The answer to your last question is simple, "for the system".
Do you really think that after working on OSX you can just buy a PC and start working Photoshop in Windows? I wish it was that easy...

Any news on Intel ape?

Posted by: Stefdar on March 20, 2006 7:47 AM

"I guess the point of this is just me wondering why anyone would bother to spend money on a "forced" upgrade to their software...when they can just buy a PC running Windows along with the same software"

Uh, because they prefer the MacOS to Windows?

Posted by: Mike Silverman on March 20, 2006 8:55 AM

This post is confined within the set of applications available for a platform. It does not consider the OS running the applications at all.

Posted by: Rosyna on March 20, 2006 9:00 AM

Translation:

A few years ago, we made the really stupid business decision of stating, in writing, that we would never charge for upgrades, and now we're getting screwed because as technology moves forward, we have to put in a lot of unpaid hours to keep our products relevant, so we'll whine about how evil Apple is.

Posted by: frgough on March 20, 2006 9:00 AM

"This post is confined within the set of applications available for a platform. It does not consider the OS running the applications at all."

But real-life users do consider the OS, so any scenario which doesn't take into account the OS is unrealistic.

Posted by: Mike Silverman on March 20, 2006 9:13 AM

Depends on what you mean by "real-life users". Large businesses/schools that have everything decided by a committee/board of trustees/whatever that are so far removed from the students or employees they're making the decisions for are not likely to consider the OS. They're likely to consider the initial cost and maybe the cost next year. It's about money, not people for these decision making types. Granted, not every company/school is like this, but far too many are.

You can see these kinds of decisions made by just reading any article about how Apple can't make it in the enterprise. They often give "lack of roadmaps" and "no clear direction" as reasons.

Posted by: Rosyna on March 20, 2006 9:18 AM

I just want to know how we're supposed to keep track of yet another new translation of ICBM, without getting it confused with intercontinental ballistic missiles. Oh, and, does that mean you've built Cee Pee You as a Universal?

Posted by: Earthsaver on March 20, 2006 9:52 AM

Not considering the OS is a completely unreasonable thing to ask. I use Apple computers because of Mac OS. It has never been about the hardware or the applications for me. I use very few Apple apps (mostly just Quicktime, Safari, and Mail) and most of the apps I use on a daily basis are available on Windows or something similar or superior is available (i.e. WindowBlinds > ShaperShifter). If not for the pure frustration of running Windows I would use a PC. I could have gotten a more powerful Windows system for less money than I have spent on every Mac I have ever owned. I am not a bleeding edge user though so most of this stuff doesn't concern me. I don't plan to buy a new Mac for at least another year and by that time it will be time for new software as well. I am a daily Photoshop user and until there is a FAT version I plan to stick with my current PPC hardware. I would have bought CS3 when it came out either way. I will be kind of ticked off if it isn't Universal (i.e. they release separate PPC and Intel versions) but that is not really something I see them doing at this point.

I don't know how most colleges work but my college expects to buy new software when they buy new machines. In fact that is the only time they do buy new software. We have three Mac labs and just this semester they finally replaced the old 733 MHz G4's running Mac OS X 10.2.8 with new G5's in one of the labs. At the same time they upgraded the machines in the second lab running 10.3 to 10.4 and they upgraded all the Adobe, Macromedia, and Apple Pro apps on all the machines. Also the people in charge of the labs are going to know that the ICBM's are not ready for primetime yet and will most likely hold off on upgrading until they are.

Posted by: Twist on March 20, 2006 10:08 AM

Of course this ranter doesn't know shit about some of Apple's Pro programs and there may be good reasons for not letting them run under Rosetta. But hey, that's okay, its this ranters right to spout bullshit.

Then again, maybe he is correct. But I suspect I recognize the smell of sour grapes when the aroma wafts my way.

Posted by: davidwb on March 20, 2006 10:23 AM

David, so then, what are the reasons Apple's Pro software doesn't run under Rosetta? Which reasons affect something like, say, Aperture but not Photoshop?

Posted by: Rosyna on March 20, 2006 10:25 AM

I don't know - and that's the point - neither do you.

Posted by: David on March 20, 2006 10:58 AM

Agreed, David.

The ranter in this post is always spewing a lot of misinformation and careless speculation.

It gets really old.

Posted by: G.J. on March 20, 2006 11:05 AM

You want us to choose an OS without considering the OS? You want us to act like mindless (and stupid!) school board bean counters? In that case, go ahead and get the Windoze system, you will fit right in.

Your company has a philosophical reason not to charge for upgrades? Then don't. Intel version is not the same software, is it, or else you would not have to rewrite/recompile. So, it's not an upgrade, it's a different product altogether.

Yeah, I think Apple is trying to make money. You got to make your choices and live with them. (If you chose the ICBM--I like that, BTW--you can run ANYTHING--well very soon.)

There is nothing overpriced that you will buy.

Posted by: Brian on March 20, 2006 12:10 PM

While I think this post is overly pessimistic, most of the comments haven't actually addressed any of Rosyna's points.

One of the points Rosyna made is that it's Apple who originally advertised the switch to Intel as being no more difficult for developers than checking a checkbox. Then it was Apple that turned around around and decided to charge for Intel ports of their own apps. If all 3rd party developers started to charge for Intel ports which are not also significant upgrades, the cost of buying a new Mac would go way way up.

To me it simply feels like Apple is trying to squeeze as much money as they can out of their customers, and over time that builds resentment. In addition, they can't ignore the fact that they are a rolemodel in the Mac community and they are setting a bad example for others to follow.

Posted by: Nigel on March 20, 2006 12:40 PM

Ah, Nigel. Yes, that was exactly what I was trying to say. That and the plugin thing which a lot of users may not be aware of (some developers aren't completely aware of it as the "problem" didn't exist in the 68k->PPC switch nor did it exist in the Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X switch).

Posted by: Rosyna on March 20, 2006 12:48 PM

All I see from this and the previous "overcane" post, is that Rosyna is very negative to the hall thing and exaggerates accordingly.
I still the remember the "720p" skipping frames on the Macbook, yeah right...

Photoshop and Final Cut are monstrous apps that need time and money to port. What about your Ape and the haxies that I paid for?
Will they ever be ready, or does Unsanity in general shares Rosyna's negativity?

Posted by: Stefdar on March 20, 2006 1:18 PM

We are working on them (and hence why I chose that screenshot to show) but they'll be done when they're done and they're not yet done.

