Trying to optimize Os X Classic Environment

[IIO]

Not like this isn't right up there in the header?

yes, but see... "it doesnt support GPU acceleration and RAM".

[GaryN]

You guys DO know you're just wasting time don't you?

Mr. Rik was clearly offended that we didn't adequately appreciate his groundbreaking efforts to twist Tiger and Classic into a new knot suitable for playing ancient games.

It will certainly take him some time to recover his composure and un-snit himself during which he will undoubtedly keep busy trying to perfect his "new" OS so as to humble the Forum upon his triumphant return.
Considering the very very small odds that he'll succeed however, it may be some time before we see him again.

Or not……

[Jubadub]

Oh snap, I found this thread too late, only after I posted comments elsewhere about the project idea.

Well, since this topic will be left here for anyone to check anyway, I might as well point out that, although this project had (before the user snapped and dropped his brain on the floor on his way out) some merit to it in thought, it turned out ultimately pointless since Panther's Classic, like Tiger's, is broken and crippled. From direct comparisons, it did not seem like Panther's Classic was any less bad than Tiger's. Try running Hexen on both and see for yourselves: it's equally horrible and unplayable.

Then you run it (or any other Classic-compatible app) on 10.2.8 Jaguar instead. The results? Marvelous. Could almost (or literally?) pass off as a natively-run Mac OS 9 app.

And this guy WAS made aware of Jaguar's Classic's superiority beforehand. So WHY in the world has he gone for Panther?! If he had actually read online around carefully, be it here, at Apple's forums, MacRumors and about everywhere else on the internet that discusses Mac matters, by far MOST complaints about Classic surround Panther/Tiger, with its transition from Jaguar. And by far MOST Tiger Classic complaints were NOT in defense of Panther Classic, but Jaguar's. Which is funny, as he made it sound like as if he had actually looked around and knew better, but clearly didn't.

And he didn't even leave behind the exact steps he took to replace the two Classic versions. Now that could have been helpful to know and confirm. But not even that. The whole effort goes to trash, along with his attitude.

The Purist will always talk about native booting. I like your approach.

Please check the first post of

http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,2947.0.html

in case it could help you for future revisions.

The purist definitely will. But so will anyone actually wanting to run their programs. So essentially everyone, purist or not.

I like the approach, as well, because it serves a purpose, but as any reasonable person would also know, it is also not an OS 9 substitute. No direct access to the bare metal. Faulty software compatibility. And then there are the merits of OS 9 as an operating system itself, both in design and functionality.

Oh well. Let's hope we see Tiger (and Panther) running a decent version of Classic someday, for what Classic is worth.

[DieHard]

Jubadub,

That response was so well evaluated and stated, thank you for the comments.

I think we all got so flustered at the time with his attitude, that we skipped the fact that running classic mode is an important part of the puzzle for those who don't need to use audio interfaces and other hardware peripherals directly in Mac OS 9 (I am not a retro Gamer).

It is great to know (for those are searching for the info) that Jaguar hosts a better classic environment

[Mat]

I know it is off topic, but I have to say it clear once again: What an impudence that we still have to deal with insufficient virtualizations and/or emulations regarding our beloved Operating System. Even 20 years later we have to deal with a situation where Apple pushed us into, that has in general nothing to do with our OS, but with the bad implementations into another Unix OS, …
Just imagine if we would have never had to deal with any "Classics" any  X and in consequnce with no carbonization. Runnung our Mac OS without all that drawbacks, advertizing, marketing, controll, etc. at recent Power 9 Machines

Last week I sat for the first time in front of a Windows 10 machine, and I could not belive that people are accepting this as system at all.

Nevertheless, thanks to people thinking about Classic, and improvement ideas, even if it has nothing to do with Mac OS 9.

[IIO]

nobody said classic enviroment would be useless.

but most people would agree that OSX PPC is less useful than OS9.

and the guy suggested that classic enviroment would be the best way to run OS9 - which is triple layer nonsense.

CE fills a very small gap for OS9-native but OS8-(and therefore emulations)incompatible programs, under the condition that your only computer is a G5.

as soon as you have a modern machine - or a G4 which can boot into 9 - you simply dont need the result of this attempt.

[Hopfenholz]

Having spent about 100 hours trying to get any one of three separate 12” PowerBook G4s up and running booting native MacOS 9.2.2 I am interested in a “best in class” Classic solution.

Downloading Jaguar now...

[DieHard]

Having spent about 100 hours trying to get any one of three separate 12” PowerBook G4s up and running booting native MacOS 9.2.2 I am interested in a “best in class” Classic solution.

Downloading Jaguar now...

Sorry you have place so much effort into the later G4 PowerBooks, there is no solution that gets them fully working under OS 9; however, we did document which models have varying degrees of success. I believe, as stated, this is still correct...

In fact, there are only 2 PowerBook G4 Aluminum models with possible full graphics support in Mac OS 9.2.2; the Apple PowerBook G4 867 12" with GeForce4 420 Go (4X AGP) and the PowerBook G4 1.0 Ghz 17" Aluminum with NVIDIA GeForce4 440 Go (4X AGP). We know the models with the ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 (4X AGP) will NOT give us full graphics support in Mac OS 9.

So, if graphic acceleration under OS9 is needed, these aluminum units would be the only choice.  The Radeon 9600 and GeForce FX Go5200 will both be enigmas until we can get a graphics driver written for either of them... and I doubt we can make that happen.  Also, we have Ethernet and cardbus issues.  Even with these drawbacks, the PowerBook G4 1.0 Ghz 17" Aluminum is still a great alternative for those playing games or creating a DAW environment that does not need to be online.

More info here:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,3912.0.html

[Hopfenholz]

Absolutely... I don’t necessarily need acceleration per se, just native res and Thousands of colours or better would be nice.

I’ll do a separate post on my findings with the 3 G4s  - definitely getting closer to my goal!

Cheers,

Joel

[drzeissler]

You are talking about the Jazz2 mac-os-port? seriously? that port is ugly stuttering and lagging mess compared to the win95 port. If you want to play Jazz2 like it's supposed to be than take the win95 version, use a PCI or early gfx-card or an early intel-igp (the later ones are broken too) and setup 640x400 at 8bit and choose "hardware-mode". you can tell the difference instantly. The game will switch the monitor to a 70hz mode (my TFT L367 is switched to 720x400/70Hz) and the game will be butterly smooth. I was shocked how bad the mac-os port is.