7 ms·

That reads less like a reasonable, well-thought breakdown and more like a whiny diatribe coming from an entitled teenager. If the entire argument boils down to

That reads less like a reasonable, well-thought breakdown and more like a whiny diatribe coming from an entitled teenager. If the entire argument boils down to "I don't wanna!", then what's the point? Don't upgrade. Apple isn't forcing anyone to upgrade at all. If you need to run all your old software, don't upgrade. That's not a fault of the new OS. Technology changes. That's a fact of life. Even the example of Aperture is a little far-fetched. It's literally been years since Aperture was discontinued and taken off the shelves. I dunno... to me it sounds like someone complaining that their new computer can't run DooM anymore because it didn't come with a 3.5" floppy drive. Yes, you can run DooM still but not in the very specific, needlessly encumbered method you want to run it in. Times change, technology changes, and it's just not productive to lock yourself in to something and then complain when what you've locked yourself into doesn't work out the way you predicted. Keep using the old OS. Just don't act surprised and attacked when it doesn't work anymore years from now.

mullen 7y ago
Catalina does break a lot of games. I am pretty sure that if you get on Steam, the list of games that Catalina breaks is longer than the list of games that work on Catalina.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  I'm sure it does because most games didn't update to 64-bit. I still fail to see how that warrants an article like that. If you know the games won't work and you still want to play them, don't upgrade. It's not that hard.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    As it happens, the author isn't upgrading.
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      And your point is? I've already acknowledged that. I'm pointing out that a disappointment for their individual situation doesn't indicate that the update is a failure nor does it warrant what they've written.
      - johnisgood 7y ago
        It is a problem for them, and they express it. What do you think is wrong with that? Not being able to run 32-bit applications is a deal-breaker for many people. The update is a failure for them for this or many other reasons. It might not affect you, and that is fine, but it does affect other people and it is a perfectly valid concern that they could voice. Why are you so against them voicing their problems with the update? Who are you to be the judge of what warrants and does not warrant any articles? Ultimately your opinion on whether it warrants an article or a comment does not matter, thank goodness. What if I told you that you being fine with the update does not warrant a comment? Whatever your answer is, please repeat the same thing to yourself because it seems like you have a strong dislike towards the act of voicing valid issues with the update. I would dare to say it reeks of fanpersonism.
        dkonofalski 7y ago
        >it does affect other people and it is a perfectly valid concern It most certainly does not affect them if they don't choose to update. That's exactly my issue with this whole thread. You're all straw-manning my response as if my complaint is with the person's desire to write an article about their opinion. That's not my issue. My issue is with the fact that their complaint doesn't line up with the statements they've made in the article and the fact that they're treating an optional update as some kind of requirement that points to a fault in the OS. And, frankly, I think your statement about reeking of "fanpersonism" is unfair considering that the only time the site in question has ever posted to HN is to complain about Apple and/or their products. That, to me, is fanpersonism.
        johnisgood 7y ago
        > It most certainly does not affect them if they don't choose to update. This has been addressed in other comments by others and I. > And, frankly, I think your statement about reeking of "fanpersonism" is unfair I based it on the things you have said about what warrants or does not warrant an article. In any case: no hard feelings.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  Is that just because of the signing requirement on executables?
  - plorkyeran 7y ago
    No, it's because for some reason there's a bunch of 32-bit only games on macOS.
pram 7y ago
He also hasn't installed Mojave. Was that not worth the trouble, either? It's a pretty typical graybeard rant about the halcyon days. Except since we're in 2019, replace System 7 with Snow Leopard.
semiotagonal 7y ago
> That reads less like a reasonable, well-thought breakdown and more like a whiny diatribe coming from an entitled teenager. A customer is legitimately entitled to upgrades that aren't actually downgrades. > Apple isn't forcing anyone to upgrade at all. > Just don't act surprised and attacked when it doesn't work anymore years from now. Well... if Apple isn't forcing people to upgrade now, but will later, then there's still grounds for complaint. An unhappy customer always has the right, nay, duty, to publicly complain until the business changes its behavior.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  >legitimately entitled No, they are not. This isn't an upgrade to their existing OS like a patch release. This is a new OS completely and developers were all warned years in advance that Catalina would drop 32-bit support. This is not a downgrade in the slightest. >but will later I have a Mac Mini from 2005 that still runs MacOS Leopard just as well as the day I bought it. I can't install all the latest, greatest software on it and I can't even access every website anymore (TLS updates and all that) but it still functions as good, if not better, than it did when I first bought it and runs all the software that's still installed on it. No MacOS update has ever been forced or mandatory. Ever. The customer is not always right but I'm pretty sure offering an OS upgrade is doing right by the customer considering it doesn't cost anything and, for most people, adds far more than it takes away and is, again, optional.
