Talk:Mac OS 9

message: Moved this paragraph here until someone comes up with a source: 
Apple had actually implemented protected memory into OS 9, but Steve Jobs ordered it pulled, almost certainly in a move to try to make MacOS X look as best as he could.
I remember reading a developer's CV ages ago, saying he had worked on adding protected memory to the old Mac OS.  Although IIRC the CV didn't go into enough detail to say whether the work was complete, or to give a reason why it didn't appear in a production release.  I seem to remember he was one of the lead developers on the old Mac OS but didn't transfer over to the Mac OS X team if that helps anyone. AlistairMcMillan 01:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that very hard to believe, actually. Mac OS 9 does contain a rudimentary memory protection technology called "page guards," but I simply can't imagine they found a way to make protected memory work. A lot of things in Mac OS 9 actually require one application to read another's memory. --Steven Fisher 19:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as? I have written scores of Mac apps over the years, have never resorted to a hack like that. I'm not saying it can't be done, it obviously can, but there are better and supported ways of doing it. Since Macs have had a PMMU in every machine since the late 80s, and the design of the memory manager doesn't preclude protection, my view is that this could have been added to the classic Mac at any time in the 90s. The fact that it wasn't speaks much more about the culture at Apple than anything technical. Most of the "source code" for classic Mac wasn't really organised and there were vast tracts of it nobody knew what it was for, and there was no documentation. They had to keep using it blindly because it did something. By the time the call for protected memory became a clamour, there wasn't enough time left to implement it. To my mind Apple really dropped the ball on memory management - System 7 was the time to break it if necessary and put in a modern approach then. All the subsequent hacks such as temporary memory and "borrowing" memory that was marked free, the way users had to tweak partition sizes - it all sucked to the max. It could have been done. It wasn't. Graham 07:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I think you're probably right. The protection violations I'm thinking of were done through the toolbox (IAC, AppleScript, File Manager, etc). The API was actually fairly clean. It would certainly not have been painless -- extensions would have broken badly -- but it probably could have been done. Mac OS 9 was much too late, though, and to do it for System 7 would have required the  HAL and FCB fix much earlier. System 7 was late enough as it was. :) --Steven Fisher 17:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the technical lead for Mac OS 9 and 9.1, and I'm quite sure that we did not have protected memory implemented in the fashion the article implies ( although, as mentioned on this page, the nanokernel/Multiprocessing Services did have tasks with their own address spaces, all of the user interface ran cooperatively in the main task ).We did investigate whether we could run applications which linked against CarbonLib in separate address spaces from the rest of the operating system, but we never implmented it ( and likely couldn't have, especially if we wanted to retain functionality of Apple and third party extensions ). Mac OS 9.0 did implement file mapping SPIs, and these were used to map in executables even when VM was off ( to ease memory pressures for most users ).  Mac OS X was being released in the near future, and Mac OS 9 was no longer the focus of our engineering efforts.  But, there wasn't anything like "protected memory" for Steve Jobs to cancel. Stattenf 05:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no dispute that Mac OS 9 had protected memory; it was part of the public Multiprocesing Utilities API implemented by the nanokernel.  What wasn't implemented is the ability to run Mac OS 9 applications in seperate memory spaces, and so all of "blue" ( as the user environment was called ) ran in a single MP task.  Applications could create other tasks, which ran in their own address spaces and which would keep running even if blue crashed.  Stattenf 04:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected memory

message: I have a couple problems with this section:
# At Ease supported "multi-user" in the same sense as the term is being used here, and
# Mac OS Classic never did support the proper (and linked to) definition of multi-user.
--Steven Fisher 19:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-user 

message: Recent Macs seem to come with a slightly incomplete Classic. They're lacking the Mac OS 9-only control panels such as Memory. I checked, they're not disabled, they're outright missing. --Steven Fisher 18:21:32, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
The Memory control panel really could only adjust the disk cache and turn virtual memory on/off.  Since Classic doesn't support configurable virtual memory ( instead providing what appears to be a slighly less than 1G address space ), Apple stopped distributing it. Stattenf 03:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 9.2.2 was never distributed as a standalone OS, the last non-upgrade, standalone installer version to be put on a CD was 9.2.1, and even then it was a pack-in with OS X 10.1. I am not sure, but I believe that the last classic Mac OS to be distributed as a boxed, standalone retail product was 9.1. Since it's not even possible to install Classic from an OS 9 CD on newer Macs (the final update of the iBook G4 is one such model) other than from the original restore CD, it's entirely possible that certain "standalone" components of 9.2.2 were never included in the various Classic installers. Msaunier (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classic not complete 

