PDA

View Full Version : Broken APIs ... Has Mountain Lion broken something AGAIN?!




coolspot18
Mar 19, 2012, 12:11 AM
Hi all,

Each upgrade with OS X seems to break a major feature, for example:

Snow Lion --> Lion: Rosetta, Spaces, Bluetooth, Samba.


Rosetta caused some older apps to break
Spaces was replaced with the something less functional
Samba discovery APIs were removed causing some third party programs to stop working (i.e. PathFinder)
Bluetooth headsets work inconsistently in Lion (just check Apple's forums)


Is Apple butchering any APIs in Mountain Lion?

OS X upgrades seem painful in comparison to Windows (ironic).



Comeagain?
Mar 19, 2012, 12:18 AM
Upgrades aren't painful if you don't depend on companies that rely on outdated technology.

So far Mountain Lion hasn't broken anything major.

thejadedmonkey
Mar 19, 2012, 12:24 AM
Upgrades aren't painful if you don't depending on companies that rely on outdated technology.

So far Mountain Lion hasn't broken anything major.

By that logic, the Model T shouldn't be allowed on the road because it doesn't have airbags. Not everyone wants to upgrade, or in the case of games, there is no upgrade. And it seems like with each OS X "update", it butchers more and more games.

Comeagain?
Mar 19, 2012, 12:34 AM
By that logic, the Model T shouldn't be allowed on the road because it doesn't have airbags. Not everyone wants to upgrade, or in the case of games, there is no upgrade. And it seems like with each OS X "update", it butchers more and more games.

No, but there's a reason we've moved on from that. Again, don't upgrade if your games are that important to you.

thejadedmonkey
Mar 19, 2012, 12:46 AM
No, but there's a reason we've moved on from that. Again, don't upgrade if your games are that important to you.

It's not always a choice of "not upgrading". For example, my apartment was recently broken into, and my MBP was stolen. I replaced it, but the new one can't run any of the old games except under Windows. Short of buying a used mac off of ebay, I'm screwed.

Reason or not, it sucks. And this is the internet, ergo I can bitch. (:

Of course, now that I've been forced to get rid of all my legacy crap - I am looking forward to a lot of ML features, much more than I was looking forward to Lion.

coolspot18
Mar 19, 2012, 12:48 AM
Upgrades aren't painful if you don't depending on companies that rely on outdated technology.

Samba and Bluetooth are not outdated? Those two features were broken in Lion.

Cougarcat
Mar 19, 2012, 12:59 AM
Samba discovery APIs were removed causing some third party programs to stop working (i.e. PathFinder)


Path Finder works fine in lion.

Peace
Mar 19, 2012, 01:00 AM
Apple has screwed up everything. I suggest you move to Windows.

coolspot18
Mar 19, 2012, 08:00 AM
Path Finder works fine in lion.


SMB discovery is broken when Apple removed Samba from Lion:

http://forum.cocoatech.com/showthread.php?7429-Lion-issue-Windows-shares-(SMB)-don-t-show-up-in-the-sidebar


Apple has screwed up everything. I suggest you move to Windows.

Seems many people on these forums brush off these problems with remarks such as yours, but Windows does maintain compatibility between versions more or less. Rarely do major features like Bluetooth break or something as critical as SMB.

Apple really should keep compatibility in mind especially if they ever want to lose the stigmatism of being a consumer OS.

KnightWRX
Mar 19, 2012, 09:40 AM
OS upgrades require developers to update their applications. It's been like this for decades.

SMB wasn't removed, it was rewritten from scratch, removing the dependency on the Samba project they once used. Spaces had no APIs to break, Rosetta wasn't an API either, it was a build of the frameworks to a different processor architecture.

So which API do you feel is broken in Mountain Lion ?

coolspot18
Mar 20, 2012, 09:15 AM
So which API do you feel is broken in Mountain Lion ?


I don't know, that's why I'm asking in preparation for the upcoming pain :D

Phil A.
Mar 20, 2012, 09:18 AM
Samba and Bluetooth are not outdated? Those two features were broken in Lion.
Samba was removed because the Samba team moved to GPLv3 which prevents its use in a commercial OS - nothing that Apple could do about it

itsamacthing
Jun 23, 2012, 11:23 PM
I use Pathfinder, actually.. Pathfinder helps me be more productive allowing me to make more money. Finder gets worse with each version of OSX as Cupertino continues on it's rampage to take the computing out of computers. Some of us actually still needs files and a way to manage them and share them. They are building that spaceship so they can be further out of touch with the actual user.

