Tiger on Aluminium iMac

[dazzer21]

I have a swoopy new Intel iMac 24" 2.8 arriving next week. I currently have a 1.33Ghz PPC Mac Mini. I'm rather keen to keep the classic environment to hand as the odd file comes to me in software that isn't of feasible use in OS X. For example, I sometimes receive files created in Quark XPress 4, which then need to be handed back in the same format, ie, NOT in v7 format as I currently run in Tiger.

I know that Leopard won't support OS9 in any form whatsoever, and I can't be bothered to try any workarounds like Sheepshaver etc; my question is:

Will I be able to use the Mini's Tiger installation disks to be able to create a partition on the iMac's drive to then be able to boot into either 10.4 or 10.5 at will? That way, I can use classic in Tiger to run OS9.1 as I currently do. I'm presuming the answer may probably be no as the Mini is PPC, but then what do I know..?

Thank you for your time...

D21

 

[tersono]

No, you'd need a copy of the installation disk that shipped with the new iMacs for the last couple of months before Leopard came out. (10.4.10 IIRC) Your existing disk isn't universal (neither was the retail version).

 

[G-Force]

As far as I know, Classic doesn't work on an Intel Mac. And the discs from the mini will also not work on an Intel Mac (like tersono said).

 

[AlexisV]

Why do you need to hand back files in Quark 4 format?

Professionally, you can't expect your suppliers and contacts to remain in the same timewarp as you. Quark 4 was released in 1997. I'm surprised your contact can deal with anyone if he insists on Quark 4.

And now he's holding you back.

 

[Nichod]

Can't you save in old formats in Quark? I would think they have that option.

 

[AlexisV]

7 only back-saves to 6.51

 

[tersono]

As far as I know, Classic doesn't work on an Intel Mac. And the discs from the mini will also not work on an Intel Mac (like tersono said).

*Slaps self in head* - Why didn't I point that out too? No, of course, Classic is PPC only. Thank Gawd it's Friday, my brain must've died - probably all those Dells I've been installing today. Excellent point, that man!

Thankfully someone is still on the ball

 

[scaredpoet]

Will I be able to use the Mini's Tiger installation disks to be able to create a partition on the iMac's drive to then be able to boot into either 10.4 or 10.5 at will? That way, I can use classic in Tiger to run OS9.1 as I currently do. I'm presuming the answer may probably be no as the Mini is PPC, but then what do I know..?

I think your only option is to keep the PPC Mac mini around. It's not the OS that's so much a problem as the processor, as others have said. Classic will not work on any Intel-based Mac (in fact, I think 10.3 was the first OS that would run on an Intel).

Just curious: who is still drawing up files in QuarkExpress 4? That version has to be at least 8 years old now, even before the first iMac. And even then, I knew of printers/typesetters who would accept finished copy in PDF.

 

[dazzer21]

Why do you need to hand back files in Quark 4 format?

Professionally, you can't expect your suppliers and contacts to remain in the same timewarp as you. Quark 4 was released in 1997. I'm surprised your contact can deal with anyone if he insists on Quark 4.

And now he's holding you back.

Believe it or not (and I know that at this time it's out of the ordinary), the work is quite lucrative - I'm not being held back as all my other work is done in either Quark 7 or InDesign CS3

The Quark 4 connection comes by way of the fact that the client had previously upgraded through 5 to 6, but came to the conclusion that 4 ran far quicker in comparison - having used 7 myself for quite a while on the Mini in Tiger (2Gb RAM) and on a 2Ghz MacBook (again 2Gb), my thoughts are that 4 in 9.2 on a G4 1.25 with 768Mb runs quicker too, but that's by the by...

Ah well - I was going to give the Mini to the kids - they'll have to start saving up...

D21

 

[AlexisV]

The Quark 4 connection comes by way of the fact that the client had previously upgraded through 5 to 6, but came to the conclusion that 4 ran far quicker in comparison - having used 7 myself for quite a while on the Mini in Tiger (2Gb RAM) and on a 2Ghz MacBook (again 2Gb), my thoughts are that 4 in 9.2 on a G4 1.25 with 768Mb runs quicker too, but that's by the by...

Really? 7 is rapid on the white Core Duo and Core2Duo white iMacs we use at work.

7.1 dealt with some speed issues I believe though.