classic will die when apple switches to intel
2005-06-07 by GAmoore@aol.com
Yahoo Groups archive
Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:06 UTC
Thread
2005-06-07 by GAmoore@aol.com
2005-06-07 by Chris Coccia
GAmoore@... wrote: > headline says it all. > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1825046,00.asp > > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-5734410.html > > http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=360 People still us OS 9 4 years after the release of the first OS X? (Sorry had to) -- Chris http://www.descentrecords.com
2005-06-07 by GAmoore@aol.com
People still us OS 9 4 years after the release of the first OS X?
(Sorry had to)
2005-06-07 by Maurits van de Kamp
> headline says it all. Well I didn't even expect otherwise.. not that I see a problem with that - I mean do you really want to use the computer you buy after 2007 for running software from before 2004? Why not keep the one you have now for that? :o) Maurits.
2005-06-08 by Nick Batzdorf
People still us OS 9 4 years after the release of the first OS X?
(Sorry had to)
Nick Batzdorf, editor/publisher
Virtual Instruments magazine - the world of softsynths and samplers
www.Virtualinstrumentsmag.com
1-877 VImagzn (846-2496)
818/905-9101, cell 590-9101
2005-06-08 by Maurits van de Kamp
> You're making several incorrect assumptions: 1. that people using (..snip..) All that is very true - but that still doesn't explain why you want a new computer for all this. Why would you want a computer that is one generation more powerful than a G5 for pre-OSX software? If you're that fond of the classic stuff, why not simply stick to your classic computer for that? It all boils down to the question that baffles me every time a compatibility boundary comes up, and which has never been answered.. why do people want brandnew computers with ancient software? Maurits.
2005-06-08 by Chris Coccia
Nick Batzdorf wrote: > You're making several incorrect assumptions: 1. that people using music > software switched to OS X four years ago; 2. that everything everyone > needs from made it to OS X; 3. that Classic is the same thing as OS 9 > (it's not, it runs *inside* OS X); 4. that the OS X versions of > everything are better; 5. that even if they are better, moving > everything to OS X is free. > 1. No I know plenty of people still using Logic under OS 9.. I still use my old Cubase VST32 from time to time when I need to play with old material. I know people that still run their TDM rigs in OS 8 on still crawling beige PPCs because they dont want to break anything. 2. No. I still dont have a stable WORKING version of Sound Diver. I have to use a somewhat buggy alpha version of an editor for my Nord Modular. 3. No. I know how it works.. Which is why I keep it on a seperate blue and white G3 so I dont have to worry about any problems with a shelled version of OS 9.. 4. Check out the Sound Diver beta.. Scary aint it? Recycle has turned my still perfect Emu ESI4000 into a standalone sampler once again. 5. Wrong again.. I had to pay for lotsa stuff to move to OS X. And take about a year before the move was complete and at a level where I could work comfortably.. And lets see, Ive also paid for every version since OS 10.0 came out in order to finally get to a near perfect working environment.. (Okay so I got the 10.1 disk for free at CompUSA) Now this whole Intel/Leopard thing is gonna throw it in a loop again hehe! The (sorry had to) underneath that I thought pointed out I was making a joke? -- Chris http://www.descentrecords.com
2005-06-09 by Nick Batzdorf
You're making several incorrect assumptions: 1. that people using
(..snip..)
Why would you want a computer that is one generation
more powerful than a G5 for pre-OSX software? If you're that fond of the
classic stuff, why not simply stick to your classic computer for that?
The (sorry had to) underneath that I thought pointed out I was making a joke?
Nick Batzdorf, editor/publisher
Virtual Instruments magazine - the world of softsynths and samplers
www.Virtualinstrumentsmag.com
1-877 VImagzn (846-2496)
818/905-9101, cell 590-9101