[utsumi]

Dear smax013:

(1) I thought that Windoze PeeCee will emulate OS9 in Win XP/Vista environment, so that any of OS9 application program (including WordPerfect for Mac) would run with it ? BTW, such is the reverse of the Virtual PC in the OS9 environment to emulate Window XP.

(2) Do you know any other similar emulator as PeeCee?

Best, Tak (Utsumi@columbia.edu)

[Typhoon14]

This is absolutely not the case. You will not be able to run Mac OS 9, Mac OS X, or anything else Mac if you buy a PC.


Your options, assuming you are totally unwilling to move to a new word processor, are as follows:



1. Keep running WordPerfect for Mac in OS 9. This will require a PowerPC-based Mac running Mac OS 10.4 or earlier as its main OS.

2. Move all your word-processing work to a Windows environment. This will require some sort of Windows-based PC, or you can install and use Windows on an Intel-based Mac either directly or using a virtualisation programme like Parallels or VMWare Fusion. It will also require the purchase of a Windows copy of Wordperfect X3. You will have to get used to working in Windows and using the Windows version of WordPerfect

There are emulators of the Mac OS available for Windows, but they are even more unreliable and harder to setup than SheepShaver on an Intel Mac, so you really don't want to use them.



Just to repeat, your only realistic option for continuing to use the old Mac OS version of Wordperfect is to keep using an old Mac: A PowerPC-based Mac running Mac OS 10.4 or earlier. This is a lousy solution for the future, as the technology and OS are dead and will continuing to get more out-of-date, making it more and more inconvienent to keep your work environment alive using ancient tech.

[smax013]

utsumi said:

Dear smax013:

(1) I thought that Windoze PeeCee will emulate OS9 in Win XP/Vista environment, so that any of OS9 application program (including WordPerfect for Mac) would run with it — BTW, such is the reverse of the Virtual PC in the OS9 environment to emulate Window XP.

(2) Do you know any other similar emulator as PeeCee?

Best, Tak (Utsumi@columbia.edu)

First, let me be clear to make sure you understand what I mean (i.e. make sure that my making fun of Windoze hardware does not get in the way)...



When I say Windoze PeeCee, I mean a computer from the likes of Dell, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, etc that is running Windows XP or Vista (or maybe even one of the more older Windows operating system). That is a PeeCee as in PC as in Personal Computer. Thus, I am talking about non-Mac/non-Apple hardware that is running the Windows (aka Windoze as I like to make fun of it, even though I use it extensively) OS on the computer.



And when talking Windoze, there has NEVER been an emulator or virtual machine software that can run any Mac OS that I am aware of. Thus, if you are going to run the Windoze OS (whether on non-Apple hardware or on Apple hardware using the likes of BootCamp, Fusion, or Parallels), then you will NOT be using any Mac OS application, whether OS 9 or OS X.



The whole point of going to the Windoze OS in your case is because there is still version of WordPerfect available for the current Windoze OS...while there is NO SUCH program available for current the Mac OS. Thus, if you want a newer computer that can still run a version of WordPerfect that would hopefully get the features of WordPerfect that you want and work directly with all your old files in WordPerfect format, you will HAVE to go to a Windoze OS environment to get it. The only "Macness" involved is that with the advent of Intel Macs, you can run Windoze on them will little to no performace hit, unlikes what was present with Virtual PC on PowerPC based Macs (aka running Windoze on a current Mac is not slow as dirt).

[utsumi]

Dear smax013:

(1) I once run WordPerfect for Window using Virtual PC on my Mac.

I am hoping to find similar emulators, which emulate OS9 on Window XP/Vista, so that my WordPerfect for Mac as well as other application programs for OS9 can still be used with Leopard on MacBook.

(2) As Googling, I found the following;

os9exec - os9 emulator
http://sourceforge.n...ojects/os9exec/

I wish to know its reputation and any other similar emulator.

I will study some others at;

Free 68k (680x0) and PowerPC (PPC) Macintosh Emulators
http://www.thefreeco...macintosh.shtml

(3) Otherwise, as you suggested, I may need to use SheepShaver, though I see some horrible experiences in;

Run MacOS 9 on an Intel Mac
http://uneasysilence...e/2006/08/7352/

How to run Classic (pre OS X) apps on Intel Macs
http://www.macosxhin...14879&lsrc=osxh

Many thanks for your sugggestgions.

