have a whole lot of choice.
This makes a lot of sense frankly. There's no use bemoaning Apple's abandonment over what are now 25 year old GUI features. Apple is a company and as such is interested in growing and drawing new, younger users into using it's products. To that end, I think it makes an enormous amount of sense to modify the UI to mirror the products that the majority of its customers are buying, in order to entice them into its computing platform. The fact that these features are optional is the best possible move they could make. This allows someone like me, who could care less about some of these iOS features running on my Mac, to keep going the way I have been, while simultaneously allowing the iOS users to extend that experience to their desktops. That said, I like the iOS, but its not suitable for every task I perform on the computer. But that's just me. Others approach the computer differently, and for that reason, I think this is ultimately a very smart move on Apple's part. If I were being forced to use it, much like cover flow, which I can turn off, then I would be whistling a different tune for sure.
napbar, have you by any chance tried MFSLives? Snow Leopard broke it, so I'm wondering if they've Fixed it, or if that solution to reading MFS is just completely gone now? Either way, I suspect if HFS is taken away in the near future, even more than MFS, someone will implement a similar add-on to maintain readability.
I dunno, I find the UI just plain inconsistent from the screen shots I'm seeing. I appreciate Apple working on new methods of interaction, but I don't want an appliance on my desk, I want a damn computer.
The problem with them being optional now is that Jobs Inc. has a long history of making optional dubious interface choices mandatory later. "We'll let you get used to it now. Later it will be too late."
Losing PPC *and* this strangely dumbed down interface? Well, I wasn't going to drop my G5 for awhile, but now simply dropping Mac altogether when it's time to upgrade and moving to Ubuntu looks better and better. At least I can get my work done in it.
Oh well, Tiger forever.
The problem with them being optional now is that Jobs Inc. has a long history of making optional dubious interface choices mandatory later. "We'll let you get used to it now. Later it will be too late."
Losing PPC *and* this strangely dumbed down interface? Well, I wasn't going to drop my G5 for awhile, but now simply dropping Mac altogether when it's time to upgrade and moving to Ubuntu looks better and better. At least I can get my work done in it.
Oh well, Tiger forever.
Well said, Mac128.
No, I haven't tried MFS lives, but i seriously doubt it. It will need to be re-written. With virtual file systems like MacFuse, we should be seeing something like this come along for HFS and MFS.
I was still able to connect to my Mac 512K with Lion. No surprise there really. FTP is FTP.
No, I haven't tried MFS lives, but i seriously doubt it. It will need to be re-written. With virtual file systems like MacFuse, we should be seeing something like this come along for HFS and MFS.
I was still able to connect to my Mac 512K with Lion. No surprise there really. FTP is FTP.
Well, FTP pre-dates AppleTalk. It has been in decline for many years and plain ftp is (and should be) fairly uncommon now. SSL-FTP and SSH transfers are far more secure.
Since Apple's policy is to support the new and more secure, dropping the old and insecure is far from surprising imho.
As an aside, many linuxes dont ship with ftp either.
RE: FTP - Uncommon? Seems to me that it is one of the more common networking tools out there, and not going away anytime soon. My company uses it every day to move order, customer, and other data around its corporate network. I frequently use it in my personal internet travels. Since it is just a simple daemon compiling it on a modern mac should be easy, no exotic dependencies. And if you can get the daemon running, making a GUI for it is even easier - there is no real programming involved because it has already been done.
RE: iOS GUI, I don't know, that's why I use Path Finder. The Finder, Launcher, etc were never very good IMO. They've always been oversimplified.
RE: iOS GUI, I don't know, that's why I use Path Finder. The Finder, Launcher, etc were never very good IMO. They've always been oversimplified.
Yup, very uncommon in serious web development and development environments. As stated, horribly insecure and any serious computer person or business will use it through SSL or just use a SSH type of transfer.
SSH being preferred because of it's much superior security, and no need for an extra daemon on top of the SSH server.
As for a server, a two minute google shows Macports has at least one server, and Macports also has netatalk for appletalk compatability too.
