Software Compatibility, Tangent to Dantz Retrospect

[Daniel Brieck]

I guess this shows us that Apple is making significant changes to the 
underlying OS, which is good, because Windows Applications seems to run 
a long time. This is probably why virus are so potent on windows, they 
have had 8 years to learn how to exploit it with  little changes done 
to the os  ..

Here is the reality from a buying perspective...  For example I bought 
this ancient Software compiler called Turbo C++, it was made in 1994, 
and it seems to run with out a hitch on Windows XP? Now on the other 
hand my encyclopedia software built for mac os X World Book v 6.0 from 
2000 or 2001 is completely useless now on 10.3. Luckily a local user 
group gave me the jaguar version in exchange for a review of the app. I 
expect it to be probably be broke when "we" install 10.4  just like the 
original WB. These are not utilities either if they were I could expect 
them to be broken.... The mac application WB 6.0 was a flagship Cocoa 
application, now its broke / garbage. However, a Carbon Application 
Ultralingua ESP-ENG from 2001 still works fine.....

Windows ----Good Compatibility over the long haul for older apps 
(Sparingly about 5-8 years) for certain apps.

Mac OS X  ---- Limited [Could be a better word here] Compatibility over 
the long haul (6-months to 24-months) for certain apps

There has to be a "happy medium" between this...  Just something to 
think about



Dan Brieck Jr.

  On Jan 20, 2004, at 11:49 PM, sr ferenczy wrote:

>
>
> On Jan 20, 2004, at 11:27 PM, Alex wrote:
>
>> otherwise why would they continuously shell out the greenbacks for 
>> more hardware and software?
>
>
> because many times those greenbacks are required to RE-gain usability 
> that was taken away when new hardware created the need for the new OS, 
> whose update then broke the old software, which required multiple 
> updates from software companies who then reap the "rewards" of 
> multiple pay-for updates in a short number of months.  i would assume 
> that "most customers" do NOT "like" shelling out more money just to 
> regain previously had usability. thusly, i believe many software 
> companies are seeing their customers forgo commercial software for the 
> newly available open source software on the macintosh platform. heck, 
> if i am not going to get decent support, and be charged for minimal 
> upgrades, why shouldn't i look for better (and quite possibly 
> free/very low cost) software??
>
> the once fenced-in macintosh software user base is now fully open to 
> the world of open source, so those who have been "supporting" mac 
> users will actually have to actually start doing so if they want to 
> save their customers from finding other options.
>
> my two pence.
>
> sandor