7 ms·

It's always bothered me that Apple has so little backwards compatibility. I suppose that's why Windows is used by most of the corporate world for "reliability"

It's always bothered me that Apple has so little backwards compatibility. I suppose that's why Windows is used by most of the corporate world for "reliability" (more reliable than Apple), and "ease of use" (people don't want to learn command line for Linux). It's just the mid option

opan 1y ago
Doesn't this mainly come down to Macs using weirder architectures while Windows largely stuck to the IBM PC and its clones/descendants? I'm also seeing more software lately talking about dropping support for Windows 7 or 8 after a certain release.
- p_ing 1y ago
  There's no reason today's macOS couldn't support a Classic environment, like the early releases of OS X. There are a lot of support costs surrounding such an environment, so I don't blame Apple for dropping it. It supports x86 emulation, for now. I believe Windows has seen more architectures than Mac OS Classic and OS X combined. Windows 3rd party software often drops support because Microsoft doesn't support the OS. It could be the desire to use new APIs that aren't included in 7/8 (or soon to be 10), but it's hard to support an operating system as an app vendor that the OS vendor doesn't support. I always liked VMware's statement that they would support NT4 and above -- like, no you can't.
  - flomo 1y ago
    Classic ran as suid root and was a big huge security hole on a multiuser OS. (which is probably why they got rid of it as soon as they could.) There are some more contained emulators of course.
  - microtonal 1y ago
    * I believe Windows has seen more architectures than Mac OS Classic and OS X combined.* I have never been a Windows user, but I used to keep an eye on it when NT was still the separate business version (pre-Vista) and my NT 4.0 (or was it 3.51?) CD-ROM had x86, MIPS, Alpha and maybe PowerPC support. When things weren’t as clear platform-wise, NT was really a multi-platform system. Since then also x86_64, IA64, ARM64.
    - p_ing 1y ago
      CE adds SH3 to the processor list.
      - rjsw 1y ago
        And ARM32.
chongli 1y ago
Apple's built their entire company on dropping backwards compatibility. It's how they've maintained their agility for so long, despite being one of the largest companies on the planet.
- WorldPeas 1y ago
  I am prone to defend them, but they do it in a sensical way (most of the time), I plugged in a G3 whose hard drive was last written to when I was playing hopscotch and when I connected it to wifi it had an official update patch ready for me. They aren't perfect but how many other companies do that. I'd argue that their unflinchingness to move on hardware-wise, and long software support is what gave them success.
  - homefree 1y ago
    Yeah imo they support backwards compatibility where it matters and their hardware is useful for longer as a result. They’re also not afraid to drop it when it’s important to do so.
- p_ing 1y ago
  They're a phone device manufacture, which is how they became the first or second largest company, depending on how the tariffs blow. Mac and macOS are afterthoughts at this point.
  - PurestGuava 1y ago
    They have somewhere near 10% share of the laptop market and the new Apple Silicon stuff absolutely cooks. For an afterthought, they're an exceptionally well-built and well-loved one that people enjoy using.
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  I would say that counterintuitively, it’s a factor in the Mac’s strong indieware/botique software scene, which has been going for decades now. Most devs in that camp keep up with the platform changes and those who don’t get swept away, opening up space for someone else to fill that niche.
LeFantome 1y ago
The incentives are very different (or used to be). Microsoft was selling software and needed that software to work. Making it work in as much hardware as possible was a good thing. Apple was selling hardware and needed customers to upgrade that hardware over time. Microsoft sells hardware now too, and cares more about the cloud. So, they are not so much about deep compatibility anymore.
heresie-dabord 1y ago
> It's always bothered me that Apple has so little backwards compatibility. Hear, hear! Outside the corporate world's devices, I insist that my personal computing choices bring me either high confidence or personally useful knowledge/growth, or I will ban the product/company with malice. I banned APPL for foisting the full load of supporting older devices onto me, and MSFT Windows 11 is facing my personal banishment for kicking all older (but perfectly serviceable) hardware to the curb. I thank the Linux ecosystem every single day.
pjmlp 1y ago
Apple platforms only had command line after NeXT reverse acquision, it isn't as if A/UX was a huge success, so it is kind of ironic see that mentioned. It was specially clear in the early days of MS-DOS versus Mac OS.
graemep 1y ago
> people don't want to learn command line for Linux The same applies to Windows and Apple's OS. The point about the command line is that it is there for people who want it. You can use all of them without using the command line.
mschuster91 1y ago
> It's always bothered me that Apple has so little backwards compatibility. So little? macOS Sequoia is compatible with Macs that are over seven years old [1], macOS Sonoma goes back to 2017 [2]. At that point, it doesn't make much sense for anyone to still be operating these things in a production setting because of power efficiency and lack of RAM - and all Intel macOS machines can be used with even the most cutting-edge Linux distributions anyway if you wish to further extend their service life. If you need a modern Windows though, you'll most likely want to go via a hypervisor because of TPM concerns. The old PPC clankers, it's a miracle the hardware is still running and they haven't died from bad capacitors, Soldergate or whatever in the time. [1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/120282 https://support.apple.com/en-us/120282 [2] https://support.apple.com/en-us/105113 https://support.apple.com/en-us/105113
- goosedragons 1y ago
  Is that good? Windows 11 officially supports computers from 2017 too, Linux way further. Ubuntu 24.04 will happily run on machines over a decade old with no problems. And Apple has poor backwards compatibility. You can't run 32-bit Intel binaries on anything newer than 10.14. PPC has been out of the question for over 15 years. Meanwhile even on Windows on Arm you can run stuff made with XP or even Windows 98 in mind.
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    > Windows 11 officially supports computers from 2017 too ... assuming they have TPM 2.0, which is far from a given. > And Apple has poor backwards compatibility. You can't run 32-bit Intel binaries on anything newer than 10.14. Fair point. Apple is indeed more aggressive on backwards compatibility in software... which is both a blessing and a curse. At the very least, it forces app developers to stay at least somewhat current, which means that Apple has far less legacy garbage to drag around - unlike Windows, where Microsoft went through at least half a dozen completely different programming frameworks and paradigms alone relating to "how to draw a window on the screen" which it has to support to this day simply because otherwise the complaints would be endless. And Linux is even worse in that regard. > PPC has been out of the question for over 15 years. Meanwhile even on Windows on Arm you can run stuff made with XP or even Windows 98 in mind. If you really have such old software and a need for it... run it on a VM.
hahamrfunnyguy 1y ago
Apple hates when you do this but they can't stop you: I still have one of the original Intel Core Duo Mac Minis from 2006. I upgraded the HDD at one point and also installed Windows. I use it to run a CNC mill.
poulsbohemian 1y ago
I'm writing this on a ten year old Mac with specs in line with what I see on dell.com as still available in new systems, with Apple still delivering some software updates yearly. All the apps I use have been available in both Intel and Apple Silicon flavors. I'm not sure how much more I can expect from Apple / the Apple ecosphere.
- 71bw 1y ago
  ...what Mac are you using then, again? Because I have a 2017(!!!!) MacBook Pro that's completely unusable due to its terrible performance and fans going at 100% all the time.
  - Eugen_RS 1y ago
    Open it and clean the fan. After it, it will work like a new one.
  - poulsbohemian 1y ago
    iMac - i7 processor, 32gb of ram. Still a very serviceable machine by the specs.
- SpecialistK 1y ago
  You say: > specs in line with what I see on dell.com as still available in new systems But I'm not sure if you mean the relative performance of an entry-level chip like the N100 or the raw numbers like "6-8 core, 3.8GHz" - the performance may be fine for your use-cases but doesn't actually compare to decade-newer chips like M2 when pushed. > Apple still delivering some software updates yearly They deserve a lot more credit for this transition than the PPC-Intel one, that's for sure...