Posted by: Rosyna on March 20, 2006 1:23 PM

Apple spun the Intel transition to make it look simple for everyone. Meanwhile they are making money off of it with their software crossgrades while it's the 3rd party developers who have to deal with the constant complaining of "where's the Intel port? why isn't it done yesterday? it's so simple!" Apple gets to have it both ways while developers are left holding the short end of the stick.

Stefdar: Put yourself in Unsanity's position - you'd probably be pretty negative too.

Posted by: Nigel on March 20, 2006 1:51 PM

Nigel I understand perfectly what you are saying. I happen to own a Dual G5 and a MacBook. It's not FruitMenu or Silk or ShapeShifter that are missing, and it's not only Adobe. The machine although fast, has a lot of problems, and although it is a step up from a Powerbook, there is no way and no program currently that will make it beat a G5.
Apple's decision to switch was based on marketing and strategic reasons mostly, in my opinion, than technical or speed issues. After all there are a lot of new G4s and G5s that are coming out this year that would make this transition obsolete.

I also agree that Apple is NEVER GOING TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY in the IT businesses. No roadmap, lots of stupid transitions, no compatibility even between point releases.

BUT...
Intel developer machines were out for months. Betas of point releases are given to registered developers, am I wrong?
So I don't get why many complexed programs are always out in time, and other are not. Maybe someone would care to explain?

Posted by: Stefdar on March 20, 2006 2:42 PM

Many, many things changed between the DTK and the first official ICBM. Rosetta changed, the system changed, and the ABI changed. There is no way we could officially grant something as being ICBM compatible when we never had the chance to actually test it on a *real* ICBM.

Furthermore, Slava's ICBM exchange for the DTK has still not arrived because he lives in Russia. No amount of testing on a DTK running 10.4.3 can show how it'll really act on a released ICBM running 10.4.5 with a completely different processor, real dual cores, and a completely and utterly different firmware. While these things may not matter for 95% of the mac software out there and may not even matter for us, we just could not, in good conscience, release software we were never able to test on a production machine.

Posted by: Rosyna on March 20, 2006 2:50 PM

Rosyna --

I'm a bit surprised that this post is coming from you, given that you usually make other excellent posts (i.e.: the one about repairing permissions, and even pointing out the shortcomings of the MacBook Pro over previous PowerBooks).

While I'm not going to get all up in arms over your article, I do think you've missed two rather large point, and it has to do with the Mac platform in general. The first, as others have pointed out, is that you can't just consider the applications themselves without considering the benefits of the OS as well. Applications don't live in an operating system vacuum.

Your major complaint here seems to be with backwards compatibility, which is the root cause of most of the problems you've mentioned in the post. For example, you say Mac OS 9 was "quickly unsupported", which caused a lot of hankering over whether it was better to keep the old machines or take the plunge and buy new machines with new software. I think saying that Mac OS 9 was "quickly unsupported" is an overstatement, because Tiger still supports running applications in the Classic environment. Classic has been effectively supported up until the first release of the Intel-Macs, which was the MacBook Pro and the iMac Core Duo in January of this year. That's about 5 years of continued support for Mac OS 9 in the current operating system.

Don't give me the line that Apple hasn't been supporting the Classic Mac OS because their most recent applications only run in Mac OS X. That's how everything goes: an iBook G3 from just 2.5 years ago can't run iPhoto 6, it can't run the latest games, and it can't take advantage of new technologies like Core Image and Core Video. It still runs the latest version of Mac OS X, yes, but it's the same situation with the Classic Mac OS: it can still run new programs that are built for Mac OS 9, but the majority of new programs are only going to run in Mac OS X because Mac OS 9 is old-school now. An iBook G3 isn't technically capable of running the latest games, of taking advantage of Core Image/Core Video, or even running iPhoto 6. (I used Pacifist to install iPhoto 6 on my mom's 600 MHz G3 iBook, and while it still runs, it's barely usable, and some of the filters aren't available -- but the point is that it wouldn't be acceptable for most users, because the processor just isn't fast enough to dynamically resize hundreds of photos at a time and display them in a window, much less scroll through them.)

And that's the main thing here, and the second major point you seem to miss: Apple isn't afraid to axe backwards compatibility for the sake of pushing the technology of the OS forward. Apple isn't a large company, and as such, it has to cut things off somewhere. If Mac OS X and the Intel-Macs were to retain full backwards-compatibility with all of the software and hardware from previous years, the platform would be a mess! It would be very hard to shoehorn new technologies into the OS while retaining backwards compatibility, and the platform would suffer as a result. Mac OS X benefits by being bleeding-edge, with awesome technologies like Quartz (2D) Extreme which offload the displaying of graphics to the graphics card. It benefits by implementing new technologies like Bonjour (née Rendezvous), so that things like iTunes can work seamlessly to browse other people's music (and I don't think any other music application has yet added this feature).

You're absolutely right that there will always be some people/corporations/schools that jump ship from Mac to Windows during transitions like Mac OS 9 --> Mac OS X, or PPC --> Intel. If they think that it's cost-effective to transition to Windows instead of the new Macs because of the lack of backwards compatibility, that's their prerogative. If I were a decision-maker, I would advocate sticking with Macs, precisely because of the lack of backward compatibility: it allows Macs to do more innovative things that enhance the user experience, especially in an environment like a school. I'd even advocate Macs at a business if it were my own, not only because of the lack of a need to worry about viruses and trojans, but also because innovation like Exposé on the Mac allow for incalculable benefits for a user who only checks e-mail, does word processing, and a few other things on the Mac. In my opinion, it's short-sighted to switch to Windows, but that's my opinion. If pointy-haired execs think otherwise, that's their problem.

But the fact that the Mac can stay innovative while sacrificing backwards compatibility will always generate its own set of switchers to the Mac platform to stave off the "exodus" of users that think transitions are too costly. Those who use computers more often will realize the benefits of the Mac and new applications that only take advantage of the latest hardware, and they'll switch over to the Mac from Windows. And if staying at 5-10% overall market share (which is undoubtedly much higher once you take out that "business" portion of the market) because of the lack of backwards compatibility means that I can get more things like Spotlight, Core Video, Front Row, and other things like that, then I say that it makes us a better platform.

Look at Microsoft: they have to continually retain backwards compatibility for so long that their operating system becomes monolithic, and they don't even have the time to integrate new features. WinFX gets axed, EFI support gets axed, so much innovation got sacrificed that many people are questioning whether the upgrade to Vista is even worth it.