As i said, inconvenient, but Apple are not going to maintain slow, outdated and/or insecure protocols for hobbyists.
SSH being preferred because of it's much superior security, and no need for an extra daemon on top of the SSH server.
As for a server, a two minute google shows Macports has at least one server, and Macports also has netatalk for appletalk compatability too.
As i said, inconvenient, but Apple are not going to maintain slow, outdated and/or insecure protocols for hobbyists.
I would agree, as far as AppleTalk and older versions of AFP with TCP/IP, but there is nothing "hobbyist" about FTP. It is not proprietary, and it is still the most widely used file transfer protocol out here. FTP is married to UNIX, and still available in the command line of Lion. All we know is that Apple has removed the server portion of it from the GUI of the first developer release of Lion.
If this plays out with the final release of Lion, maybe Panic can add a FTP server to Transmit, or Maxum can develop a lite version of Rumpus..
I don't buy that either. However, it is a separate argument, we are speaking the ftp server built into a home computer.
No-one is going to use their home Lion box or laptop to host anonymous FTP ?!
Direct links from web browsers, cloud based sites like Megupload, DropBox etc etc, far more common these days than FTP, even anonymous ftp.
In fact, a lot of the anonymous ftp sites, now have browser interfaces, some still use ftp to for the file download (usually handled in browser) but some are pure http transfers without ftp at all.
As I said, it's really not a big deal, it's in macports, one command will install one for you.
No-one is going to use their home Lion box or laptop to host anonymous FTP ?!
Direct links from web browsers, cloud based sites like Megupload, DropBox etc etc, far more common these days than FTP, even anonymous ftp.
In fact, a lot of the anonymous ftp sites, now have browser interfaces, some still use ftp to for the file download (usually handled in browser) but some are pure http transfers without ftp at all.
As I said, it's really not a big deal, it's in macports, one command will install one for you.
More common, sure. But that doesn't make anonymous FTP uncommon. People have been trying to kill it off for years and it survives.
I prefer Gopher to FTP for simply serving collections of files but that's perpendicular to this discussion, and I'm sure you have strong opinions about that too.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. )
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. )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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Beachy, thanks for the link, but I am only more confused. I posted a comment on that fellow's blog. What I don't understand is:
1) Will this work to enable AppleShare IP servers too?
2) Why must the password be in clear text?
3) Why does the server need to be added to a "disable" list? And HOW does one do that for an AppleShare IP server?
4) What is the original discussion in Apple's Developer forum, from which this blogger found this solution? His URL links to nothing other than the root level of the Apple Developer Forum itself.
And so by not knowing the details, I cannot attempt that yet.
protocol7, I haven't the faintest idea how to setup a Linux virtual machine in Lion. To do that, I will need some serious hand-holding. But I will admit that when the word "Linux" is used, it sounds to me like it would be "more trouble than it's worth."
Lastly, I will add this. I am quite surprised that among all our members here on the 68kMLA, no one has yet found a way to overcome this obstacle in getting an OS 9 machine to network (with something other than the nasty FTP protocol) to a OS X Lion machine). Does this mean few have tried? Or does it mean many have tried, failed, and then neglected to post their experiences here for all to read?
1) Will this work to enable AppleShare IP servers too?
2) Why must the password be in clear text?
3) Why does the server need to be added to a "disable" list? And HOW does one do that for an AppleShare IP server?
4) What is the original discussion in Apple's Developer forum, from which this blogger found this solution? His URL links to nothing other than the root level of the Apple Developer Forum itself.
And so by not knowing the details, I cannot attempt that yet.
protocol7, I haven't the faintest idea how to setup a Linux virtual machine in Lion. To do that, I will need some serious hand-holding. But I will admit that when the word "Linux" is used, it sounds to me like it would be "more trouble than it's worth."
Lastly, I will add this. I am quite surprised that among all our members here on the 68kMLA, no one has yet found a way to overcome this obstacle in getting an OS 9 machine to network (with something other than the nasty FTP protocol) to a OS X Lion machine). Does this mean few have tried? Or does it mean many have tried, failed, and then neglected to post their experiences here for all to read?
