which version of OS X do you use?

Which version of OS-X do you use ?

  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .
A

applewhore

Registered
hi everyone...

I thought I'd seen a thread on this somewhere, but can't find it now... :confused:

I'm having some software developed to allow me to bring my product to the Mac...

The developer has asked if it's necessary for us to make it fully compatible with 10.2 and I just wanted to ask for some reactions...

He says it will make the software more reliable if he only has to work with 10.3 in mind...

Given that we're soon going to get 10.4, am I right in thinking this is not a big deal?

If one of the mods could make this into a poll it would be much appreciated - I can't find any data on percentages of 10.2 / 10.3 user base anywhere - this would at least give me some idea among macosx.com users...

Many thanks to everyone in advance for any feedback!

:)
 
10.3

But I think 10.2 should be supported as well, just to be nice to users who haven't upgraded. Not everyone can shell out $$$ (£££ or €€€ depending on where you are) for an upgrade each time one is released.
 
10.3.

But if you plan on distributing the software in any large quantity, not supporting 10.2 would be like shooting yourself in the foot. Many of the people here are the types that "just have to have the latest thing" (like myself), but that does not represent the Mac OS X user base accurately at all.

It would be like developing for Windows XP Pro only, and dropping support for the millions of Windows 2000 Pro users still out there.

Also, the reliability of the software will depend solely on the person(s) who wrote/write the code -- keeping compatibility with 10.2 will not decrease the reliability of the software one single bit. The person(s) writing it may not be able to use some shortened code or 10.3-specific features, but that should not introduce instability into the product.
 
Most of my clients are using 10.2.x (about 70%), the rest are using 10.3.x.

Most people don't go chasing after the newest of the new, they work with what works and/or what came with their systems. Currently I don't have a good reason to push people from a perfectly good operating system (10.2.x) to anything newer (10.3.x) when considering the cost of upgrading and the disruption of work flow.

I have had 10.3 sitting on my shelf for over a year now and still don't have it running on any of my systems. I just don't have a good reason to fix what isn't broken. My PowerBook is running flawlessly (my uptime is at 170 days and I haven't had an application crash since July), why would I want to mess with that? :confused:


Both my PowerBook (Wallstreet) and my iMac are running Mac OS X v10.2, but my PowerMac 7500 is running Mac OS X Server 1.2... I don't think I remember seeing that on the list above. :rolleyes:
 
RacerX said:
Both my PowerBook (Wallstreet) and my iMac are running Mac OS X v10.2, but my PowerMac 7500 is running Mac OS X Server 1.2... I don't think I remember seeing that on the list above. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oooh, good point depending on whether the software being developed is intended for client or server use.

I would assume it wouldn't matter much, though, since Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server are virtually identical "under the hood." The Server version just has those nifty GUIs for configuring stuff easily.

RacerX: for someone with such a wide interest in OSs, I'm shocked that you don't have 10.3 installed somewhere!
 
RacerX: I hear what you're saying about not fixing what isn't broke. panther is so much better than jaguar. its ui is much snappier and the finder is much better. not upgrading to panther from jag is even worse than not going to 10.2 from 10.1. Its more than worth the effort of upgrading. panther is by far the best os apple has made to date.
 
Also, if the software is going to be released sometime in 2005, I _definitely_ suggest looking for 10.3 and 10.4 users. You might also want to check into the new technologies of 10.4 already.

Basically, looking to the future is more important than to the past. Panther is out for almost a year now, and _all_ of the people I know have upgraded to Panther now. There's _one_ exception, and that's a school I did some design work for back in August. They were using 10.2.8 back then, but I urged them to update, because the few problems they had were actually problems with software that didn't fully support 10.2. ;)

I think the most important tip I can give is to _definitely_ also look at 10.4. If you don't, you might run into problems later. You can _live_ with your app not supporting 10.2, but not supporting 10.4 once it's available might be worse. And maybe, just maybe, Tiger will even add something to your app that would be very important to you...
 
I see and trouble shoot Panther all the time and have done many demos showing off just how wonderful it is... It just isn't worth my (unpaid) time to go through and install 10.3, reconfiguring things that broke from 10.2 to 10.3, etc., when 10.2 is doing such a good job on it's own. I've installed and configured 10.3 almost 25 times since it was released, but I was always paid to do it. :D

I have no lack of 10.3 experience, but I see both side by side daily and I have no overwhelming need to put it on any of my systems (specially as my Wallstreet doesn't support it).

ElDiabloConCaca said:
I would assume it wouldn't matter much, though, since Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server are virtually identical "under the hood." The Server version just has those nifty GUIs for configuring stuff easily.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think Mac OS X and my Mac OS X Server (aka Rhapsody 5.6) aren't the same under the hood. ;)

Besides, if I can use an old operating system like Mac OS X Server 1.2 daily, I should be just as comfortable using 10.2
 

Attachments

  • ricci.jpg
    ricci.jpg
    96 KB · Views: 18
Everything I support is currently running 10.3.6 and all will be running 10.4 within a few days of its official release. I doubt that 10.4 compatibility will be an issue with anything that runs under 10.3, but there will be several features in 10.4 it would be nice to be able to take advantage of. If your developer is using the Cocoa (Object Oriented) frameworks adding those features will be straightforward and simple. If he is using the Carbon (Procedural) frameworks it will take a lot more work to include the Tiger features.
 
First of all, thanks to chevy for making the poll available; along with everyone's comments it makes for really interesting reading...

Secondly, thank you all for taking the time to give your feedback as well - the Mac feeling of "community" is alive and well!

The software will be out for release in 2005 (hopefully at the same time as MWSF) - so there's part of me that definitely wants to look to the future and take advantage of new technology, but at the same time another part says "don't ignore potential customers" - what a dilemma!

To those of you who said you wouldn't "fix what ain't broke", does this mean you wouldn't consider moving (yourself and your clients) to 10.4 when it comes out? I thought everyone was psyched about Tiger?

I'm asking my developer to check this thread - some of the comments regarding the programming are beyond me, I'm afraid...

Anyway, thanks again for your feedback - it's much appreciated! This is the first time I've had software developed and it's a huge (and steep) learning curve!

:)
 
applewhore said:
To those of you who said you wouldn't "fix what ain't broke", does this mean you wouldn't consider moving (yourself and your clients) to 10.4 when it comes out? I thought everyone was psyched about Tiger?
Click to expand...
My clients ask me for recommendations and I make those based on what their needs are at the time. If they need 10.3/10.4 then I'll suggest moving to it (did this with one client who was otherwise happy with 10.2 but needed one application that was 10.3 only).

I work for my clients, not Apple, so I rarely recommend buying a new operating system just because Apple puts it out.

As for me, my wife and I are considering a new Mac and it would most likely come with 10.3 (maybe even 10.4). But we have been considering getting a new Mac for years (I've had a eMac on my wish list since 2002), and to date we just haven't run up against a need for something better than what we have now.

I get to play on new G5s, iMacs, PowerBooks and iBook all the time and so far have not felt a twinge of envy or felt like I was missing out on something when I come home to my old Wallstreet.

My Wallstreet is not supported by Apple beyond 10.2. My iMac has a ton of stuff on it (LaTeX and the like) which I really don't want to have to reinstall and reconfigure (and it has been just about as trouble free as my PowerBook having an uptime of 45 days right now).

The thing you have to remember is where you are asking this question... a Mac forum. Normal Mac users don't hang out in a Mac forum, they don't really even think much about the fact that they use a Mac. We, the members of this board, are techies. We follow the latest and the greatest while the rest of the Mac community goes about their normal lives.

If you are going to make software for the masses, consider that the masses usually don't even know what version of Mac OS X they are running. The first Macs that could only boot into Mac OS X were running 10.2. The first G5s were running 10.2. That means that a lot of people who don't live and breath Apple are still going to be using 10.2.

So, how much is your software going to cost the user? And are you going to add an Apple tax (adding $129.00) to the cost of your software by setting system requirements at 10.3 or as high as 10.4?

Thinking of your audience is important. I do web design as part of my business. My Quicktime movies are designed for Quicktime 4/5, my Flash elements are designed for Flash 5/6, and my layout is designed for 800x600 monitors and should look perfect even if viewed in Netscape 4.5. Why do I make sure about these things? Because even though I could make very nice web pages that look great on my system, most people don't have my system. Audience, it is very important.

:rolleyes:

On the 10.4 side of things, CoreImage should give developers some great tools to work with. It is being developed by the same people who made Caffeine Software's TIFFany3 and PixelNhance. By the time 10.5 is released I would imagine that quite a few apps will have been made to take advantage of it.
 
Looking forward to Tiger. I enjoy Panther very much on my old PB 800 DVI. Still works fast, and hopeful G5 PB will be out with Tiger!!!!!!!
 
First of all, thanks RacerX for taking the time to give such a detailed response - I really do appreciate it...

RacerX said:
The thing you have to remember is where you are asking this question... a Mac forum. Normal Mac users don't hang out in a Mac forum, they don't really even think much about the fact that they use a Mac. We, the members of this board, are techies. We follow the latest and the greatest while the rest of the Mac community goes about their normal lives.
Click to expand...

Whoops! Perhaps I'm in the wrong place - I'm certainly no techie! I just love finding out more about Macs and this is a great place for it - I assumed there were lots more of me out there? A lot of my friends are avid readers of Apple news, but don't work in IT at all - they just get a buzz out of using their Mac... I do appreciate that this does not apply to everyone though... :)

RacerX said:
If you are going to make software for the masses, consider that the masses usually don't even know what version of Mac OS X they are running. The first Macs that could only boot into Mac OS X were running 10.2. The first G5s were running 10.2. That means that a lot of people who don't live and breath Apple are still going to be using 10.2.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - I recognise there are still people running OS9 and before...

RacerX said:
So, how much is your software going to cost the user? And are you going to add an Apple tax (adding $129.00) to the cost of your software by setting system requirements at 10.3 or as high as 10.4?
Click to expand...

The software's going to cost $49, with additional programs available for $39 - I certainly wouldn't want to think of imposing an "Apple tax" but there have to be limits somewhere...

My developer commented "It is true that supporting 10.2 will not introduce any instability... Just that some things are more streamlined in 10.3" He feels we should effectively have two versions in the future for 10.2 / 10.3 onwards... At some point I guess there will be differences between 10.3 and future editions of the OS and we'll have to differentiate again...

RacerX said:
Thinking of your audience is important. ... even though I could make very nice web pages that look great on my system, most people don't have my system. Audience, it is very important.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more - that's why I'm trying to get some feedback as to what's right before making a decision!

So, thanks again to everyone for helping me make the decision - I think we'll be supporting 10.2!

:)
 
My developer commented "It is true that supporting 10.2 will not introduce any instability... Just that some things are more streamlined in 10.3" He feels we should effectively have two versions in the future for 10.2 / 10.3 onwards... At some point I guess there will be differences between 10.3 and future editions of the OS and we'll have to differentiate again...
Click to expand...

Ah-ha. At least you managed to check with this board before believing that coding for 10.2 will make things 'unstable'.
 
Of all the people who have been polled, Cybergoober seems to be the only one who uses 10.4 without having a backup system. that's what I call brave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top