Yes, it sucks that companies, including Apple, are going to use the Intel transition to extort money out of Mac users. But that's an unfortunate consequence of making the jump to a new architecture that will enhance the Mac platform as a result. And living with Universal binaries and dealing with incompatibilities between plugins and applications is also an unfortunate consequence. Personally, compared to the Mac OS 9 --> Mac OS X transition, this PPC --> Intel transition seems much more smooth to me.

As for the whole thing about making apps Intel-native with only one checkbox, that's another overstatement. When announcing the Intel transition, Steve Jobs *clearly stated* that not all apps will be ported using that checkbox. He *clearly* separated out applications into widgets/Java applications (they just work), Cocoa applications (checkbox and recompile, few days time), Carbon applications created with Xcode (tweaks, recompile, few weeks time), and Carbon applications created with CodeWarrior (migration to Xcode, tweaks, recompile, few months time). He even stated that the checkbox-and-recompile wasn't applicable to all Cocoa applications, like ones that had G4/G5 vectorized code. If some users misinterpreted that whole speech as meaning that all applications could run on Intel-Macs within an hour, then those people are sorely misguided. Apple couldn't just simply stay mum on how hard it was to port applications, because they needed to assuage the fears of the DEVELOPERS. There are always going to be a few unreasonable users, and if you get annoyed by them, then you should politely set them straight.

I make a few niche applications myself. When Apple released Xcode 2.2, how did I get my applications to be Intel-native? Yes, it was just a click of a checkbox and a recompile. It literally was that simple. Just because your applications don't benefit from that simplicity doesn't mean that the majority of the Mac applications out there don't fall under this category either.

As a Mac user who just bought a new iMac G5 (with Front Row), I do have fears of my architecture not being supported in a year. I'm afraid for the platform's health because of the transition itself, and because of the fact that Apple will no longer be able to compete on speed with other hardware. And I do have fears of having to pay a lot for upgrades to new software.

But I'm not bitter about it, as you really sound in this post, because I know that these transitions will make the Mac platform better. Many of your complaints are rehashes of the old complaints about the Mac OS 9 --> Mac OS X transition, and it's kind of tiring to hear them come out of the woodwork again, especially from someone who seems to get the Mac platform and who makes some really interesting haxies.

-- Simone

Posted by: Simone Manganelli on March 20, 2006 2:57 PM

Simone, good lord man... that's a long comment.

Perhaps I'm biased by working for a school district or perhaps it's from helping many of the parents and teachers at that district with their personal or business technology or technology related questions. But I saw first hand how little the "management" cared about what was best for the students. It was often just "How about Word? How about Quicken? What about ? Where's the Start Menu on this thing?". Too often the questions had nothing at all to do with the OS and the decision wasn't based on the OS. Remember, there are people with taste that choose the Mac and those afflicted with Usability Stockholm Syndrome that use Windows (the reverse also being true, of course). Also remember that Windows has MDI and applications in this mode that take up the entire screen effectively are the OS to the user.

Also, if a management type that is windows user never used Exposé and got along fine with it, how does one even try to convince them how awesome exposé is? It's one of those workflow changing things and change is bad.

"Supported" and "Working" are two different things. In this case, supported meaning you cannot get support for it if it breaks. You cannot even purchase Mac OS 9 any more if you want to, for whatever reason. Not everyone can keep 900 different restore CDs/DVDs around. Yes, classic works. No, it isn't supported and there will be no further development on it.

I'm not sure how making FCP 5.0 not work on an ICBM increases innovation. I do understand how getting rid of backwards compatibility support cruft can be a good thing. This is especially true with IE. However, I also need to mention that completely different teams work on the support cruft and the pro applications. Having a team work on one doesn't necessarily affect the other team's productivity. I mean, just look at the piece of junk that is Backup.app 3.0. Are those thoughts connected? You tell me.

And remember, developers will copy Apple whether it's good or not. Look at Mail.app's hideous toolbars in Tiger. the Mozilla Foundation is saying this will be a "feature" in Firefox 2.0. Ack. "Apple did it, therefore it must be good." Drawers are another horrible example. AFAIK, most drawers have been removed from Apple's first party applications and replaced with something much better. Either a sidebar, or a floating window, or something. And metal.. Developers may cite Apple when deciding to charge for a fat application update.

Luckily there are companies like Netopia that made the Universal version of Timbuktu a free update. A piece of software that makes it very easy to develop Universally Fat applications as it means I don't have to physically move between a PPC mac and an ICBM to develop fat software.

I'm cynical and bitter at all times (and that's what drives me at all times, I hate Arial). So no, I'm not particularly bitter about this specific thing. Especially since either way, I have to get new versions of the software but that's because we at Unsanity make sure our software works with as much Mac software as humanly possible. This includes the new versions.

Posted by: Rosyna on March 20, 2006 3:33 PM

Rosyna --

Oh, god, MDI. Shoot me now. How people deal with that is beyond me.

I know that there are those executives with the "Usability Stockholm Syndrome" that will be impervious to explanations of the benefits of something like Exposé and the hideousness of MDI. But like I said, there are going to be those executives like that, and there are going to be other executives that have the opposite mentality and see the benefits of features like Exposé. I don't think the Mac platform benefits by catering to those pointy-haired executives with Usability Stockholm Syndrome.

As for the difference between "supported" and "working", Mac OS 9 was definitely "supported" even by your definition, up to the release of the Intel-based Macs. Mac OS 9 has *always* been included on the install CDs of any Mac. If you've purchased a Mac, you've gotten Mac OS 9. It's buried on the System Restore CDs, but it's been there. Mac OS 9 was originally released back in 1999, and was for sale for a few years thereafter. So I don't think that the lack of a boxed retail version for Macs released before the year 1999 is a legitimate argument for Mac OS 9 being "unsupported" by your definition.

And similarly, you can get support for Classic in Mac OS X. If Classic fails to launch at all on your system, you can call Apple and get support for that. The Classic environment is *still* built-in to Mac OS X, even the latest version -- it's just that Intel-based Macs don't support it anymore. If you had a problem with a specific Classic application, yes, you'd have to call the developer of that application. But is that any different with Mac OS X-native apps? If you have a problem with Adobe Photoshop CS2, you'd call Adobe, not Apple, regardless of whether the application ran under Classic or not.

Your examples of FCP 5 and Backup 3 are duly noted. My comment should not be construed as a defense against these applications. (Backup 3, for example, doesn't recognize that I have more than 9 MB of purchased music, and I have no idea why.) But, as others have also pointed out, you don't work on FCP 5.0, so you don't know how hard it would be to port to ICBMs. Apple has a tendency to axe backwards compatibility earlier rather than later, but I'd prefer to reserve judgment until I have better information on the subject.

