Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.

........

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.

I agree with your statement that it depends on what you use (and the quality of the vendor taking Symantec and Dantz as examples of bad vendors IMO) but going through that list I see a few trends -

1) I would say 30-50% of those listed are either not related to 10.4 (Acrobat being quicktime 7 on either version of OS, or X11 which I use extensively and almost all of the problems were due to not reading the release notes) or just user error reported as related to the last change to their system. A good example of these is the Word and Excel reports for which I'm still using the un-upgraded 2004 on 10.4.8.

2) The list doesn't really represent a lot of issues overall, percentage wise, and are primarily related to system level stuff like printer drivers and disk-drive tools (which I've never needed despite maintaining about 30 users who have no idea what they're doing :) )

3) a number of issues reported were 'fixed' by re-installing. This points to Apple's need to do a better job of the upgrade process, not breaking compatibility.

So I still think you're original post is over the top in how it was presented despite that fact that, of course, the upgrade is not perfectly compatible.
 
Apple quietly slipped the knife into Microsoft, now they twist it.

Just picture this:

Apple tells their millions of iPod owners that they won't be providing compatibility with Windows Vista.

So, the installed base must either stick with Windows XP or switch to the Mac OS if they want to continue using their iPods.

Decisions, decisions. Do you throw away your $500 iPod to spend $399 for Vista Ultimate. Or, do you save your money and keep enjoying your $500 iPod Video?

Of course, it might hurt future iPod sales. But, it would also likely put a bit of a dent in Microsoft's early Vista adopters.

Might be a bit amusing.
 
Just picture this:

Apple tells their millions of iPod owners that they won't be providing compatibility with Windows Vista.

So, the installed base must either stick with Windows XP or switch to the Mac OS if they want to continue using their iPods.

Decisions, decisions. Do you throw away your $500 iPod to spend $399 for Vista Ultimate. Or, do you save your money and keep enjoying your $500 iPod Video?

Of course, it might hurt future iPod sales. But, it would also likely put a bit of a dent in Microsoft's early Vista adopters.

Might be a bit amusing.

Except that virtually no-one buy's vista, let alone before SP1, so it doesn't really matter if iTunes doesn't work perfectly for a few weeks.
 
Apple had better backward compatibility moving their OS to run on a different processor architecture than Windows does between Vista and Windows XP. That's completely ridiculous.
Thats a rather shocking case of the pot calling the kettle black. You must not have been around for the OS9 to OSX transition. There was virtually no backwards compatibility, you literally had to dual boot OS9 to get anything done. When Apple announced that the dual G4 macs (I think) wouldnt allow an installation of OS9 there was an uproar since OS9 emulation in OSX was still bad and barely worked with anything. Vista has excellent backwards compatibility as a whole, only programs that integrate themselves with your hardware tend to have a problem. The next version of windows is rumored to be like the OSX transition where backwards compatibility is thrown out the window so they can finally start from scratch (which will be a good thing).
 
Except that virtually no-one buy's vista, let alone before SP1, so it doesn't really matter if iTunes doesn't work perfectly for a few weeks.

Yes, I thought it was amusing that many turned-out for the launch party / release and left with discount monitors, flash drives, head-sets, and no Vista :rolleyes:

Someone's getting fired :D

Microsoft was pretty quiet in their response to those statements. But, the disappointment was evident by the lack of enthusiasm or spin that they seemed to reply to the story with.

I guess they just didn't have much to say.
 
Apple really weren't prepared for the launch of Vista it seems. They should have had a new version of iTunes ready, and ideally another Boot Camp too (even though it's just beta, it would have looked good if they did).
 
Apple really weren't prepared for the launch of Vista it seems. They should have had a new version of iTunes ready, and ideally another Boot Camp too (even though it's just beta, it would have looked good if they did).

The problem, is that then it would look like Apple did something based on someone else's time-table.

Apple would rather be late to the party than to look like they did something based on someone else's timing.
 
Vista's been in public beta for ages. I bet most iPod users and Windows users. The fact that Apple woke up now is pretty pathetic.

Good point. Except I am developing software now that worked on the public betas, but did not work on the released Vista Ultimate (the one that was released in final form to corporations last year). Still Apple has had months to get any bug straighted out, even if that is what happened to them.
 
Yes, for example Intego Anti-Virus wouldn't even install, but most applications had patches out on Tiger release day if not before. What's great now is that Apple have said that they won't be changing the API's for a while so everything that runs under 10.4 should run perfectly under 10.5

No kidding. I've never run anti-virus software on the Mac. Still - device drivers and disk utilities could well fail, and that wouldn't surprise me. I was more interested in end-user tools. I have many, many, and not a single one wouldn't run.