The lack of SMB/CIFS discovery in 3rd party programs on SL is pathetic. I wonder if we can install SMB/CIFS directly from SMB themselves? I'm looking into that this morning

mentaluproar
Jun 25, 2012, 01:26 AM
I was so angry when I discovered my bluetooth earpiece no longer worked in lion (and my USB webcam would get ignored sometimes too). It will now connect, work for a little bit, then barf. At least it won't kernel panic now.

I really doubt mountain lion will fix bluetooth.

SMB became a licensing nightmare, so Microsoft and Apple had to move onto a new implementation of samba before they were ready to. SMBX is actually usable now.

Mr. Retrofire
Jun 26, 2012, 11:45 AM
Rosetta caused some older apps to break.
No.
1. Rosetta is not an API.
2. Rosetta did nothing. Apple broke the compatibility, because the removed the necessary code from the mach_kernel, which was able to start the ppc - i386 translation.

Is Apple butchering any APIs in Mountain Lion?
As always idiots appear (no, not you) and say Apple removes Carbon from Mac OS X, which is a big joke, because the CarbonCore.framework is part of the CoreServices.framework and many Cocoa-functions use Carbon behind the scenes. And 64-Bit Cocoa-*ROTFLMAO*. Objective-C is very inefficient, and 64-Bit will not change this fact. And Apple likes compilers, which generate slow code:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=macosx_lion_precise&num=6

They should use the Intel compilers or the GCC v4.7.

----------

Upgrades aren't painful if you don't depend on companies that rely on outdated technology.
Apple should give us an "invisible" virtual machine with a smaller version of Snow Leopard (compare this with the Microsoft XP-Mode (http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/windows-xp-mode-overview-prerequisites-and-installation.aspx)). That would solve a lot of problems with "older" software.

bogatyr
Jun 26, 2012, 02:31 PM
Weird, my 3yr old Kensington BT headset works great with both of my MBA laptops running Lion. Never had an issue.

Also have no problem browsing Windows shares using Finder or ForkLift.

Maybe it was fixed in a patch - I only came in at 10.7.3 or 10.7.4. Previously only used Windows.

coolspot18
Jul 4, 2012, 04:08 PM
Weird, my 3yr old Kensington BT headset works great with both of my MBA laptops running Lion.

My Sony headset works OK - although the Bluetooth Audio agent will crash after a couple hours. The Sennheisers do not work at all.

Seems like the stack is picky about hardware.

JohnDoe98
Jul 4, 2012, 04:23 PM
It's not always a choice of "not upgrading". For example, my apartment was recently broken into, and my MBP was stolen. I replaced it, but the new one can't run any of the old games except under Windows. Short of buying a used mac off of ebay, I'm screwed.

Reason or not, it sucks. And this is the internet, ergo I can bitch. (:

Of course, now that I've been forced to get rid of all my legacy crap - I am looking forward to a lot of ML features, much more than I was looking forward to Lion.

And if someone stole your Model T, would you complain to Ford about it?

blow45
Jul 4, 2012, 07:27 PM
since you mentioned samba, have they been doing any work for their dreadful custom smb implementation (or have they been too busy developing the notes app...)?

Anyone here connecting to an smb network? Has anything been done about problems with finding printers, inability to search shares, and the general sluggish performance of smb share in finder (to the extent that lion via ethernet is much slower than the ipad with a 3rd party smb app on wifi...:rolleyes: )

----------


Apple should give us an "invisible" virtual machine with a smaller version of Snow Leopard (compare this with the Microsoft XP-Mode (http://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/windows-xp-mode-overview-prerequisites-and-installation.aspx)). That would solve a lot of problems with "older" software.
Good luck with that. That was pre ios success apple when they gave a damn about their os x users, enough to support them with proper options and to allocate resources to do so. Support for older apps? Only ms is crazy to do so because it's windoze ;). They can't even be bothered to write a bunch of drivers for mac pros that can perfectly well handle ml with their gfx cards, and they 'll do software development for backward compatibility with apps? At the very least they could have allowed vm or parallels to virtualize os x, but they won't even allow that.

