2 ms·

Windows has a lot more software than Mac and unlike Mac, software in Windows keeps working for years on (i personally use a lot of older software, largely becau

by Crinus 8y ago

Windows has a lot more software than Mac and unlike Mac, software in Windows keeps working for years on (i personally use a lot of older software, largely because it is faster on modern machines). This means you have a TON of options, but at the same time Sturgeon's law enters in the picture so with the more options you have more crap. The other side of the coin is that you also have more quality options too. Yes it is harder to find good software, but it is far from impossible. One way is to look for sites dedicated to software and then look for comments about those sites in Reddit, etc and ignore those that have bad comments. Another way is to ask in communities like Reddit's /r/software - people will try to steer you towards cheap/halfass solutions and ask you why would you want to pay $1 to do X instead of spending a few weeks jury rigging the free Y+Z+W+4+5 (which btw are open source, thus have god given quality status) to do mostly the same thing except a little more broken, but if you insist about what you want, you'll often find good software there (i have found some nice apps through the subreddit myself). TBH it has been years since i used a Mac extensively, but i do not remember finding quality Mac software being any different than quality Windows software - i mostly relied on sites and communities too.

ubermonkey 8y ago
AS a 20-year Mac user, I have no idea what you mean by "unlike Mac, software in Windows keeps working for years on".
- Crinus 8y ago
  Apple does not pay much attention to backwards compatibility, deprecates APIs all the time, changes how they work, etc and if something is undocumented it is free for all to axe it regardless of how many applications use it. Microsoft, on the other hand, pays a lot of attention to backwards compatibility and tries to keep things running regardless of them being documented or not (which IMO is the right approach to take, if something is accessible then it is part of your public interface regardless of it being intentional or not - of course this can lead to more messy implementation, but this is secondary to keep applications running). As a result, none of the programs in my 2009 iMac work anymore - a few games, a few commercial applications (e.g. Pixelmator), etc, every time i upgraded macOS i lost one or two applications that were not compatible, until the point when macOS itself became not compatible with my iMac (and i am certain that if i try to move any remaining applications to another Mac, more stuff will not work). No matter what workarounds i tried to do, they didn't work. On the other hand, i have Windows software from a decade before my iMac even existed that still works perfectly fine under Windows 10 exactly because Microsoft cares about backwards compatibility. For example i have a boxed version of Paint Shop Pro 7 (the last great version of PSP with the best UI for an image editor, IMO) which comes with the application itself as well as a couple of addons (an animation editor and an image organizer) and all of them work literally out of the box (some older applications might need a few tweaks here and there but they usually work easily, but others like PSP7 work with no tweaks at all). For me this is a big reason why i stopped buying software on macOS: with their behavior towards API compatibility, Apple forces an expiration date to the software. On the other hand i do not even care if the company behind some piece of Windows software will exist or not in 5 years, since chances are i'll be able to run it regardless (assuming there is no need for Internet-based activation or some bullshit like that, which is why i avoid that type of software too). I guess Linux is kinda similar here, partly because Linus insists on backwards compatibility but also because even if the APIs change you can still compile the older libraries, although that is talking from a purely personal perspective (this would be very high on the "tweak difficulty" for most people) and in practice nobody sells stuff i'd be interested on Linux anyway so i haven't experienced it beyond trying some older game demos from very early 2000s (which mostly worked after i installed an OSS emulator and an older C++ library, with the exception of -IIRC- a Shogo port that needed Gtk1 for the launcher - which i could compile or copy from Slackware that still provides packages for it, but i lost interest). Still i'd trust Windows more to stay compatible and even under Linux i'd trust Wine before any other API. And note that in all that i ignore Apple changing CPU architecture every few years (which, according to rumors, are going to do again soon).
