That isn't correct. There are many programs that don't run correctly under Windows XP.
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.
OSX Lion not worth it, not impressed, nothing new
- Thread starter killerbee79
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That isn't correct. There are many programs that don't run correctly under Windows XP.
For many Windows Vista wasn't a viable upgrade though, so they stuck with XP. Especially businesses. So since a lot of people were still using XP, even though Vista was already there, a lot of applications still supported XP. Even Microsoft kept supporting XP up till not too long ago. But now that W7 is a perfectly fine upgrade, most applications will drop their XP support as well.
As for OS X; after a while it's just not worth it anymore to support an older OS. Newer versions of applications want to make use of new technologies, and if they need to hold back because a few people are still using an older OS, that's just bad for everyone in the long run.
But I don't really see how this is a problem in the first place. If you have an older Mac with Tiger and you don't want to upgrade for whatever reason, just accept that you can't run the latest and greatest versions of all the applications. Earlier versions of all these apps that were made for Tiger don't suddenly stop working. So...
While I agree with the price, its quite low, can you expound upon why you believe the new features are on par with the Tiger upgrade. I disagree as it appears that apple is dumbing down OSX and making it more iPad like. I'm interested in the specifics that you think cause it to be a major upgrade. I do think apple added/updated lots of little things, no really large major change.
The cost is mind blowing but its also highly restrictive - download only.
cube, it's called progress, it's a good thing 
Having to support too many older OS's is a huge pain in the proverbial backside and actually stifles innovation, because you're stuck with the lowest common denominator. Just ask any software developer.
@maflynn: could you expand on the "Apple is dumbing down OS X" sentiment a bit please? I only see Apple making things more pleasant, not dumber...
Having to support too many older OS's is a huge pain in the proverbial backside and actually stifles innovation, because you're stuck with the lowest common denominator. Just ask any software developer.
@maflynn: could you expand on the "Apple is dumbing down OS X" sentiment a bit please? I only see Apple making things more pleasant, not dumber...
cube, it's called progress, it's a good thing
Having to support too many older OS's is a huge pain in the proverbial backside and actually stifles innovation, because you're stuck with the lowest common denominator. Just ask any software developer.
@maflynn: could you expand on the "Apple is dumbing down OS X" sentiment a bit please? I only see Apple making things more pleasant, not dumber...
It's not progress when there's no install DVD and older hardware ceases to be supported.
Tell us, for how long should older hardware be supported? Five years? Ten? 20? Should Lion still be able to run on an Apple 1 from 1976 in your opinion?
Uhm, yeah it is, that's the very definition of progress, you drop the legacy stuff, you up the lowest common denominator.
It may sound harsh, but if you don't evolve, you get left behind.
I think it's a lot more faire this way, than the other way around, where a certain group of people sticks with their older hardware/software, all the while holding the rest of the group back.
It may sound harsh, but if you don't evolve, you get left behind.
I think it's a lot more faire this way, than the other way around, where a certain group of people sticks with their older hardware/software, all the while holding the rest of the group back.
Nobody is holding anybody back. As long as there are enough legacy customers that want to pay for support, they should be accomodated.
Yes they are holding everyone back.
I see this type of stuff happening every day, where we as software developers cannot use the latest and greatest of APIs and such, just because they are not accessible on older systems.
It's all basic logistics really: if you want to keep everything manageable, you aim for a common code base, so you're stuck with the lowest common denominator of supported features and APIs.
You could of course set up a branch for the legacy customers, but then it begins. If a bug that resides in both the normal and the legacy branch needs fixing, you have double work on your hands, the same with other maintenance updates.
Since you have to commit more resources to keep all the branches in sync, you have less resources left for actual innovation, so again, legacy stifles innovation.
The mere act of laying down money does not fully compensate this; sometimes you have to think of the bigger picture.
If you want examples of how unfortunate legacy stuff can be, you have but to look at Microsoft.
I see this type of stuff happening every day, where we as software developers cannot use the latest and greatest of APIs and such, just because they are not accessible on older systems.