Best, Tak (utsumi@columbia.edu)

[smax013]

As previously noted, there are emulators, such as SheepShaver, but from everything that I have heard or seen, they are rather painful to use and not really for the faint of heart. As such, if this a "mission critical" thing, I would not likely rely on such a path...but then you seem hell bent on sticking with OS 9, so feel free to do that path if you want.



Personally, I think you are making this MUCH harder by wanting to pursue such options. You will likely have less hassle and pain by just switching to another word processor that will work with an Intel Mac using the current Mac OS. This is not much more that I can say in terms of my belief that you are making more potential problems for yourself. In the end, if you are truly hell bent on sticking with OS 9, then just go get a used Mac that can actually run OS 9. While you are just prolonging the eventual need to really face having to modernize, it will likely still be WAY better than trying to get an OS 9 emulator to run on either an Intel Mac or a Windoze computer.

[macnuke]

it' not like you don't know it was coming.
OS X spelled the death of OS 9 many years ago when it was released.
the Classic enviornment was a "transition" allowance granted by Apple.

I agree that it's going to be a pain to continue to use your outdated apps.
and it's only going to get worse.

it really is time to upgrade and make the transition in whatever way necessary to continue.

[utsumi]

Dear smax013:

(1) Many thanks for your valuable suggestions.

(2) I learned a lot and realized that I have to do tremendous homework before I enjoy the benefits of Leopard and MacBook.

This tremendous task includes the trouble of incompatibility between Microsoft Office 2004 and 2008 versions.

(3) My last idea is to have two partitions in my internal hard disk, one for Tiger (to be used by Account A) and the other for Leopard (to be used by Account B), and boot each of them separately. If this works, I would try it on my present PowerbBookG4 before transferring to MacBook.

Best, Tak (utsumi@columbia.edu)

[smax013]

utsumi said:

This tremendous task includes the trouble of incompatibility between Microsoft Office 2004 and 2008 versions.

You lost me...what incompatibility are you talking about?

utsumi said:

(3) My last idea is to have two partitions in my internal hard disk, one for Tiger (to be used by Account A) and the other for Leopard (to be used by Account B), and boot each of them separately.

It is certainly doable...but I cannot help but wonder why you would want/need to do it. I can see no logical reason to run both Leopard and Tiger other than for a) fun (and yes, I do have a warped sense of fun) or b) to test software compatibility on different versions of the OS.

[utsumi]

Dear smax013:

(1) I have been using Entourage from its beginning. As soon as its 2008 version came out, I purchased it.

(a) Incidence A:
As I did with the 2004 version, I composed a msg with the 2008 version Entourage with the use of many formatting, e.g., indentations, centering, coloring of characters, etc., etc., with html mode, of course. I stored it into a DRAFT folder for my next day work. I was then really appalled when I found most of those formatting were disappeared.

I was then really surprised to hear from a Microsoft Office technical person that I should have compose such a msg with MS/WORD, convert it into PDF file and send it as an attachment ? as forfeiting all of those bells and whistles of the Entourage by themselves!!

(b) Incidence B:
When I opened a msg of the 2004 version with the use of the 2008 version, the same thing happened.

© Incidence C:
When I copied the msg composed with the 2008 version into a file of MS/WORD 2008 version, the same thing happened.

(d) Upon your suggestion, I started to convert my old WordPerfect files. It can stored into RTF file, which can be opened by the MS/WORD 2004 version with ?doc? suffix, which can then be opened by the MS/WORD 2008 version. When I opened it by the MS/WORD 2008 version and stored with?docx?, I cannot open it with MS/WORD 2004 version.

(e) Microsoft Office tech support people then suggested me to get my money back ? she gave me a telephone # to call for this matter.

Because of the above and similar troubles in the past, I am not fond of MS/WORD, and still prefer WordPerfect.

(2) As keeping Tiger, I can go back to it for converting my old WordPerfect files at my leisure time, in addition to my being able to use some of OS9 application programs with which I am quite familiarized ? remember I am an OLD DOG!! I have about 70 GB space left in my internal hard disk, so that it should handle Leopard.

Best, Tak (utsumi@columbia.edu)

[smax013]

utsumi said:

Dear smax013:

(1) I have been using Entourage from its beginning. As soon as its 2008 version came out, I purchased it.

