Talk:Mac OS 9

Network Browser

It is misleading to state that Network Browser was new to OS 9, as it was introduced in 8.5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachlutz (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 November 2005

Protected memory

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hey this is funny. Still can't locate the CV I mentioned up above in November 2004. But I did just find someone else who has read it. "A few posts after his, Gordon Hawley posted a link to a homepage of a former OS 9 engineer who claimed that they actually did get protected memory working in OS 9." [1] AlistairMcMillan 23:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Multi-user

I have a couple problems with this section:

1. At Ease supported "multi-user" in the same sense as the term is being used here, and
2. Mac OS Classic never did support the proper (and linked to) definition of multi-user.

--Steven Fisher 19:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PPC-only

OS 9 was not the first PPC-only MacOS, that was 8.5.

This is true. But OS 9.2 was the first G3+ MacOS :)

Classic not complete

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)

The bundle that comes with Tiger (9.2.2) is indeed missing many of the extensions and control panels of the complete OS 9.2.1 CD. One example is CD/DVD support, which I discovered missing when I started up in OS 9.2.2. 71.205.1.189 (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Preemptive multitasking

It is a common misconception that Mac OS 9 did not support preemptive multitasking. It did! It's just that most APIs could not be called from preemptive threads. I would be great if someone could fix up this misconception in the article.

Here's a post by René Vega, the author of the Mac OS 8.6/9 nanokernel http://lists.apple.com/archives/Mt-smp/2001/May/msg00007.html

- smcbride 2005-08-25

From a user perspective Mac OS 9 did not support pre-emptive multitasking. That Multiprocessing Service tasks are scheduled pre-emptively is irrelevent to users. Still, it's probably a good addition to the Mac OS 8.6 article and deserves some casual mention here. --Steven Fisher 01:10:56, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Well, the average user doesn't know what "pre-emptive multitasking" is. :) But your point is taken, and I agree. My beef is more the phrasing- that it doesn't support it... we could say it did a poor job of it. :) - smcbride 2005-08-27

tabbed windows

Didn't Mac OS 9 also introduce tabbed windows? Note: I miss them very much. :) --Michiel Sikma 22:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sure Mac OS 8 did, I may be wrong. — Wackymacs 06:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Mac OS 8.0. --Steven Fisher 22:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Japanese support in Mac OS 9

File:Os9-japanesesupport.png

Japanese text in the SimpleText application.

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)

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)

I've found good use for it in Input method editor. --Michiel Sikma 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Corrupted screenshots

I've been meaning to take a new screenshot of a default set-up of Mac OS 9 for a while now, but the screenshots that I make keep getting corrupted. It seems that they get very subtle random noise on some parts of the image that are barely possible to see unless you zoom in. It seems that the corruption is actually the way the interface is being rendered and not due to the way the screenshots are taken or saved, though. Do you guys know if this can be remedied? --Michiel Sikma 22:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I mainly want to make a new screenshot because this one has been downscaled and doesn't use a default setup. --Michiel Sikma 22:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific, because I don't know what you mean. Maybe you should post shots anyway, just so we can see (in talk of course).

It seems I was able to fix it by setting the color depth to "thousands" of colors instead of millions. Maybe my old pre-G3 8500/180 Mac just couldn't handle 1024x768x32. --Michiel Sikma 20:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense, but all right. Lol...

Anyway, I'm a bit disappointed with the Screenshot; shouldn't it be a more standard shot.. maybe the System Folder open, About This Computer, and a view of the desktop with the default name for the HDD? Also, I think "700MB available" looks a little silly. I have a G3 at home running OS 9 with a 40GB and 120GB HDD... but I'm at college right now. What do you think? Dan 05:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's good that the screenshot shows the capabilities of the UI a little bit. It shows the default menus, windows in and out of focus, the list view, and icon view, tab windows, and colored (labelled) folders. I guess that "700 MB available" is a little silly, but that's just my small hard disk. I personally think that this is fine. --Michiel Sikma 07:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow, I just figured out that the screenshot has a much larger flaw: some of the files were last modified in 1952. This is because of the dead hardware clock battery in my computer. I guess I'll redo it when I get a new one... --Michiel Sikma 21:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

O_O It's a good thing you don't have a Beige G3 (sort of), or else your computer would be going haywire right now, without a battery. Actually, though, that sort of thing can happen by itself, not necessarily due to a dead battery. Either way, the usual replacement time for a battery in macs of that era is ~3 years, though if you have had it unplugged, it could be as little as a couple months.

I think we should just replace the 700MB, simply because it gives the impression that OS 9 is truly 100% obsolete. Dan 18:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC) P.S., I like the Sherlock picture you added.

I'm planning on getting a second-hand iBook G4 to go with an Intel iMac in the future (for various purposes, mainly to keep fun/experimental stuff away from work stuff) so I could install 9.2.2 on it and take a screenshot then. The iBook G4 can still run Mac OS 9.2.2 natively (not in Classic mode under Mac OS X), right? --Michiel Sikma 10:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be able to, but iBook G4s never shipped with MacOS 9, so you'll have to install it.. Dan 20:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... P.S., it appears I cannot possibly take a screenshot of my old Mac... I forgot, I pretty much modified absolutely everything. Even without the Aqua theme (3rd party), the menus all say different things (like, "Magic" in place of Special, my own name in place of "Window," and "Thresher" in place of "Trash." The icons are also all completely different and custom, and it's all quite different from its default shipping settings. Doh. Dan 20:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Avoid confusion with OS-9

When referring to Mac OS 9 in this, and other articles, we should ALWAYS use the form "Mac OS 9" not "OS 9". Well before Apple changed the naming scheme from System 7 to Mac OS 8, and thus leading to Mac OS 9, there was OS-9. OS-9 was a completely different operating system that ran on other hardware. There was a failed lawsuit by the property owners of OS-9 to force Apple to use another name. I believe that the lawsuit failed in part because Apple ALWAYS uses the the form "Mac OS 9" and never simply "OS 9". Charles Gaudette

It isn't just to avoid confusion with OS-9. The product name is Mac OS, not OS. But posting a note to the talk page isn't going to permanently fix this. You just need to watch for it and fix it when it happens. -- Steven Fisher 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I did just that in the article. Charles Gaudette 03:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever... the makers of OS-9 tried to sue Apple for this, and it was decided that there wasn't nearly enough of a chance of confusion for the case to be reasonable, and it was thrown out. The point is it really isn't that big a deal, and saying "Mac OS 9" all the time sort of looks stupid. . . I'd never even heard of OS-9 until I heard about the lawsuit a few years ago.. and I've not even heard of it since. Plus, you seem to be getting fairly worked up. . .

P.S., sign your name. Dan 21:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I totally diagree. When Apple came out with Mac OS 9, I said there is a problem, and I wasn't at all surprised that they got sued. I guess my gray hairs are showing on this one. If you think "Mac OS 9" is to monotonous then throw in a few "the operating system" or just "the OS". Charles Gaudette 03:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling it "the OS" is reasonable. Calling it "OS 9" is not. Even putting aside the OS-9 thing, shortening the product name in an unofficial way is pretty unprofessional looking. But again, there's not much you can do about it except for being vigilant and correcting it (peacefully and gracefully) when it happens. I don't know why it's a problem with Mac OS in particular. You don't see Open Transport being referred to as Transport, Windows 95 as 'Dows 95, nor Excel called Cel 2003. -- Steven Fisher

9.2.2 as the end

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)

It did, though. It was no long Mac OS 9, it was "Classic", integrated into Mac OS X. This is where you could put it. Dan 18:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the mysterious Mac OS 9.3 "Starlight"?

"Original" version number

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)

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)

Yes, because vandals are famous for making notes of their edits in the discussion pages, to explain their actions. Apple doesn't seem to archive their press releases that far back, but some googling shows news reports dating from them referring to Sonata as "a version of System 7"

http://db.tidbits.com/article/770 http://news.com.com/Reengineering+the+Apple+OS/2100-1001_3-260169.html

Google for "sonata keynote amelio" if you want more. There was once a webcast of that keynote, but I haven't been able to find it.

The intended feature list for Sonata certainly changed a lot between the original mention of the name and the final release, but if you want the first mention of the release that eventually became OS 9, that's it.

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)

Wow, way to be an asshole for no reason. When I first started using Wikipedia, I vandalised a few pages and made notes. So it's not exactly out of the question.. esp. since some of the other edits were odd. Dan 21:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference 1

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)

• Reference 1 was not vandalized. It's an explanation written by the lead engineer for Mac OS 9 and 9.1 for people NOT to add back in false claims that Steve Jobs killed protected memory which had been implemented in Mac OS 9. All of this is clearly explained in the link. Do not remove or alter the reference. --thickslab 16:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that make it a self-published source? --DocumentN 03:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Obsolescent"???

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)

What exactly does your dictionary have listed for "obsolescent"? Chris Cunningham 10:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Cleaned Up Article

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).

What about large icons and did OS 9.3 exist?

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)

Well, it looks as if the large (48x48) icons were to be incorporated into classic Mac OS [2] and the screenshot [3] was likely Rhapsody [4], though I'm not clear if 8.5 actually supported them [5]. Had Mac OS X been delayed long enough for there to be something after OS 9, then 48x48 icons might have been fully supported, but then I'm just speculating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.112.215 (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

iirc 48x48 icons were officially supported but there was no flag in the filesystem to turn them on in finder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.197.88 (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

More on OS 9.3

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)

"Compatibility" table overwhelming and unecessary

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)

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)

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)

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

On memory protection

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)

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)

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)

Whatever happened to 9.0.1?

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)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Retroactive application of 'macOS' name?

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)

Agree. Historical references should use historical names. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Should the Xserve G4/G5 be added to the compatibility chart?

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)