Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Apr 2008 19:50 UTC, submitted by tupp
Graphics, User Interfaces From John Nack's blog: "In the interest of giving customers guidance as early as possible, we have some news to share on this point: in addition to offering 32-bit-native versions for Mac OS X and 32-bit Windows, just as we do today, we plan to ship the next version of Photoshop as 64-bit-native for Windows 64-bit OSes only."
Thread beginning with comment 308311
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]:
by ba1l on Sat 5th Apr 2008 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE: "
ba1l
Member since:
2007-09-08

Rubbish.

Microsoft drop support for legacy APIs all the time. There's plenty of stuff out there that Microsoft don't maintain anymore, and that isn't supported by their current development tools.

Old apps can keep using them, but they can't expect to be able to use modern development tools, libraries, or even to work on 64-bit Windows.

Microsoft's idea of backwards compatibility, aside from causing all kinds of problems with forward compatibility, is binary only. Microsoft do not, and never have, claimed source backwards and forwards compatibility.

Besides, Apple are being pragmatic. They can not possibley afford to lug the backwards compatibility albatross around with them. Microsoft can't afford to either (see recent article on Windows 7), so what chance do Apple, a hardware company with a tiny fraction as many resources have?

Edited 2008-04-05 12:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]:
by google_ninja on Sat 5th Apr 2008 16:49 in reply to "RE[2]: "
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Microsoft typically directly supports its products for 7 years. When it comes to APIs, they only ever really break compatiblity every 10 years or so.

Apple typically supports its products for about 2 years, and they break API compatibility with EVERY release, which typically means once a year.

Linux is the worst when we are talking about ever-shifting APIs, the linux API will often break compatibility in minor bug fix releases.

When you look at it this way, you see why Linux has next to no commercial support, Apple has a moderate amount (although mostly from small shops with agile teams), and Microsoft is the one that ISVs love the most.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]:
by evangs on Sat 5th Apr 2008 17:40 in reply to "RE[3]: "
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07


Apple typically supports its products for about 2 years, and they break API compatibility with EVERY release, which typically means once a year.


Eh, what? Tell me what broke during the transition from Panther to Tiger? From Tiger to Leopard? Apple releases a new version of OS X every year? There isn't an ounce of truth in anything that you've said.

The fact that there are applications that work on Leopard and not on older systems has little to do with broken APIs. It's because Apple is introducing new APIs and in the case of Leopard, Objective-C 2.0 which developers willingly adopt that makes it impossible to support older versions of OS X. If the developers were so inclined, they'd ignore the new APIs/features and target 10.2+. It is still possible, but nobody does it since most users rarely lag by more than one OS X version.


Linux is the worst when we are talking about ever-shifting APIs, the linux API will often break compatibility in minor bug fix releases.


No? You're confusing API with ABI.


When you look at it this way, you see why Linux has next to no commercial support, Apple has a moderate amount (although mostly from small shops with agile teams), and Microsoft is the one that ISVs love the most.


If Microsoft could have dumped Win32 and MFC support, they would have gladly done it years ago.

Reply Parent Score: 4