Richard & the Mac Classic build ???

[Jeff Reynolds]

Richmond,

I totally agree and they can continue to be supported via the classic  
products like rev 2.6.1. its just that if you force the modern cutting  
edge stuff to be all backwards compatible with the stuff over a decade  
old, the cutting edge will be pretty dull and pretty expensive and  
probably pretty buggy.

In the ed market i have had to produce cdrom for kids (at least up  
unitll the last one in 2009) in osx and classic, there was a big  
enough market there using the old equipment that you had to have it  
supported. luckily the feature needs were still w/in the bounds of  
2.6.1 so i could continue those projects in the old version with no  
problems and build classic apps in 261 and then the osx and windoz in  
a more recent version of rev. bit of a pain, but worked fine.

a lot also boils down to who will pay for the development of the stuff  
for the old machines in both the authoring/programming system and the  
content/apps. the old guys dont want to pay for all the bleeding edge  
development stuff and the new guys dont want to pay for the legacy  
machine development. if you split the markets into tow then you have  
the problem of two development streams (no longer really a universal  
product) and two smaller markets which means a higher price for each  
individually most likely.

not saying chuck all those old machines, but you cant have your cake  
and eat it too. either we dont have a lot of innovation and new  
features so we can continue to support all the legacy machines still  
running out there, or we have a lots of advancement and we have to cut  
off producing new stuff for the older market which then shrinks rapidly.

unfortunately i dont think there is a perfect solution here (unless  
you have a magic wand and some bunged up latin to go with it)...

cheers

jeff

On Mar 29, 2010, at 1:00 PM, use-revolution-request at lists.runrev.com  
wrote:

> No Worries; Geoff . . .  :)
>
> However; although Mac OS 9 is about 8-9-10 years in the past there are
> an awful lot of machines
> that cannot run 'X' that should not be chucked into some horrible,
> polluting landfill (well, at least
> not as long as they go on working) when they can continue to serve.