Has anyone attempted to run this on OS X 10.4 ?

[helkav]

I realise it's indicated as being a 10.5+ app but I was wondering if
that was just because it hasn't been tested on 10.4

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M U R K Y
http://groups.google.com/group/murky-app
To unsubscribe: mailto:murky-app+...@googlegroups.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Jens Alfke]

On May 12, 2010, at 7:34 AM, helkav wrote:

> I realise it's indicated as being a 10.5+ app but I was wondering if
> that was just because it hasn't been tested on 10.4

It uses Objective-C 2.0 features like properties and garbage
collection, so it definitely won't run on 10.4. Sorry. You really
should upgrade your OS :)

—Jens

[helkav]

thanks for the reply but I'm trying to be mean and still go with the
tiger for now. I don't like the fact that it's not a small amount of
dosh to pay out and each OS X upgrade seems even less backward-
compatible than major versions of Windows.

boohoo

=:-(

On May 12, 5:07 pm, Jens Alfke <j...@mooseyard.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 2010, at 7:34 AM, helkav wrote:
>
> > I realise it's indicated as being a 10.5+ app but I was wondering if
> > that was just because it hasn't been tested on 10.4
>
> It uses Objective-C 2.0 features like properties and garbage  
> collection, so it definitely won't run on 10.4. Sorry. You really  
> should upgrade your OS :)
>
> —Jens
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> M U R K Yhttp://groups.google.com/group/murky-app

[Jens Alfke]

On May 12, 2010, at 10:16 AM, helkav wrote:

> I don't like the fact that it's not a small amount of dosh to pay out

Understood; but I worked on all the OS X versions up through 10.5, and
I can assure you that each one represents a huge amount of work by
several hundred people. I think the price is fair.

> and each OS X upgrade seems even less backward-compatible than major
> versions of Windows.

They are very backward-compatible in that existing apps continue to
run on newer OS's. That's a high priority.

On the other hand, each release adds a lot of new features and new
APIs, and there's no practical way to make apps that use new APIs run
on OS's that don't support them. Adding new stuff is a good thing
overall. Taking advantage of new Objective-C features made Murky
considerably easier to write.

—Jens

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[helkav]

fair points, well made

I still have to put off the upgrade for a bit (maybe until my
birthday!)

On May 12, 6:28 pm, Jens Alfke <j...@mooseyard.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 2010, at 10:16 AM, helkav wrote:
>
> > I don't like the fact that it's not a small amount of dosh to pay out
>
> Understood; but I worked on all the OS X versions up through 10.5, and  
> I can assure you that each one represents a huge amount of work by  
> several hundred people. I think the price is fair.
>
> > and each OS X upgrade seems even less backward-compatible than major  
> > versions of Windows.
>
> They are very backward-compatible in that existing apps continue to  
> run on newer OS's. That's a high priority.
>
> On the other hand, each release adds a lot of new features and new  
> APIs, and there's no practical way to make apps that use new APIs run  
> on OS's that don't support them. Adding new stuff is a good thing  
> overall. Taking advantage of new Objective-C features made Murky  
> considerably easier to write.
>
> —Jens
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

> M U R K Yhttp://groups.google.com/group/murky-app