3 ms·

Apple's disregard for backwards compatibility is really the main reason i avoid macOS and iOS nowadays. I've got an iMac back in 2009 and an iPod Touch a year a

Apple's disregard for backwards compatibility is really the main reason i avoid macOS and iOS nowadays. I've got an iMac back in 2009 and an iPod Touch a year after it came out and with every subsequent update more and more stuff broke to the point where most of the software i had stopped working - including a some software i paid for (while you can say that the fault also lies with the developers, you cannot expect developers to update their software for eternity for free). While Windows software doesn't work 100% of the time, it works often enough to be practically "100%" - unless a program digs deep into the system, chances are it will work either out of the box or with some tinkering. My only fear for the future is that since Microsoft doesn't seem to see Windows as primarily a product to sell to people anymore, they dampen their backwards compatibility efforts. I hope that doesn't happen.

xoa 7y ago
With iOS you have a real argument, in that the advantages that come from being able to move the platform along more quickly and deploy resources much more efficiently weigh directly against loss of old software that is no longer maintained (games in particular, a lot of real gems didn't make it from 32-bit). With macOS however, and for that matter Windows or Linux or anything else on the PC, I think it's arguable that the last 10-15 years of improvements and universality of virtualization (and emulation for that matter) have changed the calculus completely. Even with Windows you say >Windows software doesn't work 100% of the time But in my experience it does work 100% of the time... in my Win98 or Win2000 or WinXP VMs which are trivial to spin up at will. And I also have macOS (previous Mac OS X or OS X) VMs going back to 10.6 Server, the first support virtualizable version. macOS is more highly dependent on hardware acceleration, but even there the advent of PCI passthrough means it can be solved at negligible performance penalty. And for OS that are even older, there is now such a delta in raw CPU power that emulation can cover it. So I think the balance has shifted in terms of the value of maintaining BC in a PC OS. It's not useless by any means, nobody wants software breaking every single year. But compared to even 5 years ago I now lean towards it being fine to start leaning more on virtualization beyond the 5-7 year mark, and certainly the 8-10 year mark, whenever there are real benefits to moving forward.
- badsectoracula 7y ago
  Virtualized environments are akin to using a separate and worse computer, just with the same keyboard, mouse and monitor. You cannot, e.g., copy/paste an image from a host app to a native app and back (or if you can it isn't as seamless).
jmull 7y ago
> ...you cannot expect developers to update their software for eternity for free You already know why Apple doesn’t do long backwards compatibility. You were talking about developers of your apps, but Apple is a developer too, and faces the same kind of issues. These days (unlike the old days) MacOS gets regular, free updates. There’s going to be a cost to that somewhere. Macs and iPhones are probably expensive enough as it is (those hardware sales are what’s paying for OS and platform development).
- badsectoracula 7y ago
  I do not see how not expecting some random developer to update their software for eternity for free has anything to do with Apple's backwards compatibility. Developers in general do not update their software for eternity just to keep up with OS breakage, at best at some point they'll ask you to move to a newer version (which you may or may not like - it is far from rare for software to devolve in subsequent versions, especially with paid software that often feels the need to amass features), at worst (and yet very common) the software will be abandoned and you'll lose it. Apple has the power to not break those programs, not the individual developers. If Apple breaks some API or other functionality that 1000 programs rely on then 1000 developers and their users will need to waste time on fixing the breakage. If Apple does not break some API or other functionality then nobody needs to do anything on that front. It is all at the hands of Apple, not anyone else. And BTW, i think my previous message was misunderstood, as i wrote in another reply, i wouldn't mind at all to have paid upgrades if that would guarantee backwards compatibility - i know it is hard and time consuming. I still consider it extremely valuable for an OS.
zaphirplane 7y ago
You make some valid points and some confusing points You want to take advantage of apples free os and app upgrades but still run 13 year old software without paying for upgrades. Why upgrade your Mac? Just keep the one that is working with the software you have for 13 years You want the latest, bug fixed, secure software and OS . The Apple side is free but you will need to sort out the application side . BTW ms OS upgrades are not free. Me thinks you want too much
- badsectoracula 7y ago
  > You want to take advantage of apples free os and app upgrades but still run 13 year old software without paying for upgrades. I never mentioned price, i wouldn't care if i had to buy the macOS upgrades - and in fact that is what i did when they were paid. My issue is with backwards compatibility. I'm not sure if with "without paying for upgrades" you refer to OS or app upgrades but i'll guess the former (which i explain in the previous paragraph) as the latter makes no sense considering the "13 year old" part. > Why upgrade your Mac? Just keep the one that is working with the software you have for 13 years Because i also want to run newer software that requires functionality introduced in later versions. > You want the latest, bug fixed, secure software and OS . The Apple side is free but you will need to sort out the application side . I'd rather pay the Apple side and be able to use the software i want to use. > BTW ms OS upgrades are not free. Me thinks you want too much Me thinks you misunderstood my message. I don't care if OS upgrades were paid, i care about backwards compatibility. If anything at the very end of the message you replied to i mention that my fear about Windows is Microsoft not seeing the OS as a primary source of income and hence dampening their backwards compatibility efforts. To be clear: i have zero issues with paying for new versions of the OS if it remains backwards compatible. OS price wasn't a factor in my message at all (outside the fear expressed at the end that was targeted mainly to Microsoft).

