Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nanopico]

One thing is sure. Developers keep studying daily for them to be updated to sell products for the latest technology and not get themself obsolete, while some musicians can be happy with a 20 years old OS. We are different kind of Mac lovers!

This is very true, sort of.  Yes we are always studying to move forward and keep up so we don't become trapped in a corner.
The info learned over the years doesn't disappear, it may take a bit to recall it but it usually comes back pretty quick.
Most developers who are at least somewhat good, will learn concepts and general rules on how things work. Beyond that it's just another language and there really isn't a lot of difference.  If you specialize in OS dev, there are lot of concepts that are the same between modern OS's and 40 year old OS's, it's usually just the implementation that differs.  (Yes I am aware there are many many differences between modern software and ancient software, but the concepts of a lot of them are the same).

To me the hardest thing as a dev is not so much keeping up with the latest stuff, but learning old stuff that has little for documentation that can be found any more.  I've been a professional developer for the past 15 years.  I get paid for creating enterprise level applications.  One of the things we specialize in is porting legacy applications.  So I have to learn languages and systems from 15-30 years ago to know how they work so I can bring them up to the modern age.  This is what I do every single day. I've spent a lot of my own time learning, studying and exploring OS development.

Point is that with my background of being able to dig into old systems and learn them,  the level of knowledge I've attained in OS concepts and my love for Mac OS 9 is the big reason why I have decided to tackle this huge undertaking of extending the OS.

[Jakl]

Keep up the good work - I know I can only speak for myself but I appreciate all the effort you're putting in - from the bottom of my heart. 

[IIO]

lots

not sure what your point is. the geforce 4 is the card which G4 were mainly shipped with, so it should not be a surprise that it works.

only x8 cards dont work in OS9 because they dont like x4 slots.

[nsputnik]

I think you all might better spend your time expanding SheepShaver.  Getting USB working through the host machine would be wonderful.  The fact is that the hardware machines that would run a 9.3 will not last forever and there are few parts available to fix them.  But SheepShaver can last forever, even if the host OS's are abandoned there will probably be emulators, allowing for nested emulation.

Or, if Steve Chamberlin and Till Harbaum can help or recommend some way to have a hobbyist PPC computer manufactured and then firmware written as they have with MIST FPGA 68k I can see 9.3 making sense.
http://www.bigmessowires.com/2015/10/22/plus-too-mac-replica-new-progress/
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1272302-are-there-any-powerpc-dev-boards-for-hobbyists/

Maybe it can run on this?
https://www.power.org/solution/p-cubed/

Here is a new emulator that seems to be a sort of MAME for computers:
http://wiki.qemu.org/Main_Page

Thats good since this project seemed to be stalled out: http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/about.html

[nanopico]

I think you all might better spend your time expanding SheepShaver.  Getting USB working through the host machine would be wonderful.  The fact is that the hardware machines that would run a 9.3 will not last forever and there are few parts available to fix them.  But SheepShaver can last forever, even if the host OS's are abandoned there will probably be emulators, allowing for nested emulation.

Or, if Steve Chamberlin and Till Harbaum can help or recommend some way to have a hobbyist PPC computer manufactured and then firmware written as they have with MIST FPGA 68k I can see 9.3 making sense.
http://www.bigmessowires.com/2015/10/22/plus-too-mac-replica-new-progress/
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1272302-are-there-any-powerpc-dev-boards-for-hobbyists/

Maybe it can run on this?
https://www.power.org/solution/p-cubed/

Here is a new emulator that seems to be a sort of MAME for computers:
http://wiki.qemu.org/Main_Page

Thats good since this project seemed to be stalled out: http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/about.html

This may be true, but there are three reasons for targeting the OS to update.
1. To support newer hardware so that we are not dependent on old hardware that will become more and more scarce.
2. Updating the OS can actually add improvements to make it work better under emulations.
3. It's a challenge that's fun.

I have considered offering to help with Sheepshaver in the future.  Having a more detailed understanding of the OS to run in an emulator can help improve the emulator as well.

[Mat]

nsputnik , I´d like that you consider a few more thoughts about your posting:

•) Emulation
Emulation is never the real thing! I´ve never used Sheepshaver, but my experiances with "Classic" from Mac OS X show me that this is not comparable with a native OS!
I don´t think that with a reasonable amout of work a good PPC emulator can be done that makes Mac OS 9 really usable for everyday task.

•) We are not talking about Retro Hardware! People are really using their Mac OS 9! All the hardware stuff for music for example (see the Protools hardware, ...) will never be usable with an Emulator or an FPGA machine.

•) FPGA/MiST
The MiST is a nice plattform for 80ies Atari Stuff (games,...), but it has even not enough computing power for real recent Atari programs, if we are talking about modern Atari-usage. If it comes to Internet usage, it is totally underpowered, and we are even not talking about FreeMiNT usage (a modern Atari Multitasking System). The situation with FPGAs will not change much in near future, and a G4 will not be outpowered by any End-User-FPGA in the next 15 to 20 years. Beside the fact, that modelling a G4 core is a real huge task! You would need a good team working on it for years! Se how long Wolfgang Förster needed for the 68030 for his Suska boards (and the MiST just got a 68000), can you imagine how complicated a G4 core woudl be? Belive me I know what I am talking about.