AppleShare IP isn't going to help any. It doesn't have a version of AFP any "higher" or "better" than what it's contemporary client version was. Anyway you shake it, AFP 3.0 or higher (Introduced in Mac OS X) is needed these days.
I don't have too much of a problem using FTP. It's easy to bach convert multiple files to BinHex and copy them with FTP. Heck, a quick AppleScript will do both! I even wrote a BinHex app in the Mac App Store for these purposes, but there is no secret sauce. It can all be done for free with a quick script.
FTP server can be turned back on in Lion with a simple terminal command.
I'd be happy to help anybody out with these things.
I don't have too much of a problem using FTP. It's easy to bach convert multiple files to BinHex and copy them with FTP. Heck, a quick AppleScript will do both! I even wrote a BinHex app in the Mac App Store for these purposes, but there is no secret sauce. It can all be done for free with a quick script.
FTP server can be turned back on in Lion with a simple terminal command.
I'd be happy to help anybody out with these things.
It is also possible to upload and download files through the web server in ASIP. Download works best if files are zipped or otherwise compressed. If there is no index.html file in the relevant (i.e., the webserver's shared) directory, you get a directory listing similar to the one you get in personal websharing. Upload works through adding the suffix /.upload (I think it is) to the IP address of the server in a browser. It is similar to the /.admin feature.
So that might well allow basic file transfer to and from a X.7 box.
So that might well allow basic file transfer to and from a X.7 box.
I want a way to transfer files via Ethernet "intact" that doesn't force me to encode or compress the files and then decode/decompress them on the receiving machine. And that is why I loath FTP. Sure, it's easy to encode the files I want to transfer, on my fast iMac. But if I am transferring hundreds of megs of stuff over to a 266MHz single CPU Wallstreet, it takes a good while to decode/decompress that stuff. It's time consuming and bothersome. But with AFP transfers, you can transfer files "as is" and the files won't get destroyed in the process.
Napabar, if "AFP3 compatibility" is all that is required for me to connect my Intel iMac running Lion to my Wallstreet running OS 9.2.2, how then does the following Wiki say that "Mac OS 9.1 or later is recommended for connecting to AFP 3.x servers; for versions of original Mac OS prior to 9.1, installation of the AppleShare client 3.8.8 is required"???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Filing_Protocol
Napabar, if "AFP3 compatibility" is all that is required for me to connect my Intel iMac running Lion to my Wallstreet running OS 9.2.2, how then does the following Wiki say that "Mac OS 9.1 or later is recommended for connecting to AFP 3.x servers; for versions of original Mac OS prior to 9.1, installation of the AppleShare client 3.8.8 is required"???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Filing_Protocol
JDW, the AppleShare Client number (In your example 3.8. 8) has nothing to do with the AFP server version. They are not related.
Mac OS 9 can connect to AFP servers with 3.0. It looks like Snow Leopard introduced AFP 3.3, which broke the ability of Mac OS 9 to connect to it. In Lion, on the client side, something changed that made it unable to connect to AFP versions prior to 3.0. (Mac OS 9 uses 2.1 or 2.2 IIRC)
Heck, it might even have broke 3.0, but I don't have a 10.1 machine around here to test.
Mac OS 9 can connect to AFP servers with 3.0. It looks like Snow Leopard introduced AFP 3.3, which broke the ability of Mac OS 9 to connect to it. In Lion, on the client side, something changed that made it unable to connect to AFP versions prior to 3.0. (Mac OS 9 uses 2.1 or 2.2 IIRC)
Heck, it might even have broke 3.0, but I don't have a 10.1 machine around here to test.
Is that 10.5 Leopard, or 10.6 Snow Leopard?
By the way, the specific directory you were speaking of is:
Macintosh HD > usr > sbin > AppleFileServer
However, if you use FileBuddy (or something similar that can show hidden files), you will see that the "AppleFileServer" at that location is nothing more than a Symbolic Link. That link leads to the real file in this path:
Macintosh HD > System > Library > CoreServices > AppleFileServer > Contents > MacOS
Where AppleFileServer in that case is a 2.7MB application sitting inside the folder "CoreServices."
