Apple

Now that 10.4 is completely unsupported (read: no more security patches), what are the Neko types using to run classic Macintosh applications? As I see it, the options are

(a) keep around an old PPC or 68k Mac (or both, or more than one of each) to run the stuff on, but that gets bothersome with moving boxes around (no remote display).

(b) keep a 10.4 on PPC box around to run it (same as above, since 10.4 is getting less usable with the discontinuance of security patches <rant> LESS THAN 3 YEARS AFTER THE RELEASE OF 10.5 - how does Apple expect anyone in IT to take them seriously if they don't commit to 5 years - even MS does that! </rant>

(c) use one of the emulators to run System 9 on a newer system (Macintosh, Linux, xBSD, whatever), and if so what one (SheepShaver, Basilisk II, PearPC). Sadly most of them seem to be stalled out as far as developments. SheepShaver and Basilisk II seem to be the best (for PPC and 68k respectively).

(d) something else?

SheepShaver is definitely the best solution for PowerPC at this point - PearPC was designed and implemented to run PowerPC OSX, not Classic - and once the Intel Mac came out, it became less relevant (most of its users and developers just wanted OSX on a PC). Plus one of their main developers died in an accident a few years ago and the project has been nearly stagnant since.
I don't think Apple are too concerned about support commitments as their revenue is mostly from hardware and the consumer market, not software and the enterprise market like Microsoft. Plus Microsoft's release schedule is much slower, so each release is supported longer because its successor comes out later.
At any rate, if you're using Classic applications on newer hardware for anything serious at this point you're crazy and should stop, and if you're just using it as a hobby you might as well just keep some of the hardware it was designed for (old PPC Macs) around and run OS9.

I do a little bit of all of the above.

I still use my 12" 1.5 GHz G4 running Tiger for 80% of my personal computing, but the growing lack of support for Tiger, particularly by third party vendors, has me thinking that I will soon update it permanently to Leopard, obviously dropping Apple's Classic environment at that point. Fortunately, my use of Classic has been plummeting over the past couple of years.

For really old MacOS software, I mostly use my SE/30 running MacOS 7.5.5, or I use Mini vMac on current hardware to emulate a Mac Plus running MacOS 6.08. Mini vMac is actively maintained, and the developer says that a version capable of emulating a Mac II is on the way. Mini vMac has been ported to a lot of platforms, and it's definitely worth a look for preserving access to Mac Plus era software.

I have a Powerbook Duo 270c running OS 7.1.1 and a Duo 2300c running OS 8.6, but I rarely fire them up. The Duos are tiny enough that they are never in the way. I also have a nicely tricked out PowerBook 1400c (dock, RAM upgrade, external video card, all by NewerTech, and PCMCIA ethernet and modem), which IIRC is configured to dual boot OS 8.6 and 9.1.

As I will likely move either to Leopard or finally migrate fulltime to my MacBook Pro, the idea of running SheepShaver to maintain access to Classic apps has a lot of appeal. I've only tinkered with it so far, so I can't comment on how good or bad it is for routine use. I haven't tried Basilisk recently, but that's only because I haven't had time, not because of its quality.

I still have a G3 B&W with Mac OS 9. Once a find a job. I'm going to drop it for a G4 QS or a G4 MDD.

Industry-standard (as epitomized by IBM, HP, SGI, Sun, etc.) is support for 5 years after last ship.

Apple pretends to have servers (Xserve, OS X Server), but their support belies their marketing department evidently.

IBM supported OS/2 for ten. It's hard to actually like IBM but they do seem to have a conscience. Or at least they do a better job of pretending than anyone else.

I think it's the latter, and I think it's mostly because they had OS/2 installed and shipped on a vast number of internal systems and management systems for other machines they wanted to continue collecting licenses on (mainframes).

On the other hand Apple nowadays make money hand-over-fist doing something that is completely not server or enterprise related (iPhone, iPod, iPad), so I think they really couldn't care less about that market right now.

I got a PowerPC upgrade-equipped Quadra 950 that handles classic environment software under 7.6 and then I got a dual 2.5 G5 that I use for OSX. I have yet to get a need for setting up an Intel system but I'm sure that is a matter of time.....

For on the go, I got a DUObook 2300c for classic (again, 7.6) and a Lombard Powerbook for OSX.

