[AF] Mac OSX (was "XP thrashing about")

[David Reaves]

It's been my experience that any significantly useful advance in a  
technology involves the abandonment of varying degrees of backward- 
compatibility.

The oddity that I can (and do) use my newest Mac to run a few  
programs from the early days (MacDraw, Hypercard) while not others  
(ProTools has always been very picky about OS version), is much less  
impressive than the fact that OSX is simply the most bullet-proof OS  
I've ever used in everyday work.

For an OS that has successfully transitioned through three  
**totally** different hardware platforms (Motorola 68000 -> IBM/ 
Motorola PowerPC -> Intel Pentium), the fact that there's any  
backward compatibility at all is just gravy.

David Reaves, Mac Fanboy :-)


On Mon, 21 May 2007 16:54:53 -0800Robert Orban <rorban at earthlink.net>  
wrote:
> <snip>
> OT:
>
> Speaking as a Mac user since the days of the 512K (I have owned a  
> total of
> four Mac models, used in my home studio, over the years, and still  
> use an
> ca-1998 Power Tower Pro clone stuffed with 5 ProTools cards), I can  
> assure
> you that "reboot" was part of the Mac user's vocabulary too. Before  
> OS X,
> an application crash almost invariably required a Mac OS reboot.  
> Starting
> with Windows 95, Microsoft was actually substantially ahead of  
> Apple in
> shielding the OS from application faults. It wasn't until Apple  
> abandoned
> its original OS (up to 9.22, IIRC) that the Mac OS was finally  
> acceptably
> shielding from application crashes and hangs. However, at least for my
> applications, OS X backward compatibility is non-existent. None of the
> Opcode Systems applications that I still use will work correctly on  
> OS X.
>
> As a contrasting example, I would like to relate that I still use
> AutoSketch for Windows, V1, for quick technical drawings. (Why?  
> Because I
> know it well and am very productive on it.) This 1990 Windows 3.1  
> program,
> which is very graphics-extensive, still works perfectly and with  
> complete
> stability on XP. Although written at a time when the 640x480 VGA  
> monitor
> was king, it fully supports the 1920x1200 display I use now. And it  
> will
> correctly print to any printer installed in XP. I suspect that the  
> secret
> of success was that the program's authors followed Microsoft's  
> guidelines
> strictly and did not try to do end runs around the OS to address  
> hardware
> directly.
>
> As you can see, although a long-time Mac user, I am definitely not  
> a Mac
> fanboy. I have had to deal with WAY too many Mac problems over the  
> years
> (INIT conflicts, anyone?) to have stars in my eyes. While I  
> understand that
> many people have had good results with OS X in its various  
> incarnations, a
> visit to the various music production application boards (ProTools,  
> Logic,
> MOTU Digital Performer, Cubase, etc.) will reveal that OS X is not  
> exactly
> without its own set of warts. In those oh-so-smug-and-snarky Mac ads
> running on TV now, I'm waiting for the "Bill Gates" character to  
> point over
> the "Steve Jobs" character's shoulder and say, "Hey dude -- duck! Here
> comes a kernel panic! Just kidding..."
>
> Bob Orban