Please release me, let me go.

Paul Dupuis paul at researchware.com
Sat Apr 4 07:58:40 EDT 2015


The other big difference - and this is no dig on either Microsoft or
Apple - just a difference between the two:

Apple drops backwards compatibility more frequently as they update their
operating systems. They are able to do this because their buying
audience both allows them to do so and in many cases rewards them for
doing so. Apple is able to force this because they are the sole source
for both hardware and software and can release a new OS that will only
run on new hardware or new hardware that will only run the latest OS

Microsoft tends to preserve backwards compatibility more frequently as
they update their operating systems. Their buying audience frequently
insists on it and will not buy the "new" version if backwards
compatibility is broken. Microsoft, only being an OS vendor, can't
really force a new version on its customers. They can buy hardware from
virtually anyone - including people who will assemble PCs to their
specifications for cheap dollars - and so can buy "new" computers
compatible with older operating system versions if they want.

You can argue endlessly about which approach is "better", but this is
once of the core reasons why more applications support very old versions
of Windows and you do not see the same thing for OSX



On 4/4/2015 7:05 AM, Mike Bonner wrote:
> Its not the operating system, its the hardware.  Well, ok its a
> combination.  xp runs on intel hardware, so does win8. Software that runs
> on xp and intel hardware, has a decent (though not perfect) chance of
> running on win8, on intel hardware.  However, the same piece of software
> won't run on windows rt.  different hardware, which forces adjusted os,
> which would force a whole separate build requirement for a piece of
> software.  You'd have to maintain, develop, and debug 2 separate code bases.
>
> Same goes back to the windows on alpha days.  Yep, you could get a version
> of windows to run on an alpha box, but you'd also have to find software for
> windows compiled for windows alpha.
>
> Even the 64 bit change can be problematic.  On linux, one must install the
> ia32 support libraries to be able to get 32 bit compiled software to run on
> a 64 bit os. And you can't run 64 bit compiled software on 32 bit only os.
> Windows has built in support (in 64 bit windows) so that you can run 32 bit
> applications, and even separates out the binaries into different "program
> files" folders.
>
> So, comparing the cost of supporting ppc on mac, and building for windows
> 8, which just happens to still work on xp isn't a valid comparison. MS has
> put a lot of effort into keeping things backwards compatible, on similar
> hardware.  Despite my distaste for windows and its random "features", its
> kinda remarkable that it runs as well as it does. Layered patches,
> compatibility layers, security fixes, hardware from a ton of different
> manufacturers for vid, storage, etc created by companies with in house
> programmers who may or may not write good driver software... above, I said
> it's remarkable that things work as well as they do, I'd like to upgrade
> that to a flippin miracle.   (you mentioned xp, but I suspect many many
> things that are will run on win8 will also go back all the way to win95. At
> least things that are not too complex.)
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 3:03 AM, Richmond <richmondmathewson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just to be awkward (for a change . . . no irony intended), if 6.7.4 is
>> built so that it will run
>> on Windows XP [ a system released in 2001 ] why is it not built so that it
>> can run on
>> Mac OS 10.4 PPC [ a system released in 2005 ], or, for that matter, Mac OS
>> 10.4 Intel?
>>
>> It is, also, interesting to note that the first alpha build of LC 8 is
>> also capable of running on Windows XP.
>>
>> The reply will, inevitably, consist of stuff about market share . . .
>> which is probably due to a bad
>> case of not thinking one's way through a load of statistics.
>>
>> The rationale behind dropping support for an out-dated operating system,
>> surely, should not
>> be based on the global installed base of that operating system, but the
>> globally installed base
>> of that operating system who use LiveCode for software development, and
>> the clients to whom
>> they sell/give their standalones for deployment.
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> I have no particular beef with Windows XP [in fact, if truth be known, I
>> have a dual boot
>> machine that runs Win XP and Win 7 - on two 40 Gig Hard drives] for
>> software testing.
>>
>> I do have big beefs with Windows 95, 98, Millennium and Vista . . . but I
>> think quite a lot of other
>> people do as well.
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> This posting is NOT to try to pursuade RunRev to dig out all their PPC
>> code and spend donkey's ages
>> compiling PPC builds while softly chanting "bloody, bloody Richmond" sotto
>> voce.
>>
>> It IS, again, again, again, a request to make available these:
>>
>> 1. The last version of RR/LC to run and/or build Mac OS 9 standalones.
>>
>> 2. The last version of RR/LC to run and/or build Mac OS X PPC standalones
>> on Mac OS 10.4.
>>
>> either for free or for a modest fee, with some legal disclaimer that
>> paraphrases as
>> "you're on your own, mate".
>>
>> -------------------
>>
>> Richmond.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>





More information about the use-livecode mailing list