I tend to agree with you but that's because I'm a mean-spirited cantankerous old bastard Look at how they dealt with the :Lenovo thing tho - they could easily have dumped on everyone involved, left all their previous customers up poop creek, got the heck out as fast as they could. You know they wanted to and I know that Legend has absolutely no intention of doing anything IBM says.

But they didn't. They knew they had to leave that business, it was a drain on the company. But they gave everyone plenty of warning, they supervised (or tried to) the new owners, they did their best to make the entire thing as painless as possible. IBM is its own little parallel universe but I dunno ... sometimes they aren't so bad.

IIcx running 6.0.8.

I have a 350MHz Blue & White PowerMac G3 dual-booting Mac OS 9.2.2 and Mac OS X 10.4.*.
I also have a Mac Classic dual-booting Mac OS 7.5.3 and System 6.0.*

Better get Windows 7 certified!

I guess the really irritating thing is that Apple builds a pretty good product. Really, they think about the whole system and plan for it - and then they go and do annoying things such as:

Stopping support early (not just software, the hardware/firmware gets shut down fast, too). I don't think the have any sort of support commitment.

Doing their best to eliminate customization (when Apple was headed to bankruptcy you could find plenty of add-in hardware and little things to make the system more custom, now just try to find a higher-end graphics board let alone more exotic hardware options - or for that matter a slot to put them in (Mac Pro is the only one with expansion vs. most Mac models in the '90s). Even the little software hack to replace the white Apple with "Welcome to Macintosh" was broken in the next release).

Not updating their lines or cutting prices. A year ago a Core2 Duo was OK - now try to find one from anyone except Apple, who happen to want the same price that they did before. This might have worked in 1990, but not now.

Given that Apple has passed Microsoft's market cap, I wager to say that it is working pretty well.

I think geeks (me included) need to understand that there is a difference between "we don't like it" from a technical standpoint, and "it does not work" as a commercial strategy.

Jobs, as much of an insane narcissistic megalomaniac he may be, understood that the key for his company to thrive was to focus on margins. Thus he can't compete with the same value propositions from the wintel generic boxes which are based around wafer thin margins. I guess the strategy for apple is that if you want customization: go to Windows or better yet go to Linux/BSD which are as customizable as it gets. If you want a well integrated, designer box which is intuitive and gets out of the way/just works out of the box then go to Apple.

One can't argue with success.

It is sad that technology is always hold hostage to marketing, but that is capitalism for you I guess.

I once read an interesting book claiming that there were three basic approaches to the computer industry (or maybe any technical product.) : design, marketing and technology. No company is good at all three. (Although that would be theoretically possible, it doesn't seem to happen out in the brick and mortar world.) His examples were the ones you'd expect - Apple, Mickey and IBM. This was written over ten years ago so it wasn't as obvious then as it is now.

Pretty perceptive, I thought.

Funny thing one might notice about "capitalism" - the claim is that competition in a Free Market (aka government regulates absolutely nothing, notice how well that's working out ?) is the best of all possible worlds for the consumer and society, makes vast improvements faster than light, blah blah blah blah blah.

So why is it that the more "capitalistic" and competitive a society gets, the fewer choices we have ? Is it possible that capitalism and competition are actually antithetical to each other ? Or that cooperation might be a better system entirely ?

Wasn't that SGI's strategy?

<ducks>

A somewhat cumbersome workaround would be to not network the Mac <or option (e) - expose it only to your internal network>. Let other hardware/software pull security/internet access duty, and transfer essential contend or downloads via CD/USB/removable-media-of-your-choice <or behind-the-firewall-only-ftp if you went with option (e)>.

dc_v01: I think SGI only got right the "designer box" part of that strategy

What types of things do you really need Classic support for? I'm running 10.5.8 on my PowerMac G5 and I'm already wishing that foobar2000 was available for PPC OS X...

There are a number of things that never made it out of Classic (or even 68k for that matter), and also some things that I use occasionally but not enough to warrant paying big bucks for new versions.

Mostly not daily drivers, but things that are used a couple of times a year.

WorkgroupServer 6150/66 plays Crystal Quest mighty fine for me. Running some early release of System 7 last I checked. I've kinda wanted a Quadra 700, but can never find a nice clean one so this does fine.