Actually, I do know that the POSIX layer did change pretty significantly, and I had some home-brew stuff that I decided to update for 10.4, not because it was broken, but because it would run a whole lot cleaner once it was updated.

I suppose it would be possible for someone to fall into one of the POSIX changes, and have code stop working in 10.4. I just never experienced that with any apps that I purchased or produced.
 
Just picture this:

Apple tells their millions of iPod owners that they won't be providing compatibility with Windows Vista.

So, the installed base must either stick with Windows XP or switch to the Mac OS if they want to continue using their iPods.

Decisions, decisions. Do you throw away your $500 iPod to spend $399 for Vista Ultimate. Or, do you save your money and keep enjoying your $500 iPod Video?

Of course, it might hurt future iPod sales. But, it would also likely put a bit of a dent in Microsoft's early Vista adopters.

Might be a bit amusing.

Especially since Vista is more exciting to developer types, than it is to end users... I know I won't be upgrading to Vista at my home and I get it FREE. I sure as heck wouldn't shell out any Benjamins for it.
 
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. :rolleyes:

It's funny you wrote that as I've thought one of Leopards' "Top Secrets" might be implementing Windows applications right into Leopard without the use of virtualization software such as Parallel's or cold-booting into Windows. Definitely would send more than a shock, more like a tsunami lol :p ...

As a side note, I was this close to buying Windows Vista Home Edition since I'm currently running Vista RC2 on another HD on my Mac Pro (need it for AutoCAD work, so don't judge lol). Then I sobered up and realized "I'll wait till Leopard is released". Apple could benefit from an AA sort of club with sponsors for recovering Windows users and those who may get "caught under the Microsoft spell." I could have used a sponsor to call today. Close call. Phew :eek: lol...
 
Why does this not surprise me? After all, Apple's Windows development is secondary to its Macintosh development... so I'd expect a delay between the release of a new OS from Microsoft and a compatible iTunes+QuickTime release.

I'm guessing that Leopard will also necessitate an iTunes update... I wonder how Apple's doing on this front.

yeah at the same time it is rather sad of apple not to of gotten this ready yet. They would of had access to vista for almost 2 months now. Bussiness got it back in Nov. It just the general public that got it on the Jan 30 so in some ways it rather sad of apple to not of gotten it by the time vista launch.
 
yeah at the same time it is rather sad of apple not to of gotten this ready yet. They would of had access to vista for almost 2 months now. Bussiness got it back in Nov. It just the general public that got it on the Jan 30 so in some ways it rather sad of apple to not of gotten it by the time vista launch.

It's a conspiracy. Apple is holding Vista hostage with it's collection of iPod fanatics :p
 
After reading the many replies sent regarding this piece of news.

I have come to a conclusion that 90% + of apple fanatics are self centered
and hate another company based on assumptions of ads?

The apple ads truly depict its user base. (self centered, biased etc)

Some of you hate microsoft for no reason, point blank vista is one heck of a operating system and the whole gui with windows and glass effect depicting real life objects is to truly say WOW at.

I like mac os x i have a macbook pro but i dont see myself hating microsoft for doing anything their supposed to be doing which is releasing products for something they helped mainstream.

After messing with vista the whole gui is ahead of mac os x just looking at windows i have open in mac os x dont feel the same.

I love my macbook pro and i bet mac os x leopard will be amazing but why the need to bash a operating system im pretty sure even god uses?
which will explain deja-vus and what not.....

nothing is error free and certainly mac os x while they make it seem way superior is not. (clicking on the red circle dont even fully close the app but yet is "worlds most advanced operating system"? i can name a **** load of
annoyances within mac but that will just have me lynched and stoned.

Apple had ample time to have it compatible with vista but if this was the other way around.

"Leave it to microsoft to **** their fans and their monopolizing ways blah blah blah

but is apple so hell yeah , stop their business what a great move?
good strategy apple stick it to microsoft, apple is so cool for not releasing itunes/vista compatibility and hurting microsoft sales....

is just really funny to me and believe it or not there is millions of people that prefer a windows over a mac.
So who is apple really hurting? the ipod became succesful because it was compatible with windows not the other way around
so hate on the company that is helping your favorite company achieve what they coulndt in 20+ years.

Look at the stats and facts and see how when they decided to support windows with the ipod how it sales sky rocketed
and how wth boot camp they where able to achieve and gain market share

THANK THAT SORRY PIECE OF **** SOFTWARE microsoft releases that over 90% of the world uses for part of the success jobs & co is experiencing.

If you cant beat them join them...be like apple join them and then try to bash them by claimiing you did it on your own and give no credit is where due.
 