•) Hardware Availability
You get G4s for free or the real good stuff like MDDs for 100 bucks recently. And not many people like to use them recently. We are taking about 30 Million computers or something that can boot Mac OS 9 natiely. I am quite sure that the availability of native Mac OS 9 hardware is of no concern the next one or two decades.

[MacTron]

I think you all might better spend your time expanding SheepShaver.

We have real hardware with G4s between 1Ghz and 2Ghz, therefore emulators like SheepShaver are absolute out of business, especially if they run in x86 CPUs that can't actually emulate a  PPC, the future ARM version may have a better lucky ...

[DieHard]

Dear nsputnik,

Please do not feel like we are beating you up, and we do appreciate your input... but I will quote myself from our main website in response to your post...

There is no "Class" in "Classic"
Without getting too bogged down in the technical jargon; the computer must be capable of booting to Mac OS 9 directly and without OS X present whatsoever. This is as opposed to running OS 9 via the “Classic Environment” (a hardware and software abstraction layer in Mac OS X that allows OS 9 applications to run on Mac OS X). The main problem with Classic is that it does not allow the direct access to hard drives and audio cards (if you're building an audio or video studio Mac). Retro gaming also benefits greatly from booting directly to OS 9. Tiger was the last to support the Classic Environment and Leopard and Lion need to "shave sheep," so take my advise and spend less money and get some classic hardware for your classic OS

[nsputnik]

nsputnik , I´d like that you consider a few more thoughts about your posting:

•) Hardware Availability
You get G4s for free or the real good stuff like MDDs for 100 bucks recently. And not many people like to use them recently. We are taking about 30 Million computers or something that can boot Mac OS 9 natively. I am quite sure that the availability of native Mac OS 9 hardware is of no concern the next one or two decades.

OK, I get it but it but let's be honest, most of those machines are in landfills, as much as it pains me to think about this.  And what happens when a power supply goes out?  These machines are ok for the time being but the goal should be to eventually migrate to modern hardware like PCubed (if it is actually available).

[nsputnik]

nsputnik , I´d like that you consider a few more thoughts about your posting:

•) FPGA/MiST

I am not suggesting you get OS9 to run on FPGA/MiST, I know it will not work. But on something modern like PCubed https://www.power.org/solution/p-cubed/

[nsputnik]

This may be true, but there are three reasons for targeting the OS to update.
1. To support newer hardware so that we are not dependent on old hardware that will become more and more scarce.
2. Updating the OS can actually add improvements to make it work better under emulations.
3. It's a challenge that's fun.

I have considered offering to help with Sheepshaver in the future.  Having a more detailed understanding of the OS to run in an emulator can help improve the emulator as well.

Ok, point taken, everyone.

[Mat]

These machines are ok for the time being but the goal should be to eventually migrate to modern hardware like PCubed (if it is actually available).

I really belive that your analysis is wrong. There is no problem in getting Mac Os 9 hardware at all. Have a look at the 68k Macs. There is no problem to get 68k Macs as well, and those are 20 years old now. I can send you some 68k Macs if you need them
The point I am seeing is that the availability of High End upgrades is bad. Some 2GHz G4s would be needed for a reasonaable price, sure. But as said there are enough MDDs out there working quite well. Any "development energy" is - in my opinion - better used for the user experiance, some file format problems and such, than in trying to bring Mac OS 9 to a new unsupported hardware.

I am not suggesting you get OS9 to run on FPGA/MiST, I know it will not work. But on something modern like PCubed https://www.power.org/solution/p-cubed/

I completely got your point, even in the first posting! And of course I had a look at the pcubed link.
I just wanted to make clear that the MiST is some underpowered Retro hardware, and of course not even as fast as some original Ataris like the TT from 1989 or the Falcon. It is a ST replacement, and there is much more needed for more modern computers like the TT/Falcon or an 68k Mac.
There is simply no chance the upcoming 10 or 15 years to use FPGAs (if we can agree that FPGA farms from chip manufacturers are out of the reach for endusers) - so we are talking about cheap - let´s say below 1000 Euro - FPGAs for configuring any modern PPC CPU.
And don´t forget that there are still "G4" CPUs in production and ongoing usage.

So; no, I do not see any point in wasting time (well at least it is always the time and decision of the inolved developers and not ours to decide) with any shaggy emulator or underpowered and yet incompatible hardware.

What we would need is some cheap hardware upgrades, or OS modifications to run our OS at G5s or such fast hardware.

[MacTron]

http://mcosre.sourceforge.net/index.html

McOS Re is a project dedicated to re-creation and improvement of the Traditional Mac OS.

[nanopico]

http://mcosre.sourceforge.net/index.html

McOS Re is a project dedicated to re-creation and improvement of the Traditional Mac OS.

I reached out to this guy to collaborate.  We'll see what happens.

[cc333]

I think this is spectacular!

