Backwards compatibility [WAS: Partitioning...OS]

[Richard McKay]

Jason,

Thanks for the constructive views and comments...

> Compatibility is by and large great on the Mac platform.

I agree with you, I was just really surprised that 9.1 wouldn't go on a 700
iBook (I expected it to be able to handle back to 8.6 or so, don't know the
issues that would be involved). I personally don't use 9 or classic and
haven't since the painfully slow first versions of X, the new aqua interface
and Unix side of OS X are just too beautiful to stay in 9 even with the G3
of an iBook. I was just doing a bit of flag waving for the (large?) amount
of users still using 9...I would hope that in asking for as much
compatibility as possible we will (hopefully) grab Apples' and others ears
and at least to a small degree they will take this into account for the
future but if it means being current and having cutting edge then give me
the new stuff...I will swap and find ways to afford it. Can/will everyone do
this? We need to consider the masses that don't read lists, trumpet the
cause and live/eat/breath Macs to keep our segment of the market and Apple
alive... 

> Here you were referring to the inability to install 9.1 (I believe) on
> a newer machine. However, the fact you can only install 9.2 shouldn't
> preclude compatibility with 9.1 software. Or have you encountered a
> specific scenario where this is the case?

Not personally but others were asking the question of how to get 9.1 onto
the new iBook so imagine they had some issues...

>I'd recommend using an Internet resource like
> http://www.lowendmac.com -- they're a fantastic site for older
> Macintoshes. With a little digging, I think you'll find articles where
> people use 68x00 machines successfully as servers with early versions
> of Linux and other OSes for server purposes.

Thanks for the tip, I have run across them.

> I use a Rev. A (tangerine) iBook with 10.2, and I can say that while it
> would be kewl to have Quartz Extreme as a feature, everything still
> runs fine without it.

Agreed, my iMac 400 DV still runs patiently in background as experiment
machine with 10.2, dev tools, and anything that I don't want to risk yet on
this wonderfully small and almost perfect 12 iBook 700 Combo I am allowed to
call my own...but most new games need 16 meg VRAM to run and I do not want
to miss out on *any* speed advantages this gives me compared to the older
macs, as it does pass some load on to the graphics card.  However, I do
think there will be a day (hopefully a long time in the future) when we will
need hardware that support QE to update at all...(a bit more flag waving)

> In conclusion, I think Apple has done a pretty good balancing act
> considering that computers have changed so much within such a short
> time, relatively speaking. Also, I think compatibility is broader than
> your message suggests, and I'd certainly recommend checking sites such
> as LowEndMac for tips to give your older machines a new lease on life.

point taken.

Cheers,

Richard
--