I have to disagree that an operating system developer can have one team that "supports cruft" and one that works on pro applications. That's just not feasible. Supporting cruft often means that newer technologies cannot easily be integrated into the system -- not just from a technical perspective, but from a marketing perspective as well. If only certain applications that start using a certain new API get the benefits of new technologies, you'll create a schism within your own operating system. Just look at the difference between Carbon and Cocoa: normal users shouldn't HAVE to be concerned about whether an app was programmed using the Carbon or Cocoa APIs, but it was inevitable in Mac OS X. There are many easily recognizable signs of enhanced productivity in a Cocoa application: the dirty dot in the close box indicating unsaved changes, automatic spell checking, toolbars with movable buttons, services support -- chances are, if you have any one of these features, it's a Cocoa application. And if you like these features, you want Cocoa applications, because not very many Carbon developers go the extra mile to implement those features that Cocoa gets for free.

Supporting too much cruft means that many of the Mac applications on your platform won't benefit from the new technologies, and in the end, it's virtually pointless to add the new technology. Again, I point to the example of EFI and Vista. So supporting cruft and creating innovative pro applications are mutually exclusive after a few years. It's possible that a large corporation like Microsoft would be able to pull it off, but it seems even they haven't been able to do so.

Sorry for all the long comments. :P

-- Simone

Posted by: Simone Manganelli on March 20, 2006 4:00 PM

Simone, apologies but I edited your comment. The comment preview is turning UTF-8 into something else so your exposé turned into ExposÅ© or something so I changed it back to exposé. If you meant to type ExposÅ©, please tell me and I'll change it back...

I honestly do not know if apple will help you with classic not launching. I have not used classic for so very long and mine does not boot. But I have no wish to call Apple and potentially pay the fee for out of warranty service. So I'll have to cede that point. Usually I'd test something like this out.

I am not construing your comment as a defense of Backup.app 3.0. I do not believe anyone would defend that particular program. No, I do not know how difficult it would be to port FCP. But I do know that Apple announced FCP would not work on the ICBMs back when Rosetta did not emulate AltiVec and therefore no amount of plist voodoo could make FCP work. That has since changed but the FCP announcement has not.

It's actually very common in OS X land for one team to be a crufty support group. For example, iPhoto had basic RAW image support before CoreGraphics got it in 10.4.x. Now iPhoto uses that OS X's RAW support. Motion had the basics of CoreImage before it was added to 10.4. FCP had many things before they were added to QuickTime/OS X. I guess my point there is that the applications that Apple makes seem to drive innovation on OS X. The applications implement a basic version of the API first, then it is fleshed out and added to the system (whether the OS team or the application team adds it to OS X, I do not know). So this schism already exists. Just look at Mail.app's toolbar buttons. Or metal...

And don't get me started on Carbon vs Cocoa. It's just a huge waste of manpower, IMHO. One side implements something (like Navigation Services in Carbon) then the other side has to implement it in their own language bug for bug, feature for feature. Ugh! The users never get a consistent experience because of this and it makes it easy to tell the two apart. This also allows people to mark one as "superior" when it is not. As Mac OS X progresses, these two are being unified more and more. In 10.4 (I think, maybe it was 10.3) the Cocoa text system was moved to sit on top of ATSUI, which in 10.4 sits on CoreText. In 10.3, CoreGraphics, QuickTime, and AppKit each had their own version of many graphic libraries (like libPNG) so any bug in libPNG had to be fixed in all three. 10.4 unified them all with a new framework called ImageIO (part of CoreGraphics, /System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.framework/Frameworks/ImageIO.framework). This is just an awesomely awesome new framework and it means that if a new file format is added to the framework all applications on OS X get support for it automatically. In 10.1.x pretty much all of Foundation and CoreFoundation was duplicated. Now in 10.4 almost all of Foundation sits on top of CoreFoundation (when the feature exists in CoreFoundation). Oddly it seems many Apple employees aren't aware of this particular change until it's pointed out to them and I *guess* that means the change was seamless and without problems. As Mac OS X continues, I imagine more APIs will be unified. For example, right now parts of CoreFoundation and WebKit both implement ICU, I'd expect this to change in the future. Duplicating efforts and code is just a waste. Why have two teams working on the same thing when you can easily just have one team doing it all?

As for Cocoa automatically getting some things, that's more because Carbon allows the developer to change a lot more about the application. In Cocoa, most of the freebie things are things the developer could not easily change in the first place. So supporting them for free is easy. For Carbon, there are so many ways to do everything that adding a free feature could seriously break some of the biggest applications such as Word that roll their own almost everything. Other times, the features are added for free (such as Spelling). But only to the non-deprecated APIs. Since most Carbon applications still have a large chunk of QuickDraw in them and QuickDraw is deprecated, they don't get the free features. Also the free features Carbon gets may not be completely visible to the user.

You really can't compare the Vista development cycle to the OS X one. Vista is more about MS overpromising features and underdelivering. Apple has been guilty of this in the past (see Copland).

Posted by: Rosyna on March 20, 2006 4:55 PM

Rosyna --

No problem about the editing, but I see it's happening to you too. :)

You're citing examples about pro apps rolling their own solution before the solution is rolled out system-wide. That's perfectly fine to do, and perfectly feasible. I'm talking about a different situation that occurs five years down the line: should there be a dedicated team that supports these "in-app solutions" so that you can continue to run iPhoto 1 and 2 on Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard? There should be a few years grace period for running older versions of software, but at some point, I don't think the effort is worth it to get these old versions to continue to run. Now that we're past five major releases of Mac OS X, the "grace period" will naturally extend itself, because APIs have settled down now and older applications will tend to continue to work.

For example, would it be realistic for Apple to try and continue to allow Classic applications to run on Intel processors? Already Apple had to implement a sub-standard solution to running Classic applications in Mac OS X, because it just wasn't possible for those older applications to run natively -- so Mac OS X effectively "boots up" Mac OS 9 before it runs Classic apps. For Classic apps to run on Intel processors, Rosetta would have had to be able to dynamically translate an entire operating system on the fly in order for Classic apps to run, and I'd bet that that might cause problems with PPC/Mac OS X-native apps running under Rosetta. Is the increased development time for getting Classic to run under Rosetta worth the gains you get in backwards compatibility? I don't think so. But again, there are those that do think so, as you point out.