opan 1y ago

Doesn't this mainly come down to Macs using weirder architectures while Windows largely stuck to the IBM PC and its clones/descendants? I'm also seeing more software lately talking about dropping support for Windows 7 or 8 after a certain release.

p_ing 1y ago
There's no reason today's macOS couldn't support a Classic environment, like the early releases of OS X. There are a lot of support costs surrounding such an environment, so I don't blame Apple for dropping it. It supports x86 emulation, for now. I believe Windows has seen more architectures than Mac OS Classic and OS X combined. Windows 3rd party software often drops support because Microsoft doesn't support the OS. It could be the desire to use new APIs that aren't included in 7/8 (or soon to be 10), but it's hard to support an operating system as an app vendor that the OS vendor doesn't support. I always liked VMware's statement that they would support NT4 and above -- like, no you can't.
- flomo 1y ago
  Classic ran as suid root and was a big huge security hole on a multiuser OS. (which is probably why they got rid of it as soon as they could.) There are some more contained emulators of course.
- microtonal 1y ago
  * I believe Windows has seen more architectures than Mac OS Classic and OS X combined.* I have never been a Windows user, but I used to keep an eye on it when NT was still the separate business version (pre-Vista) and my NT 4.0 (or was it 3.51?) CD-ROM had x86, MIPS, Alpha and maybe PowerPC support. When things weren’t as clear platform-wise, NT was really a multi-platform system. Since then also x86_64, IA64, ARM64.
  - p_ing 1y ago
    CE adds SH3 to the processor list.
    - rjsw 1y ago
      And ARM32.

chongli 1y ago

Apple's built their entire company on dropping backwards compatibility. It's how they've maintained their agility for so long, despite being one of the largest companies on the planet.

WorldPeas 1y ago
I am prone to defend them, but they do it in a sensical way (most of the time), I plugged in a G3 whose hard drive was last written to when I was playing hopscotch and when I connected it to wifi it had an official update patch ready for me. They aren't perfect but how many other companies do that. I'd argue that their unflinchingness to move on hardware-wise, and long software support is what gave them success.
- homefree 1y ago
  Yeah imo they support backwards compatibility where it matters and their hardware is useful for longer as a result. They’re also not afraid to drop it when it’s important to do so.
p_ing 1y ago
They're a phone device manufacture, which is how they became the first or second largest company, depending on how the tariffs blow. Mac and macOS are afterthoughts at this point.
- PurestGuava 1y ago
  They have somewhere near 10% share of the laptop market and the new Apple Silicon stuff absolutely cooks. For an afterthought, they're an exceptionally well-built and well-loved one that people enjoy using.
cosmic_cheese 1y ago
I would say that counterintuitively, it’s a factor in the Mac’s strong indieware/botique software scene, which has been going for decades now. Most devs in that camp keep up with the platform changes and those who don’t get swept away, opening up space for someone else to fill that niche.

