Mac UB standalones and OS versions

[J. Landman Gay]

Sarah Reichelt wrote:
> On 6/3/07, Joe Lewis Wilkins <pepetoo at cox.net> wrote:
>> Now this is something I think we need to worry about less than having
>> a "Classic" potential; since most people who have OSX are going to be
>> moving up to the latest due to the ease with  which Apple makes
>> updating the OS. Or am I in the minority when I get automatic updates
>> from Apple on just about everything whenever there is new software?
>> I'd be willing to bet that there are many, many fewer using OSX 2.8
>> than are using OS9.2.
> 
> I notice that an increasing number of applications list their
> requirements as 10.4.x
> It used to be that 10.2.8 was the cutoff. As far as I am concerned, I
> just want to know what I should list as the minimum system needed to
> run my programs: does 10.3 still work OK?

Seems to, at least here. I'm running 10.3.9 on my Powerbook and 10.4 on 
my desktop Mac. I haven't had any trouble with any stacks in 10.3.9, and 
I was running 10.3.7 for a very long time with Rev before that. I never 
had Rev 2.8.1 on my 10.3.7 machine but I know 2.7.4 worked okay.

I've noticed a lot of software that requires 10.3.9 lately, I get the 
feeling that was pretty much the cutoff these days.

-- 
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com