  - jeremyjh 7y ago
    No computer that is not getting security hotfixes is "just as good" as it was when it was getting those updates.
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      Yes it is. Those updates have been applied to it. It does not magically get worse simply because time passes. It does literally everything it did when I bought it and then some because new software came out after it was purchased. Just because it can't run everything else that's come out since then doesn't magically make it stop doing what it's already been able to do.
pazimzadeh 7y ago
The point is it's always slightly risky to upgrade, and if there aren't life-changing new features this time around (which there aren't) then in the short term you're simply rolling the dice and simultaneously losing compatibility with all 32-bit apps. It's for these reasons that for the first time in years, I'm not immediately updating.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  That's fine, though. There's nothing that says that you can't stay on the version of the OS that you're using until you decide not to. That decision, though, comes with the consequence that you likely won't be able to run new software. If you're not worried about new software and don't want to be until the point comes where you need new software, the updates have always been optional.
  - pazimzadeh 7y ago
    Sure, as long as they keep fixing bugs and issuing security updates for the older OS's. But Apple Support articles start with "Update to the latest version of macOS and try again" There is also no particular reason that I can tell why certain features are only added to the latest OS, though we have become desensitized to this. For example - why can't the ability to extend the Mac desktop to the iPad be added to Mojave?
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      >why can't the ability to extend the Mac desktop to the iPad be added to Mojave Likely because there's a part of the iCloud stack that was set up by code that's not in Mojave. Additionally, that was never advertised as a feature of Mojave so I fail to see why there would be any expectation that this would be added to Mojave.
      - pazimzadeh 7y ago
        > Likely because there's a part of the iCloud stack that was set up by code that's not in Mojave That's my point - if it's a software requirement then it can in theory be added to say Mojave 10.14.7. > that was never advertised as a feature of Mojave so I fail to see why there would be any expectation that this would be added to Mojave This is software, so I highly doubt that the real reason is technical (why can't the code be added to Mojave?) just that Apple feels they may suffer long term if they reward people for not updating to major releases, or it's too costly to maintain so many forks of macOS. I wouldn't care nearly as much if Catalina didn't drop support for 32-bit apps.
wwweston 7y ago
> Technology changes. That's a fact of life. Is it? It's not really clear to me there's any sort of hard technical limit that requires operating systems to abandon components that support older software. There may be an economic argument that every team has a limited amount of attention and resources, and older libraries/apis/layers may compete with newer ones, and that argument may even have some merit if the newer stuff is categorically better. But, OTOH, there's MS's backward's compatibility, so it's clear that some platform owners can bear the cost just fine. Too bad Apple just doesn't make enough money for that, I suppose. :/ Perhaps they could think differently and charge users who want to stay on older versions of macOS for the updates. That'd provide a signal of how valuable it actually is and perhaps even a supporting revenue stream. Unless resources aren't actually the issue.
appleiigs 7y ago
I agree with the "entitled teenager" feel of the article. The author sees a change in Mail's look and a change font. A software developer sees Apple finally busting up iTunes which was an overloaded monolithic beast. A software developer sees Apple dropping 32-bit to reduce complexity. This is all refactoring which we'd love to do on our own projects.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
SrslyJosh 7y ago
I think you just came here to tell OP that he's wrong for having different priorities than you do.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  It's not a matter of different priorities. It's a matter of accurate vs. inaccurate. And, for someone complaining about that, you sure didn't do much more than come here and tell me that I'm wrong for having different priorities without any of the follow-through that I did to, at the very least, explain my thoughts. You haven't even done that.

