5 ms·

Apple has really done a 180 degree turn from back in the early OS X days, when they actually did quite a bit of work to keep existing applications functional.

Apple has really done a 180 degree turn from back in the early OS X days, when they actually did quite a bit of work to keep existing applications functional. Forget binary compatibility, now even existing APIs are disappearing left and right.

bognition 7y ago
That makes sense right though. 15 years ago the number of people using OSX was a fraction of what it is today. They had to be very protective of that customer base. Now the install base is huge and the threats are different.
- outworlder 7y ago
  > Now the install base is huge and the threats are different. Counterpoint: Microsoft's install base is enormous and has been for decades. They very very rarely intentionally break backwards compatibility.
  - viscanti 7y ago
    Counterpoint: Microsoft's obsession with backward compatibility is why there are so many zero day exploits for their OS. Complexity comes with a cost.
    - bshacklett 7y ago
      One doesn't even have to look that far. They haven't shipped a Windows update on time for years due to bugs pushing the dates back. I can't imagine that their backwards compatibility requirements have been part of the problem. In fact, wasn't there a specific issue that was linked back to compatibility with CP/M not that long ago? Edit: This is what I was thinking of: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/how-a-1974-bug-still-bites-win10-and-azure-users-515102 https://www.itnews.com.au/news/how-a-1974-bug-still-bites-wi...
    - jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
      That is not a counterpoint, just a downside (which can be offset taking several approaches). I would like to see a comparison between recent versions of macOS and Windows 10.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    > They very very rarely intentionally break backwards compatibility. You must be thinking about regular userspace applications, when you should be thinking about drivers. Microsoft can't do two consecutive major OS versions without overhauling a driver subsystem and leaving a whole class of older devices with reduced or no functionality.
  - GeekyBear 7y ago
    Microsoft moved the graphics drivers to user space way back at Windows Vista. It was a painful transition, sure. However it was worth it just for reliability reasons. Previously, poorly written graphics drivers were the leading cause of blue screens. After the change, the graphics subsystem restarted itself on error instead of taking the whole machine down or allowing the driver to corrupt system memory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Mode_Driver_Framework https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Mode_Driver_Framework
pjmlp 7y ago
During the early OS X days Apple was battling for survival, the were pretty much like this during the Mac OS days. Plus it isn't like they aren't providing an upgrade path.
- jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
  Well, for many things they aren't providing anything: 32-bit (already yanked) and OpenGL (soon).
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Lazy companies have had 10 years time to migrate to 64 bit. Likewise all major engines have already added Metal support.
    - jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
      1. Companies cannot be lazy if they do not exist anymore. 2. Companies may not care to update software if it gives no revenue anymore. That is not lazy, it is called for-profit. Specially publicly-traded ones that do not care a single bit for the customer. 3. It may not be possible to move to 64-bit without a major rewrite. 4. It may not be possible because dependencies are not 64-bit. 5. Not everyone uses a major engine (I guess you are talking games here?). 6. Even if they do, updating is never trivial and is definitely expensive, specially for games. See reasons 1-4 as well. In short: no, it is not possible for a myriad reasons. Killing 32-bit support is a very bad move for customers.

bognition 7y ago

That makes sense right though. 15 years ago the number of people using OSX was a fraction of what it is today. They had to be very protective of that customer base. Now the install base is huge and the threats are different.

outworlder 7y ago
> Now the install base is huge and the threats are different. Counterpoint: Microsoft's install base is enormous and has been for decades. They very very rarely intentionally break backwards compatibility.
- viscanti 7y ago
  Counterpoint: Microsoft's obsession with backward compatibility is why there are so many zero day exploits for their OS. Complexity comes with a cost.
  - bshacklett 7y ago
    One doesn't even have to look that far. They haven't shipped a Windows update on time for years due to bugs pushing the dates back. I can't imagine that their backwards compatibility requirements have been part of the problem. In fact, wasn't there a specific issue that was linked back to compatibility with CP/M not that long ago? Edit: This is what I was thinking of: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/how-a-1974-bug-still-bites-win10-and-azure-users-515102 https://www.itnews.com.au/news/how-a-1974-bug-still-bites-wi...
  - jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
    That is not a counterpoint, just a downside (which can be offset taking several approaches). I would like to see a comparison between recent versions of macOS and Windows 10.
- wtallis 7y ago
  > They very very rarely intentionally break backwards compatibility. You must be thinking about regular userspace applications, when you should be thinking about drivers. Microsoft can't do two consecutive major OS versions without overhauling a driver subsystem and leaving a whole class of older devices with reduced or no functionality.
- GeekyBear 7y ago
  Microsoft moved the graphics drivers to user space way back at Windows Vista. It was a painful transition, sure. However it was worth it just for reliability reasons. Previously, poorly written graphics drivers were the leading cause of blue screens. After the change, the graphics subsystem restarted itself on error instead of taking the whole machine down or allowing the driver to corrupt system memory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Mode_Driver_Framework https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-Mode_Driver_Framework

pjmlp 7y ago

During the early OS X days Apple was battling for survival, the were pretty much like this during the Mac OS days. Plus it isn't like they aren't providing an upgrade path.

jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
Well, for many things they aren't providing anything: 32-bit (already yanked) and OpenGL (soon).
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Lazy companies have had 10 years time to migrate to 64 bit. Likewise all major engines have already added Metal support.
  - jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
    1. Companies cannot be lazy if they do not exist anymore. 2. Companies may not care to update software if it gives no revenue anymore. That is not lazy, it is called for-profit. Specially publicly-traded ones that do not care a single bit for the customer. 3. It may not be possible to move to 64-bit without a major rewrite. 4. It may not be possible because dependencies are not 64-bit. 5. Not everyone uses a major engine (I guess you are talking games here?). 6. Even if they do, updating is never trivial and is definitely expensive, specially for games. See reasons 1-4 as well. In short: no, it is not possible for a myriad reasons. Killing 32-bit support is a very bad move for customers.