I am a Windows guy so my knowledge of OS X is limited. I have been having issues with our new app release in 10.8 so I thought I would upgrade from 2011r3 to the latest version (2014r1). I thought this would now target intel Macs but clients on intel Macs on 10.6 are not able to run the software saying it requires 10.7. I can’t find any definitive answer on what version of rb/xojo supports what OS X. Please can anyone advise. Thanks.
http://documentation.xojo.com/index.php/System_requirements
and the linked page
And as this has been discussed before… 10.7 is a minimum requirement not because XOJO wants it to be, but Apple requires it…
Thank you, that helps. So I see you need 10.7 for 2014r1. Does 2011r3 then produce apps that run from 10.x to 10.9.2?
Yes, but you won’t be able to get them onto the Mac APP Store or take advantage of recent bug fixes (naturally).
Are you building as Carbon or Cocoa ?
Chris, yes, it even does Cocoa for Tiger and PPC even. It was beta but I’ve found it pretty good for simpler things.
Kem, is there some type of Super FAQ page or Wiki where people can go for common info - at least it would post like 20-40 of the most common questions and link it out. I agree that the sys req is sort of a obvious page for the OP to go to and he probably should of found it on his own, but it still begs the thought that perhaps a central page of FAQ should exist. Does it, and should it, and who/what is a good diea to go about it? (It’d be nice to just forward all these people with common questions to ONE place.)
Dave, Xojo actually could support older versions if they wanted to, they just didn’t see it as practical for them. So it still was Xojo’s decision, Apple wasn’t forcing them to. Xojo’s modus operandi is instead of doing the work to cover older platforms, they pass it to the user to use older versions of REAL/Xojo. I don’t mind it, except that it makes me nervous that some bug (or feature implemented) I care about that has nothing to do with platform-support will be implemented in a newer Xojo. But so far, so good.
If I was totally update-coded (I’m not), this is how I’d distribute my apps; 4 binaries!
-Compose in the IDE I feel most comfortable with (RS2011r3 for now)
-Build in RS2011r3 in Carbon for PPC and 10.4/10.5 compatibility
-Build in Xojo r3 in Cocoa for 10.6 compatibility
-Build in Xojo 2014r1 in Cocoa for 10.7+ compatibility
-Build in Xojo 2014r1 for Windows
Xojo could have foreseen this, and I’m sure they did (very smart people) - but decided either explicitly or subconsciously that they wanted to let older things behind and not bother including those things as options. Again, I just really hope that they don’t lock the door behind them.
I do wish, though, that Xojo was more transparent about that decision. In fact - what happens to those people who buy today, do they have access to even RS2011r3 to build PPC and 10.6- things? Are they even licensed for that? I’m privileged that I was licensed for them at some point. If they can’t, can they buy those older versions?
So lets be clear: Apple doesn’t really make anyone do anything. (Thank God.)
There is a FAQ at the Xojo support page, and that lead me to the links above.
Yes Apple was forcing them to. Apple not only deprecated, but in some cases removed support for things with little if any notice (QT support was one). There are plenty of discussion topics on this forum relating to exactly that.
I’m not trying to split hairs, I’m just talking about the fundamental truth.
“Forcing” means they had no other option. But they did - they could (have) design(ed) Xojo to take on properties of the older versions so it could compile just like it did in earlier versions. It’s certainly possible.
But they didn’t - for perhaps good global reasons but more importantly for their own priorities. Not every program has to do everything, and Xojo decide to limit things for their own reasons. But it doesn’t mean they could have if they wanted to.
[quote=78157:@Garth Hjelte]I’m not trying to split hairs, I’m just talking about the fundamental truth.
“Forcing” means they had no other option. But they did - they could (have) design(ed) Xojo to take on properties of the older versions so it could compile just like it did in earlier versions. It’s certainly possible.
[/quote]
Given an infinite amount of time, money &/or engineers certainly
I’m not aware that we have any of those
Even a finite of engineers could accomplish it, just more than the finite engineers Xojo Corp. has presently or wishes to prioritize.
INFINITE means Xojo isn’t going to support TRS80 anytime soon. =)
Again, the spreading out of responsibility makes everyone happy at this point, I wasn’t meaning to split hairs but Apple wasn’t forcing Xojo to do anything, it was just a simpler option.
(Besides, it enables Xojo to fix this forum when someone writes a long reply - like I just did - and hits POST A REPLY - and it says “you don’t have permission” and there is no BACK option to get your reply - the text gone forever. I usually habitually copy into the clipboard any reply just for this reason, but I’m not perfect. Fix this please.)
But again, I do wonder what options a new Xojo owner has? Can he get older versions for free or is there a a charge for that? I seem to recall that a person has to contact Xojo privately and persuade them if that’s what want.
There is a “Save Draft” button in the lower left, just click on that now an then…
[quote=78162:@Garth Hjelte]Even a finite of engineers could accomplish it, just more than the finite engineers Xojo Corp. has presently or wishes to prioritize.
INFINITE means Xojo isn’t going to support TRS80 anytime soon. =)
Again, the spreading out of responsibility makes everyone happy at this point, I wasn’t meaning to split hairs but Apple wasn’t forcing Xojo to do anything, it was just a simpler option.
