Re: With Tiger is OS 9 pointless?

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 21:46:16 -0400, Howard S Shubs wrote
(in article <howard-3704D2.21461601082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

> 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.

I suspect so. I stopped partitioning Macs when HFS+ arrived. Prior to that,
there were good reasons to partition. After that... I've simply never seen
anything which would make me go to the trouble I had to go to back before
HFS+. If you have reasons which make sense to you, more power to you. You're
the one who has to keep track of things.

>
> 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.

Fine.

>
> 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.

One of my problems with multiple partitions is backing them up. I hated that
in the old days and see no reason to inflict that kind of thing on myself
now.

>
> 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?

We've got machine ranging from beige G3s on up. The beiges mostly run OS 9,
but some run up to Jaguar.

We still have them because management is cheap. We also have Win98 machines,
same reason.

> Is your company that poor?

The boss is that cheap.

> Or are those
> machines relatively late model MacOS 9 booters? What's your backup
> setup?

Retrospect. Is there anything else?

> How about your apps?

Word 5.1a. Word 98. Word 2001. Word X. Word 2004. Quark 3.x through 6.x.
Photoshop 6 and up. Stuff like that.

> 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.

The Windows users are under AD lock-down, except for the Win98 guys. No-Win98
users may as well not have local hard drives on those machines.

>
>
>> 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.
>
>



--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Macs no longer overpriced - InfoWorld
    ... There was absolutely no relevance or reason for him to have divulged ... generic Windows box...or scrimping longer for the Mac Pro box. ... Mac by running it in Windows, ... gap between machines and a number of people would like to be somewhere in ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: With Tiger is OS 9 pointless?
    ... > 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: Connect your guitar directly to your PC with this cable.
    ... I tend to get seven or eight years of productive usage from every Mac I ... I think the principal issue with computer replacement is the ... I went to Win 95 for the same reason and now to XL for ... I went to 32-bit machines about three years ago. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: MacOS X 10.6 vs System 6
    ... switching off all the annoying features which characterised it, ... That's another reason I can't get any use out of the Intel iMac, ... unusable to Mac users, ... the earlier machines you could use appletalk with but it is a long ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: More on caching and logging
    ... Please point to a citation of where, exactly, Apple said any such thing. ... PPC machines are still the majority of Macs, ... By the end of the first year I had that machine, ... single-button, and the connection was still proprietary, but the ADB ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)