5 ms·

Microsoft and Apple have different approaches to backwards compatibility based on the markets they're in. Microsoft makes most of their money on enterprise, whe

by npunt 9y ago

Microsoft and Apple have different approaches to backwards compatibility based on the markets they're in. Microsoft makes most of their money on enterprise, whereas Apple makes most on consumers. Enterprise values running old apps, consumers value running today's apps. Each makes sense for their market... and desktop Linux doesn't make sense for either.

luckydata 9y ago
lol, nice little zinger there at the end for "the year of Linux on desktop".
- npunt 9y ago
  Haha I mean we've been talking about it for two decades and in that time the market has reached maturity and is now in decline. It's always been a pipe dream.
menssen 9y ago
Is the Apple/consumer thing still true? Not questioning your general business-model assumptions, but anecdotally all the “consumers” I know with Macs are holding onto them for six years, while every dev shop I’ve worked in in this decade goes through new MBPs like commodity office supplies. I’m just curious if there are recent stats on who Apple is selling computers to (I haven’t seen any for a while.)
- nikanj 9y ago
  Apple doesn’t really have a product combo to replace AD+SCCM. Macs are popular in companies that are still small enough to have people manage their own machines.
  - indemnity 9y ago
    Is that really true? We have 20000 Mac users in a company of 90000, I don’t think this is a corner case for large technology companies. My machine is managed in the sense some things are preinstalled and IT has a way to push software updates. What more management is required? Anything more and IT would probably fuck it up like they did when our division was still on Windows.
    - nikanj 9y ago
      Unified image on all machines, auditability of installed software, etc. End users absolutely do not have admin rights. Not saying your company has to be like this. Just saying 1) this is where MS has very little competition, and 2) where they make absolute bank.
  - wtallis 9y ago
    > in companies that are still small enough to have people manage their own machines. Company size doesn't have much to do with this. Macs are popular at IBM.
    - digi_owl 9y ago
      Last time i read anything about that, those computers were still largely self-managed (though with a in-office wiki for collected solutions).
  - tcoff91 9y ago
    Our macs are integrated with AD and are remotely managed similarly to windows.
  - reaperducer 9y ago
    > Macs are popular in companies that are still small enough to have people manage their own machines. 140,000+ employees in this company. Macs outnumbers Windows boxes. Pretty much the only place you see Windows machines are in the various accounting departments, and in the call centers where they're just used as terminals to big iron.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  Frankly i think consumers value backwards compatibility as much, if not more, as companies. At least as one gets older and just want to get that thing done that they always have (a certain big name author still writes using WordStar in DOS i believe).
xenadu02 9y ago
Backwards-compatibility is an interesting story on the mac. The Objective-C ABI on 32-bit macOS is what is called the "fragile" runtime because it has the fragile base class problem. Originally Objective-C had the same design flaw as C++: the ivars of every class had to be in the header for all to see so the compiler could rely on the binary layout. A subclass' ivars would be offset by the compiler by examining the layout of every superclass, then baked into the binary. In the modern (all iOS and 64-bit macOS) runtime the ivar offsets are patched up at runtime so the layout of classes (including base classes) can change without breaking compatibility. Working around the limitations of the 32-bit Objective-C runtime imposes significant costs, it is far from a simple recompile with a different pointer size. It also adds a lot to the size of the installed OS.
- npunt 9y ago
  It's kind of sad we're in this state in 2018 because Apple launched 7 low end machines [1] back in 2006 that didn't have 64-bit support. Even though those are long gone, their software support legacy remains. Apple could have transitioned directly to x64 and saved themselves the headache (afaict, maybe these problems would have persisted?). [1] http://lowendmac.com/2006/core-duo-macs/ http://lowendmac.com/2006/core-duo-macs/
  - mrpippy 9y ago
    Apple couldn't have gone straight to 64-bit apps on Intel--the OS and frameworks just weren't ready yet. The Intel machines shipped starting with 10.4.3, which only supported 64-bit command-line apps/daemons. Only with 10.5 (released in late 2007, 18 months after the first Intel machines) were full graphical 64-bit apps supported (on both ppc64 and x86_64).
    - wtallis 9y ago
      Firmware was an issue, too. The first generation of Macs with 64-bit processors still used 32-bit EFI and booted a 32-bit kernel that could run 64-bit applications.
paulie_a 9y ago
For development purposes I'll take a Ubuntu loaded Dell laptop over anything windows, and wouldn't even consider a MacBook.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  It all depends what one understands by development. My Ubuntu netbook is nice for travelling purposes, but for the kind of work I get paid for, it is Windows and occasionally macOS.
  - paulie_a 9y ago
    If I am developing for a Ubuntu server, I'd rather just use Ubuntu directly. Plus the user experience is just as good if not better than osx or windows, but that is a highly personal opinion. I've been using gnome and kde for two decades now. Windows just just has nothing to offer me, and Macs have always been fairly "meh" in my opinion since I had to deal with classic "hard crashes" and those ugly jelly beans
userbinator 9y ago
Enterprise values running old apps, consumers value running today's apps. Do they really, or is it just that consumers are more likely to be persuaded by Apple's marketing? Personally, I have some apps which I use regularly, and are at least 20 years old. I use mostly Windows for that reason too.
babypuncher 9y ago
Consumers like it when their 10 year old video games still work, but those users probably weren't buying Macs to begin with.

