5 ms·
What is the point of an OS if not to run the software the user has purchased? I don't care, and more importantly don't want to care at all about the OS beyond i
by ksk 9y ago
What is the point of an OS if not to run the software the user has purchased? I don't care, and more importantly don't want to care at all about the OS beyond it being a launcher for software that allows me to make money. Such a bizzare approach from Apple to reducing the user to an open wallet willing to repurchase software that already works. Also with Apple forcing the user on the rolling release treadmill, its rather annoying that one can't simply stay on a stable version.
- hvidgaard 9y agoIf backwards compatibility is important, Windows is the only sane choice for a desktop os.
- lmm 9y agoFreeBSD has always had good binary backward compatibility.
- hvidgaard 9y agoI specifically said desktop OS for that very reason. I am aware that you can use Ubuntu and get a similar experience, but it's not in the same league as Windows.
- lmm 9y agoUbuntu is specifically a desktop OS (to the point where I'd say putting Ubuntu on a server is a bad idea), so I don't understand what distinction you're drawing.
- hvidgaard 9y agoMy original comment say > If backwards compatibility is important, Windows is the only sane choice for a desktop os. So I'm not saying anything about a server, for which there is multiple choices of long backward compatibility.
- lmm 9y agoSo what was with your comment about Ubuntu? You seemed to be implying it wasn't a desktop OS but it is. And why are you dismissing FreeBSD, which can perfectly reasonably run on a desktop?
- armadsen 9y agoThere’s nothing stopping you from keeping your machine running the same version of the OS you’re on now. It will continue to run fine indefinitely, and should run all the software you use now. Surely Apple is allowed to release updates to their OS that eventually break old software at some point. Or do you expect Mac software you bought in 1984 to continue run on the current OS?
- hvidgaard 9y ago> do you expect Mac software you bought in 1984 to continue run on the current OS? That is to some extend how it works in Windows land. It was not until 64bit was a thing that they removed support for 16bit programs, and there is still many ways to run them. Everyone that cares about backwards compatibility just needs to read this http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/9780321440303/samplechapter/Chen_bonus_ch01.pdf http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/9780321440303/samplech... to get an idea of the history MS has of backwards compatibility.
- ridiculous_fish 9y agoMicrosoft's 64 bit transition was more awkward with more compatibility breaks, compared to Apple. Microsoft sold separate Windows 32 bit and 64 bit versions, under different SKUs. The 64 bit version broke compatibility with 32 bit drivers, but not all software would work on 32 bit, so it was important to know which version you had. Many computers advertised as 64 bit were sold with 32 bit Windows, so it was possible to download an incompatible app version. It was a confusing time. Apple had only one SKU. Applications had 32 bit and 64 bit versions in the same binary, so there was only one version to download. The kernel supported 64 bit addressing and 32 bit drivers, so there was no hardware compatibility break. It was invisible to users.
- hvidgaard 9y agoI agree completely, but that doesn't change the fact that non-kernel software backwards compatibility is very high priority for Microsoft. I find it a bit dishonest to claim MacOS did so much better without mentioning that they have a fraction of the hardware to support, compared to Windows. When the different hardware combinations are not greater than something you can setup in a warehouse, it's straightforward to test them all.