• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag
 

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: is there a reason not to change "Applications (Mac OS 9)"
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: is there a reason not to change "Applications (Mac OS 9)"


  • Subject: Re: is there a reason not to change "Applications (Mac OS 9)"
  • From: garbanzito <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:38:51 -0600

at 6/12/01, 1:13 PM -0400, they whom i call Michael Turner wrote:
Is there a reason not to change the folder named "Applications (Mac OS 9)"
to just "Applications",

there's no strictly Mac OS 9.1 reason that i know of, but
it would interfere with putting Mac OS X on the same
partition, because Mac OS X puts global (all user)
applications in a folder called "Applications" on the top
level of the boot volume. also, i wouldn't be surprised if
Mac OS X looks specifically for "Applications (Mac OS 9)"
for Classic apps, regardless of whether it's on the same
partition.

steve harley email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: is there a reason not to change "Applications (Mac OS 9)"
      • From: Michael Turner <email@hidden>
References: 
 >is there a reason not to change "Applications (Mac OS 9)" (From: Michael Turner <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Call a perl script from an applescript
  • Next by Date: Re: is there a reason not to change "Applications (Mac OS 9)"
  • Previous by thread: Re: is there a reason not to change "Applications (Mac OS 9)"
  • Next by thread: Re: is there a reason not to change "Applications (Mac OS 9)"
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread