5 ms·

> We would generally not hesitate to drop support for older versions of OS X if it allows us to improve the user experience. That's an attitude I love to see.

> We would generally not hesitate to drop support for older versions of OS X if it allows us to improve the user experience. That's an attitude I love to see. Especially since OS X updates are now free and afaik all hardware that supports 10.9 will run 10.10. Very nice looking and polished job!

fensipens 12y ago
> That's an attitude I love to see. Because when OSX n+1 is released, it's immediately impossible to get any work done on OSX n? I'm still on 10.6 and see no reason to upgrade.
- Tehnix 12y ago
  >Because when OSX n+1 is released, it's immediately impossible to get any work done on OSX n? No, but as a developer, I can do much more on OS X n+1. And you're not even on n, you're on something like n-4. Curious though, is it hardware holding you back, or do you simply not like the direction Apple is going with OS X atm?
  - wtallis 12y ago
    In my opinion, 10.6 was the closest thing Apple's had to a Windows XP. I mostly skipped 10.7 and 10.8, but now use 10.9 on everything that can run it, and keep 10.6 on the machines that can't.
  - CJefferson 12y ago
    NIR the original poster, but I'm held back by hardware. 10.6 works great with even 2GB of RAM, whereas anything past that often grinds even with 4, and of course, being macs, upgrading memory on laptops is basically impossible.
    - LnxPrgr3 12y ago
      Whether you can upgrade and how much you can put in varies by machine, but Apple publishes instructions for upgrading your own RAM: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1651 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1651, http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1270 http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1270
    - wtallis 12y ago
      The Apple laptops that could come with as little as 2GB of RAM used completely standard SO-DIMMs that could be replaced by removing just a few Philips-head screws; on most models, it's 3 screws under the battery. It's not even close to impossible.
- CountSessine 12y ago
  Because when OSX n+1 is released, it's immediately impossible to get any work done on OSX n? No - but the same logic applies to application software, right? If SuperApp m+1 requires OSX n+1, surely you can continue to get work done with what you have now - SuperApp m running on OSX n? There's no reason for developers to handicap SuperApp m+1 by avoiding all OSX n+1 APIs...
milen 12y ago
One of the major reasons for that position is that OS X updates are now free. The user experience comes first, no compromises. But please note that I'm not saying that I'll drop support for 10.9 because there's some convenient API on 10.10 that will save me a few days of work. 10.10 would be a requirement if and only if it provides a meaningfully better experience. I also think some developers might start requiring 10.10 for their next major versions, assuming they have been designed in line with Yosemite's new visual language. Supporting both < 10.10 and >= 10.10 UI-wise would involve non-trivial amounts of work, would for most small indies would be impractical.

fensipens 12y ago

> That's an attitude I love to see. Because when OSX n+1 is released, it's immediately impossible to get any work done on OSX n? I'm still on 10.6 and see no reason to upgrade.

Tehnix 12y ago
>Because when OSX n+1 is released, it's immediately impossible to get any work done on OSX n? No, but as a developer, I can do much more on OS X n+1. And you're not even on n, you're on something like n-4. Curious though, is it hardware holding you back, or do you simply not like the direction Apple is going with OS X atm?
- wtallis 12y ago
  In my opinion, 10.6 was the closest thing Apple's had to a Windows XP. I mostly skipped 10.7 and 10.8, but now use 10.9 on everything that can run it, and keep 10.6 on the machines that can't.
- CJefferson 12y ago
  NIR the original poster, but I'm held back by hardware. 10.6 works great with even 2GB of RAM, whereas anything past that often grinds even with 4, and of course, being macs, upgrading memory on laptops is basically impossible.
  - LnxPrgr3 12y ago
    Whether you can upgrade and how much you can put in varies by machine, but Apple publishes instructions for upgrading your own RAM: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1651 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1651, http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1270 http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1270
  - wtallis 12y ago
    The Apple laptops that could come with as little as 2GB of RAM used completely standard SO-DIMMs that could be replaced by removing just a few Philips-head screws; on most models, it's 3 screws under the battery. It's not even close to impossible.
CountSessine 12y ago
Because when OSX n+1 is released, it's immediately impossible to get any work done on OSX n? No - but the same logic applies to application software, right? If SuperApp m+1 requires OSX n+1, surely you can continue to get work done with what you have now - SuperApp m running on OSX n? There's no reason for developers to handicap SuperApp m+1 by avoiding all OSX n+1 APIs...

milen 12y ago

One of the major reasons for that position is that OS X updates are now free. The user experience comes first, no compromises. But please note that I'm not saying that I'll drop support for 10.9 because there's some convenient API on 10.10 that will save me a few days of work. 10.10 would be a requirement if and only if it provides a meaningfully better experience. I also think some developers might start requiring 10.10 for their next major versions, assuming they have been designed in line with Yosemite's new visual language. Supporting both < 10.10 and >= 10.10 UI-wise would involve non-trivial amounts of work, would for most small indies would be impractical.