While it's true that Apple has shifted wholesale more than Windows (from OS 9 to OS X; from PPC to Intel), I haven't found myself running aground on deprecated software often enough to notice.
It's probably true that if you really need binaries built during the Clinton administration to work, the Mac isn't for you. That such binaries still run on Windows is, to me, evidence of a problem in that world, not a feature.
I'd make an argument that Apple's willingness to do "big jumps" and cut ties with the past (in controlled ways, with long lead times and compatibility layers supported for a while after) is a strength of the platform, and leads to a more coherent and more stable environment.
Especially since most users have no need for ancient programs.
>f something is undocumented it is free for all to axe it regardless of how many applications use it.
This in particular seems like a feature. If it's not a documented part of the programming environment, use it at your peril.
>i ignore Apple changing CPU architecture every few years
Here's where I actually laughed at you. Characterizing "twice since 1984" as "every few years" is absurdly unreasonable.
I get it. You like that Windows is still basically the same house-of-cards system it was in 1995. Lots of people, though, don't think of this as a good thing. The Mac has thrived, I'd argue, BECAUSE of Apple's willingness to shift for the greater platform benefit -- off 68x to PPC for power; off PPC to Intel for both power and strategic reasons; into the BSD-based OSX for stability, power, and growth. Microsoft could learn a lot here.
> It's probably true that if you really need binaries built during the Clinton administration to work, the Mac isn't for you.
Notice that i'm talking about macOS being unable to run applications released less than 10 years ago. Of course older stuff would be even better, but macOS cannot do a third of that.
> That such binaries still run on Windows is, to me, evidence of a problem in that world, not a feature.
To me, as someone who actually wants to use the software and not wax about theoretical benefits (that in practice do not apply since macOS is these days - or at least was until a year or so ago, i didn't bother with it much since then - woefully unstable), this isn't just a feature, it is THE feature. The main reason i use Windows.
> I'd make an argument that Apple's willingness to do "big jumps" and cut ties with the past (in controlled ways, with long lead times and compatibility layers supported for a while after) is a strength of the platform, and leads to a more coherent and more stable environment.
That'd be nice if the environment was actually stable, but the last version that was approaching decent stability was Snow Leopard, everything after that is a downhill (especially since Apple decided to switch to periodic releases, as if an OS is a comic magazine).
> Especially since most users have no need for ancient programs.
There is no such a thing as "most users", different people have different needs and people do not care about something until the moment that something turns around and bites them.
> If it's not a documented part of the programming environment, use it at your peril.
You seem to not understand, this "you" who are talking about is not me, it is the developer of the program i am using.
I am not talking as the developer of the program, the developer can change it and it'll keep working.
I am talking as the USER of the program, a program whose developer might not even exist anymore or may have decided to screw me over and not fix their bugs. But this sort of developer wont care about Apple breaking their program, it is the users who will have to suffer the program not working.
Backwards compatibility is 90% for the users and only 10% for the developer (which is most likely why most developers do not care much about it, unless they become personally affected of course - and probably why most inexperienced developers do not see any issue with breaking backwards compatibility at all).
> Lots of people, though, don't think of this as a good thing. The Mac has thrived, I'd argue,
Your argument would be wrong considering the ridiculously gargantuan majority of desktop and laptop computers are using Windows only because they can run the programs the users care about.
Software is what makes an OS relevant, nothing else. The only purpose for an OS is to run the users' programs.
> Microsoft could learn a lot here.
If the lesson learned ends up in breaking people's programs, i'd rather them learning nothing.
>To me, as someone who actually wants to use the software
Oh, is that what I'm doing? Gosh, all this time I thought I was doing meaningful work using the software.
>woefully unstable
Is that really your experience? I mean, I run OSX on all the machines in my house, and work in it all day every day, and I haven't found it to be unstable at ALL. It might not be as rock-solid as it was 5 years ago, but it still manages to stay up and reasonable for months at a time, so it's a distinction without a difference.
My Windows machines can barely manage a few days without something coming along that requires a reboot to resolve.
>There is no such a thing as "most users"
That's not how math works.
When I said "If it's not a documented part of the programming environment, use it at your peril," I absolutely mean the developer. Don't use undocumented behavior. It's a dumb idea, and it absolutely WILL bite you. I mean, this isn't hard; if $vendor says "that's not documented or supported, and we can and will change that behavior," then it's malpractice to build a product that depends on it.
That MSFT has been less strict about this is a problem, not a feature.
>Your argument would be wrong
It, like all arguments, might well be -- but you certainly haven't demonstrated that it is.
Windows still enjoyed desktop hegemony because of momentum, and because you can buy a shitty Windows laptop for $200. It's not because Paint Shop Pro from 1999 still runs on it.
>i'd rather them learning nothing.
Well, you're absolutely getting your wish, because that appears to be what they've learned.
I don't know who is that, i'm not really following any Mac people, i speak from my personal experience as someone who used to be very into macOS for a while but lost interest due to the increasing instability and broken software every new version.
It's probably true that if you really need binaries built during the Clinton administration to work, the Mac isn't for you. That such binaries still run on Windows is, to me, evidence of a problem in that world, not a feature.
I'd make an argument that Apple's willingness to do "big jumps" and cut ties with the past (in controlled ways, with long lead times and compatibility layers supported for a while after) is a strength of the platform, and leads to a more coherent and more stable environment.
Especially since most users have no need for ancient programs.
>f something is undocumented it is free for all to axe it regardless of how many applications use it.
This in particular seems like a feature. If it's not a documented part of the programming environment, use it at your peril.
>i ignore Apple changing CPU architecture every few years
Here's where I actually laughed at you. Characterizing "twice since 1984" as "every few years" is absurdly unreasonable.
I get it. You like that Windows is still basically the same house-of-cards system it was in 1995. Lots of people, though, don't think of this as a good thing. The Mac has thrived, I'd argue, BECAUSE of Apple's willingness to shift for the greater platform benefit -- off 68x to PPC for power; off PPC to Intel for both power and strategic reasons; into the BSD-based OSX for stability, power, and growth. Microsoft could learn a lot here.