8 Dec
2005
8 Dec
'05
1:13 p.m.
Well, the
situation isn't nearly that dire; there's Basilisk II and
SheepShaver, both of which do have native OS X builds. But you have to
run them within an emulator, which is kludgey and not nearly as
integrated -- if not elegant -- as Classic is.
I'll have to look at SheepShaver, I've not heard of it. Last I
looked, Basilisk II isn't really what I'm after, though it might be
fine for the games. I don't have to wonder why they stopped, I've
seen the writing on the
wall for a while now. How many people run Classic app's under Mac OS
X? I'm under the impression that most users don't even bother with
installing the classic emulation.
My two recent Mac conversions haven't, no. They're happy with Carbon and
Cocoa apps.
A perfect example of Apple ditching legacy support is
Classic
Appletalk. It wasn't in 10.0, and I don't think it was in 10.1, it
was in 10.2 and 10.3, BUT, they removed it from 10.4. Once they'd
added it in, how much trouble was it to keep it in there????
Granted, for most people this didn't cause problems, but it's caused
one person I know of to move to Linux, and it caused me to have to
spend some serious time upgrading Samba on my VMS server, as I use
Appletalk to allow my Mac to access my VMS box. BTW, I'm back on
10.3 and probably will be for a while, but that's because I think
10.4 is a waste of resources, and 10.3 does all I need. Until I need
to run an app that requires 10.4, I don't think I'll be upgrading
(and I bought 10.4 the day it came out)!
Actually, my desktop is still on 10.2 ... on purpose. My file server runs
10.3, and my laptop runs 10.4.
--
--------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- A dean is to faculty as a hydrant is to a dog. -- Alfred Kahn --------------