Doing a GetInfo on that application file, there is no "version" info given. The Modified date is Oct. 13, 2011, and the Created date is June 14, 2011.
I have a Snow Leopard install handy, so assuming the version from Snow Leopard works, the only question is, "what negative implications are there in using the older version app?"
Snow Leopard won't help you. You cannot connect from Mac OS 9 to Snow Leopard (However, you can do the reverse). The AFP service in Snow Leopard is too new. You'll need the AFP service in plain old Leopard.
Interesting idea from bbraun. I have a Leopard disc. Might have to give this a try. Leopard worked great bi-directioanlly with even 68K Macs that could do TCP over AppleShare.
Interesting idea from bbraun. I have a Leopard disc. Might have to give this a try. Leopard worked great bi-directioanlly with even 68K Macs that could do TCP over AppleShare.
From what I recall, it was the transition from 10.4.x Tiger to 10.5 Leopard that broken things. Things that worked well in Tiger died when Leopard came on the scene. As such, it makes no logical sense whatsoever that any flavor of AppleFileServer in 10.5.x or 10.6.x would resolve our OS9 networking woes in Lion. And if one sets his eyes on Tiger, it would be helpful to read through the following information:
About using the version from 10.4.8 to replace the broken version that Apple dumped on us in 10.4.9:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-10328290-263.html
About how to hack the version in 10.4.9 so you don't need to use the version from 10.4.8:
http://www.macuser.de/forum/f6/mac-os-9-a-274539/#post3062557
Scroll to the bottom and see the last post on this page too:
http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/macosx10_4_9/topic4564.html#d25jun2007
A note from Apple which implies that the version from 10.4.11 solves all problems, eliminating any need to use the version from 10.4.8 or a hacked version of 10.4.9:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TA24698?viewlocale=en_US
So if Apple is telling us the truth, then AppleFileServer.app from 10.4.11 should suffice (assuming bbraun is giving us the straight scoop on this app-swap actually working to restore OS9 networking with Lion). But if Apple was giving us a bogus story, then one must either use the version from 10.4.9 (with Terminal hack) or use the version from 10.4.8.
I need to get myself off to work, and I have a late nigher today, so I probably won't be about to test this in the next 24 hours. However, if one of you would like to do so, by all means! Furthermore, if this does work, it would make logical sense to prepare the AppleFileServer.app file for convenient download. Once this gets published, I imagine that most here would want to download it to get their older OS 8.6 and OS 9 Macs networking with modern Macs running Lion.
About using the version from 10.4.8 to replace the broken version that Apple dumped on us in 10.4.9:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-10328290-263.html
About how to hack the version in 10.4.9 so you don't need to use the version from 10.4.8:
http://www.macuser.de/forum/f6/mac-os-9-a-274539/#post3062557
Scroll to the bottom and see the last post on this page too:
http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/macosx10_4_9/topic4564.html#d25jun2007
A note from Apple which implies that the version from 10.4.11 solves all problems, eliminating any need to use the version from 10.4.8 or a hacked version of 10.4.9:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TA24698?viewlocale=en_US
So if Apple is telling us the truth, then AppleFileServer.app from 10.4.11 should suffice (assuming bbraun is giving us the straight scoop on this app-swap actually working to restore OS9 networking with Lion). But if Apple was giving us a bogus story, then one must either use the version from 10.4.9 (with Terminal hack) or use the version from 10.4.8.
I need to get myself off to work, and I have a late nigher today, so I probably won't be about to test this in the next 24 hours. However, if one of you would like to do so, by all means! Furthermore, if this does work, it would make logical sense to prepare the AppleFileServer.app file for convenient download. Once this gets published, I imagine that most here would want to download it to get their older OS 8.6 and OS 9 Macs networking with modern Macs running Lion.
Leopard works great with System 7.5.3 through 9.2.2 using TCP over AppleShare.
The guys over at System 7 today even recommend 10.5 over 10.4.