  - ubermonkey 8y ago
    While it's true that Apple has shifted wholesale more than Windows (from OS 9 to OS X; from PPC to Intel), I haven't found myself running aground on deprecated software often enough to notice. It's probably true that if you really need binaries built during the Clinton administration to work, the Mac isn't for you. That such binaries still run on Windows is, to me, evidence of a problem in that world, not a feature. I'd make an argument that Apple's willingness to do "big jumps" and cut ties with the past (in controlled ways, with long lead times and compatibility layers supported for a while after) is a strength of the platform, and leads to a more coherent and more stable environment. Especially since most users have no need for ancient programs. >f something is undocumented it is free for all to axe it regardless of how many applications use it. This in particular seems like a feature. If it's not a documented part of the programming environment, use it at your peril. >i ignore Apple changing CPU architecture every few years Here's where I actually laughed at you. Characterizing "twice since 1984" as "every few years" is absurdly unreasonable. I get it. You like that Windows is still basically the same house-of-cards system it was in 1995. Lots of people, though, don't think of this as a good thing. The Mac has thrived, I'd argue, BECAUSE of Apple's willingness to shift for the greater platform benefit -- off 68x to PPC for power; off PPC to Intel for both power and strategic reasons; into the BSD-based OSX for stability, power, and growth. Microsoft could learn a lot here.
    - Crinus 8y ago
      > It's probably true that if you really need binaries built during the Clinton administration to work, the Mac isn't for you. Notice that i'm talking about macOS being unable to run applications released less than 10 years ago. Of course older stuff would be even better, but macOS cannot do a third of that. > That such binaries still run on Windows is, to me, evidence of a problem in that world, not a feature. To me, as someone who actually wants to use the software and not wax about theoretical benefits (that in practice do not apply since macOS is these days - or at least was until a year or so ago, i didn't bother with it much since then - woefully unstable), this isn't just a feature, it is THE feature. The main reason i use Windows. > I'd make an argument that Apple's willingness to do "big jumps" and cut ties with the past (in controlled ways, with long lead times and compatibility layers supported for a while after) is a strength of the platform, and leads to a more coherent and more stable environment. That'd be nice if the environment was actually stable, but the last version that was approaching decent stability was Snow Leopard, everything after that is a downhill (especially since Apple decided to switch to periodic releases, as if an OS is a comic magazine). > Especially since most users have no need for ancient programs. There is no such a thing as "most users", different people have different needs and people do not care about something until the moment that something turns around and bites them. > If it's not a documented part of the programming environment, use it at your peril. You seem to not understand, this "you" who are talking about is not me, it is the developer of the program i am using. I am not talking as the developer of the program, the developer can change it and it'll keep working. I am talking as the USER of the program, a program whose developer might not even exist anymore or may have decided to screw me over and not fix their bugs. But this sort of developer wont care about Apple breaking their program, it is the users who will have to suffer the program not working. Backwards compatibility is 90% for the users and only 10% for the developer (which is most likely why most developers do not care much about it, unless they become personally affected of course - and probably why most inexperienced developers do not see any issue with breaking backwards compatibility at all). > Lots of people, though, don't think of this as a good thing. The Mac has thrived, I'd argue, Your argument would be wrong considering the ridiculously gargantuan majority of desktop and laptop computers are using Windows only because they can run the programs the users care about. Software is what makes an OS relevant, nothing else. The only purpose for an OS is to run the users' programs. > Microsoft could learn a lot here. If the lesson learned ends up in breaking people's programs, i'd rather them learning nothing.

