Running OS 9 on a mac mini

[NightLord]

I really want to try out OS 9 on my mac mini, mainly because OS X was my first experience with apple, and I want to try out a Classic Mac OS.

The Problem is, Mac minis can't boot OS 9, and Sheepshaver, the only emulator capable of running OS 9, doesn't work for some reason.


Does anyone know anyway of running OS 9 on my mac? Not necessarily natively, it could be within OS X, but I just want to try out a full OS 9 system, not just run classic software in OS X.

 

[iMeowbot]

At least some minis shipped with 10.3, on which you could run Mac-on-Mac.

MoM doesn't run on Tiger, and it won't unless someone else picks up the project. The original developer decided it wasn't interesting any more now that Macs are moving to x86.

 

[NightLord]

Well, its a start....Any other ideas/options? (Note: I don't want to be told to get an older mac, I want to try it on my mini)

 

[Sedulous]

Why not use classic? I don't think any recent Mac can boot to OS9.

 

[Nermal]

The Problem is, Mac minis can't boot OS 9, and Sheepshaver, the only emulator capable of running OS 9, doesn't work for some reason.

Are you getting an error message? I've successfully run 8.6 (haven't tried 9) using SheepShaver. Have you copied the Mac OS ROM into your SheepShaver folder?

Why not use classic?

You can't run the OS 9 Finder etc. through Classic.

 

[NightLord]

Because its not necessarily the apps i want to run, I want a full OS 9 desktop

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Yes. Mini's, even running 10.4, include the 'Classic Compatibility Environment'. It lets you run OS 9 apps from within OS X. It's not quite the same experience as running 'true-blue' OS 9, but it does let you run older apps. The biggest difference is you don't get a true OS 9 desktop, you still use the OS X desktop; it just runs OS 9 apps. 'Classic', as it's usually called, isn't installed by default, but you'll find the installer in the 'Applications' folder (or maybe it's 'Utilities', I can't remember now, and I delete it from this Mac.) under 'Installers'.

You can open most of the OS 9 control panels, but some that normally would control hardware-level functions that are run through the OS X equivalent, aren't available; such as the TCP/IP control panel.

Also, are you looking for an 'OS 9' environment, or a 'pre-OS X' environment? If you just want 'pre OS X', try vMac, which emulates an even older, 680x0-based Mac, and can run OSes 6 through 8.1 (Of course, then you need an old ROM image, and access to the old OS install disks or CD.)

 

[NightLord]

Well, I was able to get System 7.0.1 running on basilisk, without any net or anything, but from the looks of it OS9 is pretty different

 

[Laser47]

Well, I was able to get System 7.0.1 running on basilisk, without any net or anything, but from the looks of it OS9 is pretty different

The closest thing to OS9 that runs on basilisk is OS8 which adopted some of the platinum styles that are in OS9.
Also I can see the reason why you want to run OS9, The oldest mac OS ive used is 10.4 and I would really like to see how old macs were. I remember using OS9 on a B&W G3 in art class in middle school and would really like to bring back those fond memories. I really want to buy a mac that supports OS9..... Someday.

 

[NightLord]

I too had a brief experience with Mac Pre-10.4 (My aunt bought an original Macintosh running System 1 ), but this 10.4 is my first proper experience, hence, i would like to try a few things out in OS 9....

 

[ahunter3]

Well, its a start....Any other ideas/options? (Note: I don't want to be told to get an older mac, I want to try it on my mini)

What happens when you try to use SheepShaver?

What ROM are you using? Do you have a diskimage of MacOS 8.6 or 9.0 to use? Is it an .img file rather than a .dmg file?

Have you edited the paths in ~/.sheepshaver_prefs to properly reflect where you've put your ROM and diskimage?

Do you get a MacOS 9 splash screen at all, or does it not get that far?

 

[Laser47]

You guys also have to remember that Sheepshaver only supports OS 9 version 9.0.4 and nothing above that.

 

[NightLord]

Well, i run it, and it bounces 3 times, the closes.

I set all the paths and such, but still doesn't work.

 

[ahunter3]

Well, i run it, and it bounces 3 times, the closes.

I set all the paths and such, but still doesn't work.

Works fine on mine. I'm running 10.3.8, ROM is from a system updater (extracted with TomeViewer), diskimage file is a ".img" format and contains 8.6 on it.

