What's with this OS X software early obsolescence thing?
Eric Kay
Hey, you know I wanted to try out the Mars rover Maestro software, but it
requires at least 10.3, yet I'm running Jaguar, so too bad. Yet that same
software will run on Windows 98. Why is it that new software continues to
support ancient (and obsolete) pieces of crap like Win98, and yet my copy
of Jaguar, less than 2 years' old, can't run a damn thing anymore? Oh, and
before you tell me to upgrade, I can't afford to. It would be nice to buy
G5s with 4 GB RAM and such, in my dreams...
Chris McDonald
If Win98 is a "ancient (and obsolete) piece[s] of crap" (not disputing that,
mind you) then it's hard to tell if your question is a complaint or not.
--
Chris.
George Williams
>
> Hey, you know I wanted to try out the Mars rover Maestro software, but it
> requires at least 10.3, yet I'm running Jaguar, so too bad. Yet that same
> software will run on Windows 98.
It's likely they erred in saying "10.3 required". I wouldn't be surprised
if Jaguar will run it.
Chris Brown
w98: er, there is not so much new under the hood with later sys, as they
would have one think?
Barry Margolin
George Williams <nyar1a...@mac.com> wrote:
It probably just means that they've only tested it in 10.3, so they
won't promise Jaguar compatibility.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Tom Harrington
Eric Kay <eric...@lineonenospam.net> wrote:
Apple added a bunch of new stuff under the hood in 10.3. Some software
takes advantage of this. Maybe it's just me, but continuous improvement
in Mac OS X doesn't look like a bad thing to me.
Oh, and while I'm at it:
"my copy of Jaguar, less than 2 years' old, can't run a damn thing
anymore?"
Not even close to true, even with developers wanting to make the most of
the latest Mac OS X improvements.
"Oh, and before you tell me to upgrade, I can't afford to. It would be
nice to buy G5s with 4 GB RAM and such, in my dreams..."
What exactly does this have to do with upgrading to 10.3? OK, maybe you
can't afford it, but you don't need a Mac like the one you describe to
run it.
--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
See http://www.atomicbird.com/
Gregory Weston
Eric Kay <eric...@lineonenospam.net> wrote:
As others have said, it's entirely possible that what they really _mean_
is that it's only supported on Panther because that's the only
environment on which it has been officially tested.
On the other hand, when comparing OS X releases one should completely
ignore the version numbers and the arithmetic distance that appears to
separate them. Each 0.1 release of Mac OS X has offered significant
benefit not only to users but also to developers. Some of the API
enhancements have been downright compelling.
You want to talk bleeding edge, look at the system requirements for
BBEdit 8. It requires a version of Mac OS that had been out for 3 weeks
as of the BBEdit release.
--
Standard output is like your butt. Everyone has one. When using a bathroom,
they all default to going into a toilet. However, a person can redirect his
"standard output" to somewhere else, if he so chooses. - Jeremy Nixon
Martin Crisp
(in article <413669b2$0$17306$afc3...@news.ukonline.co.uk>):
Gee, the only money I spend on my computer systems is what I make
with them.
Because my disposable income is otherwise about -$50/week (I'm
involuntarily on a pension for the rest of my life, I turn 40 next
year).
Note: I'm just making an observation... there's no point whining
about how poor you are; you aren't picking over a Calcutta refuse
site for food.
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
Thomas Reed
<t...@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:
> Apple added a bunch of new stuff under the hood in 10.3. Some software
> takes advantage of this. Maybe it's just me, but continuous improvement
> in Mac OS X doesn't look like a bad thing to me.
As a developer, I can tell you that there were some annoying bugs under
the hood in 10.2 that were fixed in 10.3. I was excited by 10.3 not
just because of the cool new technologies, but because of the bug fixes
it contained. Other developers who have run into such bugs may not be
that thrilled about supporting 10.2. They would have to write code for
workarounds under 10.2, which means spending extra time (and thus,
money) to support an obsolete version of the OS.
--
-Thomas
Tacit
>requires at least 10.3, yet I'm running Jaguar, so too bad. Yet that same
>software will run on Windows 98. Why is it that new software continues
>to support ancient (and obsolete) pieces of crap like Win98, and yet my copy
>of Jaguar, less than 2 years' old, can't run a damn thing anymore?
From a programmer's standpoint, Windows 95 and Windows 98 and Windows 98 SE and
Windows Me are all pretty much the same; Microsoft added things here and there,
but for the most part, the API remained the same. Each so-called "upgrade" was
really about squeezing money out of Microsoft customers, not about making a
better operating system.