As for whether Apple would do telephone support for Classic on PPC Macs: I could call Apple, pretend that Classic won't boot up on my iMac G5, and see if they help me troubleshoot your problem. ;)

In terms of Carbon and Cocoa being a waste of manpower, I agree with you. But it illustrates how supporting legacy, deprecated APIs like QuickDraw will lead to there being an undesirable divide between different kinds of applications. It's not easy to support cruft while pushing new technologies without side-effects like this happening. The more cruft you support, you run into these problems with more frequency.

Point taken on Vista being more aptly compared to Copland than Mac OS X proper. But Copland had some of the same problems -- they were trying to support older applications while bringing in new features like protected memory, and it ended up being a mess. Making a clean break ended up being a more effective solution.

-- Simone

Posted by: Simone Manganelli on March 20, 2006 5:31 PM

(Um, nevermind... you MEANT to write "Exposũ", whereas I did not. :P It looks like these UTF-8 characters preview and post fine, but your weblog doesn't input the correct UTF-8 characters back into the text field when previewing.)

-- Simone

Posted by: Simone Manganelli on March 20, 2006 5:35 PM

Rosyna, quick comment re:

In 10.1.x pretty much all of Foundation and CoreFoundation was duplicated. Now in 10.4 almost all of Foundation sits on top of CoreFoundation (when the feature exists in CoreFoundation). Oddly it seems many Apple employees aren't aware of this particular change until it's pointed out to them and I *guess* that means the change was seamless and without problems.

Actually, we Apple employees were told prior to Mac OS X 10.0 that Foundation would use CoreFoundation innards. This was certainly always the intent. If the implementation didn't match the intent for a while, it was only due to time constraints. You're aware that most of CoreFoundation was extracted from Foundation, right? Given the ugliness of the resultant CF code, it may even have been largely done mechanically.

Posted by: Shazbat on March 20, 2006 6:23 PM

Yeah, I'm aware of it. Ali Ozer (from AppKit "fame") was/is the DRI for most of this hideous CF code. I just blamed the hideousness on that... I never thought/imagined it could have been done mechanically. I guess it was very possible the original CF "fork" (for Mac OS 9) was mechanic and it was then modified by hand as time permitted. There's too many sly comments in the CF code for it to be all mechanical.

Too often the conversation starts with something like "NSEnumerator is too slow", "Just use CFArrayGetValueAtIndex(), it's much faster.", Apple person: "Huh? It's the same thing.", "No, It's not. Internally it's a CFArray, and you can remove the overhead of objc_msgSend by using the CFArray directly.", Apple person: "No, I work for Apple, it's all Cocoa underneath.", "Prove it?", Apple Person: "checking.. Oh, you're right, when the hell did that happen?". And variants of that.

I need a nap, too much cocoa anger.

Simone, quick response for now.

For an older application application on a newer OS, it will continue to use the in-app version of the API even if the system implemented it itself, so there is no reason for anyone to work on supporting the that application. In the same way that Photoshop can have its own APIs and not worry about how the system it is running on is changing.

And deprecated does not mean removed. It just means that it won't be updated to get new functionality and that no one will be actively working on it. The exceptions is for regressions in APIs. If a new version of OS X breaks an existing deprecated API (like QuickDraw) the deprecated API may still be updated so it at least works again.

Almost all of the deprecated parts of QuickDraw have been replaced. Things like HIViews, HIShapes, ATS, Quartz, and other APIs replace them with new, supported, recommended, and in many cases better technology.

I think the main issue with classic is that the kernel supposedly has a lot of cruft in it in order to support classic (classic support is deeply rooted into the kernel last I checked, so is Rosetta last I checked). There's also some things other APIs need to support Classic as well. I'm not suggesting that Apple continue supporting Classic exactly, just that their support of classic may be used as a precedent for how they'll handle support of the PPC once the transition is complete. But we'll have to wait.

Posted by: Rosyna on March 20, 2006 7:13 PM

First off let me say that I am biased and favor Rosyna. Not because I am paid to do so, but because I have shared many concerns Rosyna has posted (since the opening of .org)

Second I must I'm glad that this conversation has elevated above the first few naive and blind posters.

Thirdly, I have not forgotten what those early posters said and would like to do some name-calling myself (I apologize for not responding in order):

Davidwb and G.J: I'm glad you two have come together and agreed on bitching about admittedly knowing nothing about what you're bitching about, or why you're bitching. David, don't confuse the smell of sour grapes with that stuff you are slinging. G.J, misinformation and careless speculation; good job at discrediting him on a whim, your credentials are widely known and opinion highly accepted. Make sure to keep reading, trying to understand, getting angry and bitching, no matter how "old" the arguments become.

frgough and Stefdar: not only were there numerous changes to the machines as noted, the ICBM were how many months early? How much time did apple have before their release (admittedly about 5 years?) compared to the amount of time that developers have had? frgough: I don't think you speak any language fluently enough to translate the article. Stefdar: shutup.

Brian: first of all, I hope to "god" you are not the same brian I fear you may be. second, i once shared your blind faith in apple, I also believed that our government was controlled by the people for the people, and I was just learning my multiplication tables.

I have more to say, and will perhaps say it when I feel I can do so with more tact.

Posted by: Saint on March 20, 2006 11:55 PM

So because the discussion has elevated above your understanding you have to drag it down to your level? Are you completely stupid? How old are you?

Posted by: Stefda on March 21, 2006 2:01 AM

Rosyna --

For something like an older version of Photoshop, using the in-app API may work fine. But for something like a Cocoa application, that won't work. Cocoa apps reference against the system API, and they don't store any API internally. So when you move, for example, a Cocoa application designed for Mac OS X 10.0 to 10.4, it's possible that some of the API calls that the Cocoa application expects are there have actually been removed. At least, that's what I understand (and I imagine you understand this, anyway).

With Mac OS X, we're just starting to get a stable API with a well laid-out deprecation and obsoletion (is that even a word?) schedule, so we haven't gotten to the point where APIs will start to be removed. If APIs were never removed, there would slowly be a build-up of deprecated APIs that need fixing to maintain backwards compatibility with all the applications, and eventually there would be a point where applications wouldn't be able to take advantage of new technologies because they were still using the deprecated APIs.

I think, though, that you probably know much more about the specifics of the kernel APIs and Cocoa/Carbon APIs themselves, so you'd be in a much better position to say exactly why Apple decided to axe Classic support in the Intel-based Macs.

We will indeed have to see whether Apple's PPC support is going to be extensive or short. But I'd imagine it will be along the lines of most of their hardware -- they'll continue to build Universal binaries until the latest PPC Macs can't realistically run the software at a reasonable speed, and then they'll axe support -- like my mom's iBook G3 and iPhoto 6.

