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.
I would imagine FTP is in the "Lion Server" components, which are standard now, but not enabled by default.
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.
The full screen apps are optional. They work in either mode.
Switching between them is easy with Mission Control. This is nothing like DOS.
Switching between them is easy with Mission Control. This is nothing like DOS.
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.
Even with the server components installed I still can't find a way to share via FTP. I actually use this every day to share between my Macs and PC so it's absence is notable.
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..
Right, as an authenticated method; there are many better and secure ones. But anonymous FTP is still very common as a way to disseminate files.
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.
He used VMware. That is cheating.
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?