Becoming obsessed with the idea of a mac

< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >

Posted by Chris Thompson
Dec 9, 2007 at 04:17 PM

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>On the Mac
>OS 9 nothing that was being made for OSX ran on 9.

This is not true. Apple came out with a compatibility toolbox so developers could develop OS X applications that would also ran in OS 9, and several companies used it (but no, it did not become popular).

The thing is, in most cases it’s a fool’s game to develop software for older operating systems. People move on, and developers are stuck with a code base that’s old, doesn’t profit from new features the OS has introduced and feels out of place. I’m looking at you Zoot, MaxThink, and Brainstorm….

>As I said, I don’t come across programs just coming out that
>don’t run on XP, but NO programs that were developed after OSX came out could run on OS 9.
>If you were running OS 9 like I was a few years ago, you had NO new application or even
>versions coming out. Imagine a CRIMP sufferer in that situation!

Your hypothetical doesn’t make a lot of sense. CRIMPers by definition upgrade to new operating systems. The set of people who are not interested in upgrading an obsolete OS but have a strong desire to try and buy a variety of new applications is not a rational market for any commercial developer to target.

The Mac community does tend to move en-masse to new operating systems quickly, and that’s a good thing for CRIMPers as well as for creating a healthy development community where small companies can create compelling products quickly. Unlike Windows (especially Vista), each new release of OS X has been faster than the last—this is especially true of Leopard, where the speed increase is dramatic—so there is no strong reason not to stay current. You’re not forced to upgrade, and most developers target one operating system back (e.g. OmniFocus targets Tiger even though it would make sense to be Leopard only), but many of us use our computers for more than eight hours a day. Paying a small price every two years to get a system that’s recent, up to date, has new productivity features, and is a pleasure to use on a daily basis is well worth it.

>The other disadvantage of the Mac that is seldom
>mentioned technical support. Microsoft has a fantastic technical support network.
>You develop any Windows or Office problem, and you get an answer almost immediately
>from an MS “MVP,” who live on the MS public news groups.

MVPs are just regular guys who hang around forums answering questions about products. You’ll find the same type of people in the Mac community. Mac people tend to be just as enthusiastic about their machines (perhaps even zealous) and helpful. Apple hosts a series of support forums for people to answer each other’s questions, and the other big one is MacOSXHints, which does the same, and in addition has a huge searchable database of question answers. Moreover, the answers tend to be easier to get at because the system is transparent. System files are plain text, there is no monolithic binary registry that’s hard to decode, etc. The Ubuntu Linux guys probably have the most fantastic support forum, however. By the way, if you live in a city with an Apple store store, you can get free in-person support at the “genius bar” desk. Also, Apple offers phone support for its products as part of the regular and extended warranties. I have never heard anyone successfully getting phone support from Microsoft.

—Chris

Posted by Hugh Pile
Dec 9, 2007 at 06:55 PM

Chris Thompson wrote: “The Mac community does tend to move en-masse to new operating systems quickly…” A second reason for this (in addition to OS speed) must be price:

- Windows Vista Home Premium in the UK circa £200;
- Apple OSX Leopard circa £80.

This may tend to compensate for application backwards-incompatibility, to the extent there is any.

Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Dec 9, 2007 at 07:43 PM

Graham Smith wrote:
> >
>Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>>But the Windows programs _were_
>>available in an
>appropriate version that you could generally get at upgrade prices.
>>It appears to
>be a far bigger deal to upgrade a program from OS9 to OS X than for the
>>developer to do a
>Vista upgrade from XP. Most importantly, the programs currently
>>being designed
>for Vista run on XP. I have never come across one that doesn’t. On the Mac
>>OS 9 nothing
>that was being made for OSX ran on 9.
> >I’m getting a bit lost here, Are you suggesting
>that no one who produced programs for OS9 now produce programs for OSx. And on the
>latter point, I have already said that because programs designed for XP wouldn’t run
>on WIN98, I was forced to upgrade to XP. I cannot see how this is any different from the
>OSx OS 9 situation.

No, I’m suggesting that when OSX arrived, it often took years for a developer with an OS 9 program to produce an OS X version.

I wasn’t on Windows for the 98 to XP transition, so I looked only at the XP to Vista transition. This was certainly a much smoother transition than 9 to X. Perhaps you could elaborate on the causes for the 98 to XP transition being less smooth. But as to that transition, still the contrast with the Apple transition seems dramatic. You say you were forced to upgrade because *SOME* programs wouldn’t run on the newer operating system. On the Mac *NO* OS 9 program would run on OS X.
> >>difference is dramatic. As I said, I don’t come across programs
>just coming out that
>>don’t run on XP, but NO programs that were developed after OSX
>came out could run on OS 9.
>>If you were running OS 9 like I was a few years ago, you had NO
>new application or even
>>versions coming out. Imagine a CRIMP sufferer in that
>situation!
> >But again I remember a similar situation with Windows 98, apart from
>some of my main programs which had now become XP (or sometime 2000 and above) only, I
>became more concious while crimping that more and more programs were becoming
>Windows 2000 and above or even XP only (before Vista).
>
>>the lack much of a corporate
>presence—to give a charitable explanation—does not
>>have MS’s concern with
>backward compatibility. (Some of us OS 9 users, whom Jobs had
>>“promised”
>upgradability to OS X on our Macs, learned this promise was not to be kept
>>when OS X
>finally came out.)
> >I doubt whether MS or Apple feel any real responsibility to their
>customers (or developers). Although, I have concluded that my Mac is better to use
>than my Windows boxes, I haven’t seen anything to convince that Apple are a “better”
>company than Microsoft. I actually think that Apple made a brave and good choice with
>OSx.

I do think Microsoft is a far better company than Apple. I find the Jobs “reality distortion field” both obnoxious and distressing. And I find the whole Apple mileu distasteful, where “fans” mail bomb commentators who voice any criticism of the Mac. But these reactions are a separate matter from the point I am making, which is why I granted Apple the charitable explanation for its policies.
> >As I understand it, OSx isn’t an update of OS9, but a completely new Operating
>System designed for the future from the ground up. So while this gives some short term
>grief, longer term you end up with a better product. And of course they have done the
>same thing with the switch to Intel processors, giving problems for developers and
>users because of the switch. But long term this opens up a much better future for Macs.

Now I’m confused. You say you don’t understand my point about the transitions between operating systems, but then you seem to say that OS X (unlike Vista or XP) was a ground up new operating system! But that’s just the point I’m making. The much touted advantages of OS X are due to Apple having or taking the liberty to write a ground up new operating system, without being constrained by backward compatibility. Obviously, throw away that constraint—which I agree is not an absolute even for MS—and development will be faster. Eliminate any constraint, and life is ealier, except where the constraint itself helps. One can maintain it’s better that way or not. But no one mentions (and unless I misunderstand, even you feel the need to deny) that Apple is competing under different rules, that MS is or feels constrained by backward compatibility in ways that Apple isn’t or doesn’t, and by virtue of its freedom, Apple could introduce a brand new operating system. Whether MS’s backward compatibility is good or bad is debatable. Some commentators have argued MS should abandon the constraint. But the differential _existence_ of constraint by backward compatibility requirements does not seem to me seriously debatable (but it’s possible my perspective is distorted by my lack of experience with the 98 to Windows transition).
>>
>>The other disadvantage of the Mac that is seldom
>>mentioned technical
>support.
> >Yes, there is a tremendous amount of support out there for MS, expertise,
>forums and third party books. So far, I have found the forums etc on Macs to be more than
>sufficient, but there are hardly any books available.
> >Graham

Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Dec 9, 2007 at 08:02 PM

Chris Thompson wrote:
>Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>>On the Mac
>>OS 9 nothing that was being made for OSX ran on
>9.
> >This is not true. Apple came out with a compatibility toolbox so developers could
>develop OS X applications that would also ran in OS 9, and several companies used it
>(but no, it did not become popular)

Could you name one company that used it - preferably the company with the most successful product. The “cult” Mac word processor on OS 9 was a program called Nisus. Ted Goranson of the Outliners column on atpm.com even developed an elaborate set of outlining macros that Nisus could run. Today, Nisus for OS X is still nowhere near its level on OS 9.
> >The thing is, in most cases it’s a fool’s game to
>develop software for older operating systems. People move on, and developers are
>stuck with a code base that’s old, doesn’t profit from new features the OS has
>introduced and feels out of place. I’m looking at you Zoot, MaxThink, and
>Brainstorm….

Yes, that’s exactly the issue. Are these programs better or worse because of their longevity? Would it have been better still if Grandview were still usable? Or are the latest embellishments more important than the accumulated wisdom embodied in longstanding or particularly brilliant outlining software? More 3 is far better than Omni-Outliner, and you cannot use More on OS X. There is no outliner in the world with greater basic power than MaxThink and Brainstorm, no organizer more powerful than Zoot (I’m taking Zoot on based on reliable second-hand commentary, though)—but you *can* use them on XP. (I don’t know about Vista for the others, but MaxThink was quickly updated for use on Vista).

Yes, THIS is the issue important for us, if we are going to discuss operating systems.

>>As I said, I don’t come across programs just coming out that
> >>don’t run on XP, but NO programs that were developed after OSX came out could run on OS
>9.
>>If you were running OS 9 like I was a few years ago, you had NO new application or even
> >>versions coming out. Imagine a CRIMP sufferer in that situation!
> >Your
>hypothetical doesn’t make a lot of sense. CRIMPers by definition upgrade to new
>operating systems. The set of people who are not interested in upgrading an obsolete
>OS but have a strong desire to try and buy a variety of new applications is not a rational
>market for any commercial developer to target.

It wasn’t a hypothetical but my personal experience. The problem arises when to upgrade OS you have to upgrade the hardware you run it on.

Posted by Graham Smith
Dec 9, 2007 at 08:41 PM

Stephen,

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>No, I’m suggesting that when OSX arrived, it often took years for a
>developer with an OS 9 program to produce an OS X version.
> >I wasn’t on Windows for the
>98 to XP transition, so I looked only at the XP to Vista transition. This was certainly a
>much smoother transition than 9 to X. Perhaps you could elaborate on the causes for the
>98 to XP transition being less smooth. But as to that transition, still the contrast
>with the Apple transition seems dramatic. You say you were forced to upgrade because
>*SOME* programs wouldn’t run on the newer operating system. On the Mac *NO* OS 9
>program would run on OS X.

You have this the wrong way round, It was the OS, I was forced to upgrade because developers stopped supporting WIN98. The reasons given were a combination of needing to effectively write two versions of the program (one for the older OS and one for the newer) and that they needed to use features only available in the newer OS.

>I do
>think Microsoft is a far better company than Apple. I find the Jobs “reality
>distortion field” both obnoxious and distressing. And I find the whole Apple mileu
>distasteful, where “fans” mail bomb commentators who voice any criticism of the Mac.
>But these reactions are a separate matter from the point I am making, which is why I
>granted Apple the charitable explanation for its policies.

But this isn’t just Apple, their is just as much unthinking support for Windows and Linux.

>Now I’m
>confused. You say you don’t understand my point about the transitions between
>operating systems, but then you seem to say that OS X (unlike Vista or XP) was a ground up
>new operating system! But that’s just the point I’m making.

The point I was making about MS is similar to the one you were making about the Mac, in that many developers just stopped developing for WIN95/98 when XP came out, with some upgraded applications not even being compatible with WIN2000. So if you wanted to stay current you were forced to upgrade to XP I thought you were saying that developers stopped developing for OS9 when OSx came out forcing you to upgrade to OSx. Well I was forced to upgrade to XP because programs I needed to upgrade became XP only, but then I also needed to upgrade programs that I had no need to upgrade because the versions I had wouldn’t run on XP. The big difference is that many programs will run on all these OSs (Win95/98, 2000, XP and Vista) unlike the complete change in OS9 to OSx, but then there was classic mode as an interim measure.

And of course the WIN9x to XP problems were a rerun of the WIN3.1 to Win9x problems. I haven’t upgraded to Vista,

Graham

>The much touted
>advantages of OS X are due to Apple having or taking the liberty to write a ground up new
>operating system, without being constrained by backward compatibility.

I suppose this is where we disagree, I think that you can reach a stage (with anything) where you have to “bite the bullet” and make that dramatic change, and start again. Short term pain is replaced by long term gain. But then I have also been through a several difficult Microsoft transitions (MSDos, to WIN3.1, Win 95/98, 2000 and now XP) Including the incompatibility issues with several new release of MSOffice, but of course I came to a Mac only recently and did not suffer the OS9 to OSx problems.

Pages: ‹ First < 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Back to topic list