Is this a phase? I certainly HOPE not. I've been experimenting with X because I want to edit Hi-Def video and I can't do it in OS 9 due to the lack of an H.264 CODEC for Quicktime 6.

I've found X 10.4 (Tiger) to be unstable and X 10.5 (Leopard) is 4 times bigger on disk than Tiger.

An then there is the "Oh we don't support that version of X" mentality that seems to be everywhere.

X is NOT what I come to the Garden for. I say get rid of anything that won't run in 9 or less.

Gary

OS X items are a bit of a grey area for us. Some seem OK for reasons I am not clear about. For example, I have just reuploaded Dungeon Siege which is for early OS X, but I did so only because it was already here before. It would help if we had some clear guidelines to follow, with anything outside that requiring a separate OS X only site.

How do divide a united community.

I read the sites mission statement at http://macintoshgarden.org/about . Nowhere does it mention OS9. I se the site as preserving Macintosh abandonware.
We're fortunate that we have the switch to Intel to help us draw a line. But we still need to be careful, some games (but way too few) have UB patches available. Something like Dungeon Siege runs in OS X 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4. When it comes up 2nd hand, it goes unsold for $5.
You may have noticed that I give very little help to those trying to crack a game or play it with incompatible hardware / software, for me it's all about preserving the games and other software. I may have played those I bought years ago, but now I have no time for any of it.

----------We're fortunate that we have the switch to Intel to help us draw a line.-------

Yes, that is true. Maybe that, plus being conservative about where we draw the line, is the best we can hope for at present. However, I think we will continue to agonise about this until OSs that do not support Rosetta (Lion and whatever comes after) have been around for whole lot longer.

It would actually be kinda unreasonable to say that only Classic Mac OS like 1-9 should be available. That is like some of my vintage radio collector friends who say that only radios with vacuum tubes are 'valid'. The truth is that Mac is a way of computing not just a particular architecture.

As much as I love OS8&9 (did some of my best work with them), I have also grown to love Tiger and it is, in many ways just as obsolete. As long as it doesn't violate the law, and people are still making it useful, it should probably be made available.

Like it or not, in another few years, Snow Leopard will be really old news (more and more Macs cannot boot from it either), and as the last quality PPC operational system, it will be the 'new' hold on the past.

The past is constantly being created and it is all relative.

Following the discussion above, I am now convinced that OS X uploads are fine under certain conditions. Firstly, following bertyboy's comment, I think we should draw the line at Intel applications and games. So I think uploads should be OK provided (i) they are not Intel-native, (ii) they are at least 10 years old (e.g. a 2003 title uploaded in 2013) and (iii) the other usual requirements are met (no longer on sale by the publisher, not *actively* supported by the publisher). The latter requirements have always been mandatory, and the 10 year "rule" is one that most of us apply anyway. At present, the 10 year rule will exclude Intel applications on its own. With these conditions, it is irrelevant whether a title is OS X or not, except for the extra exclusion of Intel-native titles. I plan to apply these conditions to my own uploads unless an admin tells me otherwise. A consequence is that some of the MacPlay titles that I listed elsewhere should wait for a year or two before uploading here.

Me, just a moderator actually.

Me, er...sorry, wrong bar.

Want to be? I think you've asked before already.

I think MikeTomTom wants 2B an infiltrator ,oops! I mean an ADMIN and sneak the Mac OS X apps into the Garden.

(just kiddin´)

It seems that no one questions what is a Macintosh and what is not anymore. This used to be a big issue, with a couple of definitions going around. The two that used to be the most popular are (paraphrased by me):

1: A computer with a real 680x0 CPU and the core components of the Macintosh Operating system and toolbox in ROM.

2: A computer with either a 680x0 CPU or a PowerPC CPU that contains the core Operating System and ToolBox in ROM. (This matches My personal view).

Now both of these definitions describe computers that are not capable of running Mac OS X.
================================================================

Then there is the question of defining at what point what we call the Mac OS is no longer truly Macintosh System Software or Mac OS. Not to long ago most agreed that this is a matter of binary compatibility, giving the definition:

An Ooperating System claiming to be Macintosh System Software and/or Mac OS, or claiming compatibility must be capable of NATIVELY running better than 55% of software written for the Macintosh with Macintosh System Software before 1989, and more than 99% of software written for Macintosh SSW 7.x.x and Mac OS 7.x.x and 8.0/8.1.

It should be noticed by all that Mac OS 9.x.x breaks these rules. Even more so Mac OS X severely breaks these rules, as it can not run any of the software from this definition natively (relying instead on the use of a virtual machine to run a full copy of Mac OS).

As such I ask even further; What do we consider Macintosh software? And what about Macintosh HW?

"The Macintosh Garden is an abandonware games archive, dedicated in particular to supporting the Macintosh computer platform."

As such and based on the definitions provided in my last post along with the fact that just 7 to 8 years ago almost every Macintosh user agreed with these views (I still think that Apple must have done something severe to change peoples view) I say:

Stick with the Macintosh platform, that is:
A Macintosh or Macintosh compatible computer is a computer with either a 680x0 CPU or a PowerPC CPU that contains the core Macintosh Operating System and Macintosh ToolBox in ROM, and is capable of running Macintosh System Software (Version( s ) earlier than or equal to Mac OS 8.1)

And avoid the titles that are non Macintosh. And stick to abandon where, Open source where, FreeWhere, and Public Domain where.

To further clarify; stick to titles that will run on one or more or the following Operating Systems:

• Any of Macintosh System Software 0.1 through 7.5.5, Mac OS 7.6.x through Mac OS 8.5
• A/UX (Apple Unix).
• BeOS PowerPC (for Macintosh).
• MacMint.
• MachTen.
• MagicMac
• Copeland.
• And other nonLinux and nonBSD Operating systems that can run on this HW.

Also allow any of these Operating Systems, so long as they are: Abandon where, Open source where, FreeWhere, or Public Domain where

And, of course, always respect the wishes of the Copyrite holder( s )

We're starting to sound like sad Trekkies, disagreeing over which series constitutes real Star Trek. Simply, they all do (as if I even cared).

A Macintosh computer is an Apple computer (or clone) that can run any variety of Mac OS. I think we're confusing the concept of abandonware and trying to apply it to what a Mac computer is and which OS's they should run. We also seem to be trying to limit what is abandonware to what can run under emulation.

So let's concentrate on abandonware. I've been guilty of suggesting that anything that is Intel native, even through a patch cannot be considered abandonware.
We can add our own criteria onto this, but they should reflect that the software is difficult to obtain through retail or e-retail channels.
The suitablitiy of the PowerPC software to run on Intel (Rosetta) could also be considered, many of the OS X titles we can consider we broken by OS X long before OS X 10.6.

mrdav's logic is irrefutable.

I agree 100% with his algorithm for OSX software.