xoa 7y ago

With iOS you have a real argument, in that the advantages that come from being able to move the platform along more quickly and deploy resources much more efficiently weigh directly against loss of old software that is no longer maintained (games in particular, a lot of real gems didn't make it from 32-bit). With macOS however, and for that matter Windows or Linux or anything else on the PC, I think it's arguable that the last 10-15 years of improvements and universality of virtualization (and emulation for that matter) have changed the calculus completely. Even with Windows you say >Windows software doesn't work 100% of the time But in my experience it does work 100% of the time... in my Win98 or Win2000 or WinXP VMs which are trivial to spin up at will. And I also have macOS (previous Mac OS X or OS X) VMs going back to 10.6 Server, the first support virtualizable version. macOS is more highly dependent on hardware acceleration, but even there the advent of PCI passthrough means it can be solved at negligible performance penalty. And for OS that are even older, there is now such a delta in raw CPU power that emulation can cover it. So I think the balance has shifted in terms of the value of maintaining BC in a PC OS. It's not useless by any means, nobody wants software breaking every single year. But compared to even 5 years ago I now lean towards it being fine to start leaning more on virtualization beyond the 5-7 year mark, and certainly the 8-10 year mark, whenever there are real benefits to moving forward.

badsectoracula 7y ago
Virtualized environments are akin to using a separate and worse computer, just with the same keyboard, mouse and monitor. You cannot, e.g., copy/paste an image from a host app to a native app and back (or if you can it isn't as seamless).

jmull 7y ago

> ...you cannot expect developers to update their software for eternity for free You already know why Apple doesn’t do long backwards compatibility. You were talking about developers of your apps, but Apple is a developer too, and faces the same kind of issues. These days (unlike the old days) MacOS gets regular, free updates. There’s going to be a cost to that somewhere. Macs and iPhones are probably expensive enough as it is (those hardware sales are what’s paying for OS and platform development).

badsectoracula 7y ago
I do not see how not expecting some random developer to update their software for eternity for free has anything to do with Apple's backwards compatibility. Developers in general do not update their software for eternity just to keep up with OS breakage, at best at some point they'll ask you to move to a newer version (which you may or may not like - it is far from rare for software to devolve in subsequent versions, especially with paid software that often feels the need to amass features), at worst (and yet very common) the software will be abandoned and you'll lose it. Apple has the power to not break those programs, not the individual developers. If Apple breaks some API or other functionality that 1000 programs rely on then 1000 developers and their users will need to waste time on fixing the breakage. If Apple does not break some API or other functionality then nobody needs to do anything on that front. It is all at the hands of Apple, not anyone else. And BTW, i think my previous message was misunderstood, as i wrote in another reply, i wouldn't mind at all to have paid upgrades if that would guarantee backwards compatibility - i know it is hard and time consuming. I still consider it extremely valuable for an OS.

zaphirplane 7y ago

You make some valid points and some confusing points You want to take advantage of apples free os and app upgrades but still run 13 year old software without paying for upgrades. Why upgrade your Mac? Just keep the one that is working with the software you have for 13 years You want the latest, bug fixed, secure software and OS . The Apple side is free but you will need to sort out the application side . BTW ms OS upgrades are not free. Me thinks you want too much

badsectoracula 7y ago
> You want to take advantage of apples free os and app upgrades but still run 13 year old software without paying for upgrades. I never mentioned price, i wouldn't care if i had to buy the macOS upgrades - and in fact that is what i did when they were paid. My issue is with backwards compatibility. I'm not sure if with "without paying for upgrades" you refer to OS or app upgrades but i'll guess the former (which i explain in the previous paragraph) as the latter makes no sense considering the "13 year old" part. > Why upgrade your Mac? Just keep the one that is working with the software you have for 13 years Because i also want to run newer software that requires functionality introduced in later versions. > You want the latest, bug fixed, secure software and OS . The Apple side is free but you will need to sort out the application side . I'd rather pay the Apple side and be able to use the software i want to use. > BTW ms OS upgrades are not free. Me thinks you want too much Me thinks you misunderstood my message. I don't care if OS upgrades were paid, i care about backwards compatibility. If anything at the very end of the message you replied to i mention that my fear about Windows is Microsoft not seeing the OS as a primary source of income and hence dampening their backwards compatibility efforts. To be clear: i have zero issues with paying for new versions of the OS if it remains backwards compatible. OS price wasn't a factor in my message at all (outside the fear expressed at the end that was targeted mainly to Microsoft).