-- Simone

Posted by: Simone Manganelli on March 21, 2006 2:06 AM

No, Apple has stated repeatedly that a public system API will never be removed. So you'll never have the case of a 10.0 application calling a public API that is not there in 10.4.

There have been many developers fearing that deprecated means removed and because of this, the promise of never removing a public API was made. Part of this promise is seen here.

Posted by: Rosyna on March 21, 2006 9:49 AM

OK, I stand corrected. However, I find it surprising that 10.0 APIs will still be available for use a few years down the road with Mac OS X 10.9 or something. I mean, wouldn't that imply, for example, that any software created with a specific version of Mac OS X in mind should be guaranteed to work on any future version of Mac OS X? Surely that can't be the case, but maybe I've become too used to Apple not really caring too much about backwards compatibility -- at least, in the sense that typically, anything older than 5 or so years has a spotty chance of running on the current version of Mac OS X.

Wow, that series of comments was kind of a long divergence from the original point of the post, but it was informative nonetheless. :)

-- Simone

Posted by: Simone Manganelli on March 21, 2006 11:17 PM

Correct, if you're using a 10.0 public API, your application should still work exactly as is in 10.9 (plus with all the "freebie" features added between those releases). The exceptions are kernel extensions and things close to the kernel, of course. This is also why I call some of these new incompatibilities "artificial". Especially with FCP. FCP 4.5 explicitly checks for an AGP card, for whatever reason. It fails on a PCI Express video card. Modifying the plist to remove the check makes it run.

Posted by: Rosyna on March 22, 2006 1:32 AM

I find this article amusing. Saint says that he is glad that the level of discourse has been raised, and then he promptly turns around and issues such massively intelligent replies as "shutup". He also reveals a sorry but common occurance: government conspiracy fever and anti-Apple sentiment. Crawl on back to prisonplanet, Saint. Your rock is missing you.

The issue of "backward compatibility" is largely mythical. Why? Apple hardware (and even third-party Apple hardware) hangs around a lot longer than PC equipment. This is not sheer supposition. I have owned many PC products and observed first hand this truth.

The real issue is, "Do you want everything you have now *and* all the nifty features that Apple is bringing you?" Often times, these things are not possible, without reducing performance and stability to Windows-like levels. Even in the Windows case, the system requirements keep increasing. So no, you can't run XP on the machine you bought 5 years ago. Welcome to the upgrade cycle! (At least Apple is honest about it. Microsoft is definitely dishonest.)

If I understand you right, you would rather OS X become like Windows than there be an end-of-life in our lifetime? Let me say this, as someone who has supported hardware and software to the point of it becoming injurious for the company to keep doing so -- you are advocating nothing more than slow corporate suicide.

Posted by: Poster on March 24, 2006 6:25 AM

The problem is, this article works just as well as an argument against buying a Mac in the first place. If you don't see any merit to using a Mac, sure, there's no reason not to buy a PC. It's as true now as ever.

Posted by: Chuck on March 24, 2006 11:35 AM

As a customer of unsanity for several apps. I find such unprofessionalism to be truly disappointing. Why should anyone take you seriously when you posted FUD about Macbooks not playing back 720p smoothly? I have a "stock" 1.83 MBP and I have not had any problems playing back H264 720p content.

Why are you even mentioning Classic in mid-2006? Do you really think Classic would be relevant to purchasers of Intel macs? They called Intel macs btw, not ICBM's. If you want to project some sense of professionalism, I would suggest removing such pet names from the .com compatibility page and keeping it to your blog (if even that).

I would like for you to explain to us how you came to the conclusion that Apple would drop PPC support in the near future given that the core OS has been compiled since the beginning on both Intel and PPC? Look at what hardware Tiger supports officially. It unofficially supports even more so it would be sage to assume some QA time was spent on testing older hardware that they would no longer offer official support for.

Having said all this, I can understand how porting your haxies would be problematic given their nature and given that they access API's not generally used by most software to do their magic.

Posted by: Ari Ukkonen on March 25, 2006 11:28 AM

Ari,

Apple is notorious for dropping support, at Apple's whim, should Apple feel it is no longer warranted. This transition to the MacTel lineup will be force-fed to us as fast as Apple can feed--and then some, as Apple has full intention of severing the PowerPC and all it entails.

Posted by: CREB on March 25, 2006 12:32 PM

Chuck, that is the point. If the only thing keeping a business/school from switching to PCs was a vested interest in software, that reason is gone. That's what happened to the school i worked for. OS X came out, the vested interest was removed for most things, and they switched to PCs.

It may have been that Macs were originally chosen because the IT person was a huge fan of Macs or because they were just a better choice. If that original IT person was replaced by a team of pretender IT personnel that thinks Windows is teh awesome, the financial reasons for sticking to the Mac is gone. Especially when Dell and Microsoft offer very good base deals with a 3-5 year contract.

Posted by: Rosyna on March 26, 2006 4:52 PM

i am the only one thinking ... who cares if apple drops ppc?

1. as a laptop owner, i got really sick and tired of apple releasing itsy bisty speed bumps to their pathetically slow laptops while in pc world things just kept getting faster and faster. apple did what needed to be done to offer a signifcant improvment to their hardware lineup. imb/moto couldn't deliver...... so they moved on.
good for them. good for me.

2. now their a level playing field on the hardware side of things we can focus on what we really like our computers for ... the OS.

oh wait... i'm not supposed to talk about that.

finally, i'd like to ditto the previous comment about professionalism.
my respect for unsanity as a company has just taken a nosedive.
why should i buy a product from a developer who rants against the platform the develop for?

Posted by: speedrulz on March 27, 2006 5:19 AM

sorry, for spelling mistakes,

i hit POST when i meant to hit PREVIEW.

Posted by: speedrulz on March 27, 2006 5:21 AM

Allume has a "semi hidden" Stuffit Expander 10 universal binary beta somewhere. Saw it on Cocoatech (Pathfinder forums)

As owner of "stuffit", you must know how amazingly unusable site it is. If they have "secret" beta, they could post anywhere on site without any "password" and nobody can find it :)

BTW still CONGRATS being a REAL INDEPENDENT COMPANY, even giants like Adobe, Real networks does not dare to say these simple facts.

Posted by: Ilgaz on March 27, 2006 4:32 PM

Rosyna, you have some good points , but more that are off base or unsubstantiated.

Note to Unsanity: Rosyna's posts make me never want to buy a piece of your software. I don't want to support needlessly negative people. I'm sure that I'm not alone.