(a) Incidence A:
As I did with the 2004 version, I composed a msg with the 2008 version Entourage with the use of many formatting, e.g., indentations, centering, coloring of characters, etc., etc., with html mode, of course. I stored it into a DRAFT folder for my next day work. I was then really appalled when I found most of those formatting were disappeared.

I was then really surprised to hear from a Microsoft Office technical person that I should have compose such a msg with MS/WORD, convert it into PDF file and send it as an attachment — as forfeiting all of those bells and whistles of the Entourage by themselves!!

(b) Incidence B:
When I opened a msg of the 2004 version with the use of the 2008 version, the same thing happened.

© Incidence C:
When I copied the msg composed with the 2008 version into a file of MS/WORD 2008 version, the same thing happened.

Since I have not upgrade to Office 2008, I have not encountered such things. I will have to "play" with it some on my dad's computer. At this point, I have heard enough bad stuff that I am not planning on upgrading.

utsumi said:

(d) Upon your suggestion, I started to convert my old WordPerfect files. It can stored into RTF file, which can be opened by the MS/WORD 2004 version with “doc” suffix, which can then be opened by the MS/WORD 2008 version. When I opened it by the MS/WORD 2008 version and stored with”docx”, I cannot open it with MS/WORD 2004 version.

(e) Microsoft Office tech support people then suggested me to get my money back — she gave me a telephone # to call for this matter.

Because of the above and similar troubles in the past, I am not fond of MS/WORD, and still prefer WordPerfect.

I was suspecting that the "doc" vs. "docx" bit was what you are referring to. Yes, Office 2007 (Windoze OS version) and Office 2008 (Mac OS version) use a new default file format. You can, however, still save the files in the old format, which will be compatible with older versions of Office (both Mac and Windoze OS versions). In addition, you can download and install this file converter for Office 2004 (look at the bottom of the webpage for the download). There is a similar download for the older Windoze versions of Office.

utsumi said:

(2) As keeping Tiger, I can go back to it for converting my old WordPerfect files at my leisure time, in addition to my being able to use some of OS9 application programs with which I am quite familiarized — remember I am an OLD DOG!! I have about 70 GB space left in my internal hard disk, so that it should handle Leopard.

I was figuring this might be why you might be thinking about dual booting. Don't bother...to be 100% clear, you CANNOT run OS 9 on any Intel based Mac without some sort of emulator like Sheepshaver. It is not an OS version issue on the Intel Macs. Intel Macs just DO NOT support OS 9, whether it is Tiger or Leopard. Thus, running Tiger on a new MacBook will NOT get you OS 9...period...unless you run an emulator like Sheepshaver as we have discussed.



If you are talking about a PowerPC, then, if I recall correctly, the OS version matters as I believe that Apple has eliminated support for Classic (aka OS 9) completely in Leopard. Thus, if you run Leopard, OS 9 is out whether you have a PowerPC or an Intel Mac. If you are running Tiger, then OS 9 will run in Classic mode on most PowerPC Macs, but on NO Intel Mac (unless you run it in an emulator as previously discussed).



Thus, if you are still planning on getting a MacBook, dual booting with Tiger and Leopard will not really gain you anything.

[macnuke]

no offense.. but by the time you go thru all the trouble you are going thru..... you could have just migrated all of your old and very outdated stuff to a new mac and be current for many years.
dead.
I repeat. dead.
way past buried and the grass and flowers have grown over it.

if you insist on running classic for your dead application, your only real option is to buy years old used equipment with PPC architecture in it and live with the fact you won't get support and it's gunna die off too.

[Typhoon14]

Absolutely, you are going about this in a very impractical way. You have officially reached the point where you will spend more time and trouble trying to use your old software and files then you will to convert them and learn to use modern software.

And the "old dog" argument means nothing. I've seen plenty of people all the way into their 90s learn to use a computer for the first time and do just fine. It's not about age, it's about attitude.

[utsumi]

Dear smax013:

(1) Many thanks for your prompt reply.

(2) Yes, I suggest that you would better to hold your upgrading Microsoft Office to 2008 yet. Besides of my trouble with it I mentioned before, its recent upgrade version 12.0.1 did not solve my trouble. You may wait for another half year.

(3) Thanks to your technical suggestions, I would stay with my PowerBookG4 for a while yet, as having the best of all, i.e., OS9, Tiger and Leopard ? just lacking would be the speed, but I have to bit it for a while until I decide to use SheepShaver on MacBook, or completely not to use OS9.