(good post btw, helped me understand a few things I wasn't aware of)

----------

I use Pathfinder, actually.. Pathfinder helps me be more productive allowing me to make more money. Finder gets worse with each version of OSX as Cupertino continues on it's rampage to take the computing out of computers. Some of us actually still needs files and a way to manage them and share them. They are building that spaceship so they can be further out of touch with the actual user.

The lack of SMB/CIFS discovery in 3rd party programs on SL is pathetic. I wonder if we can install SMB/CIFS directly from SMB themselves? I'm looking into that this morning

I might be wrong here (that is i might not have understood your request) but macports provides a samba port to os x.

CyBeRino
Jul 4, 2012, 07:37 PM
Good luck with that. That was pre ios success apple when they gave a damn about their os x users, enough to support them with proper options and to allocate resources to do so. Support for older apps? Only ms is crazy to do so because it's windoze ;).

Not true.

First of all, the actual champion of backwards compatibility is Sun.

Second, Apple actually does give a damn about this stuff. The problem is that many, many developers depend on stuff that is never specified to be stable. And then when that changes, their apps break and they cry.

This is why on iOS, they actively reject apps that use private frameworks. I believe very few apps on iOS don't work in a newer version. Sure they probably exist where they depend on behaviour that is actually a bug, but there are relatively a lot fewer than on Mac.

Basically the only things on Mac OS X that consistently break are system tweaks. But stuff that only uses published APIs tends to work for a long time. For example, Filemaker Pro 5.5, made for Mac OS X 10.0, runs absolutely fine on 10.6.8. That's six releases of OSX and not even on the same hardware platform. (It's a PPC-only app though, so Lion finally kills it.)

blow45
Jul 4, 2012, 07:53 PM
No, but there's a reason we've moved on from that. Again, don't upgrade if your games are that important to you.

That's not really a response is it? It's part of the responsibilities of an os manufacturer to provide backward compatibility for their users or to EXPLICITLY declare that compatibilities they are breaking before getting that hard earned money from the user. $19.99 for what is essentially a service pack (no, notes and reminders don't cut it as an upgrade) might seem not that much but factor in say (modestly) 1/3 of the user base upgrading (20 mil macs) and it's $400,000,000 for apple. Does anyone here (anyone with any sense that is) think mountain lion justifies such a dev. cost? For what? Airplay? For staying a darwin kernel behind ios?

I don't really like ms, but that guy you have in your avatar (yeah I think he is a bozo too, but that's not the point) has made sure his company still supports windows xp, and games that run in windows 20 years ago can still run in windows. Windows 7 is also much much faster than vista, and faster than xp despite requiring more resources in some cases. It's thus extending the life of the computers it's being used on. Actually windows 7 extends the life of any intel mac it's going to be installed on and is much, much faster than lion. And that's not because new os's require newer hardware (that's a bunch of horse manure by anyone claiming this), because at the end of the day lion has brought a couple or so fancy ui tricks (versions), it's because unlike apple ms has been maintaining and optimizing their os, while apple hasn't.

Completely opposite of OS X. Core duo support has been dropped and most macs that used to fly on sl run like a dog on lion. And they are still going to be running like a dog in ml too. Because ml has done nothing to be a sl type release and optimize things in os x, it's just slap on features and some bug fixes, and maybe a tweak here and there to make up for lion's problems.

Let's put things in perspective boys, just cause we are in an apple forum doesn't mean we are all fanbois here, or we leave our judgement behind as soon as we start posting and reading at mr....

----------

Not true.

First of all, the actual champion of backwards compatibility is Sun.

Second, Apple actually does give a damn about this stuff. The problem is that many, many developers depend on stuff that is never specified to be stable. And then when that changes, their apps break and they cry.

This is why on iOS, they actively reject apps that use private frameworks. I believe very few apps on iOS don't work in a newer version. Sure they probably exist where they depend on behaviour that is actually a bug, but there are relatively a lot fewer than on Mac.

Basically the only things on Mac OS X that consistently break are system tweaks. But stuff that only uses published APIs tends to work for a long time. For example, Filemaker Pro 5.5, made for Mac OS X 10.0, runs absolutely fine on 10.6.8. That's six releases of OSX and not even on the same hardware platform. (It's a PPC-only app though, so Lion finally kills it.)