From a programmer's standpoint, the difference between OS X 10.2 and OS X 10.3
is night and day. To the user, they look pretty much the same, but the
differences "behind the scenes" are HUGE. The API in 10.3 is much larger and
more robust than the API in 10.2, with a great deal of new functionality and a
large number of changes and bugfixes that make the programmer's life a whole
lot easier.
So I can easily see why a programmer would continue to write software that
works in Windows 98; programming for any version of (non-NT-based) Windows is
pretty much like programming for Windows 98. I can also see why programmers
might write specifically for 10.3; it's light-years ahead of 10.2.
--
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Jeremy Nixon
> Hey, you know I wanted to try out the Mars rover Maestro software, but it
> requires at least 10.3, yet I'm running Jaguar, so too bad. Yet that same
> software will run on Windows 98. Why is it that new software continues to
> support ancient (and obsolete) pieces of crap like Win98, and yet my copy
> of Jaguar, less than 2 years' old, can't run a damn thing anymore?
OS X 10.3 was an *enormous* update, with more new stuff in it over 10.2
than all the Windows upgrades since Win98 combined have had.
I don't have any Mac software released, but I wouldn't code for 10.2 either
at this point. 10.3 was a major step forward.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Kurt Tappe
>>> requires at least 10.3, yet I'm running Jaguar, so too bad. Yet that same
>>> software will run on Windows 98.
>>
>> It's likely they erred in saying "10.3 required". I wouldn't be
>> surprised if Jaguar will run it.
>
> It probably just means that they've only tested it in 10.3, so they
> won't promise Jaguar compatibility.
Wrong--it really does require 10.3.1:
"Maestro uses Apple's Java 3D and Advanced Imaging Update, which
requires 10.3.1."
So it's not a matter of "early obsolescence", it's a matter of 10.2 not
quite measuring up. Jaguar didn't have the resources to let it play
with the big boys--10.3 does.
-Kurt
matt neuburg
> my copy
> of Jaguar, less than 2 years' old, can't run a damn thing anymore
Wrong. It can run everything it used to be able to run. It just can't
run anything *new*.
As to why this is: System upgrades fix bugs and add new feature. Thus it
is extraordinarily difficult to write backwards-compatible software, and
the non-upgraded user base is too small relatively to make the effort
worth while, so most developers don't even try. For example, BBEdit 8
doesn't just require Panther, it requires 10.3.5 specifically. m.
--
matt neuburg, phd = ma...@tidbits.com, http://www.tidbits.com/matt/
AppleScript: The Definitive Guide
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0596005571/somethingsbymatt
Read TidBITS! It's free and smart. http://www.tidbits.com
clw
ma...@tidbits.com (matt neuburg) wrote:
> Eric Kay <eric...@lineonenospam.net> wrote:
>
> > my copy
> > of Jaguar, less than 2 years' old, can't run a damn thing anymore
>
> Wrong. It can run everything it used to be able to run. It just can't
> run anything *new*.
>
> As to why this is: System upgrades fix bugs and add new feature. Thus it
> is extraordinarily difficult to write backwards-compatible software, and
> the non-upgraded user base is too small relatively to make the effort
> worth while, so most developers don't even try.
Actually, if they did make things back compatible, Apple would not make
so much selling the new OS. Is there a conspiracy here??
And, as far as a new OS to fix bugs, that is also a profit ploy. Any
bugs should be fixed free. After all, they are not the fault of the
consumer.
> For example, BBEdit 8
> doesn't just require Panther, it requires 10.3.5 specifically.
But the earlier version that is essentially not much different will run
fine on Jag.
--
It is an aspect of maturity to deal rationally with inconsistencies
Ian Gregory
> In article <1gjhsm4.11swsqb1o09y9sN%ma...@tidbits.com>,
> ma...@tidbits.com (matt neuburg) wrote:
>
>> As to why this is: System upgrades fix bugs and add new feature. Thus it
>> is extraordinarily difficult to write backwards-compatible software, and
>> the non-upgraded user base is too small relatively to make the effort
>> worth while, so most developers don't even try.
>
> Actually, if they did make things back compatible, Apple would not make
> so much selling the new OS. Is there a conspiracy here??
Yes - it is called capitalism.
> And, as far as a new OS to fix bugs, that is also a profit ploy. Any
> bugs should be fixed free. After all, they are not the fault of the
> consumer.