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 !
Microsoft had five years to fix things, and they haven't. They disabled ActiveSync, and its replacement isn't even complete. Bluetooth is an absolute disaster, and Windows Media Center goes into an epileptic fit with certified Vista drivers. iTunes shouldn't have needed to be updated if Microsoft had done their jobs correctly (aside from perhaps CD burning, but for what it's worth, CD burning in iTunes works perfectly on my Vista system).

Vista just plain isn't done yet.

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.
Vista does break things. My camera management software, Microsoft ActiveSync, all sorts of disc writing software and DVD creation software (including rather expensive titles), Bluetooth stacks from Widcomm, even their own media center is buggy. Fast user switching crashes immediately at login on a clean install, with no solution from Microsoft and no sensible reason why it happens. Security and drive maintenance applications all crap out entirely. iTunes takes too long to start, but aside from that I don't have any problems using it in Vista--something I can't say for Winamp or WinDVD (which will crash if it's running when you insert a DVD under Vista, but if it's not running, WMP will open it even though it's been explicitly set not to).

nothing is error free and certainly mac os x while they make it seem way superior is not. (clicking on the red circle dont even fully close the app but yet is "worlds most advanced operating system"?
Yeah, and what's up with the close button being in the top right? And the Apple button can't even list all your applications! The 'X' doesn't even appear until you put your mouse on it lolerskates!!!11one. They did everything wrong!

Oh, wait...it's not Windows.
 
nothing is error free and certainly mac os x while they make it seem way superior is not. (clicking on the red circle dont even fully close the app but yet is "worlds most advanced operating system"?

no...pls....
i used to open 50+ photos in photoshop at the same time...
if we just clicking the red circle and the app get closed...i will be crazy...
 
After reading the many replies sent regarding this piece of news.

I have come to a conclusion that 90% + of apple fanatics are self centered
and hate another company based on assumptions of ads?

The apple ads truly depict its user base. (self centered, biased etc)

Some of you hate microsoft for no reason, point blank vista is one heck of a operating system and the whole gui with windows and glass effect depicting real life objects is to truly say WOW at.


I have just as many complaints about Apple as I have about Microsoft. But, I divide my complaints fairly and give them each credit for their mess-ups.

Apple's OS X interface is a bit dated and a bit depressing looking. It really could use some color, and a bit of a refresh. I actually preferred the original OS X interface in OS 10.0 to the current one. It felt brighter and livelier. And, I've sent messages to Apple requesting them to refresh the OS X interface and get rid of all the brushed metal, and drab looking Finder and application windows. Over-all, I find that the brushed-metal look is just too depressing looking. But, Apple is slowly addressing that, and just taking too long to get it done. I don't really care for "Unified" either. But, it's an improvement. Hopefully they'll do a little dress-up.

I have found Microsoft's user Interface to be much more pleasant since XP. And, I really actually prefer their user interface. So, I give them credit for that.

I don't like the way that every single Application on my Windows system always has some piece of it running in the background. I prefer the either it's open or it's closed approach (like OS X).

And, I do prefer the applications on OS X. Generally, the only complaint I have about the Mac is it's user interface. I think they could learn a little from Microsoft in that area.

But, in almost every other area, I find that I prefer OS X. I like the stability of OS X, I like the way it's programs work. The thing I like most, is how the programs are self contained and that all of their files generally reside within a single folder (the application's icon). So, I never have to go searching around my drive to find the hidden pieces when something goes wrong.

With Windows, I've got some programs that have 3 difference versions of a Visual Basic Run-Time module scattered around 5 or 6 locations and some setting that is hidden in the program's code that determines which one gets preference. But, when something goes wrong, I have to go searching and looking for the various run-time modules and DLL files and play swap around with them until it works.

With OS X, I'd just delete the Application's icon, and drag a new copy back and it would be a fresh setup. With Windows, I have to try and locate all the scattered pieces and get rid of them. Otherwise, my future install attempts are sabotaged by the remains from the previous attempts. I've got a couple of programs I've been going round and round with for 6 months now since they stopped working one day.

With OS X, I can usually just delete the preference file, and that's generally enough to fix things. If that doesn't work, I just copy a fresh copy of the program onto my hard drive and it replaces the entire installation from the previous install. No hunting and searching, and experimenting, and so on. No manual repairs.

So, they both have their strong points. They both have their shortcomings. And, I will criticize Apple just as fast as I'll criticize Microsoft. I just don't fault one simply because I prefer the other.

If someone came around and did what each one did best and left out the stuff that they can't get right, then we'd really have something.

There are some fans out there that will stand up for Apple even if Apple lit the fuse that blew-up their own company. But, that's not everyone.
 
It's funny you wrote that as I've thought one of Leopards' "Top Secrets" might be implementing Windows applications right into Leopard without the use of virtualization software such as Parallel's or cold-booting into Windows. Definitely would send more than a shock, more like a tsunami lol :p ...