Posted by: chad on March 31, 2006 11:44 AM

chad, if you don't currently own any of our software, what has changed?

This is an argument I see often too. "If only Apple made an $800 computer." Apple makes one, it changes to "If only Apple made a $500 computer." Apple makes one, it changes to, "If only Apple used x86 chips." Apple switches to them, "If only Mac OS X ran on generic PCs and cost $20."

The point being that the person saying these statements never had any intention of purchasing a Mac or running Mac OS X. They were just using "If's" as excuses and to shut the other person up since none of those can really be argued against.

Posted by: Rosyna on March 31, 2006 11:51 AM

I like Mail's new toolbar look.

Posted by: Dave on March 31, 2006 1:06 PM

I thought this was a very interesting and informative post. I've bought several of Unsanity's apps (well, haxies anyway) and though I've never bothered to go through the trouble of that extra step I'm supposed to do to get discounts when buying multiple haxies - they're inexpensive, generally bug-free and stable (in my own experience, anyway) and I'll continue to support Unsanity as long as they continue this tradition of software excellence. Opinion posts, of which are meant largely to both let off steam and to inform the populace, have no bearing on my software purchasing decisions. Hell, if anything, it shows you've got passion for the product and I'll raise a toast to just about anyone in this modern day holding passion for their craft.

That having been said, I have one solid point to make about FCP 5 and the "great Universal switch".

When you said "Apple is charging $29-$699 in order to acquire the Fat versions of its various Pro applications" - I clicked the link on the pricetags. Your pricetag strawman caught me a little off-guard.

Apple is charging $99 to upgrade from FCP 5 to Final Cut STUDIO. That's FOUR apps out of ONE (or, if you account for supporting apps like LiveType and Cinema Tools, which are "bonus add-ins", it's even more apps). To me - upgrading from FCP to Final Cut Studio alone is worth $99. And, let's say you got in on that "Final Cut Pro free with a Powerbook" deal from the days of the wayback - you could still trade in that copy for $699 and get the FULL suite, ICBM-ready and all. Pretty sweet deal. From full suite to full suite Universal - $49. Not too shabby, really.

Of course, I don't see any production houses rushing to fill their studios with iMacs and MacBook Pros, so it's of little issue right now. When Apple finally releases some uber-badass Pro line of ICBMs, and it's so far above and beyond the usefulness and power of the current line of G5s (or hell, even the 1st or 2nd gen PMG5s) - then I don't see anyone wincing over that extra $50 to upgrade their copies of FCS.

All in all.. I was a bit shocked by the Intel switch, as were probably most of us. But I'm no early-adopter of hardware (I spent the last 5 years with a G4/500, upgrading every little piece I could over the years until I finally relented and picked up the G5/2.5Ghz I'm using now) and I would venture to say that, at this point, anyone who would find themselves paying out the wazoo for universal app upgrades probably needs more power than an iMac/MBP/Mini is going to provide anyway. Adobe is holding off for CS3 for universal support - not unlike they held out for PS7 to support OS X, and that doesn't bother me or most other creative pros I've talked to, right now. Adobe's usually the developer to follow on these things, it seems. Until they do act in accordance to Apple's will - everyone says "it's not ready for prime-time", and once they do, everyone says "well, the time has come - let's make the switch".

Anyway, like I said, I enjoyed the article and I considered it informative - it's nice to read a rant about Apple's decision from a Mac user that's not a fanboy/fangirl, nor is an Apple detractor.

Keep up the good work. Those ICBMs sure do look ugly without SS ;)

Posted by: Rev. Mitcz on April 1, 2006 6:12 AM

Rosyna, on the matter of the "ifs" I agree with you. The detractors keep on moving the goal posts every time Apple fulfills their last request. They never had any intention on buying Apple products in the first place and only used the "ifs" as straw man.

Folks, Apple will never sell OS X for 20 bucks and have it run on generic PC hardware. Just like MSFT will not support EFI in the first release of Vista on 32bit processors, Apple will never support BIOS based PCs beyond the last developer kit release.

Posted by: Ari Ukkonen on April 1, 2006 2:37 PM

so is there a time frame we should be expecting universal updates for the software we PAID for or it totally depends on when you guys feel like updating it. I'd like to have my purchased copy of WindowShade X working on a new MacBook that i got last week.

thanks

Posted by: Andrey on April 2, 2006 12:15 PM

The blog makes me more "trust" to unsanity professional developers discipline and quality of coding.

I really don't want to make any business with a company who is tied to Apple so much and LACKS professional neutrality about "what is going on". There are some "kissing" terms involved but I better not use them.

It is a "BLOG", written by one employee of Unsanity who DARES to speak own mind. As a person installed smart crash reports first day it was earthed to web, I can only respect the quality of coding at unsanity. As it is proven that the "shut down unsanity.org" folks are NOT using Unsanity software including freeware, let me tell this:

If ANYTHING involving ANY Unsanity product crashed (including ALL apps which loads APE), I and unsanity would know it since smart crash reports would report to Unsanity too.

BTW- If they cared about 2-3 guys who thinks their $10,$20 threats (not using your software since I disagree posts) mattered, there wouldn't be unsanity.org.

Bigger problem than zealot users are zealot developers. I am fairly new to Mac scene and in 3 years, I have met some of them. Those are the guys/gals you should stay away from.

For example I don't use a software after meeting its lead developer on IRC and got harrassed by him since I "dared" to talk about Intel on open chat. That particular "freeware" had donation feature and I donated to them more than their "fanatics" imagined. I am currently boycotting that spesific title since my entire trust to its developer is gone.

I don't want the "developer party" reply like "oh, OS X and Steve Jobs are GREAT! It is YOUR FAULT!" when I notify about a potential problem.

Keep doing the good things Unsanity, including this blog.

Posted by: Ilgaz on April 3, 2006 3:06 PM

Off topic, as usual for me, but that was certainly quick on the ShapeShifter updates for 10.4.6, thanks!

Posted by: CREB on April 3, 2006 3:09 PM

Andrey, I am just hoping as Unsanity is not a fortune 500 company having "secretaries" read comments for them, your kind of lame and threatening posts does not effect "humanatarian" side of developers making them work "less enthuastically" about Mactel compatibility.

For example, is there a "Adobe.org" blog where you can threaten developers with your business?

You PAID FOR PowerPC binary sir while it is CLEAR that it will be installed to 1 COMPUTER and Mactel compatability page exists for AGES.

