What Mac apps out this list work on latest Macbook?
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: dorayme on 2 Jan 2010 20:30 In article <020120101629568261%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-8DEBEE.10242103012010(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > This is not as good a workable solution because it then makes the day > > one has to get more modern machinery come sooner and at greater expense. > > you do realize that apple is in business to sell computers, not coddle > people who want to stick with years old systems, right? I understand that companies in a capitalist system can sometimes do whatever possible to advance their own interests (narrowly conceived and in the short term) and no more. Do you understand in the least that I don't want to stick with old systems. My gripe is that they should not be unnecessarily difficult to run perfectly adequate older software on. It is bad enough having to fork out for a machine, why not design to allow flexibility and do something nice for the world while making money. They did it with my Quicksilver. They did not die horribly and they made a whole lot of folk happy. I am not impressed by your gullible acceptance of greedy capitalist ploys. At least do a little screaming, don't just lie down and let the tanks roll over you! Be a man, not a cowardly clerkish mouse! -- dorayme
From: nospam on 2 Jan 2010 22:05 In article <doraymeRidThis-4EB3A2.12302403012010(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Do you understand in the least that I don't want to stick with old > systems. then don't. do you understand that upgrading is not always simple? > My gripe is that they should not be unnecessarily difficult to > run perfectly adequate older software on. old software runs just fine, including powerpc apps you might still have. classic is gone, but that happened a few years ago with intel macs. > It is bad enough having to > fork out for a machine, why not design to allow flexibility and do > something nice for the world while making money. They did it with my > Quicksilver. They did not die horribly and they made a whole lot of folk > happy. even the quicksilver only went back so far. could it run macos 8? 7.6.1? 6.0.4? nope. apple is not going to support their systems forever, and no matter where the cutoff is, there will *always* be someone on the other side. > I am not impressed by your gullible acceptance of greedy capitalist > ploys. At least do a little screaming, don't just lie down and let the > tanks roll over you! Be a man, not a cowardly clerkish mouse! whatever.
From: 4-2-0 on 2 Jan 2010 22:21 There appeared to be a lot of superfluous crud in Leopard that was removed in Snow. Memory leaks are no more. It have been running for 7 days without a boot and only 800M of my 2B used. Previously, it would creep towards the 1.5G used within this same time period. It also freed up 15G of disk space. I have no idea of what, some have said they lost tons of iTunes songs. But I don't see that happening. I can account for everything. Xcode 3.2.1 is absolutely the development platform required right now; another product made more streamlined by stripping out unused crud. The iPhone SDK has grown to 2.5G of a download, while the Mac-only SDK is ~790M. Same code, just different libs. I wonder what the next animal will be? In article <eric-24E88A.21563102012010(a)news.iinet.net.au>, Eric <eric(a)ericlindsay.com> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-54ECC7.11373802012010(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > I still *really don't understand* what would have been so hard in making > > it so Leopard could be easily installed on the 2009 Macbook. It is not > > exactly ancient history! It is all controlled by one company. Beats me! > > Is it sheer crookery? Is it a commercial thing? Is it a very very very > > hard technical hurdle. It's a Mac, it is Intel, it uses SATA drives, it > > is not something made by an advanced civilization with a very foreign ET > > language... <g> > > Apple appear to have some future commercial reason to attempt to push > everyone towards Snow Leopard. Seems to explain making it harder to run > earlier versions on new hardware. Also the far lower price.
From: dorayme on 2 Jan 2010 22:46 In article <020120101905056855%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-4EB3A2.12302403012010(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > Do you understand in the least that I don't want to stick with old > > systems. > > then don't. do you understand that upgrading is not always simple? Yes, the good old days were simple. When I moved to X I still could use 9 apps in Classic, I could even boot into 9. I could use quite old versions of PS going back to 4... I rashly moved to CS to avoid the bother of firing up classic. I was wild and bold in those days... Now, Intel macs can run Windows with Fusion, and run it very well. But ask it to run a perfectly good Mac program that is more than two seconds old and one is involved in deep discussions about Capitalism, Planned Obsolescence and so on..... <g> Leave it be nospam, we are not going to get anywhere. -- dorayme
From: Paul Goodman on 2 Jan 2010 23:39
On 2010-01-02 20:30:24 -0500, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> said: [SNIP] > Do you understand in the least that I don't want to stick with old > systems. My gripe is that they should not be unnecessarily difficult to > run perfectly adequate older software on. [SNIP] Then the people that code the perfectly older software should make sure that their software is compatible with the new operating system. They can send out a patch that works. That is not Apple's responsibility. -- Paul Goodman |