[/quote]
Apple + users + time frames = have to make choices
We could have said “hey you have to wait a year then we’ll have a version that can compile for everything it used to + still submit to MAS with Apples revised rules”
THAT would have been fun to endure 
Theoretically we probably could have done as you suggest
- give us a year (well 6 months at least to rejig the compiler, frameworks & IDE)
- no requirement to ship more updates
- or we hire more engineers which adds months to the cycle to bring them up to speed
- the money to do it since we probably could not ship an update & do such a big change so we’d need revenue
- no other priorities to deliver on iOS, 64 bit, llvm etc
- no pressure from users to “do it now” so they can submit to the MAS and make money
sure we could do that
Then reality sets in
But they did take on the properties of older versions. It’s called 2013R3.3. It is stable and reliable. I am not the only one who used it with joy before Apple decided on the diktat that rejected all apps produced with it.
Dont’ you understand that without MAJOR modifications 2014R1 could not generate code that would be acceptable to new Apple requirements ? The complexity of insuring a flawless transition from QuickTime and QTKit to a new framework within a compiler is probably well beyond the competences of many of us. Yet, Xojo succeeded into creating a new tool that a vast majority of developers appreciate as efficient, and which brings several appreciable improvements. Why on earth do you want a brand new car to still use an engine from the 50’s ?
But in any developer’s situation it’s not the machine they choose to use it’s the one their customers choose (or don’t choose).
And before you say “but they should upgrade” remember that not all customers are alike because not all markets are alike. If you write a utility app for a specific market, they may all be using older machines for that purpose - even if they use new machines on their desks.
I don’t have a problem with Xojo updating 2014r1 for full, happy Mac App Store compliance but the discussion above doesn’t even mention that Apple only requires apps to be QuickTime-free when submitting to the MAS. Any other distribution method is unaffected.
Theoretically we probably could have made the compiler be able to build with any one of the old frameworks & new frameworks
We’d have to have
- a Carbon framework that uses QTKit/Quicktime (not for MAS submissions)
- a Cocoa framework that uses QTKit/Quicktime (not for MAS submissions)
- a Cocoa framework that uses AVFoundation (for MAS submissions)
and whatever changes this would require to project building, linkers, etc
Then test & release so in 6 months or so people would once again be able to submit things to MAS
And then reality imposes itself since we know QTKit & Quicktime are deprecated & have been for years (lord knows when they will be removed)
Supporting older OSes & old frameworks is a LOT of work since it’s not a single code base (that makes it even harder)
Exactly - that’s why apple drops support for machines as time marches on as well
And they have far more resources to support them than we do
Reality is that you can’t support everything forever - some changes in the OS etc force us to make choices that, while painful, are necessary
I am not saying “they should upgrade”. Just the contrary. 2013R3.3 is perfect for older platforms such as 10.6 and has amply proven it is a good tool. Why insist to carry older platform support in 2014R1 when in fact 2013R1 is perfectly satisfactory ?
[quote=78150:@Garth Hjelte]Build in RS2011r3 in Carbon for PPC and 10.4/10.5 compatibility
Build in Xojo r3 in Cocoa for 10.6 compatibility
Build in Xojo 2014r1 in Cocoa for 10.7+ compatibility
Build in Xojo 2014r1 for Windows[/quote]
Darn, that doesn’t sound programmer friendly (caused by Apple, not Xojo!). For once, I’m glad I’ll stick with Windows only for the moment…
Again, if Xojo saw this as important (better if earlier), they could have done it. And again, I’m talking about Xojo theoretically having a “mode” switch (like XCode had) saying what your deployment target is and you program and compile accordingly. I UNDERSTAND (from Norman) that this is too late for Xojo to do, what I’m saying is that “there was a time” where that could have been a priority and the core design could have adapted that. So it isn’t Apple forcing Xojo, it’s Xojo by design working alongside Apple developments. If Apple did something crazy tomorrow, Xojo could adapt very quickly since they’ve previously planned that sticking around for older platforms is not a high priority - they simply abandon ship and say “if you want to do this, must use NEW XOJO, but if you want lower compatibility, use OLD XOJO”.
Again, I’m not dissing them at all, rather I’m just trying to bring out and encourage developers WITH YOUR SOFTWARE that if you just put a little extra effort and care into design and how you implement certain things, you 1) don’t have to leave people behind, 2) don’t keep encouraging the myth that everyone needs the latest OSX, and 3) you serve the people that (in part) value their working systems and don’t want to screw it up by funding Apple Corp. This also forces Apple that when they put out an new OS it’s not just decorator ware or something frivolous. (Of course, my argument is weaker now that Apple is giving away the OS, but still they don’t want people not bothering to get the latest and greatest for dumb new ancillary useless features.
I believe a disposable culture inherently starts devaluing the software - if it hasn’t already. Boy, I’m glad I sell my own software and get 100% of the profit. I’m an exception though, but still there’s got to be a better way than MAS and it’s draconian insistences. You know, there’s no reason why Apple couldn’t just let people sell stuff and not post so many “rules” - you know, some sci-fi writer must of wrote a book about this about 50 years ago, and now it’s coming true.