 

[Nermal]

I've successfully booted from the 8.5 CD, using the 8.6 ROM. The 8.5 ROM doesn't seem to work. Just to keep things "in synch", I updated the OS to 8.6 straight away (my 8.6 CD can only be used to do an upgrade, not a full install), and that worked too.

 

[Laser47]

I've successfully booted from the 8.5 CD, using the 8.6 ROM. The 8.5 ROM doesn't seem to work. Just to keep things "in synch", I updated the OS to 8.6 straight away (my 8.6 CD can only be used to do an upgrade, not a full install), and that worked too.

What program are you using, basilisk ? I thought 8.6 ran on PPC only.

 

[Nermal]

SheepShaver. It doesn't emulate the CPU, it just uses the native PPC processor in your Mac.

 

[spinne1]

After using pre-OS X systems for years (just got my first OS X maybe a year or year and a half ago), I can say that it is very hard to go back. Not that it is so bad, but that OS X is just so good in comparison. There are so many issues with OS 9 and previous. They had memory control issues, multi-tasking issues, the lack of a sidebar in your windows for easier navigation. In OS 9 if you double clicked a folder, it opened a new window, which for nested files could get messy. You constantly had to move and resize your windows. (yes I am aware of springing folders).

All that said, the basic experience of window and folder use, dragging and dropping, etc. was similar. The actual setup of the systems is vastly different. OS 9 was controlled by one folder, the "System Folder." Within that were only four truly essential parts, with one more pretty necessary. You had your Finder, System, Control Panels folder, and Extensions folder. Those four ran the roost. You could boot a mac with just those four for a while (I don't remember which OS required a little more). The fifth ingredient is the Preferences folder.

In OS 9 preference files would get corrupted, extensions would conflict with one another sometimes and were usually very hard to detect and fix. You had to reboot often to keep the system up to tip top shape. If you didn't the memory would leak and the performance would get buggier and sloppier until finally it would just lock up or you'd get a "bomb" window pop up and you'd have to restart.

Lastly, despite all that I have said, an OS 9 Mac is and was still superior to Windows for me. I still would not have traded had you offered me a newer Windows system.

 

[bodeh6]

Feeling a need for nostalgia? Before Tiger and August 2005 when I switched , the last time I used Macs to any extent really was the mid 1990's 1994-1997 when I was in middle school. We had a Mac Lab. In high school we did not have Macs. I believe the Macs we had in Middle school were the Performas 5200LC.

Ahhhhh.. How this image takes me back through an old school trip.

 

[ahunter3]

ti-tasking issues, the lack of a sidebar in your windows for easier navigation. In OS 9 if you double clicked a folder, it opened a new window, which for nested files could get messy. You constantly had to move and resize your windows.

I've got OS X set to behave that way. I hate the window-as-browser thing. The "mess" is avoided by holding the option key as you double-click (closes the surrounding folder as it opens the new one).

OS 9 was controlled by one folder, the "System Folder." Within that were only four truly essential parts, with one more pretty necessary. You had your Finder, System, Control Panels folder, and Extensions folder. Those four ran the roost. You could boot a mac with just those four for a while (I don't remember which OS required a little more). The fifth ingredient is the Preferences folder.

All you actually need is the System file and the Finder file, and for them to be in the same place (not necessary a folder called "System Folder")*. On boot, it will create the Control Panels, Extensions, Fonts, and other folders if they aren't already there. So you could boot a Mac with just two files!

You can bury them deep in subfolders or put them at the root, or on the Desktop, doesn't matter, if they're side-by-side the hardware will notice them and boot from that.

Technically, you don't even need the actual Finder — if you take another application and change its file type and creator code to match those of the Finder, rename it "Finder", and put it alongside of the System file, it will boot withouta Finder and the other application will auto-launch. (You could sure screw with someone's head doing that )


* some models need "enabler" files and/or other additional resource files

 

[ahunter3]

(re: SheepShaver) Works fine on mine. I'm running 10.3.8, ROM is from a system updater (extracted with TomeViewer), diskimage file is a ".img" format and contains 8.6 on it.

Reset and clear: I've got a new Mac, with Tiger preinstalled, and the version of SheepShaver I'd been using would not run under Tiger.


Found a Tiger-compatible version of SheepShaver here