mullen 7y ago

Catalina does break a lot of games. I am pretty sure that if you get on Steam, the list of games that Catalina breaks is longer than the list of games that work on Catalina.

dkonofalski 7y ago
I'm sure it does because most games didn't update to 64-bit. I still fail to see how that warrants an article like that. If you know the games won't work and you still want to play them, don't upgrade. It's not that hard.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  As it happens, the author isn't upgrading.
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    And your point is? I've already acknowledged that. I'm pointing out that a disappointment for their individual situation doesn't indicate that the update is a failure nor does it warrant what they've written.
    - johnisgood 7y ago
      It is a problem for them, and they express it. What do you think is wrong with that? Not being able to run 32-bit applications is a deal-breaker for many people. The update is a failure for them for this or many other reasons. It might not affect you, and that is fine, but it does affect other people and it is a perfectly valid concern that they could voice. Why are you so against them voicing their problems with the update? Who are you to be the judge of what warrants and does not warrant any articles? Ultimately your opinion on whether it warrants an article or a comment does not matter, thank goodness. What if I told you that you being fine with the update does not warrant a comment? Whatever your answer is, please repeat the same thing to yourself because it seems like you have a strong dislike towards the act of voicing valid issues with the update. I would dare to say it reeks of fanpersonism.
      - dkonofalski 7y ago
        >it does affect other people and it is a perfectly valid concern It most certainly does not affect them if they don't choose to update. That's exactly my issue with this whole thread. You're all straw-manning my response as if my complaint is with the person's desire to write an article about their opinion. That's not my issue. My issue is with the fact that their complaint doesn't line up with the statements they've made in the article and the fact that they're treating an optional update as some kind of requirement that points to a fault in the OS. And, frankly, I think your statement about reeking of "fanpersonism" is unfair considering that the only time the site in question has ever posted to HN is to complain about Apple and/or their products. That, to me, is fanpersonism.
        johnisgood 7y ago
        > It most certainly does not affect them if they don't choose to update. This has been addressed in other comments by others and I. > And, frankly, I think your statement about reeking of "fanpersonism" is unfair I based it on the things you have said about what warrants or does not warrant an article. In any case: no hard feelings.
newnewpdro 7y ago
Is that just because of the signing requirement on executables?
- plorkyeran 7y ago
  No, it's because for some reason there's a bunch of 32-bit only games on macOS.

pram 7y ago

He also hasn't installed Mojave. Was that not worth the trouble, either? It's a pretty typical graybeard rant about the halcyon days. Except since we're in 2019, replace System 7 with Snow Leopard.

semiotagonal 7y ago

> That reads less like a reasonable, well-thought breakdown and more like a whiny diatribe coming from an entitled teenager. A customer is legitimately entitled to upgrades that aren't actually downgrades. > Apple isn't forcing anyone to upgrade at all. > Just don't act surprised and attacked when it doesn't work anymore years from now. Well... if Apple isn't forcing people to upgrade now, but will later, then there's still grounds for complaint. An unhappy customer always has the right, nay, duty, to publicly complain until the business changes its behavior.