Read the second paragraph at the following link.
http://main.system7today.com/articles/leopard/index.html
The guys over at System 7 today even recommend 10.5 over 10.4.
Read the second paragraph at the following link.
http://main.system7today.com/articles/leopard/index.html
That's what PM's are for, bbraun.
napabar, I appreciate the link. It sheds no light on whether the app-swap will work, but it does indicate that an app-swap from OS 10.5 Leopard may work. But again, only a test of such will prove it. I have Tiger and Snow Leopard and Lion, but I don't have Leopard to test. So my test will be relegated to the app I find in Tiger. However, if you find the app in Leopard works, I am happy to "accept a PM."
This statement is calling in to question the validity of my assertion, without providing supporting evidence. In other words, calling me a liar, which isn't a very nice thing to do. If you don't understand what I'm saying, or are unsure whether my suggestion will work for your situation, feel free to ask. For example: "What do you mean by works for you?" and "What was your test?" or "Why does replacing /usr/sbin/AppleFileServer work when it's a symlink on Lion?" are all valid and polite questions to ask.
I've also been wrong plenty of times, and if you have specific evidence that what I'm saying is false, bring that up! But to call my statement into question with no supporting evidence, or worse supporting evidence that isn't even relevant to the question at hand, it's not a very polite thing to do. Particularly when this is something really simple to try, it'll take all of maybe a minute. All I'm trying to do here is help you.
I highly recommend actually trying it before pontificating about how it will/won't work.
On Lion:
- Go to System Preferences -> Sharing and enable File Sharing
- On OS9, go to Chooser -> AppleShare, click Server IP Address... and enter the IP or hostname of your Lion machine
- Notice it will display a protocol error.
- On your Lion machine, in Terminal.app do:
Code:
sudo mv /usr/sbin/AppleFileServer /usr/sbin/AppleFileServer.orig
sudo cp /Volumes/Leopard/usr/sbin/AppleFileServer /usr/sbin/AppleFileServer- For good measure, on your Lion machine go to System Preferences -> Sharing and disable then reenable File Sharing
- On OS9, go to Chooser -> AppleShare, click Server IP Address... and enter the IP or hostname of your Lion machine
- You should be presented with the familiar dialog to log in as guest or authenticate as a user. I authenticated as my local user, and it presents the dialog for what volume to mount. I chose my home directory.
And why does this work when AppleFileServer is a symlink to /S/L/CS/AppleFileServer.app/Contents/MacOS/AppleFileServer?
Services are typically started by launchd on OSX, so finding the AppleFileServer launchd plist that tells launchd how to launch AppleFileServer will tell us how the service is launched. The launchd man page documents places where it looks for its config files. A little investigation reveals /System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.AppleFileServer.plist. In it we find:
Code:
ProgramArguments
/usr/sbin/AppleFileServerAs a side note, there is a little sleight of hand going on here, since as of SnowLeopard launchd notion of services and their state is actually a composite of configuration information stored in multiple locations. /S/L/LD/com.apple.AppleFileServer.plist is just one of those. But, it is sufficient for the task at hand.
As for obtaining the Leopard AppleFileServer binary, the binary is copyright Apple and no one here has the legal right to give it to you. It is my understanding of the forum rules that asking someone else to violate the law, and use the forum's PM feature to do so, is not allowed. But, I am not a mod, and it is up to the mods whether blatant use of the forum's private message feature for illegal activities is allowed. Personally, I would just like to ask that you don't do it publicly. What you communicate with others in private is your own business, but I would prefer the forums did not become a place to beg for illegal software.
[polite mode]
Prior to reading this thread today, I came to have the ability to scientifically test and verify the kind suggestion of bbraun in this thread; namely, the suggestion that the substitution of Lion (or Snow Leopard's) "AppleFileServer.app" (Macintosh HD > System > Library > CoreServices > AppleFileServer.app) would restore good old fashion Chooser networking between an OS 9 machine and a modern Mac. I am pleased to report, and most thankful to bbraun, that an AppleFileServer.app from OS X 10.5 Leopard does in fact do precisely what bbraun said it would.
