In theory - sure. Almost anything is possible when all you have to do is wave your hands and say “gee wouldn’t this be grand if .”
In reality you have no clue how big an undertaking that would have been - we would have skipped releases for a long while rearchitecting things to make this possible.
So we could have the XP problem where a 13 year old OS is still among the top installs on the planet ?
I will say I’m not happy when a new version won’t run on my hardware - but changing from 68K to PPC you knew it would happen at some point. From PPC to Intel again you knew that day would come.
About the only machines that don’t run 10.9 are the old Core Duo (not the Core 2 Duos) intel machines & that is because they are not 64 bit. And Apple didm;t use those processors for many machines.
But everything else since 2007 or so does.
Just updated my old MacBook Pro for my daughter. Its 6 years old and running the latest OS.
Moms macbook as well - it’s 5 years old.
You haven’t seen the complaints about $2 for an app in the App Store or Google Play being “too expensive” have you ?
But I don’t think this is Apples doing.
Its been going on in North America for a very long time - disposable pens, disposable razors, disposable diapers, you name it.
“Lower Prices every day” hasn’t helped as you bought more than you needed & threw the excess away (thanks Walmart)
But thats more societal than any single industry could claim responsibility for and a whole different topic.
[quote=78323:@Garth Hjelte]
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.[/quote]
The App stores are predicated on “the device and the software just work”.
Its NOT for developers. Its for the consumers who want to be fairly sure their machine isn’t going to get hacked, infected, etc.
Same for iOS apps.
Google is doing some vetting on Android as well
Since you’re closer to the actual workings than I am, I appreciate your perspective, it rivals mine. Thanks for the info; however, the concept of deployment targets STILL doesn’t seem to me deal-breaking - XCode is free and it has it naturally. Again, I know that Apple has more resources, but in principle (for example) 1) You created something to work in 10.5 once, 2) why can it not exist in your next “something”? Just carry it over and direct the compile to THAT.
This is "in theory"but if REAL had that theory then, the software would go from theory to reality. There WAS a way to do it.
Devalue: I agree, devalued software isn’t Apple doing, but they sure didn’t help matters. Nor did Google/Android et al. All these hardware companies make their money of HARDWARE (not everyone can make hardware) so software is nothing to them.
My position of the App Store and it’s qualifications wasn’t that they shouldn’t have standards, but their excess and how they line up to Apple’s vision, not the developers vision. I certainly can make a program that WORKS (what a vague word) but if Apple doesn’t like it, they dismiss it.
Also, if MAS isn’t for developers, why is Xojo making moves so the apps can be MAS compatible? I’m not splitting hairs, but it must be a LITTLE important for developers if Xojo adjsuts to it and we know Xojo doesn’t have tons of time.
Apple have always been this way… Otherwise we’d still be building 68K, or PPC code…
The only time I need to update Photoshop is when a new OS version is released and my Photoshop no longer works any more.
This one actually makes more sense, it’s part of the reason why the Mac OS is more secure than Windows. Apple will deprecate old APIs that are less secure or APIs which kinda worked but not so efficiently. Also they deprecate APIs which don’t quite make sense.
On the other hand as a Mac developer, I love it and hate it when a new version comes out. I love it, because Apple’s toolbox is second to none in terms of functionality and they just add more stuff to make our lives easier and better. However at the same time, things do get broken. Mind you, I’ve just got confirmation from Apple that one of the two bugs I logged with 10.9 DP have been fixed
This is purely from my perspective, but I do know a lot of developers who would agree with me. If Xojo didn’t work hard to keep up with Apple’s App Store standards, I would change language.
Since the introduction of the MAS, our business has blossomed (because we sell directly to the end user). While some of Apple’s hurdles have been a challenge to say the least, the end result is worth it. App Wrapper doesn’t meet Apple’s guidelines and therefore I’ve never even submitted it. It does pretty well through our site, much better than App Wrapper Mini. However targeting App Wrapper customers is easier than trying to target the mass public. Our photography apps do exponentially better on the App Store than our own site.
It’s like running a little store somewhere, v.s. getting your product into WallMart.
[quote=78327:@Norman Palardy]Just updated my old MacBook Pro for my daughter. Its 6 years old and running the latest OS.
Moms macbook as well - it’s 5 years old.[/quote]
Our 7 year old iMac runs 10.9, and I have to say 10.6 does feel snappier, but 10.9 doesn’t feel like a slouch either.
Our 6 year MBP runs 10.9 (similar story to the iMac).
This is where you seem to be mistaken. If there was a way to do it that made sense, both economically and to the product, Xojo would have done it. They have proven that many times over. In my experience, Xojo seems to err on the side of maintaining compatibility. The times where they break compatibility are conspicuous because they are out of the ordinary.
No, I just said it was POSSIBLE for REAL to do it technologically, and that if it did happen, it would obviously be good for the product (no/less reason for users to use older Xojo versions installed.
“Made sense” is pretty arbitrary - sense for one company is another sense for another. It all depends on personal priority setting for a company. For example, Xojo isn’t going to make the Xojo framework open-source, but given another set of owners and a different culture and/or opinions/priorities, maybe they would. There isn’t this global SENSE that applies to all living software creatures.
