Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iTunes 7.0.2 And Windows Vista
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe, but you could actually run Windows 1.0 apps on XP, (I forget where the hack is, but it does work).
Microsoft have generally been better at legacy support than Apple because they know what a massive user base each OS has. While most home users have got XP now, I do know of a reasonable number that run 98/ME and only upgrade their OS and/or machine when they really have to, (new camera say). I see far too often software requiring 10.3.9 or above, basically ignoring all users with OSes and/or machines more than 18 months old.
I guess it just depends on the program in question. I've got a lot of Windows XP programs that don't even run on XP. So, I don't really consider the inability to run certain programs as an indicator that the old code is gone. Just that Windows is Windows, and sometimes programs run, and sometimes they don't.
Yes, I upgraded from OS 10.3.9 to OS 10.4.0 when 10.4 came out. I had a lot of programs that wouldn't run on OS 10.4 anymore that were newer programs labeled as "requires OS 10.3.x or later".
Many device drivers failed, almost any utility program that did anything with the file system.
And, there were a ton of normal applications that ceased to work with OS 10.4 and required a patch or a new version to make it work (or at least work properly).
Apple actually re-writes OS X quite frequently. If the new revisions were just minor bug fixes and patches, the transitions would likely go a lot smoother.
Now, there is still some legacy code left in OS X from prior OS X versions. But, the new versions are typically expected to lose compatibility with the prior versions. It's bit me enough times that I don't buy any commercial software anymore (except for iLife) because I got tired of having to repurchase all my programs every time I upgraded to the new version of OS X.
Basically, I have come to expect that any new version of OS X will require me to repurchase any commercial program that I have been using. So, I limit my software purchases to the following:
1) programs like iLife that I expect to buy annually anyway
2) programs that provide all future updates for free after the initial purchase
3) Freeware, Open Source, and other titles that cost nothing. I use a lot of Open Source programs and Unix programs.
Not really surprising when you look at how many Windows XP titles I have sitting on my shelf that ceased to work when Microsoft provided a security patch or minor update to Windows XP. And, since I didn't feel like handing another $100 or $200 to the software publisher, I quit using the program.
I've since adopted a similar strategy to Windows that I use for my Macs. I use free software first. And, if no free title suits my needs, then I only purchase titles that offer all future updates for free.
I have always looked at it from a little different perspective.
Microsoft knows that they need to keep their users from switching to other competing operating systems. Over the years it's been, Macs, BeOS, Unix, Linux, various flavors from Caldera, Digital Research (DR-DOS), Amiga OS, IBM's OS/2 and many others (can't think of them all at the moment).
And, that's what keeps them from fully abandoning old code.
Consider that when Windows 95 came out, I was using Windows 3.1. And, I had been thinking of upgrading to something a little better. OS/2 was the primary OS I was considering. It was more powerful that Windows 3.1, and had the ability to run Windows 3.1 programs in a compatibility type environment (shell).
Then, Microsoft released Windows 95. And, I had two operating systems to pick from. My choice got a little tougher.
So, I looked to see if Windows 95 would run Windows 3.1 programs. And, it would. So, I still had a tough choice.
Basically, both Windows 95 and OS/2 were better environments than what I had been using, and they would both run Windows 3.1 programs. So, that left me considering other factors.
In the end, I did chose Windows 95. The primary consideration was that it would run Windows 3.1 programs, and Microsoft appeared to be putting a lot of resources into insuring that developers were writing new Windows 95 programs (paying companies to develop Windows 95 titles). So, it looked like it had a brighter future than OS/2.
But, I could have gone the other way. If Windows 95 had not been able to run all my Windows 3.1 programs, then I would have considered all alternatives. And, that's what Microsoft knows.
Consider that if a user is forced to replace all their programs when they are looking at upgrading to a new OS, then they will consider other OS's from other companies.
So, if you are planning to upgrade from XP to Vista, and you discover that absolutely none of the programs you rely on will run in Vista, then you just might move to a Mac instead. Why? Well, if you have to replace all your software anyway, then you might as well consider all your options.
That is the true reason that Microsoft makes sure that they maintain a level of compatibility with their older Windows and DOS versions. They want people to upgrade. They don't want to lose them. They want them to upgrade.
Can't believe Apple missed the boat like this. Telling users to wait is like kiss of death. Poor planning has always been Apple's downfall.
It was not like Vista wasn't golded 2 months ago. Apple had plenty of time to fix things. Shabby, Apple, very Shabby !
It was not like Vista wasn't golded 2 months ago. Apple had plenty of time to fix things. Shabby, Apple, very Shabby !
Nope.
This might surprise you, but the only one who gave me a free update was Microsoft (although it took them about 2 months to do it). All the other companies lined-up and said hand me your money for our new version.
Aside from Microsoft, the only companies that didn't demand fees for a new version were the companies that didn't charge me to begin with (freeware and Open Source), or those that had promised all future updates to be free for life.
They probably thought it would look like Vista broke things. That's kind of the direction that their latest advertisement takes. Showing how Vista requires you to update and replace everything.
It wouldn't be Apple if they updated their program early and made the transition to Vista smooth. After-all, if no-one had any trouble upgrading to Vista, then what would Apple say?
That's a catch 22 for Microsoft. Because they could sabotage the iPod, but I doubt it. It would keep people from upgrading to Vista, which is probably a much higher profit margin than them buying a zune. Most likely the zune's next software version will require Vista to encourage users to upgrade.
I find these hyperboles amazing. I have a large number (currently 256) applications in my Applications folder and when I upgraded form 10.3 to 10.4 I found only 1 that didn't work - Retrospect client which is a dog of a program in any case (don't try to shift computers from user to user with Restrospect unless you use their uninstaller to find all the stuff it leave lying around your disk - for not real good reason). We're there a few changes in behaviour that might need a patch, sure, but these were no worse than what you get with any application (not OS). So if you'd like to back up broad stroke statements with some (a lot of) examples it might be nice.
Well that's just a bunch of unresearched undocumented bunch of bull. What are you talking about? I expect all my OSX programs to work with whatever OS was available at the time and forward at least 2 or 3 versions.
Yes, once in awhile printer drivers or scanner drivers cease to function until I download the free driver from their site. But that's pretty infrequent. In fact, I'm always downloading free updates for my peripherals and can't even tell what they fixed!
Here's my list of Apps for OSX that I haven't updated in 4 years (since 10.1 and 10.2) and still work fine...
-Photoshop 7. Works perfectly fine in Rosetta even. Scanners, printers, everything.
-LiveMotion 2 - Yep, they quit supporting that 4 years ago and it still works.
-MS Word (version released in 2002 - it's now 2007. No probs whatsoever)
-Macromedia Studio - yes the original, not 2004
-Illustrator 10
-After Effects 5.5
-Toast (just now had to upgrade with 10.4.x - but used same version for at least 3 years)
-Fetch
I do update iLife and FCP studio regularly, but iLife doesn't break on upgrades, and most of Studio doesn't either. Some apps like FCP are so tied to Quicktime updates that there can be some issues (like iTunes) on updating, but is usually resolved very quickly.
What apps are you having trouble with? Since I have hardly any problems with all the major apps from all 3 major app manufacturers (Apple, Macromedia, Adobe) and use the same version usually for 3 years - longer for Adobe - I just don't get your point and I think spreading misinformation doesn't help my Apple stock any.
Do a little research.Yes, blaim microsoft... better to blaim Apple, since Vista is already available for some time (non-consumer versions). So they might have seen this comming for a long time!
Well, actually quite a lot of programs had trouble with OS 10.4 when it came out.
A quick check reveals one of the compatibility lists that still remains up:
http://www.macintouch.com/tigerreview/incompatibility.html
And, at the time, I was quite active in Apple's Discussion group, and found that I was constantly helping others with programs that no-longer worked for them. Usually, their only choice was to purchase a new version, or go back to OS 10.3.
It's quite honestly not worth my time to comb back through the archives to locate all those old discussions.
But, for myself, I do remember not being able to continue using any of the Symantec programs I had just recently purchased for OS 10.3. All those required me to purchase newer versions to enable full compatibility with OS 10.4. Those included their Internet Security and Anti-Virus programs, and their Norton Utility packages.
To this day, I still cannot use my Lexmark all-in-one with OS 10.4 as anything more than a scanner. Although Lexmark claims it works, it does not. It can be tricked into working if you use a backdoor method of configuring and printing to it through OS 9 in Classic Mode that a few of us stumbled onto. You have to set it up in Classic, then once you have it configured, aligned, and ready to work, then it may print from OS X 10.4. But, for the most part, the update to 10.4 turned it into a dedicated scanner. I don't even try to print to it anymore. Replacing the ink cartridges, aligning the heads, and getting it working requires either going back to OS 10.3.9 or using Classic mode.