It's all basic logistics really: if you want to keep everything manageable, you aim for a common code base, so you're stuck with the lowest common denominator of supported features and APIs.
You could of course set up a branch for the legacy customers, but then it begins. If a bug that resides in both the normal and the legacy branch needs fixing, you have double work on your hands, the same with other maintenance updates.
Since you have to commit more resources to keep all the branches in sync, you have less resources left for actual innovation, so again, legacy stifles innovation.
The mere act of laying down money does not fully compensate this; sometimes you have to think of the bigger picture.
If you want examples of how unfortunate legacy stuff can be, you have but to look at Microsoft.
Well, Apple had to draw a line. Whether it's too soon or not, unfortunately it's up to them to decide. You can still just keep your PPC Mac with its PPC apps at the cost of running slower
Precisely when the Intel switch was announced, I saw doom in the Xcode architecture build selection switch. This should have never been there, but always force the build for all architectures.
Snow Leopard technically required Leopard if you read the licensing agreement. It just wasn't enforced on the software side, and Lion actually doesn't either.
The only reason you "need" Snow Leopard is to get the App Store, however there is nothing stopping you from using a friend's Mac to purchase it and then creating your own installer media.
There is no reason to think you won't be able to burn your own installer and do a clean install with the final build, as this has been possible with ALL versions of the Developer Preview so far. You download the Installer via the App Store, show Package contents, find the InstallESD.dmg and use Disk Utility burn it to a DVD or restore to a partition on an external drive.
Granted I don't expect someone like my mother to figure those steps out -- but part of what you pay for when you do things "the right way" is support.
People need to understand that just because the recommended and supported path to Lion requires Snow Leopard, it's not the ONLY path.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but you seem out of touch with the economics of software development. What you're proposing, if I'm not mistaken, is supporting a computer which is almost 7 years old, consisting of a completely different processor architecture no less.
Surely you're jesting?
And what do you mean with "for ever"? Try selling a support contract to a bunch of product managers: "yeah, the products we're selling now, we're going to commit to our customers to support them forever". Best case scenario: you'll give them a good chuckle.
I really don't get this discussion.
Newer systems have better hardware and a newer OS with newer APIs that can do newer things, or things in a better way. So, newer versions of applications will only work with these newer systems.
So how and why does one expect them to work with older systems as well? If you don't want to upgrade your system that's fine, but just keep using the older versions of the software that run fine on these older systems.
For many developers this isn't an option, period. And what do you mean with "pay for support"? Do you really think people will suddenly start to pay a monthly fee for an application that's e.g. 5 years old, just so that the developer keeps updating it? Of course they're not. But without it, it's simply not economically viable to keep working on ancient software.
Newer systems have better hardware and a newer OS with newer APIs that can do newer things, or things in a better way. So, newer versions of applications will only work with these newer systems.
So how and why does one expect them to work with older systems as well? If you don't want to upgrade your system that's fine, but just keep using the older versions of the software that run fine on these older systems.
Yes, they are. Say you're a developer and you need to support all this older hardware. This means you spend a lot of time and money on developing and updating many different versions of an application. An old one, running on old hardware and only able to do certain things, and a new one, able to make use of all kinds of new APIs and what not.
For many developers this isn't an option, period. And what do you mean with "pay for support"? Do you really think people will suddenly start to pay a monthly fee for an application that's e.g. 5 years old, just so that the developer keeps updating it? Of course they're not. But without it, it's simply not economically viable to keep working on ancient software.
Whether an OS is supported is up to the developer of a certain application. Read what I said about that above. For security updates the same applies. The developers of Apple can't keep spending all their time writing for older versions less and less people are using. It's just not worth it.
The architecture change was a sudden Apple decision. As such, they should take better care of their legacy customers.
I wrote "for ever" in quotes meaning "for a long time", but I didn't write that precisely because when the Intel switch was announced, SJ said the PowerPC was going to be supported "for a long time".
Tell us, what kind of important work are you still doing on this PowerPC Mac that requires you to run the latest software?