If I seem bullheaded about thinking it could have been done, just consider me an idealist of what can be done with programming and computers. Guys, computers can do ANYTHING. We don’t have to walk around on eggshells just doing particular things afraid of failure and stunting the possibilities. I just don’t think in limits, and if one company did something, certainly it can be done by another. I get the realism - especially that software companies are in business and money is involved - but I don’t understand this preoccupation about “can it be done?” Man, if a handful of people did what they did in 1975 with 8K, surely miracles can happen today.
Let’s all go back to the original post: All I said was that Apple isn’t “forcing” (KEY WORD) Xojo to do anything. The fact is is that Xojo drops previous OSX and processor compiles because of their OWN design decision(s) made prior. Of course that decision was influenced in part by how Apple runs things, but only in part. I’m sure there’s many other reasons having nothing to do with Apple, and Joe Rainieri has mentioned several on this forum (he’s the expert after all, and Norman has firsthand knowledge).
None of this is a negative on REAL/Xojo; having access to previous versions, plus having good interoperability solves the issue. However, I did mention (and hadn’t gotten an answer) that I wondered how new owners fare - what if they want to compile for PPC or 10.4, or now just want 10.6 targets? Does Xojo sell those or does the new licenses include the older versions?
I think the thing you’re overlooking is 15 years of accumulated cruft that begins to significantly limit the “anything” that can be done. I’m not trying to defend Xojo’s decisions, but I’ve worked on Xojo-sized projects and I understand how quickly the idealism boat ceases to float.
As far as prior versions go, a simple email to customer support is likely to yield the desired result. I doubt that Xojo would turn down any reasonable request. And if you couldn’t get a copy from Xojo directly, you could easily find an installer. Any version of Xojo/RS/RB prior to your license will run. The license limits future versions, not past ones.
Well certainly opened a can of worms there! Thanks for all the replies guys. So to sum up for me:
I didn’t need to upgrade from 2011r3 to 2014r1 because I don’t use the Apple Store to distribute my app. However it will take advantage of latest fixes.
2011r3 will build from 10.4 upto the latest release. My customer would prefer one build rather than multiple builds for OS X
[quote=78347:@Sam Rowlands]This is purely from my perspective, but I do know a lot of developers who would agree with me. If Xojo didn’t work hard to keep up with Apple’s App Store standards, I would change language.
Since the introduction of the MAS, our business has blossomed (because we sell directly to the end user). While some of Apple’s hurdles have been a challenge to say the least, the end result is worth it. App Wrapper doesn’t meet Apple’s guidelines and therefore I’ve never even submitted it. It does pretty well through our site, much better than App Wrapper Mini. However targeting App Wrapper customers is easier than trying to target the mass public. Our photography apps do exponentially better on the App Store than our own site.
It’s like running a little store somewhere, v.s. getting your product into WallMart.[/quote]
[quote=78375:@Tim Hare]I think the thing you’re overlooking is 15 years of accumulated cruft that begins to significantly limit the “anything” that can be done.[.quote]
Not if it’s designed in parallel. Which means that you shed the cruft out to files/modules and you don’t embed present work in odl code (e.g. #ifdefs all over the place). In C++, this can be just as easy as linking to a different set of .h files. I’m not expecting for Xojo to SUPPORT older compiles, just to retain the past functionality in newer versions of the software instead of shedding it. We are really only talking about disk space here, which is as cheap as gumballs.
My entire point is that this isn’t FORCED on Xojo, it’s a reflection of their own design decisions.
I’m sure you’re right (I’m a firsthand recipient of the graciousness of Xojo), but then one thinks further and says “hey, I spent over $2000+ in past renewals and now the new owner gets all that for FREE?” Xojo could privately set up a paid deal but then that’s fraught with unfairness. Personally I think Xojo should continue to retain the SKU’s of the certain end-of-life versions (2011r3 et. al), just a thought.
I’m not so sure this is right, especially considering that the whole product structure changed when Xojo was released. I can’t test this, but I’m not so sure you can start up RS2011r3 and upon asking for your serial you put in your current Xojo one and it’ll accept it. But I could be wrong.
Thanks to everyone for this little excessive “blowing into the wind” - I know compiling for past OSX versions is limited but my goal was to make sure everyone understood the context of why things are the way they are. People commonly ask the “why doesn’t Xojo compile for ” and it’s better to know the whole context.
[quote=78358:@Garth Hjelte]No, I just said it was POSSIBLE for REAL to do it technologically, and that if it did happen, it would obviously be good for the product (no/less reason for users to use older Xojo versions installed.
[/quote]
THEORETICALLY it would have been possible.
REALISTICALLY we would have had to skip releases for so long that it would have done irreparable harm to our business & yours.
Since nearly one-out-of-five Macs are still running Snow Leopard, the desire to support it is as understandable as Apple’s abandonment of such a large portion of their user base is mystifying.
But the situation is what it is, and when we deploy to OS X 10.6 we’re encouraging people to stay with an OS version that’s increasingly unsafe. Unless Apple reverses this decision, Snow Leopard is only suitable for use in environments unconnected to the Internet.
Painful as it is for all of us (I loved my MBP that can’t upgrade to Lion), I have to think twice about playing a role in encouraging people to use an unsafe system. Since Apple doesn’t normally provide advance notice to users about OS EOL like other vendors do, most folks running SL don’t even know the position they’re in.