Remind sun's commercial os and it's installed user base please? Just cause we can't say that ms have been doing one thing very well, we have to find another example? Yes ms has by far the best legacy support and it dwarfs apple there.

I am not aware of the technical details you mention, but as a not so well informed outsider to actual development, may I ask why are they specified to not be stable to begin with? Are there alternatives to use other than the non stable counterparts? Because if not then their hands are tied I guess. And where do games fit in all that? In any case a virtualised sl mode won't be some kind of technical fit for apple to achieve, why are they not offering this option? God knows with just a 1/3 of the mac user base upgrading they can afford 400,000,000 in development. I am not sure ms will even make that money with $30 licenses to oems for a brand new os, and what with their own os still running perfectly well on older pcs and not being the dog that lion is on older macs.

thejadedmonkey
Jul 4, 2012, 07:54 PM
And if someone stole your Model T, would you complain to Ford about it?

If the new model Ford's couldn't run on back roads, but the model T could, than yes. That would be Ford removing useful features, and it would be just as backwards as Apple cutting old API's.

Alameda
Jul 4, 2012, 08:02 PM
Then don't upgrade. The whole point of a system upgrade is that something is new and improved.

Good heavens, manufacturers have been releasing OS upgrades for decades and there are always the same sniveling whiners who want their OS unchanged: If that's what you want, then don't change your OS.

blow45
Jul 4, 2012, 08:15 PM
Then don't upgrade. The whole point of a system upgrade is that something is new and improved.

Good heavens, manufacturers have been releasing OS upgrades for decades and there are always the same sniveling whiners who want their OS unchanged: If that's what you want, then don't change your OS.

Maybe you should be treating your fellow posters here with a bit more respect than to call them sniveling whiners for their real os usability problems. Way to misconstrue what someone said btw, I didn't here anyone saying they wanted the os unchanged. Welcome to the forums btw since you 've recently joined, I am sure you are going to be a very useful poster by attacking others just because you want to play apologist to apple. And I am afraid to say if you are not an apple stockholder (even if you are one, you are not helping them anyway) you really are a victim to feel you need to offend others and play apologist to apple because they aren't doing nothing for you other than taking their 40-50% margin off your money.

JohnDoe98
Jul 4, 2012, 08:31 PM
If the new model Ford's couldn't run on back roads, but the model T could, than yes. That would be Ford removing useful features, and it would be just as backwards as Apple cutting old API's.

Define useful feature. It seems to me if the APIs are old it is because there are newer more useful ways of doing things, rendering the old stuff useless. I'm sure the Antique shops think most of their merchandise is useful, but that's simply not the case for the overwhelming majority. You like to think you have a good grip on what's useful, but I am sorry to have to break it to you, you don't.

JohnDoe98
Jul 4, 2012, 08:44 PM
That's not really a response is it? It's part of the responsibilities of an os manufacturer to provide backward compatibility for their users or to EXPLICITLY declare that compatibilities they are breaking before getting that hard earned money from the user.

First off you don't get to decide what responsibilities any manufacturer has. If Apple broke the law and its contract to you, then they have might failed their responsibilities to you, otherwise they owe you nothing more. Second, Lion did make it clear that Rosetta was being discontinued, if you upgraded and only became aware of the fact after your purchase, that demonstrates you were an improperly informed consumer.


$19.99 for what is essentially a service pack (no, notes and reminders don't cut it as an upgrade) might seem not that much but factor in say (modestly) 1/3 of the user base upgrading (20 mil macs) and it's $400,000,000 for apple. Does anyone here (anyone with any sense that is) think mountain lion justifies such a dev. cost? For what? Airplay? For staying a darwin kernel behind ios?

Don't like the price and product? Don't buy it. I simply don't understand the complaint here. For my part, I love just about every aspect of ML and look forward to it. I also welcome all the added updates that I'll likely received. The 20$ is well worth it.