message: Didn't Mac OS 9 also introduce tabbed windows? Note: I miss them very much. :) --Michiel Sikma 22:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'm sure Mac OS 8 did, I may be wrong. — Wackymacs 06:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Mac OS 8.0. --Steven Fisher 22:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  tabbed windows 

message: In case you're ever going to write something about support for different languages in Mac OS 9, here's a screenshot to go with it which I took today. I'm not sure if it can be used anywhere, so I'll just leave it here in case it's ever needed. --Michiel Sikma 10:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if we'll be able to use it, but it's definitely a cool picture, and worth having anyway :-) Dan 02:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found good use for it in Input method editor. --Michiel Sikma 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese support in Mac OS 9 

message: While this is Apple's line officially, it's worth noting that at least one Mac OS X update since then has dumped a new "enabler" into the Classic system folder. Thus, Apple's Classic development did not stop with 9.2.2 but continued for some time. However, I'm not sure how to integrate this with the article. -- Steven Fisher 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9.2.2 as the end 

message: Sonata was the codename for the final OS release roadmapped by Amelio. Since it was still supposed to be delivered before Copland, which was still Mac OS 8, it's original version number was Mac OS 7.9. It was also called Mac OS 8.7 during development, but then that was the case with 8.5 (8.2 in development) and 8.0 (7.7 in development) as well.
:Sonata was never named Mac OS 7.9, since it came well after 8.6 was out.  Originally it was Mac OS 8.7, the next minor revision number after the then-current Mac OS 8.6, but as a reference ( major ) release its version number was changed to 9.0 well before it shipped.  For some time, Mac OS ( pre-X ) reference releases had names in the 'musical' theme ( starting with Mac OS 7.6 = Harmony, Tempo = 8.0, Allegro = 8.5, Sonata = 9.0 ).  Interestingly, the musical theme came from a misunderstanding; Mac OS 7.6 ( "Harmony" ) was so named because it brought together several internal release trains from different hardware projects into one unified build which would run everywhere ( thus, "Harmonize" what was a confusing set of releases ), but major releases after that got named as if the musical definition of harmony was the reason for the theme.  Non-reference releases ( usually smaller, but not always ) didn't have a consistent naming scheme; some had names with "Buster" in them, and the last two releases were names related to the light at the end of a day -- Moonlight and Limelight ( a stage lighting used in the 1800 for theatrical productions done outdoors after sunset ). I'm also not sure how completely the OS releases were 'roadmapped' by Amelio, and since 9.0 came out 2 1/2 years after Amelio left ( on a six months between releases schedule ) I'd be hesitent to claim Gil had much to do with Sonata.  Stattenf 06:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keith is right; I was also there. There never was a 7.9. Internally, 8.0 was originally 7.7, and that's where it ended. Since there's no source attributed in any case, I've just yanked the line 'and originally intended to debut as Mac OS 7.9 (by then Apple CEO Gil Amelio) and also called Mac OS 8.7 during development'.
I know... I'm not sure why he changed it. Vandalism, I guess. I had it saying it was originally 8.7, then he changed it to 7.9 ... Dan 16:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, the news.com article where it says that Ellen Hancock mentions released with the names Allegro, Tempo, Sonata.  At that time Tempo would have been in planning ( Harmony was about to be released ), and the executives mapped out potential 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, and 7.9 as minor releases before the Copland / 8.0 version number, and gave these minor post-Harmony releases musical names ( because they misunderstood the reason for the name Harmony ).  That might put something called Sonata as shiping with a version number "7.9", but as a minor release in mid 1998.  However, soon after Copland was killed the future plan for Mac OS releases was dramaticaly changed, including pulling some bits from Copland back into Mac OS proper; then Tempo was released as Mac OS 8.0, and the idea of doing a couple minor releases with musical names was replaced with the strategy of doing major released every 12-18 months, still with musical names.  By the time Mac OS 9.0 / Sonata did ship, in fall of 1999, little of whatever planning Hancock might have done would have been left.  Certainly none of the code which was "Sonata", as in the Mac OS 9.0 release, ever had the version number 7.9, because 8.6 was already out and we would never have regressed version numbers.  So, "Sonata" proper, as the release that became Mac OS 9.0, was initially 8.7 and then later changed to Mac OS 9.0. Stattenf 07:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Original" version number 

