3 ms·
It's now 2014, actually, and you're talking about a problem from 1997, in an OS where backwards compatibility has been an extremely high priority since the 1980
by nknighthb 13y ago
It's now 2014, actually, and you're talking about a problem from 1997, in an OS where backwards compatibility has been an extremely high priority since the 1980s.
- lisper 13y ago> It's now 2014, actually Is that really the kind of discussion you want this to be? > you're talking about a problem from 1997, The last revision of the article is 2002. But your point is well taken. I had assumed this was a current issue. (Maybe it is. I don't have time to dig into those details right now.) > in an OS where backwards compatibility has been an extremely high priority since the 1980s OS X was introduced in 2001, and it could run OS 9 applications, so these kinds of problems can be solved if a company decides it is worthwhile to solve them.
- nknighthb 13y ago> Is that really the kind of discussion you want this to be? Yes. If you're going to chastise people based on what year it is, you damn well better be right about what year it is. > OS X was introduced in 2001, and it could run OS 9 applications OS X booted a modified copy of OS 9 to accomplish that. It didn't fix anything about OS 9. It also wasn't present on Intel Macs, nor on Leopard, the last PowerPC-compatible version of OS X. Nor was it fully compatible -- I always had trouble with it, and have kept older System 7 and OS 9 Macs around rather than put up with it.