I don't really like ms, but that guy you have in your avatar (yeah I think he is a bozo too, but that's not the point) has made sure his company still supports windows xp, and games that run in windows 20 years ago can still run in windows. Windows 7 is also much much faster than vista, and faster than xp despite requiring more resources in some cases. It's thus extending the life of the computers it's being used on. Actually windows 7 extends the life of any intel mac it's going to be installed on and is much, much faster than lion. And that's not because new os's require newer hardware (that's a bunch of horse manure by anyone claiming this), because at the end of the day lion has brought a couple or so fancy ui tricks (versions), it's because unlike apple ms has been maintaining and optimizing their os, while apple hasn't.

Great for Windows. In general I'm not a fan of forced obsolescence, and I do think Apple can do better on that score, but it is all-things-considered an extremely minor complaint, and even I have the ability to appreciate that in the long-run, it may just help, ever so slightly, move technological progress along at a greater pace.


Let's put things in perspective boys, just cause we are in an apple forum doesn't mean we are all fanbois here, or we leave our judgement behind as soon as we start posting and reading at mr....

Exactly. Let's put and keep things in perspective. Forced obsolescence is a nuisance, nothing more. But with the way some people go on about here, you'd think it is a bloody travesty. That doesn't strike me as an adequate well-reasoned and measured response. It's just as bothersome and useless as the Apple fanboi's lack of critical and objective abilities.

blow45
Jul 4, 2012, 10:32 PM
It's not an extremely minor complaint John that non 2010-2012 macs run much faster on windows than they do on os x. And it's not a minor thing that my out of the box lion mini from 4 months ago runs better on sl than on lion.

I don't like the price but I ll buy it because they need to fix some bugs of lion and ml is the service pack I need to pay up for. Because they sure as heck won't be fixing for example the smb bugs in lion in their infinite wisdom. I am buying it because I really want to get a better system than the travesty that is lion, although I am afraid since by all accounts they 've done very little core work that ml won't be any faster than lion. Remember though John that after the vista debacle ms issued a system that was almost twice as fast and required close to half of the resources than vista did. I don't see anywhere apple optimizing their os so it's actually any faster than lion, all I see is that ios gets the next darwin kernel and os x doesn't and that support for older macs and os x versions is dropped along the way.

Apple on the other hand are rushing ml to make some minimal fixes to lion's poor development while also pushing airplay to sell more apple tvs, chinese to sell more iphones to the chinese, and notes and reminders to sell more ios devices in general. That's not much of a new os really, we are not that naive. Certainly not one that would qualify for around 400 mil to 700 mil in development costs.

My point was that with a minimum of 400 mil they are going to be making out of this in profit, they could do a bit more developing and a bit less bs-ing about adding notes, reminders, facebook and twitter.

blow45
Jul 4, 2012, 10:43 PM
Define useful feature. It seems to me if the APIs are old it is because there are newer more useful ways of doing things, rendering the old stuff useless. I'm sure the Antique shops think most of their merchandise is useful, but that's simply not the case for the overwhelming majority. You like to think you have a good grip on what's useful, but I am sorry to have to break it to you, you don't.

Let me give an example about "antiques". :rolleyes: Breaking compatibility with the most common open source/freeware ntfs layers so you can't access an ntfs drive and you are forced to pay and extra $20 for this on a third party solution. Yeah sure, why use ntfs formatted drives anyway, it's not as if people have a windows computer at work and an ntfs external drive and they need to transfer files back and forth. :rolleyes:

JohnDoe98
Jul 4, 2012, 10:59 PM
Let me give an example about "antiques". :rolleyes: Breaking compatibility with the most common open source/freeware ntfs layers so you can't access an ntfs drive and you are forced to pay and extra $20 for this on a third party solution. Yeah sure, why use ntfs formatted drives anyway, it's not as if people have a windows computer at work and an ntfs external drive and they need to transfer files back and forth. :rolleyes:

Agreed, this is annoying, but again I don't think it is a prevalent issue. Besides MacFuse works on Lion. If it doesn't work in ML is that because the project might have been abandoned or is it an intrinsic problem? It seems to me the issue here is with the third-parties not Apple. A quick google search indicates there is hope that OS X Fuse will work on Mountain Lion, maybe not on release day but shortly thereafter.

----------

Snip..
My point was that with a minimum of 400 mil they are going to be making out of this in profit, they could do a bit more developing and a bit less bs-ing about adding notes, reminders, facebook and twitter.