message: Could anyone explain what Reference 1 has to do with protected memory? It looks like it's been vandalised. --Jrothwell 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't that make it a self-published source? --DocumentN 03:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 1 

message: Is not supported by Apple, but still used... I think the working state should say "Still used"...
Does any one agree? Gumbos 01:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly does your dictionary have listed for "obsolescent"? Chris Cunningham 10:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It says "Becoming obsolete", well, I guess its just to old... But I did saw the working state saying "Still in use" before.Gumbos 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say that "retired and no longer updated" pretty much means obsolete. Of course, obsolete does not mean that it's not being used anymore; likewise, just because something is still in use does not necessarily mean it is not obsolete. – Mipadi 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Obsolescent"??? 

message: I've responded to the Clean Up tag by revising the article. I think the biggest problem was a large amount of esoteric information in the introduction. Features also received significant editing. Many of the features passed as new to OS 9 should not have been included, as they were either introduced in 8.5 or 8.6. Comparing OS 8 to OS 9 is baseless, as OS 8.5 was such a huge update, aka one they charged for. Passing off features such as the Network Browser and revised Appearance Control Panel being introduced in OS 9 is false and misleading. Mac OS 9 did not introduce pre-emptive multitasking. This was done in Mac OS 8.6 by integrating it into the nanokernel. In practice, the system was so hampered by its cooperative multitasking heritage that it's merely an academic point rather than anything useful. I've kept as much of the esoteric information as possible and merged it into an expanded trivia section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zachlutz (talk • contribs) 07:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned Up Article 

message: I kept on seeing all these previews for OS 8 (or maybe it was 8.5) and later 9 that showed large icon support, but to my knowledge nothing ever happened.  (Was there some way for OS 9 to support large icons, or did Apple pull that feature from OS 9?)  Should the article mention that there were plans that were later dropped?
Also, I remember reading rumors that at one point Apple was going to release OS 9.3 which would be a non-bootable Classic-only release, and give Classic apps OS X-like Aqua functionality. (appearance as well as things like dialog and Save & Open boxes)  If it ever existed, it was understandably pulled as it would have discouraged OS X development.  Did it ever exist, or was that just speculation and not some project from Apple?  The company has a lot of secrets and I wish they'd let us know about some of this stuff several years later.  What would be the harm?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.117.209 (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 9.2.2 was the last official or unofficial (and very much a minor) release, and it was mostly (entirely?) Classic fixes. So far as I know, 9.2.3 / 9.3 was never contemplated, and for what it's worth on a fully patched 9.2.2 system there are no control panel or extension versions greater than 9.2.2. Msaunier (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about large icons and did OS 9.3 exist? 

message: Some of the last macs to ship with 9.2.2 and the last os 9 based mac test pro did have a few newer files mainly drivers and the system file / mac os rom then the 9.2.2 download on apple site and that may of had a code name of 9.3 or 9.2.3--Joe The Dragon (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on OS 9.3 

message: The table showing compatibility in this article is just ridiculously/unnecessarily huge and detailed. None of the other articles for any other version of Mac OS Classic or even Mac OS X have such a monstrous thing embedded in them. Somebody should clean this up, consolidate it down to only the most important information, or get rid of it entirely. Maybe even split it into a different article? Or link to a similar online location to find the information, of which there are many. Dpaanlka (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. OS 9 compatability can be a tricky thing, and this is an excellent resource. I was even thinking about adding in the various Mac clones and updating it for OS 9 Helper. Msaunier (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Not in the slightest, information like this is invaluable to system engineers (professional or otherwise). As long as there are companies or individuals who repair Mac hardware of this era and there are people who still use them, its relevant information. I second the idea to add data on the clones, they could be tricky in their various iterations. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