LeFantome 1y ago

The incentives are very different (or used to be). Microsoft was selling software and needed that software to work. Making it work in as much hardware as possible was a good thing. Apple was selling hardware and needed customers to upgrade that hardware over time. Microsoft sells hardware now too, and cares more about the cloud. So, they are not so much about deep compatibility anymore.

heresie-dabord 1y ago

> It's always bothered me that Apple has so little backwards compatibility. Hear, hear! Outside the corporate world's devices, I insist that my personal computing choices bring me either high confidence or personally useful knowledge/growth, or I will ban the product/company with malice. I banned APPL for foisting the full load of supporting older devices onto me, and MSFT Windows 11 is facing my personal banishment for kicking all older (but perfectly serviceable) hardware to the curb. I thank the Linux ecosystem every single day.

pjmlp 1y ago

Apple platforms only had command line after NeXT reverse acquision, it isn't as if A/UX was a huge success, so it is kind of ironic see that mentioned. It was specially clear in the early days of MS-DOS versus Mac OS.

graemep 1y ago

> people don't want to learn command line for Linux The same applies to Windows and Apple's OS. The point about the command line is that it is there for people who want it. You can use all of them without using the command line.

mschuster91 1y ago

> It's always bothered me that Apple has so little backwards compatibility. So little? macOS Sequoia is compatible with Macs that are over seven years old [1], macOS Sonoma goes back to 2017 [2]. At that point, it doesn't make much sense for anyone to still be operating these things in a production setting because of power efficiency and lack of RAM - and all Intel macOS machines can be used with even the most cutting-edge Linux distributions anyway if you wish to further extend their service life. If you need a modern Windows though, you'll most likely want to go via a hypervisor because of TPM concerns. The old PPC clankers, it's a miracle the hardware is still running and they haven't died from bad capacitors, Soldergate or whatever in the time. [1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/120282 https://support.apple.com/en-us/120282 [2] https://support.apple.com/en-us/105113 https://support.apple.com/en-us/105113

goosedragons 1y ago
Is that good? Windows 11 officially supports computers from 2017 too, Linux way further. Ubuntu 24.04 will happily run on machines over a decade old with no problems. And Apple has poor backwards compatibility. You can't run 32-bit Intel binaries on anything newer than 10.14. PPC has been out of the question for over 15 years. Meanwhile even on Windows on Arm you can run stuff made with XP or even Windows 98 in mind.
- mschuster91 1y ago
  > Windows 11 officially supports computers from 2017 too ... assuming they have TPM 2.0, which is far from a given. > And Apple has poor backwards compatibility. You can't run 32-bit Intel binaries on anything newer than 10.14. Fair point. Apple is indeed more aggressive on backwards compatibility in software... which is both a blessing and a curse. At the very least, it forces app developers to stay at least somewhat current, which means that Apple has far less legacy garbage to drag around - unlike Windows, where Microsoft went through at least half a dozen completely different programming frameworks and paradigms alone relating to "how to draw a window on the screen" which it has to support to this day simply because otherwise the complaints would be endless. And Linux is even worse in that regard. > PPC has been out of the question for over 15 years. Meanwhile even on Windows on Arm you can run stuff made with XP or even Windows 98 in mind. If you really have such old software and a need for it... run it on a VM.

hahamrfunnyguy 1y ago

Apple hates when you do this but they can't stop you: I still have one of the original Intel Core Duo Mac Minis from 2006. I upgraded the HDD at one point and also installed Windows. I use it to run a CNC mill.

poulsbohemian 1y ago

I'm writing this on a ten year old Mac with specs in line with what I see on dell.com as still available in new systems, with Apple still delivering some software updates yearly. All the apps I use have been available in both Intel and Apple Silicon flavors. I'm not sure how much more I can expect from Apple / the Apple ecosphere.

71bw 1y ago
...what Mac are you using then, again? Because I have a 2017(!!!!) MacBook Pro that's completely unusable due to its terrible performance and fans going at 100% all the time.
- Eugen_RS 1y ago
  Open it and clean the fan. After it, it will work like a new one.
- poulsbohemian 1y ago
  iMac - i7 processor, 32gb of ram. Still a very serviceable machine by the specs.
SpecialistK 1y ago
You say: > specs in line with what I see on dell.com as still available in new systems But I'm not sure if you mean the relative performance of an entry-level chip like the N100 or the raw numbers like "6-8 core, 3.8GHz" - the performance may be fine for your use-cases but doesn't actually compare to decade-newer chips like M2 when pushed. > Apple still delivering some software updates yearly They deserve a lot more credit for this transition than the PPC-Intel one, that's for sure...