I admit I expected a little more from Lion and think ML is Lion done right, but I'm happy they released Lion instead of waiting a year for ML, that is, I'm glad they didn't stall Lion until done right. It was better than SL despite the kinks and disappointments. The total costs for the Lion bundle is 50$, and it does represent, so far as I can tell, a huge leap forward over SL. Compare the price for the bundle to Windows, and compare the finished product, ML, to what Windows has to offer, and I think Apple is still the far more desirable of the two. But that's just me take (ps I hope we can disable Facebook and twitter system wide, don't wanna see that junk in my OS, but I doubt it'll be possible).

thejadedmonkey
Jul 5, 2012, 02:00 AM
Define useful feature. It seems to me if the APIs are old it is because there are newer more useful ways of doing things, rendering the old stuff useless. I'm sure the Antique shops think most of their merchandise is useful, but that's simply not the case for the overwhelming majority. You like to think you have a good grip on what's useful, but I am sorry to have to break it to you, you don't.

Useful: Something I would use. I can also see that you've never programmed before, because if you did, you would realize that sometimes older API's are implemented in a way that makes them more useful than a newer one, even if they functionally do the same thing.

For example, there's an API in Leopard that allows me to run Diablo II. You can argue all day about how rosetta works, but the fact of the matter is the .app calls an API that leads to Diablo II running. That API was in fact a wrapper for a translator for some PPC code. It's rather slow, and a different, native intel version is faster. But it won't work for Diablo II. The older API is more useful, as it allows my game to run. The new, different one, doesn't.


I admit I expected a little more from Lion and think ML is Lion done right, but I'm happy they released Lion instead of waiting a year for ML, that is, I'm glad they didn't stall Lion until done right. It was better than SL despite the kinks and disappointments. The total costs for the Lion bundle is 50$, and it does represent, so far as I can tell, a huge leap forward over SL. Compare the price for the bundle to Windows, and compare the finished product, ML, to what Windows has to offer, and I think Apple is still the far more desirable of the two. But that's just me take (ps I hope we can disable Facebook and twitter system wide, don't wanna see that junk in my OS, but I doubt it'll be possible).
What exactly did they do on Lion that made it a better OS than SL. Most people I think would agree that SL is the better, faster, lighter-weight OS, while Lion is a turd with shiney polish.

The fact is, I'd rather use a 1.2" thick Dell over my 2011, 13" Macbook Air, because my Dell runs Windows 7 faster than my air runs lion. And not only that, but it runs programs that my air can only dream of running, like Diablo II.

A few weeks ago, Microsoft unvieled the Surface and Surface Pro. There's a demo floating around of the Surface Pro running an application, natively, from the 80's. Not only can Apple not beat that, they don't even run programs from 2006!

garybUK
Jul 5, 2012, 02:14 AM
I'm running OSX 10.8 DP 4:

SMB --- Not the fault of Apple, they were forced to remove samba in lion... blame microsoft as Apple have to reverse engineer a closed source protocol adding salt to the wound is that Microsoft removed AFP support in Windows 2008.

SMBX is way buggy in ML, it's faster! copying from a Windows 2008 R2 box to my laptop over gigabit ethernet i'm getting ~ 47MB/s consistent!

Finder integration... meh, every time I click the server name in the sidebar it just brings up a share called '/' so i either have to goto the /Volumes folder or just manually mount the share again, but that happens on 1 of my servers, the other 2 are fine (so it might be a weird Windows bug as well, don't know). And it doesn't seem to be available to other app's either still.

CyBeRino
Jul 5, 2012, 03:17 AM
Remind sun's commercial os and it's installed user base please?

Solaris. It basically runs most of the world's banking institutions, for instance.


Just cause we can't say that ms have been doing one thing very well, we have to find another example? Yes ms has by far the best legacy support and it dwarfs apple there.

Again, Sun does this better than Microsoft. That you don't know them does not change that.


I am not aware of the technical details you mention, but as a not so well informed outsider to actual development, may I ask why are they specified to not be stable to begin with? Are there alternatives to use other than the non stable counterparts? Because if not then their hands are tied I guess. And where do games fit in all that? In any case a virtualised sl mode won't be some kind of technical fit for apple to achieve, why are they not offering this option? God knows with just a 1/3 of the mac user base upgrading they can afford 400,000,000 in development. I am not sure ms will even make that money with $30 licenses to oems for a brand new os, and what with their own os still running perfectly well on older pcs and not being the dog that lion is on older macs.