text: To the contrary. The problem with it is its incompleteness; it's missing iMac G5, a series of models never even mentioned in the article at all despite their compatibility (sometimes only partial, i.e. in Classic emulation only).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Compatibility" table overwhelming and unecessary 

message: Keith claims controversy on: Apple had actually implemented protected memory into OS 9, but Steve Jobs ordered it pulled, almost certainly in a move to try to make MacOS X look as best as he could.
I worked on, was one of the prime developers of the nanokernel project, designed/implemented the built-in multitasking and memory protection interfaces. I did develop a memory protection prototype for the blue task in the form of overlay address spaces for the apps (RW for their own memory, RO for the rest of the common address space). So yes, it existed in dev form, no, it did not go alpha, beta or production because there were a myriad of compatibility issues that needed to be resolved, and yes, I was told to stop working on that (though not by Steve Jobs) in order to create a strong distinction between the legacy Mac OS and the then new MacOS X. All this is an interesting bit of history, but it can be said that the old MacOS was long in the tooth. Modern concepts were increasingly difficult to deliver in that heavily tricked up OS. It is why the Copland project was started. It is why MacOS X finished that modernization process. There comes a time where the decades long effort to maintain deep compatibility makes an OS, or any complex system, very brittle. MacOS was in that state.
So, the accurate statement would be: Apple had actually implemented protected memory into a development version of OS 9, but management ordered it pulled, almost certainly in a move to try to make MacOS X look as best as it could.
--ReneV  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.251.185.158 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, sir. That'd be somewhat accurate, but not encyclopedic, without a WP:RS to cite for it. I don't suppose a reliably published source with editorial oversight has stated such a thing, have they? If you know of one, please share it. I also encourage you to make a Wikipedia account, to enable proper discourse and attribution! Thank you for your work at Apple. — Smuckola(talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Yea, a better idea would be to allow the blue task to be terminated and automatically restarted. One of the reasons why I mentioned the Blue Box on NuKernel idea is that moving the filesystem and drivers that do hardware access to supervisor mode makes this much easier. - Yuhong (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  On memory protection 

message: I know about how Mac OS 7.5.4 was pulled just before release due to missing components in the installer, but what about Mac OS 9.0.1? --danikayser84 ★ 21:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever happened to 9.0.1? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mac OS 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217080504/https://www.apple.com/ca/press/1999/10/os9.html to http://www.apple.com/ca/press/1999/10/os9.html
*Added  tag to http://www.macintouch.com/m90.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article repeatedly features confusing wording, referring to the original versions of Mac OS X as "macOS" (the new name given to their latest release of the OS). An example can be seen at the top of the article:
Apple discontinued development of Mac OS 9 in 2001, transitioning all future development to macOS, then named Mac OS X.
As far as I know, this name only refers to the latest release of Mac OS X, and applying it to the early releases of Mac OS X is not only incorrect usage but also creates confusion as to what is actually being talked about. Should this be corrected (refer to the original releases as "Mac OS X")?
Memfrob (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Historical references should use historical names. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retroactive application of 'macOS' name? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mac OS 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013225430/http://lists.apple.com/archives/Mt-smp/2001/May/msg00007.html to http://lists.apple.com/archives/Mt-smp/2001/May/msg00007.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Xserve G4 and G5 are not listed in the Apple compatibility page used as the main source for the chart, and they shipped with Mac OS X Server, which didn't come with the Classic Environment by default, but Classic Environment support could be installed on Mac OS X Server up through Server 10.4 (allowing Mac OS 9.2.2 to run in the Classic Environment), and the desktop versions of Mac OS X (with the Classic Environment) could also be installed on an Xserve G4 or G5; either of these routes would allow an Xserve G4 or G5 to run 9.2.2 in the Classic Environment, so should we add the Xserve G4/G5 to the compatibility chart? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 23:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the Xserve G4/G5 be added to the compatibility chart?