(4) In this case, I will have following three partitions in my internal hard disk;

(a) For only Tiger,
(b) For only Leopard,
© For only for my personal data files.

However, my concern at this point is that there would be application folder in each of (4)-(a) and (b), so that wouldn?t Tiger or Leopard get confused which to choose? Or, when I boot each of them separately and independently, would it choose which of application folder automatically?

Should the application folder be moved into the partition of (4)-©? Or, it comes with the system folder together and hence cannot move to other partition?

Can you also tell me roughly what size of the space for each of (4)-(a) and (b) I should allocate in my hard disk?

Thanks in advance.

Best, Tak (utsumi@columbia.edu)

[smax013]

utsumi said:

Dear smax013:

(1) Many thanks for your prompt reply.

(2) Yes, I suggest that you would better to hold your upgrading Microsoft Office to 2008 yet. Besides of my trouble with it I mentioned before, its recent upgrade version 12.0.1 did not solve my trouble. You may wait for another half year.

(3) Thanks to your technical suggestions, I would stay with my PowerBookG4 for a while yet, as having the best of all, i.e., OS9, Tiger and Leopard — just lacking would be the speed, but I have to bit it for a while until I decide to use SheepShaver on MacBook, or completely not to use OS9.

(4) In this case, I will have following three partitions in my internal hard disk;

(a) For only Tiger,
(b) For only Leopard,
© For only for my personal data files.

However, my concern at this point is that there would be application folder in each of (4)-(a) and (b), so that wouldn’t Tiger or Leopard get confused which to choose? Or, when I boot each of them separately and independently, would it choose which of application folder automatically?

Should the application folder be moved into the partition of (4)-©? Or, it comes with the system folder together and hence cannot move to other partition?

Can you also tell me roughly what size of the space for each of (4)-(a) and (b) I should allocate in my hard disk?

Thanks in advance.

Best, Tak (utsumi@columbia.edu)

To be frank, I think that you are WAY overthinking/working this. Personally, I would not bother with Leopard and just stick with Tiger if you are going to stick with a PPC based computer in order to run OS 9. I personally don't see any really "needed" feature in Leopard, especially if a major part of your work is still going to be in OS 9. And at least quite of few of the new "features" can be repliated in Tiger with third party applications.



If you are hell bent on doing the dual boot option, then partition sizes will somewhat depend on what you are going to put on them besides the OS. While you can largely put the main application files anywhere on a Mac, Mac applications have gotten more and more Windoze like in that a lot of them sprinkle crap (aka support and setting files, etc) all over the place when they get installed. By and large, the days of you being able to put all the application files anywhere you want are gone. As a result, you will get stuff from many applications that needs to be put on the boot drive with the OS files.



Now, having said that, my Tower G4's boot drive only uses about 13 GB, about 6 GB of that is MP3 music files (it was serving as my music server in addition to my machine to run OS 9 stuff when I need it). I don't really have hardly any applications on that drive (all the OS 9 stuff, including the OS 9 applications are on another drive/partition). As a result, only about 7 GB or so of that 13 GB is the Tiger OS and any applicaitons that come with it (i.e. Safari, Mail, Addressbook, iCal, iTunes, etc). Thus, I am guessing that a 20 to 25 GB partition would work just fine...most likely less depending on what applications you intent to install on it. I don't know how this compares with Leopard, but I cannot image Leopard being all that much larger. Utlimately, you will have to decide what size partitions you want to use. Only you know what and how much you are going to install on the computer.



As to the Application folder, you will not want to move that folder. You can certainly consider moving some of the applications that would normally be in the Application folder to another partition/location. The main application executable file should run no matter where you put it typically (there might be some that are "picky", but I doubt it)...as long as you put it on a drive that is currently running and mounted. There will be application support and settings files that will HAVE to remain on the OS boot drive for many programs, so even if you install the program on an external disk or another partition on the internal disk, it will still likely have to put some things on the boot disk/partition, so it will NOT just be the pure OS files on that partition. The OS will not "get confused" about Application folders or installed programs.



FWIW, it seems like a lot of work for not so much benefit. Unless you go buy a third party program that can adjust the partitions non-destructively on the fly, you will have to fully back up the computer so that you can then completely wipe the drive to redo the partitioning...and then restore the backup to one or more of the partitions...and then install the second OS on the second partition. Personally, I just don't see it as being worth it unless there is some "to die for" new feature in your mind in Leopard.