If you aren't aware of the technical details, perhaps you are not qualified to make most of these statements.

Anyway, they are not specified to be stable because they are not specified at all. These things tend to be for internal use by Apple, at least until they figure out what it is they want and how to make a public API out of it. APIs for internal use by Apple can change without notice if Apple needs something changed. Of course, all Apple's applications will be updated to reflect that change in the same update that changes the API.

As for games: they run into exactly this problem. Many are ports from Windows or otherwise multiplatform and to get something going they use these private APIs, or they use them for some performance reason. I haven't myself seen any fully mac-native games break with an OS upgrade. In fact, I regularly play Quake3 and it runs fantastically on Lion. And this is a game that originally ran on Mac OS 9.

blow45
Jul 5, 2012, 10:55 AM
Solaris. It basically runs most of the world's banking institutions, for instance.

Again, Sun does this better than Microsoft. That you don't know them does not change that.

If you aren't aware of the technical details, perhaps you are not qualified to make most of these statements.

Anyway, they are not specified to be stable because they are not specified at all. These things tend to be for internal use by Apple, at least until they figure out what it is they want and how to make a public API out of it. APIs for internal use by Apple can change without notice if Apple needs something changed. Of course, all Apple's applications will be updated to reflect that change in the same update that changes the API.

As for games: they run into exactly this problem. Many are ports from Windows or otherwise multiplatform and to get something going they use these private APIs, or they use them for some performance reason. I haven't myself seen any fully mac-native games break with an OS upgrade. In fact, I regularly play Quake3 and it runs fantastically on Lion. And this is a game that originally ran on Mac OS 9.

Sun has a very narrow clientele with specific needs, backwards compatibility is much more doable than what ms has been trying to do. You don't want to commend them on that, fine, that doesn't mean they don't deserve it.

I try to comment to the extent that I am aware of the technical details. From your description I gather that it's not the developers fault if apple doesn't specify the apis and they have to use something.

Alameda
Jul 5, 2012, 12:08 PM
Maybe you should be treating your fellow posters here with a bit more respect than to call them sniveling whiners for their real os usability problems. (rant, rant, rant)Ok, you're right, I apologize. They're whiners, not "sniveling whiners".

Snow Leopard is a GREAT operating system. I may even downgrade to it. It's performance and stability may be the pinnacle of OS X. I feel that Lion added a bunch of tablet-like UI features which serve no benefit. If Snow Leopard had serious performance or reliability problems, and the long-awaited upgrade broke things, then whine away!

HOWEVER, Apple sells the upgrade for only $30 and their backup/restore system is flawless, so if you don't like Lion, don't use it. Big deal. It isn't a conspiracy to ruin your life. You knew it didn't have Rosetta before you upgraded. Why did Apple remove Rosetta? My guess is they wanted to force app developers to write faster apps. Another possibility is to prepare the OS for portability to another CPU, or to make porting between iOS and MacOS simpler. It could be something they're looking at 2-3 years out. Or maybe the QA effort was too great. I don't know.

Back in the days of Newton, Apple had a real dog on their hands, and they continually upgraded the OS to "improve handwriting recognition" and it still never worked well at anything. They even had one upgrade that involved mailing the Newton back to Apple for $100, and it still didn't work well. Now, THAT was worthy of a good whine. In fact, it was worthy of sacking the CEO, which is exactly what happened.

CyBeRino
Jul 5, 2012, 01:48 PM
From your description I gather that it's not the developers fault if apple doesn't specify the apis and they have to use something.

That depends. Sometimes to achieve some kind of functionality, they have to hook into something of Apple's that isn't public. And then when Apple changes that, their app breaks. Sometimes it isn't necessary at all, but they still do it. The why of that is never constant.

Also, they may be using published APIs but using them wrongly. For instance, not initialising something correctly. Then a change that does not affect well-written applications may break apps that aren't.

Or they may be relying on a bug: some API is published to work a certain way, but under the right circumstances does something else. The bug is fixed, the app breaks.

There are many reasons for this sort of thing to happen. Some are Apple's fault, though they tend to be mindful of changes to published APIs, some are the developer's fault.

