On Jun 19, 2008, at 12:21 AM, Zane H. Healy wrote: > At 5:26 PM +1000 6/18/08, Christopher Collins wrote: >> On 18/06/2008, at 1:17 PM, Zane H. Healy wrote: >> >>> Backwards compatibility should be any OS vendors primary objective. >>> >> >> What a load of absolute crap this line is! >> >> It is "backwards compatibility" that always limits innovation. > > You seem to feel rather strongly about this, tell me what software > company do you work for? > >> Is 10.5 better than 10.4? Yes, I think it is. I find it much more >> reliable and much easier to use. So I checked my hardware and >> found, yes it will run 10.5. > > My wife's MacBook runs 10.5, and it is no where near as stable as my > G5 running 10.4.11, or it was running 10.4.x. I'm not ready to run > 10.5 when my son logging out of his account is enough to crash the > laptop! > >> If you don't want the facilities of 10.5, then you have no >> problems. Stick with 10.4.11 and be happy. >> >> If you want 10.5 and your hardware won't handle it, then decide how >> badly you need those features. If the need is great enough you will >> upgrade. >> >> If you still don't want to upgrade, then stay with 10.4.11. And >> don't keep complaining that Apple should keep limiting innovation >> by staying "backwards compatible" > > I'm complaining about the lack of backward compatibility and 10.5 > just plain being unstable.... * I am running Leopard -- Sys X 10.4.3 -- on an Intel iMac and it is very stable. In fact, it seems to me that my stability just goes up with every upgrade. And I have no problems running the programs I need. Backward compatibility limits innovation. And Apple was No. 1 in innovations among technology companies. Yes, IBM PC's were backwards compatible. All the way up until they sold the whole works to Lenovo -- a Chinese company. earle * ________________________ Earle Jones 380 Conil Way Portola Valley CA 94028 Home: 650-854-1489 Cell: 650-269-0035 earle.jones at comcast.net