Apple's policy of charging for "major updates" is certainly
one which can be debated, but consider the facts:
1) Mac OS X is a complex piece of software
2) There is always scope for improvement
3) Competitors are not standing still
3) Developers generally like to be paid
So where does Apple get the revenue stream to pay the developers?
They could stop charging for the OS and increase the price of their
hardware - is that what you want? Personally I think that keeping
Mac OS X up to date is well worth the 30 cents or so per day that
Apple demands - if I didn't then I would be running Debian instead.
>> For example, BBEdit 8
>> doesn't just require Panther, it requires 10.3.5 specifically.
>
> But the earlier version that is essentially not much different will run
> fine on Jag.
So use the earlier version and stop whining:-)
--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
Tim Murray
> w98: er, there is not so much new under the hood with later sys, as they
> would have one think?
True. A lot of the new stuff was on the user side with (arguably) easier ways
to connect to the internet, share files, security (snicker) and stuff. But at
the core, much was the same. Sure, there is software that requires, for
example, Windows XP.
There is a point to be made that it doesn't always pay to maintain
compatibility with older systems: for the most part, people who hang on the
the old stuff (1) don't buy on line; (2) cost more in support; (3) pirate
software. It's true, for the most part.
Bev A. Kupf
Ian Gregory (f...@bar.invalid) wrote:
> clw wrote:
>> In article <1gjhsm4.11swsqb1o09y9sN%ma...@tidbits.com>,
>> ma...@tidbits.com (matt neuburg) wrote:
>>
>>> As to why this is: System upgrades fix bugs and add new feature. Thus it
>>> is extraordinarily difficult to write backwards-compatible software, and
>>> the non-upgraded user base is too small relatively to make the effort
>>> worth while, so most developers don't even try.
>>
>> Actually, if they did make things back compatible, Apple would not make
>> so much selling the new OS. Is there a conspiracy here??
>
> Yes - it is called capitalism.
Doesn't the word "progress" apply here? Because the other side charged
for "updated" operating systems (Win 98, Win Me) that didn't add much to
Windows 95. Nearly as I could tell anyway.
--
Bev A. Kupf
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about ways to harm our country and our people, and neither
do we." -- G.W. Bush, August 5, 2004.
Wes Groleau
> for "updated" operating systems (Win 98, Win Me) that didn't add much to
I can't help it--every time I see that OS name,
I get an image of Gates having a semi-tantrum:
"ME. ME. ME." Ok, Billy, YOU. :-)
--
Wes Groleau
-----------
Daily Hoax: http://www.snopes2.com/cgi-bin/random/random.asp
Paul Sture
>
> Apple's policy of charging for "major updates" is certainly
> one which can be debated, but consider the facts:
>
> 1) Mac OS X is a complex piece of software
> 2) There is always scope for improvement
> 3) Competitors are not standing still
> 3) Developers generally like to be paid
>
> So where does Apple get the revenue stream to pay the developers?
> They could stop charging for the OS and increase the price of their
> hardware - is that what you want? Personally I think that keeping
> Mac OS X up to date is well worth the 30 cents or so per day that
> Apple demands - if I didn't then I would be running Debian instead.
>
The timing of Apple's announcement that Jaguar would be chargeable bit
me personally, as I'd just bought my iBook. As a first time Mac user, I
was seriously wondering what I had let myself in for. I fell just
outside the timing of the cheap upgrade offer, but as far as I could
tell, it wasn't even available in my country. Both counts upset me.
Having said that, I had no problems paying for Panther, and feel it was
definitely worth it.
Tom Harrington
Wes Groleau <grolea...@freeshell.org> wrote:
> Bev A. Kupf wrote:
> > for "updated" operating systems (Win 98, Win Me) that didn't add much to
>
> I can't help it--every time I see that OS name,
> I get an image of Gates having a semi-tantrum:
> "ME. ME. ME." Ok, Billy, YOU. :-)
I always thought that "Windows Me" sounded like an expletive of some
kind-- as with other expressions of the form, "____ me".
Cathy Stevenson
<t...@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:
> In article <G_KdnfcNIcL...@gbronline.com>,
> Wes Groleau <grolea...@freeshell.org> wrote:
>
> > Bev A. Kupf wrote:
> > > for "updated" operating systems (Win 98, Win Me) that didn't add much to
> >
> > I can't help it--every time I see that OS name,
> > I get an image of Gates having a semi-tantrum:
> > "ME. ME. ME." Ok, Billy, YOU. :-)
>
> I always thought that "Windows Me" sounded like an expletive of some
> kind-- as with other expressions of the form, "____ me".
