Re: With Tiger is OS 9 pointless?

In article <0001HW.BF1412F4005E7A45F0386550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> No-one on this thread has given a reason to place OS X and OS 9 in separate
> partitions on machines which can't boot OS 9.

True.

> And the one person who suggested putting them on different partitions
> on machines which _can_ boot OS 9 gave reasons which I don't
> particularly agree with, but which no doubt make sense to him.

Your call. We could discuss it if you like, but we may have to agree to
disagree.

The issue has to do with intended use and system management style. For
my purposes on *this* machine, which happens to be a Wallstreet, where I
backup often (every other day), have no other users on the machine, have
a 40GB disk, and want a certain amount of data separation, my
partitioning method makes sense.

For a situation where I'd deployed a bunch of Wallstreets in a business
situation, it might not be an issue at all, if, for instance, I never
loaded MacOS X on them in the first place. Perhaps all the remote
Wallstreet users only have some kind of old vertical app which only runs
on 9, and the disks are very small (original 2GB drives, anyone?) for
easy backup/restoration in case of trouble.

Or maybe I have distributed programming employees who update those Mac
OS 9 apps and need test Wallstreets, in which case it might make sense
to have one partition with the OS, the dev tools, and whatever other
apps are needed, and another with code and other data.

Or perhaps the users have no apps which need Mac OS 9, in which case I'd
surely have imaged the system w/o it to save space. Or replaced the
Wallstreets with something much newer, which changes the situation
entirely.

Or lots of other possible situations. Arguing about this w/o knowing
WHY and WHAT FOR, is pointless. Unless you just like to argue, that is.
:-D I'm up for it! Anyone else?


> I didn't do it that way when I was running a Mac which could boot OS
> 9 as my primary machine, I don't do it that way with older Macs which
> can boot OS 9 now, and I certainly don't do it on any Mac which can't
> boot OS 9, such as the one I'm using now.

And under what situations and uses are those machines? Why are you
still running them at all? Is your company that poor? Or are those
machines relatively late model MacOS 9 booters? What's your backup
setup? How about your apps? Groups who use what apps and why? Under
what os? How come development hasn't updated to drop MacOS 9 right out
of the equation? Too many other things to do? Not enough developers?
(non-system) management issues? Maybe you're leading them all wrong and
we'd could help them out by explaining just how wrong-headed you are!
Or maybe we'd largely agree, but we *can't* because we don't know WTF
the situation is! Ha! This is kinda fun.

I love the first evening after work of a nice, long, vacation.

> If a user wants to set up a OS 9-only partition on a Mac which can
> boot OS 9, I won't stop him. I also won't help him. Those who have
> real reasons for setting up multiple partitions knows how to do so.
> Those who are merely posers can work it out for themselves, or not.

You're being generous. At my place of business, we've got security
issues with our... WINDOWS... boxes which mean we want to give users as
little freedom to make such changes on their system as we can. Granted,
the situation between Windows and MacOS X at the moment is very
different.


> And, in any case, the Macs which could boot OS 9 came with relatively small
> drives. I'm not about to retrofit a new drive to one of them, particularly to
> a laptop, merely because a poser wants to pose. A 'few gigs of space' on some
> of the older machines is the entire drive. 1st generation G4s came with 10 GB
> drives. I've got files bigger than that.

This Wallstreet came with a 2GB drive. If that drive was still in
place, I'd not argue. I've upgraded it three times, so that's not an
issue. I don't use this machine often enough to upgrade it again, given
its currently available free space numbers.

--
May we live together in peace.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: With Tiger is OS 9 pointless?
    ... >> No-one on this thread has given a reason to place OS X and OS 9 in separate ... >> partitions on machines which can't boot OS 9. ... > Or perhaps the users have no apps which need Mac OS 9, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: FreeBSD on Intel Macs?
    ... >> boot OpenDarwin on these x86 machines, like you can with the PPC ones. ... The bless man page for Mac OS X Intel reveals much about changing the ...
    (freebsd-current)
  • Re: Restoring FC images to different HW configs
    ... > I use PXE boot to grab a Ghost boot image from an TFTP server. ... > preconfigured Linux install then multicasts over to the machines. ... > to mount the partitions. ... > How do I re-configure this so it mounts the correct partitions? ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Best browser for OS 9.2
    ... OS 9.2 was never available as a standalone ... > environment on Mac OS X-based machines. ... shipped with macs that could boot os 9, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.comm)
  • Re: Restarting after 1st CD finishes
    ... SUSE 10.0 was not easy to install on a Mac, ... It does boot the kernel but then it can not find the root ... But there are tons of partitions on ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)