More specifically, I conducted a test with AppleFileServer.app version 4.0.4 and found that version of the app worked to restore networking between my OS 9.2.2 PowerBook G3 Wallstreet PDQ 266MHz (128MB RAM) and my OS X Lion 10.7.2 Nov. 2009 2.8GHz Intel iMac i7 (8GB RAM) via Ethernet (a hub in between both machines). I am not sure why there is no version number in the GetInfo box for the OS X 10.7 Lion edition of AppleFileServer, but it is an observation I wish to mention. Based upon my scientific test (which amounts to following bbraun's advice, and proving his advice is undeniably true on my particular computing setup), I will make the personal assumption that any version of this AppleFileServer.app contained within OS 10.5.x Leopard, as well as any version of AppleFileServer.app contained within OS 10.4.x Tiger, will accomplish the same magic of restoring networking between an OS 9 Mac and a modern Mac running even the latest (as of this writing) OS 10.7.2 Lion (even though I have not scientifically tested those other versions to prove it).
For those of you wishing to test this for yourself, here are the steps that match what I did:
1) Apple Menu > System Preferences > Sharing > make sure "File Sharing" is unticked
2) Macintosh HD > System > Library > CoreServices > drag "AppleFileServer" to the Desktop (you'll need to Authenticate to do that)
3) ZIP "AppleFileServer" on your Desktop, then drag the ZIP file back into the "CoreServices" folder. (This makes it easy for you to restore the Lion version, if you wish.)
4) Drag your OS 10.4.x Tiger or OS 10.5.x Leopard version of "AppleFileServer" into the "CoreServices" folder.
5) Apple Menu > System Preferences > Sharing > tick "File Sharing" to enable it — you don't need to log-out or restart at all
6) On your OS 9 machine: Apple Menu > Chooser > AppleShare > Server IP Address... > enter the IP address of your Snow Leopard or Lion machine
7) You can now login using the same user that you established on your Snow Leopard or Lion machine.
With that said, please know that I am not in any way saying that bbraun's suggestion of using Terminal commands won't work. I simply did not test the Terminal command method because I am one of those quacky types who prefers a GUI over text commands (even if one contends the text commands may be a simpler solution). But feel free to choose whichever method you desire.
Previously, I posted the question: "what negative implications are there in using the older version app?" That question remains unanswered, but thus far I have not seen any crashing or other odd problems. So for the time being, it would appear that there are no "negative implications" in reverting back to an older edition of "AppleFileServer."
In closing, I must give honor and thanks to bbraun for having brought this excellent solution to our attention. It is unfortunate that this method isn't more widely preached. For truly, I had Googled for a significant amount of time prior to reading bbraun's excellent suggestion and had come up empty handed. But now my hands are full and I am rejoicing! I therefore can only hope that others in my shoes (no doubt there are many) will find their way to this thread and reach the solution. Had this only been about me, I would have kept the discussion off-list, exclusively in the realm of PMs. But I publicly posted here in hopes that whatever solution was found would benefit our vintage Mac community. Thank you once again, bbraun, for presenting that solution to us.
[/polite]
The Fine Print: Take care to respect the legal rights of others, especially big corporations. And while it is true that the two Steves refused to respect those legal rights in the 1970's by the manufacture and sale of highly illegal Blue Boxes that resulted in direct financial loss for phone companies, and while Apple itself perhaps would not even exist had those illicit acts never taken place, and despite Steve Jobs himself proclaiming that "great artists steal" while flying a pirate flag over the Mac team's headquarters, we today nevertheless must follow the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law, in consideration that modern day lawyers are empowered to pounce on individual vintage computing users who dare copy an otherwise hidden-from-view file from an OS X install to another, even for personal use. If you are unsure about your legal rights in this matter consult a lawyer. Always read the fine print. Never break the law. Be polite. Be respectful. And above all, definitely do not use mind altering substances while perusing the Whole Earth Catalog — the world is only big enough for one Apple.