I am totally with you, buddy. And this would be one of it or may be this would be it! of course there may be few other secrets which will put windoze to shame for being dozing but from mac's perspective not really that big. By the way read this to find Bill crying already-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16934083/site/newsweek/
:)
I hope and betcha if top secrets are really in Job's style something like iPhone, it surely will send shivers through windows backbone. Speaking of iPhone, what is this iPhone killer that I am reading here will be launched in a week-
http://news.digitaltrends.com/talkback168.html
:confused:
 
Vista does break things. My camera management software, Microsoft ActiveSync, all sorts of disc writing software and DVD creation software (including rather expensive titles), Bluetooth stacks from Widcomm, even their own media center is buggy. Fast user switching crashes immediately at login on a clean install, with no solution from Microsoft and no sensible reason why it happens. Security and drive maintenance applications all crap out entirely. iTunes takes too long to start, but aside from that I don't have any problems using it in Vista--something I can't say for Winamp or WinDVD (which will crash if it's running when you insert a DVD under Vista, but if it's not running, WMP will open it even though it's been explicitly set not to).

I know it does. All OS upgrades break some level of compatibility. I haven't been through a single one that didn't.

I made that comment in a spirit of humor. Speculating that they might have delayed to show and illustrate how Windows Vista was going to require everything to be updated. Then Apple comes out and says "We told you so, here's the fix"

Of course, they'll hope you are more forgiving when you are waiting for patches the next time an OS X update breaks compatibility with something.


Yeah, and what's up with the close button being in the top right?
Oh, wait...it's not Windows.

Yeah, but I think you mean left. My only complaint is that I don't like the fact that you have to go to the menus to close a program completely. And, I don't like the "Zoom" button. I prefer the Windows method of maximizing and minimizing.

But, then there's lots of things I don't like about Windows as well. I guess the only way to get it perfect would be to write it myself. But, then you wouldn't like it because it would be done my way.
 
My only complaint is that I don't like the fact that you have to go to the menus to close a program completely. And, I don't like the "Zoom" button. I prefer the Windows method of maximizing and minimizing.

No, you don't. Right click on a program in the Dock and select "Quit". Simple as that, no need in "going to the program". The "zoom" button? What's wrong with that? I've used Windows back when Windows 3.1 was launched from the MS-DOS Prompt using c:\windows\windows.exe, and then switched in 2004 as a masters/phd student at Columbia, needless to say, I fell in LOVE. Nothing compares to the elegance, ergonomics and seemlessness of Apple products and software. The smaller percentage of Apple users does not reflect any inferiority of Apple technology and software, but reflects the expense and inaccessability of Apple technology to the main stream public. In time, people will realize that dishing out less $$$ for a cheaper PC (i.e. Dell/Windows) just means more $$$ and headaches in repairs whereas more $$$ upfront for better quality equates to less repairs and future costs, similar to buying a cheaper American car compared to a more expensive German import. In time, people will realize the logic in paying more money for better quality :apple:
 
In time, people will realize that dishing out less $$$ for a cheaper PC (i.e. Dell/Windows) just means more $$$ and headaches in repairs whereas more $$$ upfront for better quality equates to less repairs and future costs, similar to buying a cheaper American car compared to a more expensive German import. In time, people will realize the logic in paying more money for better quality :apple:

That's not necessarily true.

I purchased my very nice Compaq for $430 including shipping almost 2 years ago now. And, it still out-specs most of Apple's product line. The only exception being the Mac Pro.

And, for that $430, I've had a reliable machine that hasn't given me too much trouble.

In that time, I've had two iMac G5 systems that spent their entire time in the shop, and never spent much time actually working. I eventually sold them after their last repair, and didn't get much back out of them due to depreciation. Their value fell fast within about 3 or 4 months.

The first iMac cost me about $2200 as it was configured. That one I struggled to sell for $1200 a few months later due to Apple having released a new model shortly after I purchased mine.

The other one I purchased for around $1600. And, that one I barely managed to get $1000 out of a few months later.

So, with those two machines, I spent much more than I did for my PC. And, all I got in exchange was getting to know the repair center really, really well, and the loss of $1800 to get out of the constant repair cycle.

And, here we are much, much later, and my $430 PC is still working quite well. It's never broke down once. And, it still sits pretty high in specs compared to the current models.

Of course, I do prefer the Mac OS. But, I'm not blind enough to assume that spending more money will get me a higher quality product. I know better.

I've been using computers since before IBM released their first PC. And, out of the literally thousands of computers I've used, and the multiple hundreds I have owned, the only ones that I've ever (and I do mean EVER) taken to a repair shop have been Apples.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.