5 ms·

There’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 r

There’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 ago
  Microsoft'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 ago
    I 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.
whywhywhywhy 9y ago
> There’s nothing stopping you from keeping your machine running the same version of the OS you’re on now Only if you're ok with dismissing an update dialog though a drop down every single day. The only options are "Install Now", "Later" (install automatically tonight), "Remind me tomorrow".
- saagarjha 9y ago
  Just go to the App Store and hide the update if it bothers you so much.
ksk 9y ago
>Surely Apple is allowed to release updates to their OS that eventually break old software at some point. And I am not allowed to complain? >Or do you expect Mac software you bought in 1984 to continue run on the current OS? That is a false comparison. There is no technical reason why 32bit software shouldn't work on a desktop 64bit intel processor.
- pwinnski 9y ago
  No reason that you know of yet. Apple has done things like this in the past, and people screamed about screwing over compiler publishers and so on, and then suddenly the Mac ran on Intel processors and everything they'd been doing clicked into place. I don't know exactly what the reason here is, but I've been a user of Apple products for long enough to believe there probably is one, and that we'll know it at some point.
  - ksk 9y ago
    Yes, I am unable to use future information that I don't possess to form an opinion today. >Apple has done things like this in the past, and people screamed about screwing over compiler publishers and so on, and then suddenly the Mac ran on Intel processors and everything they'd been doing clicked into place. What "things like this". Can you be specific? Are you simply saying "People doubted Apple, and then those people were wrong". How about "People doubted Apple, and then they turned out to be right". Or just because Apple makes money, it automatically means they have never screwed over anyone? >I don't know exactly what the reason here is, but I've been a user of Apple products for long enough to believe there probably is one, and that we'll know it at some point. Oh there is always a reason. I've been a user of Apple's products for long enough to believe that the reason usually involves taking cash out of my pocket and putting it into Apple's pocket. I see no reason for me as a customer to empathize with the financial situation of a fabulously wealthy corporate entity.
    - pwinnski 9y ago
      I was thinking specifically of changes they made prior to switching from Power chips to Intel chips. They introduced a series of more onerous requirements for developers that made it harder and harder for developers using the leading third-party IDE/compiler from MetroWerks, and the criticism and complaints sounded eerily similar. Then they announced the switch to Intel processors, and it retroactively became clear how much an already-insanely-difficult transition would have been even more difficult if they had continued to support developers not using Xcode. It sucked for developers having to switch, and it sucked even more for MetroWerks, obviously, but in retrospect, it's hard to see it going down any other way. Apple screws stuff up on a small and medium scale on a regular basis. Monthly, it seems like, and sometimes even more often. But they don't tend to screw up on the big stuff. People disagree with their focus, and that's fine. But I've been following them since the 1980s, and I've come to trust that they'll make good on the big stuff even while they screw up on the small things right and left. Your mileage may vary.
ksk 9y ago
>There’s nothing stopping you from keeping your machine running the same version of the OS you’re on now. You can say that about anything. Is there anything stopping you from writing your own OS? Take a programming course, Learn programming, convince people to help you, etc, etc. >It will continue to run fine indefinitely, and should run all the software you use now. If it was bug free, I wouldn't care. Apple as the sole distributor, introduces bugs in their software, and then ties the bug fixes to updates which change functionality of the underlying 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 ago
Microsoft'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 ago
  I 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.

whywhywhywhy 9y ago

> There’s nothing stopping you from keeping your machine running the same version of the OS you’re on now Only if you're ok with dismissing an update dialog though a drop down every single day. The only options are "Install Now", "Later" (install automatically tonight), "Remind me tomorrow".

saagarjha 9y ago
Just go to the App Store and hide the update if it bothers you so much.

ksk 9y ago

>Surely Apple is allowed to release updates to their OS that eventually break old software at some point. And I am not allowed to complain? >Or do you expect Mac software you bought in 1984 to continue run on the current OS? That is a false comparison. There is no technical reason why 32bit software shouldn't work on a desktop 64bit intel processor.

pwinnski 9y ago
No reason that you know of yet. Apple has done things like this in the past, and people screamed about screwing over compiler publishers and so on, and then suddenly the Mac ran on Intel processors and everything they'd been doing clicked into place. I don't know exactly what the reason here is, but I've been a user of Apple products for long enough to believe there probably is one, and that we'll know it at some point.
- ksk 9y ago
  Yes, I am unable to use future information that I don't possess to form an opinion today. >Apple has done things like this in the past, and people screamed about screwing over compiler publishers and so on, and then suddenly the Mac ran on Intel processors and everything they'd been doing clicked into place. What "things like this". Can you be specific? Are you simply saying "People doubted Apple, and then those people were wrong". How about "People doubted Apple, and then they turned out to be right". Or just because Apple makes money, it automatically means they have never screwed over anyone? >I don't know exactly what the reason here is, but I've been a user of Apple products for long enough to believe there probably is one, and that we'll know it at some point. Oh there is always a reason. I've been a user of Apple's products for long enough to believe that the reason usually involves taking cash out of my pocket and putting it into Apple's pocket. I see no reason for me as a customer to empathize with the financial situation of a fabulously wealthy corporate entity.
  - pwinnski 9y ago
    I was thinking specifically of changes they made prior to switching from Power chips to Intel chips. They introduced a series of more onerous requirements for developers that made it harder and harder for developers using the leading third-party IDE/compiler from MetroWerks, and the criticism and complaints sounded eerily similar. Then they announced the switch to Intel processors, and it retroactively became clear how much an already-insanely-difficult transition would have been even more difficult if they had continued to support developers not using Xcode. It sucked for developers having to switch, and it sucked even more for MetroWerks, obviously, but in retrospect, it's hard to see it going down any other way. Apple screws stuff up on a small and medium scale on a regular basis. Monthly, it seems like, and sometimes even more often. But they don't tend to screw up on the big stuff. People disagree with their focus, and that's fine. But I've been following them since the 1980s, and I've come to trust that they'll make good on the big stuff even while they screw up on the small things right and left. Your mileage may vary.

ksk 9y ago

>There’s nothing stopping you from keeping your machine running the same version of the OS you’re on now. You can say that about anything. Is there anything stopping you from writing your own OS? Take a programming course, Learn programming, convince people to help you, etc, etc. >It will continue to run fine indefinitely, and should run all the software you use now. If it was bug free, I wouldn't care. Apple as the sole distributor, introduces bugs in their software, and then ties the bug fixes to updates which change functionality of the underlying OS.