dkonofalski 7y ago
>legitimately entitled No, they are not. This isn't an upgrade to their existing OS like a patch release. This is a new OS completely and developers were all warned years in advance that Catalina would drop 32-bit support. This is not a downgrade in the slightest. >but will later I have a Mac Mini from 2005 that still runs MacOS Leopard just as well as the day I bought it. I can't install all the latest, greatest software on it and I can't even access every website anymore (TLS updates and all that) but it still functions as good, if not better, than it did when I first bought it and runs all the software that's still installed on it. No MacOS update has ever been forced or mandatory. Ever. The customer is not always right but I'm pretty sure offering an OS upgrade is doing right by the customer considering it doesn't cost anything and, for most people, adds far more than it takes away and is, again, optional.
- jeremyjh 7y ago
  No computer that is not getting security hotfixes is "just as good" as it was when it was getting those updates.
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    Yes it is. Those updates have been applied to it. It does not magically get worse simply because time passes. It does literally everything it did when I bought it and then some because new software came out after it was purchased. Just because it can't run everything else that's come out since then doesn't magically make it stop doing what it's already been able to do.

pazimzadeh 7y ago

The point is it's always slightly risky to upgrade, and if there aren't life-changing new features this time around (which there aren't) then in the short term you're simply rolling the dice and simultaneously losing compatibility with all 32-bit apps. It's for these reasons that for the first time in years, I'm not immediately updating.

dkonofalski 7y ago
That's fine, though. There's nothing that says that you can't stay on the version of the OS that you're using until you decide not to. That decision, though, comes with the consequence that you likely won't be able to run new software. If you're not worried about new software and don't want to be until the point comes where you need new software, the updates have always been optional.
- pazimzadeh 7y ago
  Sure, as long as they keep fixing bugs and issuing security updates for the older OS's. But Apple Support articles start with "Update to the latest version of macOS and try again" There is also no particular reason that I can tell why certain features are only added to the latest OS, though we have become desensitized to this. For example - why can't the ability to extend the Mac desktop to the iPad be added to Mojave?
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    >why can't the ability to extend the Mac desktop to the iPad be added to Mojave Likely because there's a part of the iCloud stack that was set up by code that's not in Mojave. Additionally, that was never advertised as a feature of Mojave so I fail to see why there would be any expectation that this would be added to Mojave.
    - pazimzadeh 7y ago
      > Likely because there's a part of the iCloud stack that was set up by code that's not in Mojave That's my point - if it's a software requirement then it can in theory be added to say Mojave 10.14.7. > that was never advertised as a feature of Mojave so I fail to see why there would be any expectation that this would be added to Mojave This is software, so I highly doubt that the real reason is technical (why can't the code be added to Mojave?) just that Apple feels they may suffer long term if they reward people for not updating to major releases, or it's too costly to maintain so many forks of macOS. I wouldn't care nearly as much if Catalina didn't drop support for 32-bit apps.

wwweston 7y ago

> Technology changes. That's a fact of life. Is it? It's not really clear to me there's any sort of hard technical limit that requires operating systems to abandon components that support older software. There may be an economic argument that every team has a limited amount of attention and resources, and older libraries/apis/layers may compete with newer ones, and that argument may even have some merit if the newer stuff is categorically better. But, OTOH, there's MS's backward's compatibility, so it's clear that some platform owners can bear the cost just fine. Too bad Apple just doesn't make enough money for that, I suppose. :/ Perhaps they could think differently and charge users who want to stay on older versions of macOS for the updates. That'd provide a signal of how valuable it actually is and perhaps even a supporting revenue stream. Unless resources aren't actually the issue.

appleiigs 7y ago

I agree with the "entitled teenager" feel of the article. The author sees a change in Mail's look and a change font. A software developer sees Apple finally busting up iTunes which was an overloaded monolithic beast. A software developer sees Apple dropping 32-bit to reduce complexity. This is all refactoring which we'd love to do on our own projects.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

SrslyJosh 7y ago

I think you just came here to tell OP that he's wrong for having different priorities than you do.

dkonofalski 7y ago
It's not a matter of different priorities. It's a matter of accurate vs. inaccurate. And, for someone complaining about that, you sure didn't do much more than come here and tell me that I'm wrong for having different priorities without any of the follow-through that I did to, at the very least, explain my thoughts. You haven't even done that.