Prior to reading this thread today, I came to have the ability to scientifically test and verify the kind suggestion of bbraun in this thread; namely, the suggestion that the substitution of Lion (or Snow Leopard's) "AppleFileServer.app" (Macintosh HD > System > Library > CoreServices > AppleFileServer.app) would restore good old fashion Chooser networking between an OS 9 machine and a modern Mac. I am pleased to report, and most thankful to bbraun, that an AppleFileServer.app from OS X 10.5 Leopard does in fact do precisely what bbraun said it would.
More specifically, I conducted a test with AppleFileServer.app version 4.0.4 and found that version of the app worked to restore networking between my OS 9.2.2 PowerBook G3 Wallstreet PDQ 266MHz (128MB RAM) and my OS X Lion 10.7.2 Nov. 2009 2.8GHz Intel iMac i7 (8GB RAM) via Ethernet (a hub in between both machines). I am not sure why there is no version number in the GetInfo box for the OS X 10.7 Lion edition of AppleFileServer, but it is an observation I wish to mention. Based upon my scientific test (which amounts to following bbraun's advice, and proving his advice is undeniably true on my particular computing setup), I will make the personal assumption that any version of this AppleFileServer.app contained within OS 10.5.x Leopard, as well as any version of AppleFileServer.app contained within OS 10.4.x Tiger, will accomplish the same magic of restoring networking between an OS 9 Mac and a modern Mac running even the latest (as of this writing) OS 10.7.2 Lion (even though I have not scientifically tested those other versions to prove it).
For those of you wishing to test this for yourself, here are the steps that match what I did:
1) Apple Menu > System Preferences > Sharing > make sure "File Sharing" is unticked
2) Macintosh HD > System > Library > CoreServices > drag "AppleFileServer" to the Desktop (you'll need to Authenticate to do that)
3) ZIP "AppleFileServer" on your Desktop, then drag the ZIP file back into the "CoreServices" folder. (This makes it easy for you to restore the Lion version, if you wish.)
4) Drag your OS 10.4.x Tiger or OS 10.5.x Leopard version of "AppleFileServer" into the "CoreServices" folder.
5) Apple Menu > System Preferences > Sharing > tick "File Sharing" to enable it — you don't need to log-out or restart at all
6) On your OS 9 machine: Apple Menu > Chooser > AppleShare > Server IP Address... > enter the IP address of your Snow Leopard or Lion machine
7) You can now login using the same user that you established on your Snow Leopard or Lion machine.
With that said, please know that I am not in any way saying that bbraun's suggestion of using Terminal commands won't work. I simply did not test the Terminal command method because I am one of those quacky types who prefers a GUI over text commands (even if one contends the text commands may be a simpler solution). But feel free to choose whichever method you desire.
Previously, I posted the question: "what negative implications are there in using the older version app?" That question remains unanswered, but thus far I have not seen any crashing or other odd problems. So for the time being, it would appear that there are no "negative implications" in reverting back to an older edition of "AppleFileServer."
In closing, I must give honor and thanks to bbraun for having brought this excellent solution to our attention. It is unfortunate that this method isn't more widely preached. For truly, I had Googled for a significant amount of time prior to reading bbraun's excellent suggestion and had come up empty handed. But now my hands are full and I am rejoicing! I therefore can only hope that others in my shoes (no doubt there are many) will find their way to this thread and reach the solution. Had this only been about me, I would have kept the discussion off-list, exclusively in the realm of PMs. But I publicly posted here in hopes that whatever solution was found would benefit our vintage Mac community. Thank you once again, bbraun, for presenting that solution to us.
[/polite]
The Fine Print: Take care to respect the legal rights of others, especially big corporations. And while it is true that the two Steves refused to respect those legal rights in the 1970's by the manufacture and sale of highly illegal Blue Boxes that resulted in direct financial loss for phone companies, and while Apple itself perhaps would not even exist had those illicit acts never taken place, and despite Steve Jobs himself proclaiming that "great artists steal" while flying a pirate flag over the Mac team's headquarters, we today nevertheless must follow the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law, in consideration that modern day lawyers are empowered to pounce on individual vintage computing users who dare copy an otherwise hidden-from-view file from an OS X install to another, even for personal use. If you are unsure about your legal rights in this matter consult a lawyer. Always read the fine print. Never break the law. Be polite. Be respectful. And above all, definitely do not use mind altering substances while perusing the Whole Earth Catalog — the world is only big enough for one Apple.