I've been following iMic's thread over at TC, and I even tested a few things for him (I have an A1106 AlBook, and a few 12" AlBooks that make for perfect testing grounds). That being said, I'd be glad to try things out on here if anybody comes up with anything (such as patched Mac OS ROMs).

Let's keep up the good work! I'd *love* to see Mac Os 9 boot natively on my Quad G5!!

c

[Protools5LEGuy]

Just make a call on MacRumors.

http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/any-one-want-to-help-build-a-community-made-os-9-3.1945040/

eyoungren

    I cannot begin to fathom the legal issues that may arise out of this.

    First and foremost there is the OS9 EULA. Then you're talking distribution of a copyrighted OS (I would assume this project is so not just the devs would be using it and that it would be provided free).

    It'd be one thing if Apple put OS9 in the public domain, but everything from 7.6.1 and up is not public domain.

    There are apps that modify certain things of course so you can get versions of OS9 on unsupported Macs. But those are apps and not code rewrite.

    I applaud the effort, but I don't see macos9lives existing for very long if this gets out. Lawsuits, Cease and Desist and takedown orders have a way of torpedoing things.

    Just my take…unless you tell me someone's found some legal loophole?
     

    Going by info I've seen in the past of such OS 7-9 projects it looks more like creating custom enablers & drivers to support newer hardware or add functions that a 3rd party program wasn't allowed under the original Apple Developer Connection terms.

    In my opinion its still a legal nightmare, ADC had strict toolbox access limitations for non-hardware developers and for example if someone had worked at Apple at any point in time could be in breach of employee knowledge--ReactOS was forced into a code audit by Microsoft when suspicions of insider knowledge due to certain frameworks being able to be installed for Internet Explorer 6.0 to work/run.

    Having said that, since I deal with OpenSource projects often I've been afraid to accept a job at Microsoft as off-the-clock work could be subject to employee side project audits.
     

Yeah, still not something I would touch even if I knew how to code.

Writing enablers for newer hardware is one thing. Aggregating it all together with the OS, advertising it as a new version build of that OS and then distributing it is just red meat for lawyers.

I could answer this guys at MacRumors, but my english skills won't make it justice.

[Protools5LEGuy]

I reached Adam Albrec (artphotodude), author of Quicktime teatre for OS9, about his opinion on this.

    I have done a few things for OS9, but really I mostly develop for OSX like these:
    http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/ppc-media-center-watch-modern-internet-video-ppc-macs-running-104105

    http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/working-powerpc104-twitter-client

    http://macintoshgarden.org/games/doom-legacy-wad-launcher-0

    http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/burn-barrell-force-delete-app

    The biggest problems with OS9 is that its small 1.5GB of maximum ram allocation (including virtual memory), greatly hampers what can now be done on it, and as you have probably heard, the libraries for it are hopelessly behind.  Some libraries could be ported, but without even a good Python interpreter, the usefulness is very difficult to improve on.

    Besides every G3 will already run it, and most G4s will boot natively.  Never have cared for classic in OSX.    You BEST bet for doing what you suggest, would be to mod OSX to behave more like OS9.  It is far closer to current standards for design purposes.

[Custos]

Your English is acually pretty damn good PT. Even just support for newer hardware would be a major leap for the community. We really need someone with good coding skills to write drivers for us. Maybe even donate money/hardware (
to test drivers)
 to a person capable of writing drivers

[nanopico]

I'm not really sure what to say here, other than
So let's not bill it as 9.3.  It's just third party patches to the system.

[Front 424]

I'm not really sure what to say here, other than
So let's not bill it as 9.3.  It's just third party patches to the system.

I agree.  It's funny, but that numbering convention had been in the back of my mind.  "I wonder what would happen if OS 9.3 were announced?"  It's unfortunate there isn't at least an appreciation or sense of humor when big corp/big money is involved when it comes to long discontinued software AND hardware.
The above quoted persons concerning legality are something to be heeded, to a point.

But don't lose heart!

http://www.callapple.org/software/announcing-apple-iigs-system-6-0-2/

Old IIGS enthusiasts named their updated OS as the next version.  Allegedly another update is in the works.  Just thought I would mention that.

It would ultimately be nice to have a name for this aggregated effort and any extensions and patches as a collective install package.  Really it would.  Something that likeminded people could point to and say "If you want to get OS 9.2 working on X system, use the latest version of _____"

A really cocky name would be "OS 9 XLR8R" 
Or OS 9 Extended or something. 

Damn the naming conventions! 

You've got the right idea, anyhow, and you have much support from us.  Best of luck with some of your prospective collaborators, like the OS Re project.  I've lost track of which thread that was in, but that seemed promising.

Closing thought.  Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a central thread, like a pinned topic where the several ongoing threads are located regarding getting os 9 going on later machines?  It's kind of spread out and I for one am a bit confused by all the different topics being scattered across multiple forum entries.  For example, there is one about the 1.5gb ram limit, but that is its own thread, and then there are several about about improving 9.2 as well as some relevant discussion in emulation topics.
Maybe I'm the only one losing track of all the intersecting discussions that all converge on this topic?