3 ms·

> 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

> 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...

> 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...