] ]'>Hi Everybody,
I'd like to take a moment to add two things to this:
1. Keep it Civil. Both with your words toward other forum members, and in your words to organizations and persons outside of the community. Apple's lawyers aren't going to go "oh haha, well then" when they come here and start asking me for lots of money for having violated their copyrights on certain bits of Mac OS X.
2. Speaking of Mac OS X binaries -- please follow the law! This isn't a piracy forum, and re-packaging some of the Mac OS X bits and posting them here or even transmitting them via the PM system is just not a good plan.
Best,
Cory W.
I'd like to take a moment to add two things to this:
1. Keep it Civil. Both with your words toward other forum members, and in your words to organizations and persons outside of the community. Apple's lawyers aren't going to go "oh haha, well then" when they come here and start asking me for lots of money for having violated their copyrights on certain bits of Mac OS X.
2. Speaking of Mac OS X binaries -- please follow the law! This isn't a piracy forum, and re-packaging some of the Mac OS X bits and posting them here or even transmitting them via the PM system is just not a good plan.
Best,
Cory W.
One thing I should add to my 7-step post is that OS updates may overwrite whatever older version AppleFileServer.app you use. It's unlikely Apple updates that app with every OS update, but I cannot say if the OS update process would remove it or not. So while a bit troublesome, you may wish to move the Lion version back before you do the OS update, or at the very least check to see if your old version app is still present after the OS update.
And now I wish to formally apologize if some of my remarks upset folks here. It is my heart's desire to get along with everyone, but I occasionally fail at that. In all honestly, I can be an inconsiderate imp at times. And while my "Fine Print" was made half jokingly, let it not be misconstrued -- I certainly do not advocate theft. Apologies to bbraun, to Trash80toHP_Mini and to our forum moderators, who do an excellent and painstaking job of keeping us on the right track. I also wish to thank protocol7 for mentioning the freely downloadable OS 10.5.8 Combo Update and Pacifist.
All said, I consider this thread a success. My opening post was written in search of way to restore networking (without resorting to FTP) between legacy OS 9 Macs and modern Macs running Lion. And thanks to your kind participation and suggestions, especially that of bbraun, we have achieved that.
May you all have a very Merry Christmas and a glorious 2012!
And now I wish to formally apologize if some of my remarks upset folks here. It is my heart's desire to get along with everyone, but I occasionally fail at that. In all honestly, I can be an inconsiderate imp at times. And while my "Fine Print" was made half jokingly, let it not be misconstrued -- I certainly do not advocate theft. Apologies to bbraun, to Trash80toHP_Mini and to our forum moderators, who do an excellent and painstaking job of keeping us on the right track. I also wish to thank protocol7 for mentioning the freely downloadable OS 10.5.8 Combo Update and Pacifist.
All said, I consider this thread a success. My opening post was written in search of way to restore networking (without resorting to FTP) between legacy OS 9 Macs and modern Macs running Lion. And thanks to your kind participation and suggestions, especially that of bbraun, we have achieved that.
May you all have a very Merry Christmas and a glorious 2012!
Just got a chance to try it out with 9.1 and 8.6. Works great! Thanks to bbraun, JDW, and protocol7 for their posts!
Just to clarify, this only fixes mounting a Lion share on a Pre-OS X Mac that can do AppleShare over TCP/IP. The client in Lion still won't mount the same classic Mac's share. Snow Leopard did. I wonder if there's an easy way to swap the Lion client out!
Just to clarify, this only fixes mounting a Lion share on a Pre-OS X Mac that can do AppleShare over TCP/IP. The client in Lion still won't mount the same classic Mac's share. Snow Leopard did. I wonder if there's an easy way to swap the Lion client out!