by npunt 9y ago

luckydata 9y ago

lol, nice little zinger there at the end for "the year of Linux on desktop".

npunt 9y ago
Haha I mean we've been talking about it for two decades and in that time the market has reached maturity and is now in decline. It's always been a pipe dream.

menssen 9y ago

Is the Apple/consumer thing still true? Not questioning your general business-model assumptions, but anecdotally all the “consumers” I know with Macs are holding onto them for six years, while every dev shop I’ve worked in in this decade goes through new MBPs like commodity office supplies. I’m just curious if there are recent stats on who Apple is selling computers to (I haven’t seen any for a while.)

nikanj 9y ago
Apple doesn’t really have a product combo to replace AD+SCCM. Macs are popular in companies that are still small enough to have people manage their own machines.
- indemnity 9y ago
  Is that really true? We have 20000 Mac users in a company of 90000, I don’t think this is a corner case for large technology companies. My machine is managed in the sense some things are preinstalled and IT has a way to push software updates. What more management is required? Anything more and IT would probably fuck it up like they did when our division was still on Windows.
  - nikanj 9y ago
    Unified image on all machines, auditability of installed software, etc. End users absolutely do not have admin rights. Not saying your company has to be like this. Just saying 1) this is where MS has very little competition, and 2) where they make absolute bank.
- wtallis 9y ago
  > in companies that are still small enough to have people manage their own machines. Company size doesn't have much to do with this. Macs are popular at IBM.
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    Last time i read anything about that, those computers were still largely self-managed (though with a in-office wiki for collected solutions).
- tcoff91 9y ago
  Our macs are integrated with AD and are remotely managed similarly to windows.
- reaperducer 9y ago
  > Macs are popular in companies that are still small enough to have people manage their own machines. 140,000+ employees in this company. Macs outnumbers Windows boxes. Pretty much the only place you see Windows machines are in the various accounting departments, and in the call centers where they're just used as terminals to big iron.
digi_owl 9y ago
Frankly i think consumers value backwards compatibility as much, if not more, as companies. At least as one gets older and just want to get that thing done that they always have (a certain big name author still writes using WordStar in DOS i believe).

xenadu02 9y ago

Backwards-compatibility is an interesting story on the mac. The Objective-C ABI on 32-bit macOS is what is called the "fragile" runtime because it has the fragile base class problem. Originally Objective-C had the same design flaw as C++: the ivars of every class had to be in the header for all to see so the compiler could rely on the binary layout. A subclass' ivars would be offset by the compiler by examining the layout of every superclass, then baked into the binary. In the modern (all iOS and 64-bit macOS) runtime the ivar offsets are patched up at runtime so the layout of classes (including base classes) can change without breaking compatibility. Working around the limitations of the 32-bit Objective-C runtime imposes significant costs, it is far from a simple recompile with a different pointer size. It also adds a lot to the size of the installed OS.

npunt 9y ago
It's kind of sad we're in this state in 2018 because Apple launched 7 low end machines [1] back in 2006 that didn't have 64-bit support. Even though those are long gone, their software support legacy remains. Apple could have transitioned directly to x64 and saved themselves the headache (afaict, maybe these problems would have persisted?). [1] http://lowendmac.com/2006/core-duo-macs/ http://lowendmac.com/2006/core-duo-macs/
- mrpippy 9y ago
  Apple couldn't have gone straight to 64-bit apps on Intel--the OS and frameworks just weren't ready yet. The Intel machines shipped starting with 10.4.3, which only supported 64-bit command-line apps/daemons. Only with 10.5 (released in late 2007, 18 months after the first Intel machines) were full graphical 64-bit apps supported (on both ppc64 and x86_64).
  - wtallis 9y ago
    Firmware was an issue, too. The first generation of Macs with 64-bit processors still used 32-bit EFI and booted a 32-bit kernel that could run 64-bit applications.

paulie_a 9y ago

For development purposes I'll take a Ubuntu loaded Dell laptop over anything windows, and wouldn't even consider a MacBook.

pjmlp 9y ago
It all depends what one understands by development. My Ubuntu netbook is nice for travelling purposes, but for the kind of work I get paid for, it is Windows and occasionally macOS.
- paulie_a 9y ago
  If I am developing for a Ubuntu server, I'd rather just use Ubuntu directly. Plus the user experience is just as good if not better than osx or windows, but that is a highly personal opinion. I've been using gnome and kde for two decades now. Windows just just has nothing to offer me, and Macs have always been fairly "meh" in my opinion since I had to deal with classic "hard crashes" and those ugly jelly beans

userbinator 9y ago

Enterprise values running old apps, consumers value running today's apps. Do they really, or is it just that consumers are more likely to be persuaded by Apple's marketing? Personally, I have some apps which I use regularly, and are at least 20 years old. I use mostly Windows for that reason too.

babypuncher 9y ago

Consumers like it when their 10 year old video games still work, but those users probably weren't buying Macs to begin with.