So, you paid for an unsanity product and want to use it on another computer? It looks like a potential license issue to me. ;)

Posted by: Ilgaz on April 3, 2006 3:12 PM

Also sorry for spam like commenting:

A huge HDTV/35mm/4K capable Studio in some place I won't name are seriously talking with AVID Inc about their PC based solutions after this "Final Cut" decision by Apple.

It will cost like $400.000 to "move" to AVID/Xeon SGI but their CEO went nuts about this Mactel license scheme.

They aren't people to mess with, e.g. not "Apple Fanboys" owning an iPod and you can charge for each Quicktime Pro major release.

Posted by: Ilgaz on April 3, 2006 3:16 PM

Let me comment on only one part of Rosyna's complaint, having to do with Apple's withdrawal of support for OS 9. I think you have to ask yourself how many Classic applications still exist for which there is no OSX equivalent. I concede there must be some items of exotic scientific lab software and the like, but I can think of only one mainstream application: Hypercard. For me, and probably for a lot of others, the loss of Classic boils down to one simple issue, the loss of data stored on Hypercard for lack of any way of exporting it to an OSX application. And yes, for some of us this indeed may be a serious problem. But so far, with the existence of Classic, there has been no economic incentive for anyone to develop a modern item of software to facilitate this forward movement. We can only hope that in the future this situation will change and some enterprising soul will take up this challenge. Otherwise, no matter what kind of Mac we may have in the future, some of us are going to have to keep a Power PC on the premises if only for this one purpose.

Posted by: Dana Sutton on April 3, 2006 5:08 PM

Ilgaz:

Your last post?

That's KA-BLAMO!

Posted by: Saint on April 4, 2006 8:24 AM

Ilgaz, i did not threaten anyone. I just asked when should be expect updates. As you can see Cee Pee You and Menu Extra Enabler have been updated to run on Intel macs. Both are free utilities and the site states that "our freeware products are updated as we get spare time". Ok i can dig that. But what about non-free utilities? Where are they going to be updated?

As far as me running WindowShadeX on 2 computers... I do not have my PowerPC anymore. I sold my PowerBook G4 2 days BEFORE my MacBook came in the mail.

Posted by: Andrey on April 4, 2006 12:22 PM

I don't know what KA-BLAMO means or anything but if you ask Apple TR office about the huge customer they lost because of trust (to future of platform) issues they will answer... or not...

Enterprise and large customers (HDTV 4K studios) are very,very concerned about the trustability of platform,especially with "updates breaking every program and requiring recode".

Oh well, iPod sales are well, who cares eh? ;)

Posted by: Ilgaz on April 4, 2006 5:38 PM

No need to say anything more, REAL sorry because of too much comments by single person.

Posted by: Ilgaz on April 5, 2006 10:30 AM

I don't care! I so don't care! Why do I sense another vendor is about to go down the tubes cause they can't adapt. I have bought 7 of the red dot apps. Just tell me know if an update is coming to not. I'll wait or move on but I don;t need you to tell me why or why I shouldn't upgrade. I can hear the ghosts of OS 8, PPC, OS9, and OSX transitions and frankly Scarlet....

Posted by: Jeffsters on April 5, 2006 8:35 PM

very sad that one of rare (and successful) developers daring to tell the truth to customers is tagged "can't adapt".

Genius, they are speaking about the BURGLARY happening RIGHT NOW, about OTHER APPLICATIONS, the "extra cost for Mactel".

It is NOT about unsanity products or their pricey and quality SDKs like APE which is used by many COMMERCIAL companies to make their software FUNCTION.

If you use a laptop: Buy Mactel book (pro), If you are a Desktop owner and professional , buy G5 Quad or Dual Core until some Xeon-class desktops (workstations) ship.

It is about CHARGING EXTRA for INTEL COMPATABILITY. ABOUT OTHER VENDORS!

Posted by: Ilgaz on April 7, 2006 7:38 AM

When are you going to produce Intel compatible haxies?
After Adobe? It's been months..

Posted by: Stefdar on April 7, 2006 7:43 AM

As end user who will upgrade to dual g5 2300 soon, I am not developer nor mactel owner but I think Unsanity and some other developers are waiting for "Mactel OSX" to stabilise.

Haxies should be very carefully tested etc or they will have bad name for "breaking OS". Trolls are already blaming APE for 99% of bugs has nothing to do with it. A "real bug" may cost unsanity more than you can imagine.

just a guess. I think there should be an explanation in these blog pages. People misunderstand as you see above.

saying again: I am just an end user loving/buying unsanity products.

Posted by: Ilgaz on April 7, 2006 2:33 PM

As an end user who already owns A G5 2.3 and a MacBook Pro 2.0 GHz, I can tell you that after 3 months I would like to have the haxies I paid for finally running on the MacBook.

"MacTel OSX" is perfectly stable, the Finder even warns you about dissconnected shares in a timely fashion with out crashing.

And the MacBook is way faster in universal apps than the 2.3 G5. Believe me, they have done the right move, and I am a Mac user for 20 years.

Posted by: Stefdar on April 8, 2006 2:14 AM

Hi Rosyna, really interesting post.

"No, Apple has stated repeatedly that a public system API will never be removed. So you'll never have the case of a 10.0 application calling a public API that is not there in 10.4"

Didn't Apple make that promise back in about 2000? I'm not sure it applies anymore.

With that promise they were just trying to reassure Mac developers that once again they weren't going to have the carpet pulled out from under them. Many developers were feeling very burnt after the many mid 90's API disasters that Apple had (QuickDrawGX, ODF, AOCE, etc etc).

I was at the WWDC in 2004 and not only were Apple telling people not to use QuickDraw anymore, but that it would one day be removed from the OS.

Posted by: scrolly on April 8, 2006 2:45 AM

Stefdar if you read the blog entry (the top) you will see tips what I call "unstable"

APE and the products are SDK which hooks to system calls. It is nothing about "crashes".

(repeating!:Just a guess) , they don't want to release APE for a "moving target" and waiting for it to be "stabilise".

I bet there are Mactel versions they test internally right now.

Just like Omniweb 5.5 , still internally tested in OmniGroup.

Posted by: Ilgaz on April 8, 2006 5:32 AM

Here is what I am afraid of in better english writing than me :)

http://www.theregister.com/2006/04/05/apple_windows_timeline/
http://tinyurl.com/kmouc (same url,compressed)

And for "Enterprise", e.g. corparate networks, recent developments made a very good "use Macs in corparate" guy gave up that suggestion:
http://www.theregister.com/2006/04/07/apple_announcement/
http://tinyurl.com/jhf4l (tiny url of above)

Posted by: Ilgaz on April 8, 2006 5:51 AM