The next version of Window is going to be named Windows You.
Cathy
--
"there's a dance or two in the old dame yet." - mehitabel
C.Stevenson, M.D.
cats...@sonic.net
Wes Groleau
> The next version of Window is going to be named Windows You.
And the new ad campaign takes a turn toward candor:
"You know where you can go today...."
--
Wes Groleau
-----------
I've been framed! ...
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html
Laurent Daudelin
(Tacit) wrote:
>
[snip!]
> So I can easily see why a programmer would continue to write software that
> works in Windows 98; programming for any version of (non-NT-based) Windows
is
> pretty much like programming for Windows 98. I can also see why programmers
> might write specifically for 10.3; it's light-years ahead of 10.2.
As another OS X developer, I fully agree with the above statement. It gets
to a point where writing custom code for 10.2 that you get automatically for
free in 10.3 is not worth it...
-Laurent.
--
=================================================================
Laurent Daudelin Logiciels Nemesys Software
mailto:laurent....@ihatespam.net <http://nemesys.dyndns.org>
Replace ihatespam with verizon to reply
+++++++++++ Sent using an Apple Newton MessagePad 2100 ++++++++++
Gregory Weston
Wes Groleau <grolea...@freeshell.org> wrote:
> Cathy Stevenson wrote:
> > The next version of Window is going to be named Windows You.
>
> And the new ad campaign takes a turn toward candor:
>
> "You know where you can go today...."
I thought it was going to be:
"And just where do you think you're going?"
G
John Brock
Laurent Daudelin <laurent....@ihatespam.net> wrote:
>In message <20040902143911...@mb-m05.aol.com>, tac...@aol.com
>(Tacit) wrote:
>> So I can easily see why a programmer would continue to write software that
>> works in Windows 98; programming for any version of (non-NT-based) Windows is
>> pretty much like programming for Windows 98. I can also see why programmers
>> might write specifically for 10.3; it's light-years ahead of 10.2.
>As another OS X developer, I fully agree with the above statement. It gets
>to a point where writing custom code for 10.2 that you get automatically for
>free in 10.3 is not worth it...
But are we likely to see the same issue going from 10.3 to 10.4?
Or are the APIs basically stable now? As much as I dislike Microsoft,
I think the long term usability of older version of Windows is
impressive, and I'd like to see the same in OS X.
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
Steven Fisher
jbr...@panix.com (John Brock) wrote:
> But are we likely to see the same issue going from 10.3 to 10.4?
> Or are the APIs basically stable now? As much as I dislike Microsoft,
> I think the long term usability of older version of Windows is
> impressive, and I'd like to see the same in OS X.
Har. You haven't been keeping up to date with Longhorn news, have you?
--
Steven Fisher; sdfi...@spamcop.net
"Morituri Nolumus Mori."
Bruno Gaufier
>
> Hey, you know I wanted to try out the Mars rover Maestro software, but it
> requires at least 10.3, yet I'm running Jaguar, so too bad. Yet that same
> software will run on Windows 98. Why is it that new software continues to
> support ancient (and obsolete) pieces of crap like Win98, and yet my copy
> of Jaguar, less than 2 years' old, can't run a damn thing anymore? Oh, and
> before you tell me to upgrade, I can't afford to. It would be nice to buy
> G5s with 4 GB RAM and such, in my dreams...
This is all about developers choice (BTW, I'm a developer and know both
platforms) :
On Macintosh, one can write code compatible with, eg 10.2 and 10.3,
but, as Apple adds many new features with each OS release, developers
have two choices :
- Write the program targeting the 10.2 version. It will work on 10.3
but may (for example) take 10000 lines of codes. More : In this case
it's a pain to use new 10.3 features without breaking backward
compatibility.
- Write the same program targeting 10.3 : It may take 6000 lines of
code because of time saving features (eg : "Bindings", new in 10.3).
This program will not work with previous OS versions, but will be
faster to write, will use new OS features and have less bugs (Because
less code means less bugs !)
What do you thing they are going to do ?
On Windows, the problem is similar, but :
- Microsoft is "slower" to add important feature in its OS's (The above
example "Bindings" is a good one, as I've never seen such feature added
at OS level to any Windows).