I also found that Virtual PC failed to work properly or reliably anymore. But, Microsoft did release a patch eventually that fixed most of those problems.
I had several utilities from Intech (SpeedTools, and other maintenance tools) that became absolutely useless when I upgraded to Tiger. I didn't qualify for the free updates because I had purchased it at a discount from the company who sold me the drive - OEM version). But, they were happy to sell me a new license for the updated versions if I desired.
The older versions of TechTools failed to work, and required obtaining a new version. But, this was due to Apple having made changes to the file system.
I seem to recall some problems with Quicken not working properly anymore (but we later got a new version anyway).
I had a couple of hard drive backup tools that I was using which no longer worked (can't remember which ones). But, I know one of them was from Dantz (mine was an OEM version that came with my drive, so I wasn't eligible for a free update). Fortunately, I found a free alternative that worked fine.
Then there's Quickbooks (although they have since released a new version that can be purchased and will work).
I have some photo retouching programs that came with my camera that also doesn't work in OS 10.4. But, I've just moved all my photo editing to the PC. I have some nice tools on the PC that are more powerful. Sure, I have iPhoto on the Mac. But, for various reason I use it only as a place to store finished photos. I just haven't found it to be of much use for photo editing. I did try doing some red-eye reduction in iPhoto the other day, but it had trouble with some photos. On some, I found that no matter how many times I tried, it would put a black dot on the subject's teeth instead of the pupil of the eye. On others it worked fine. Over-all, it's just too much trouble with iPhoto. So, the PC gets that job and other photo retouching jobs.
And, of course there are a ton more that quit working as well. But, fortunately, free programs have free updates. So, that wasn't much of an issue.
There were also a small hand full of lesser established video editing programs that I was using that were no-longer useful. Can't remember all the names now as it's been a long time since I messed with them. Once they quit working, I quit thinking about them.
And, there were others that I just cannot remember at the moment. I dumped (sold) all my old programs that no-longer worked with Tiger when I sold one of my other computers that had OS 10.3.9 installed on it (basically threw them in as a bonus for the person who purchased the system). If I still had them all here, I'd happily run through the list of titles that I had. But, time has passed, and I haven't spent much time dwelling on it.
So, the items above are just the ones I can remember right at the moment.
As for others, I do recall helping a lot of people who couldn't get Virex to work anymore.
And, I also recall helping a lot of people who's device drivers wouldn't work. So, if the manufacturer didn't release updated driver, then they had to buy a new device to replace that item.
In the end, the degree to which compatibility affects you will be determined by which specific programs you use. If you happen to use programs that offered free updates, then you'll be less affected. If you use programs who's authors decided it was a good excuse to charge for an update, then you'll be affected more significantly.
Didn't you get the news???
Leopard is just going to be Vista bundled with Bootcamp
ROFL seriously...
As for a previous comment, I'm not surprised that Microsoft's Zune competition [iTunes] is now having compatibility issues with Vista. Not suprised at all...
I have well over a hundred applications and none had issues with the 10.3 to 10.4 upgrade. Heck the Fibre Channel driver I hacked together back in 10.1 days still runs on 10.4.
Sounds like some poorly written software or software using private APIs (they are private for a reason). ...or software making specific assumptions about an aspect of the system... etc.
"re-write" is a huge exaggeration...
What are you talking about "some legacy code left in OS X from prior OS X versions"? Most of the code in Mac OS X today was in Mac OS X 10.3, 10.2, and 10.1 and much farther back. Also it is relatively easy to develop software that runs just fine under older version of the operating system and well into the future of the operating system. If you follow Apple recommendation and follow sensible programming practices thing go well.
Sorry I call shenanigans...
ROFL seriously...
As for a previous comment, I'm not surprised that Microsoft's Zune competition [iTunes] is now having compatibility issues with Vista. Not suprised at all...
Just messing with him
It would make things much easier on Apple though. But, I'm sure it would affect their profit margin considerably. Of course, it could backfire and launch them up there right next to Dell in PC sales.Naturally, it would be disaster for OS X though.
What might be cool would be if they implemented some form of WINE into Leopard, and made Windows completely unnecessary. Of course, they'd have to implement more thorough application support to pull that off. But, that would really send a shock through Redmond.
HeHe, never happen. Every new version of windows has had lots of compatability issues and in order to fix them requires you to re-purchase your applications or upgrade them. So backward compatability does not always make sense anyway. Either way people need to upgrade the apps and they are not free.
They need to start selling Linux instead and dump windows.