[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2003/10/09]
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:17:07AM -0500, Peter da Silva wrote: > > Yet within three months of Jaguar coming out, every second > > bit of new OS X software I saw *demanded* it. I probably have a > > distinctly inaccurate impression of things here, but... (trails off > > waving hands, hoping for a Mac user to continue at this point) > > Microsoft doesn't need to use the OS that way, they have Office. Even so, Office 2003 supports a four-year-old OS version (though not, tellingly, WinME), and I'm imagining that Office XP (which supports Win98) is still going to be available and supported for a little while. But I take your point, since if any app can push Windows upgrades it's going to be Office. I was going to say that a four-year upgrade margin is an understandable limit: if you haven't upgraded your OS in five or more years, the chances are that you're not going to be a potential customer for the latest Office anyway. That was until I remembered the hordes of massive enterprise desktop flotillas that are still running NT4. > But... yeh, I wish Apple would implement service packs to at least > upgrade the frameworks (shared libraries on amphetamines) so they > were API-compatible. On the other hand I'm glad they've avoided the > temptation to do what Microsoft has been doing to keep compatible > and having software vendors ship upgraded DLLs with their products. Is that really so bad, though? Especially since recent Windows versions have DLL version management. (Apologies, this thread is already distressingly hate-free. I should do the rant I've been saving up about Windows Networking. I've got some serious bile there.) -- Yoz
Generated at 14:02 on 01 Jul 2004 by mariachi 0.52