Software licenses cost money, so since Mac OS 9 is never going to see another update, then it makes sense to use some Classic software on a 10.4 system (where it works) only because you don’t have to renew/upgrade licenses for software you already have. Well, we’re still on 10.4 because of two reasons:ġ) Carbon started shrinking in 10.5: some older Mac OS X apps that ran in 10.4 no longer run in 10.5Ģ) Classic is missing in 10.5, and Classic is required to run some apps for which we haven’t bothered to upgrade their license to the latest releases. If you’re still using 10.4 or 10.5, what is your primary reason for holding back on an upgrade? (It’s also interesting to compare these numbers with The Omni Group. As most of our future software development is focused on Leopard or above, this means we’ll have to keep our legacy apps around…Īs Tim reminds me, 10.4 is the last OS that Classic still runs under, so is it possible that these 10.4 users are dependent on some extremely old piece of software? With a higher install base than Coda, and a much broader set of users - from web developers, to printing presses, to press photographers, to who knows what - the Transmit results are a bit different.ġ7% still on 10.4. This makes sense for web developers, who, for the most part, really should be using the latest Safari.īut one chart, and one app, doesn’t tell the full story… The Leopard/Snow Leopard dominance is strong, and it seems like Coda users are pretty adamant about running the latest and greatest. CodaĬoda users are famously cutting-edge, and this chart reflects it. I took the last week’s worth of data - including repeat launches, of course, but mathematically I think it all evens out, which is to say I’m terrible at math and have no idea if that’s true - and made two charts. The additional bonus of this (fully anonymous) data is that is gives us a very good look at where our users are, and lets us plan accordingly. Leopard on a Power Mac G4 and a MacBook Pro: It runs well on both computers, but each has some odd bugs, and some of the changes are a step backwards.When some of our apps check for updates, they send along the Mac OS X version number, helpful in case we need to send a message to a specific set of OS users. Leopard different, a bit buggy, but worth the upgrade, Adam Robert Guha, Apple Archive, 2007.11.02.Thanks to Leopard’s Time Machine backup feature, it’s easy to restore your Mac to an earlier setup if you’ve inadvertently deleted essential files. Restoring a Crashed Mac with an Install Disc and Time Machine, Alan Zisman, Zis Mac, 2008.02.06.But SheepShaver lets you emulate a PowerPC Mac and run the Classic Mac OS. Mac OS X 10.5 doesn’t support Classic Mode. SheepShaver Brings Classic Mac OS to Intel Macs and Leopard, Alan Zisman, Mac2Windows, 2008.05.20.Time Machine is a marquee feature of Mac OS X 10.5, but isn’t all of that disk activity likely to wear our your drive prematurely? Does Constant Time Machine Activity Compromise Disk Longevity?, Charles W Moore, Miscellaneous Ramblings, 2008.09.15.Mac OS X 10.5 requires an 867 MHz G4 with 512 MB of memory, but is performance really acceptable on a minimum spec system? The Leopard Experience at 867 MHz, Simon Royal, Tech Spectrum, 2008.12.02.Spaces, a feature introduced with OS X 10.5, is like having several monitors on your Mac without the cost and space of using multiple displays. Why Spaces Is My Favorite Leopard (and Snow Leopard) Feature, Charles W Moore, Miscellaneous Ramblings, 2009.11.23. These are the last versions of software compatible with OS X 10.5 Leopard.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |