3 ms·
By "Failed to account for that" I mean that they failed to consider how much software has been produced outside their control, so they should have been more con
by gruturo 7y ago
By "Failed to account for that" I mean that they failed to consider how much software has been produced outside their control, so they should have been more considerate with the timeline for dropping compatibility. And there's plenty, plenty more stuff outside these 235 apps - sometimes new versions are expensive and do nothing new or useful for most users.
Here we are talking about dropping application that the CPU is still fully capable of running. There's no silicon advantage like on the latest iPhones. There's no big performance penalty running an emulated app, which would quickly drive people to use something native. There's no Moore's law obsoleting your current platform nearly as quickly as it once happened.
Apple has, in the past, treated people better when changing architecture that it just did with this thing, where the architecture stayed the same.
Edit: To the long list of past architectures Apple has dropped, maybe the root of the problem would be that I (mistakenly, maybe) do not consider 32-bit as past. I consider it still somewhat current, so seeing it dropped like this is less acceptable.
- scarface74 7y agoHow is 32 bit “current”? Intel introduced its first 64 bit chip in 2004. By 2009, the Core 2 Duo was mainstream. Apple hasn’t sold a 32 bit computer in a decade.
- plorkyeran 7y agoApple sold 32-bit x86 Macs for less than a year, and they sold approximately zero of them during that year. It was a legacy platform that no one should have been targeting for nearly the entire history of macOS on x86.