In any case: if Apple has not published an API for public use they cannot be faulted for changing it. Most of the time these APIs are private for a while, during which they change a lot, and then at some point they've figured out how it should work and then they make the API public.

blow45
Jul 5, 2012, 01:55 PM
@Cyberino, thanks for the interesting discussion. :)

blow45
Jul 5, 2012, 02:32 PM
Ok, you're right, I apologize. They're whiners, not "sniveling whiners".

Snow Leopard is a GREAT operating system. I may even downgrade to it. It's performance and stability may be the pinnacle of OS X. I feel that Lion added a bunch of tablet-like UI features which serve no benefit. If Snow Leopard had serious performance or reliability problems, and the long-awaited upgrade broke things, then whine away!

HOWEVER, Apple sells the upgrade for only $30 and their backup/restore system is flawless, so if you don't like Lion, don't use it. Big deal. It isn't a conspiracy to ruin your life. You knew it didn't have Rosetta before you upgraded. Why did Apple remove Rosetta? My guess is they wanted to force app developers to write faster apps. Another possibility is to prepare the OS for portability to another CPU, or to make porting between iOS and MacOS simpler. It could be something they're looking at 2-3 years out. Or maybe the QA effort was too great. I don't know.

Back in the days of Newton, Apple had a real dog on their hands, and they continually upgraded the OS to "improve handwriting recognition" and it still never worked well at anything. They even had one upgrade that involved mailing the Newton back to Apple for $100, and it still didn't work well. Now, THAT was worthy of a good whine. In fact, it was worthy of sacking the CEO, which is exactly what happened.

Back then technology was much buggier than it is today, now it's come to it's own to the extent where a run of the mill far east small factory can put together a tablet, slap android on top and be relatively bug free.

Nowadays the issues to "whine" about are more nuanced:
lack of upgradeability
forced obsolescence
Lack of support for applications and broken compatibilities.


And apple isn't what it was back then, apple can afford to be doing much, much better because they are sitting on a pile of a cash pretty much no one in the tech world has seen before. They don't have excuses for sitting on hfs+ for so long, they don't have excuses for not optimizing their os and slapping on one poorly developed commercial or flashy "feature" on top of the other. They can't address glaring bugs such as smb bugs, security bugs, etc. etc. with the same speed they did 5, or 10 years ago. People pay up margins that are unthought of in the industry at 40 and 50% they should demonstrate consistent excellence to warrant such prices. But they simply don't. They are cruising easily on hype and then they go and "update" the mac pro with 2 year old cpu and gfx, no usb3 or thunderbolt (in 2012...) and an upwards of 60% margin. I think that's pissing upon their user base, it's not development.

Alameda
Jul 5, 2012, 07:43 PM
Back then technology was much buggier than it is today...

Nowadays the issues to "whine" about are more nuanced:
lack of upgradeability
forced obsolescence
Lack of support for applications and broken compatibilities.Unix has been stable for decades; since before DOS and the Apple II. Microsoft would have become a much more stable OS long ago if they'd forsaken compatibility.

But if what you're suggesting were so easy to do, Linux would be on all the desktops.

blow45
Jul 5, 2012, 08:43 PM
Why linux isn't on all desktops is a very, very long discussion btw...

Agreed in part. Windows is also supposed to run though on every imaginable x86 configuration on the globe, which isn't at all an easy fit. Apple have it very easy that they only need support a very small subset of configurations. Problem is they want to make this subset even smaller. There really is no reason why core duos should not be supported anymore, let alone mac pros from a few years ago. It's not as if lion or ml are bringing about such cutting edge features that render some older macs incapable of handling them.

Even the crap gfx cards that apple opted for back then can very well handle the lions, if a bunch of animations for a launcher and versions (the most convoluted undo system ever created, lol, as someone correctly said ) is going to tax them apple can very well turn these features off for them. They do this anyway with ios which only has selective features per device on an update. Why not doing it with os x too? ;) We heard about this fancy marketing idea of cross pollination of the two os's... where is it then the ios strategy of allowing older devices to upgrade but with a subset of features? Is the cross pollination limited to per design crashes of text edit (a "feature": freezing the app), inexplicable ical and contacts interfaces for touch screens on macs, and saving documents when you don't want them to be saved?