Originally posted by kenohki
You know, I can almost see the above quote in an Apple marketing website. Are you sure you don't work at the store or something? Have you succumbed to Steve's RDF?
Panther may make sense for you, but it doesn't for me. The only feature that interests me is Expose and I can't really use that very well since I have a graphics card that isn't QE supported. I like the current Finder better (would prefer a spatial finder), can't use iChat AV, don't want FileVault, don't have multiple users for fast user switching, don't user Mac OS X mail, don't use iDisk, don't use Preview for PDF browsing, etc. The features of Panther that I might use don't justify the price. I'll wait till there is some new feature that I need before upgrading thank you very much.
You can use Exposé just fine without QE; they made sure of that. I use it on a Blueberry iBook (4 MB VRAM) and it actually is fine.
As for not needing the other features, fine. If you don't want to buy Panther, don't. What new features did System 7.5 add of real value over System 7? OS 9 over 8.5? Really. No one is forcing you to buy each and every upgrade unless you can justify the price to yourself. But complaining that new software works on a new OS is just silly. Jaguar is a GREAT operating system. It's mostly kept current, but every once in a while some things don't get updated. It hardly seems to be a big deal.
Some of us who work in both worlds have heard of backward compatibility and that you CAN update components in an OS that an application relies on without upgrading the OS.
If by "both worlds" you refer to Windows compatibility, I'm surprised you even bothered to mention it. Does "DLL Hell" ring any sort of bells here? Programs install their own support files which make older programs unable to run due to the fact that those same support files have changed... it's so pathetic that even Microsoft has to crack down on it, and is supposedly doing so in Longhorn.
When speaking about backwards compatibility, don't EVER mention Windows as an example of how to do it. As far as compatibility is concerned, it's a complete and utter joke. ANYTHING that requires special files in Windows is in immediate danger of breaking due to a newer app coming out. This is not the case in Safari, I'm sure, but you can hardly hold it against Apple that they are moving forward, and trying to not mess up older, working versions of the OS. Every step forward is a test, and it's better to be sure of something than to go ahead and release it anyway (QuickTime 6.5 comes to mind).
The old Safari is not fine. The new one isn't even fine from what I'm hearing. Go over and look on Apple's Safari support pages and you'll see all sorts of incident reports. Safari's standards compliance is not what it should be and if you've ever done any serious web application coding, you'd know that.
So then... let's arrive at an agreeable solution! DON'T USE IT. If it's not up to your "serious web application coding" standards, use something else. Use IE, maybe, since its industry-standard heritage ensures that everyone produces the crappiest, least-adherent-to-protocol code the world has ever seen. Complaining that a free app, which promises Apple absolutely ZERO revenue is not up to your "serious standards" is just ridiculous. Don't like it? Don't use it. Safari 1.2 represents a MAJOR OVERHAUL of the WebKit Core. Maybe if you did any "serious browser application coding", you'd have figured that out, too.
If the old version wasn't good enough, why are you complaining about the new one at all? Maybe it works better, and now you're upset because despite it not being "up to your standards" you wish you could use it? Hmm? Sorry, pal... it's JUST like Classic. Which brings me to...
No one is asking for Classic support. People want support for the last version of the operating system.
When 10.1 came out and Apple began to slow and even stop development of OS 9 apps, the outcry was far more pronounced. Do you really want people disassembling and rewriting new (and working) software so that it runs on an older OS, or do you want them to write new software? Eventually Apple had to put their foot down and stop OS 9 development so they could put their resources to better use. Don't like it? Stay with what you've got... and STOP COMPLAINING.
