4 ms·

I agree. Some software from the past that made me feel that way: 1. Adobe Photoshop 7 Felt feature-complete, never ran into a bug, not resource-intensive (I

I agree. Some software from the past that made me feel that way: 1. Adobe Photoshop 7 Felt feature-complete, never ran into a bug, not resource-intensive (I would run it on a Pentium 200), no online activation/membership BS 2. Apple Aperture 3 Also felt feature-complete, had everything I needed. Nowadays I need to use 2 or 3 different software to have the features of a 2003 app. Unfortunately the app stopped working after 64-bit transition, and Apple retired it in favor of the much simpler Photos. Shame on you, Apple. 3. iTunes 10 Pretty much the sweet spot of features for managing your music library. Apple replaced with the Music app, because nowadays users consume streaming vs. maintain their own libraries, but the app is a buggy mess. 4. Winamp Solid, just worked. More software should be like that, but never will, because it isn't profitable to have users using the same version for many years. The revenue maximisation strategy is to release continuous beta-quality software, and apps should provide a steady revenue stream. That's why the Apple Store just assumes an app that didn't update is "abandoned". That's the perspective of users in general today, too.

criley2 4y ago
Photoshop 7 struggled in larger PSDs with lots of layers or just a huge resolution/dpi. The memory management was really bad in that era too featuring manual scratch drive configuration. Constant crashing in large projects was the norm for me. I thought CS2 was a good upgrade and my final point before the nonsense of subscription based software took over. Now I just use photopea because 99% of my photoshop needs can be met by a single dude on a single webpage
selfhoster11 4y ago
> More software should be like that, but never will, because it isn't profitable to have users using the same version for many years. You can get some of it back with FOSS applications, even if the quality normally isn't the same as with old freeware/proprietary applications. At least with a FOSS application you get to keep it forever, unlike SaaS which evaporates into thin air the moment the parent company decides to pull the plug.
- badsectoracula 4y ago
  You get to keep it, but if the software itself depends on a foundation made of sand, you can still be out of luck - especially for desktop applications that tend to rely on all sorts of libraries that just can't keep themselves from breaking their APIs and ABIs every few years (and those libraries have their own dependencies, etc). Of course if time is of no essence you can spend it keeping the software up to date, but being able to waste that time doesn't really excuse the underlying foundations forcing application developers to waste their time.
  - selfhoster11 4y ago
    You can still wrap it in a Docker container or a VM, statically compile it, or even use full system emulation if you eventually switch architectures. Or even pay someone to make the code run on a newer environment, if the application is worth it to you.
1-more 4y ago
Every version of Geometer's Sketchpad feels like complete software. Yeah they add features every so often (pinch to zoom is pretty huge) but the core of it is the same.

criley2 4y ago

Photoshop 7 struggled in larger PSDs with lots of layers or just a huge resolution/dpi. The memory management was really bad in that era too featuring manual scratch drive configuration. Constant crashing in large projects was the norm for me. I thought CS2 was a good upgrade and my final point before the nonsense of subscription based software took over. Now I just use photopea because 99% of my photoshop needs can be met by a single dude on a single webpage

selfhoster11 4y ago

> More software should be like that, but never will, because it isn't profitable to have users using the same version for many years. You can get some of it back with FOSS applications, even if the quality normally isn't the same as with old freeware/proprietary applications. At least with a FOSS application you get to keep it forever, unlike SaaS which evaporates into thin air the moment the parent company decides to pull the plug.

badsectoracula 4y ago
You get to keep it, but if the software itself depends on a foundation made of sand, you can still be out of luck - especially for desktop applications that tend to rely on all sorts of libraries that just can't keep themselves from breaking their APIs and ABIs every few years (and those libraries have their own dependencies, etc). Of course if time is of no essence you can spend it keeping the software up to date, but being able to waste that time doesn't really excuse the underlying foundations forcing application developers to waste their time.
- selfhoster11 4y ago
  You can still wrap it in a Docker container or a VM, statically compile it, or even use full system emulation if you eventually switch architectures. Or even pay someone to make the code run on a newer environment, if the application is worth it to you.

1-more 4y ago

Every version of Geometer's Sketchpad feels like complete software. Yeah they add features every so often (pinch to zoom is pretty huge) but the core of it is the same.