RunRev minimum requirements [was: Re: Rev 2.5 and OSX 10.1]

[graham samuel]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:55:32 -0600, curry <curry at pair.com> wrote:
>
[snip]

> (6. And this should be parenthetical because it is not the
> issue--this is not about my personal computing happiness or me
> "holding out" on 10.1. My intent is to make apps for others and I
> want to know that the minimum requirements I list are accurate. I
> would rather (if I can afford it) have the latest system on a new
> computer than to upgrade this one. Okay? :-) No need to worry about
> me personally, I'll be fine and I could upgrade if I choose, but that
> wouldn't solve this issue at all, in fact it would make it worse in
> the big picture, as far as Rev's compatibility is concerned.  This is
> not about me, but about Rev and the apps we make with it.)
>
Curry, FWIW when I had an issue with RunRev on Windows 98 I got some 
similar responses - one of which pointed out that Microsoft itself had 
abandoned the OS - but I knew that there were many people out there 
wanting to use my stuff that were still using W98 and likely to 
continue for some time.

What I think RR might perhaps do is to give developers (us) some 
pre-warning of their intention to drop an old OS or an old minimum 
system requirement like RAM or screen size - saying for example you've 
got 6 months to persuade  your customers to upgrade. This could be 
useful from a marketing point of view, I think.

Graham

PS Dan wrote:

> Just my two farthings. (What the heck is a farthing? I'm American. What
> do I know?)

Sadly, even we Brits don't know what farthings are any more. You used 
to get them in change when you bought a loaf of bread when I was young 
(the price was fixed by the government), but farthings went the way of 
all flesh when we decimalised in 1971.
----------------------------------------
Graham Samuel / The Living Fossil Co. / UK and France