- They try to make new features "backward compatible" : for example,
they created GDI+, which can be download for older OS's : This is a lot
of work, and the problem is that MS has a lot more developers than
Apple.
- Developers also, may also be "slower" to adopt new features (GDI+,
again, is a good example, as it's a few years old technology and is not
widely used).
- When developers adopt new technologies, the problem is the same as
with OSX : Backward compatibility is broken (eg, last Autocad version
only works on 2000 and XP).
Other important things are
* The final product stability : My company is developing large database
driven products for Windows, and we're only targeting the NT class
OS's. Why ? Because such large product may launch on DOS based OS's
(95/98/Me) but will be unstable ! So we could have written "Build for
ANY version of Windows" on the box, but the customers would have been
disappointed on W95.
* You cannot have the same politic when you're writing a product for 1
million consumers and for a few thousands ! This is, I think, a really
important difference between MS and Apple platforms.
PS : I know, this is oversimplified… but this may give you a few clues.
--
Bruno Gaufier
<br...@bgauf.net>
<http://perso.club-internet.fr/bgaufier/>
<http://bgauf.net/bruno>
John Brock
Steven Fisher <sdfi...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>In article <chclvl$bgd$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> jbr...@panix.com (John Brock) wrote:
>> But are we likely to see the same issue going from 10.3 to 10.4?
>> Or are the APIs basically stable now? As much as I dislike Microsoft,
>> I think the long term usability of older version of Windows is
>> impressive, and I'd like to see the same in OS X.
>Har. You haven't been keeping up to date with Longhorn news, have you?
No, I haven't. Are you saying that, when Longhorn finally comes
out (2006 or later), there are going to be many applications which
will require Longhorn and won't run on XP or earlier? If so, could
you point me to a web page which talks about this?
(An answer to my original question would also be nice).
--
John Brock
jbr...@panix.com
Steven Fisher
jbr...@panix.com (John Brock) wrote:
> No, I haven't. Are you saying that, when Longhorn finally comes
> out (2006 or later), there are going to be many applications which
> will require Longhorn and won't run on XP or earlier? If so, could
> you point me to a web page which talks about this?
The best one is probably here.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
Microsoft has actually reversed their position somewhat -- they're now
promising a subset of Avalon will work on Windows XP eventually.
> (An answer to my original question would also be nice).
Apple hasn't said yet, and I don't have the developer release of Tiger.
Wes Groleau
> but will be unstable ! So we could have written "Build for ANY version
> of Windows" on the box, but the customers would have been disappointed
> on W95.
Well, couldn't you put "Runs on any version of
Windows, even the ones that crash all the time."
:-)
--
Wes Groleau
In any formula, constants (especially those obtained
from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.
Tom Harrington
Bruno Gaufier <br...@bgauf.remove.me.net> wrote:
> On Macintosh, one can write code compatible with, eg 10.2 and 10.3,
> but, as Apple adds many new features with each OS release, developers
> have two choices :
> - Write the program targeting the 10.2 version. It will work on 10.3
> but may (for example) take 10000 lines of codes. More : In this case
> it's a pain to use new 10.3 features without breaking backward
> compatibility.
> - Write the same program targeting 10.3 : It may take 6000 lines of
> code because of time saving features (eg : "Bindings", new in 10.3).
> This program will not work with previous OS versions, but will be
> faster to write, will use new OS features and have less bugs (Because
> less code means less bugs !)
> What do you thing they are going to do ?
Of course, the answer depends on how many potential customers you think
might upgrade to 10.3.
Jim Nason
>
> Hey, you know I wanted to try out the Mars rover Maestro software, but it
> requires at least 10.3, yet I'm running Jaguar, so too bad. Yet that same
> software will run on Windows 98. Why is it that new software continues to
> support ancient (and obsolete) pieces of crap like Win98, and yet my copy
> of Jaguar, less than 2 years' old, can't run a damn thing anymore? Oh, and
> before you tell me to upgrade, I can't afford to. It would be nice to buy
> G5s with 4 GB RAM and such, in my dreams...
Just upgraded to Word 2003 on my Win 2K PC... Funny, it requires
Windows 2k or XP. No Win 9x. It was a happy day years ago when I
upgraded from Win 9x. Panther was a welcome upgrade as it sol;ved
all kinds of Windows/Mac networking issues. If you are running
Jaguar, you should be able to upgrade to Panther. It runs fine on my
G4 1 GB RAM.
Jim