by Crinus 8y ago

ubermonkey 8y ago

AS a 20-year Mac user, I have no idea what you mean by "unlike Mac, software in Windows keeps working for years on".

Crinus 8y ago
Apple does not pay much attention to backwards compatibility, deprecates APIs all the time, changes how they work, etc and if something is undocumented it is free for all to axe it regardless of how many applications use it. Microsoft, on the other hand, pays a lot of attention to backwards compatibility and tries to keep things running regardless of them being documented or not (which IMO is the right approach to take, if something is accessible then it is part of your public interface regardless of it being intentional or not - of course this can lead to more messy implementation, but this is secondary to keep applications running). As a result, none of the programs in my 2009 iMac work anymore - a few games, a few commercial applications (e.g. Pixelmator), etc, every time i upgraded macOS i lost one or two applications that were not compatible, until the point when macOS itself became not compatible with my iMac (and i am certain that if i try to move any remaining applications to another Mac, more stuff will not work). No matter what workarounds i tried to do, they didn't work. On the other hand, i have Windows software from a decade before my iMac even existed that still works perfectly fine under Windows 10 exactly because Microsoft cares about backwards compatibility. For example i have a boxed version of Paint Shop Pro 7 (the last great version of PSP with the best UI for an image editor, IMO) which comes with the application itself as well as a couple of addons (an animation editor and an image organizer) and all of them work literally out of the box (some older applications might need a few tweaks here and there but they usually work easily, but others like PSP7 work with no tweaks at all). For me this is a big reason why i stopped buying software on macOS: with their behavior towards API compatibility, Apple forces an expiration date to the software. On the other hand i do not even care if the company behind some piece of Windows software will exist or not in 5 years, since chances are i'll be able to run it regardless (assuming there is no need for Internet-based activation or some bullshit like that, which is why i avoid that type of software too). I guess Linux is kinda similar here, partly because Linus insists on backwards compatibility but also because even if the APIs change you can still compile the older libraries, although that is talking from a purely personal perspective (this would be very high on the "tweak difficulty" for most people) and in practice nobody sells stuff i'd be interested on Linux anyway so i haven't experienced it beyond trying some older game demos from very early 2000s (which mostly worked after i installed an OSS emulator and an older C++ library, with the exception of -IIRC- a Shogo port that needed Gtk1 for the launcher - which i could compile or copy from Slackware that still provides packages for it, but i lost interest). Still i'd trust Windows more to stay compatible and even under Linux i'd trust Wine before any other API. And note that in all that i ignore Apple changing CPU architecture every few years (which, according to rumors, are going to do again soon).
- ubermonkey 8y ago
  While it's true that Apple has shifted wholesale more than Windows (from OS 9 to OS X; from PPC to Intel), I haven't found myself running aground on deprecated software often enough to notice. It's probably true that if you really need binaries built during the Clinton administration to work, the Mac isn't for you. That such binaries still run on Windows is, to me, evidence of a problem in that world, not a feature. I'd make an argument that Apple's willingness to do "big jumps" and cut ties with the past (in controlled ways, with long lead times and compatibility layers supported for a while after) is a strength of the platform, and leads to a more coherent and more stable environment. Especially since most users have no need for ancient programs. >f something is undocumented it is free for all to axe it regardless of how many applications use it. This in particular seems like a feature. If it's not a documented part of the programming environment, use it at your peril. >i ignore Apple changing CPU architecture every few years Here's where I actually laughed at you. Characterizing "twice since 1984" as "every few years" is absurdly unreasonable. I get it. You like that Windows is still basically the same house-of-cards system it was in 1995. Lots of people, though, don't think of this as a good thing. The Mac has thrived, I'd argue, BECAUSE of Apple's willingness to shift for the greater platform benefit -- off 68x to PPC for power; off PPC to Intel for both power and strategic reasons; into the BSD-based OSX for stability, power, and growth. Microsoft could learn a lot here.
  - Crinus 8y ago
    > It's probably true that if you really need binaries built during the Clinton administration to work, the Mac isn't for you. Notice that i'm talking about macOS being unable to run applications released less than 10 years ago. Of course older stuff would be even better, but macOS cannot do a third of that. > That such binaries still run on Windows is, to me, evidence of a problem in that world, not a feature. To me, as someone who actually wants to use the software and not wax about theoretical benefits (that in practice do not apply since macOS is these days - or at least was until a year or so ago, i didn't bother with it much since then - woefully unstable), this isn't just a feature, it is THE feature. The main reason i use Windows. > I'd make an argument that Apple's willingness to do "big jumps" and cut ties with the past (in controlled ways, with long lead times and compatibility layers supported for a while after) is a strength of the platform, and leads to a more coherent and more stable environment. That'd be nice if the environment was actually stable, but the last version that was approaching decent stability was Snow Leopard, everything after that is a downhill (especially since Apple decided to switch to periodic releases, as if an OS is a comic magazine). > Especially since most users have no need for ancient programs. There is no such a thing as "most users", different people have different needs and people do not care about something until the moment that something turns around and bites them. > If it's not a documented part of the programming environment, use it at your peril. You seem to not understand, this "you" who are talking about is not me, it is the developer of the program i am using. I am not talking as the developer of the program, the developer can change it and it'll keep working. I am talking as the USER of the program, a program whose developer might not even exist anymore or may have decided to screw me over and not fix their bugs. But this sort of developer wont care about Apple breaking their program, it is the users who will have to suffer the program not working. Backwards compatibility is 90% for the users and only 10% for the developer (which is most likely why most developers do not care much about it, unless they become personally affected of course - and probably why most inexperienced developers do not see any issue with breaking backwards compatibility at all). > Lots of people, though, don't think of this as a good thing. The Mac has thrived, I'd argue, Your argument would be wrong considering the ridiculously gargantuan majority of desktop and laptop computers are using Windows only because they can run the programs the users care about. Software is what makes an OS relevant, nothing else. The only purpose for an OS is to run the users' programs. > Microsoft could learn a lot here. If the lesson learned ends up in breaking people's programs, i'd rather them learning nothing.