Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 22nd Oct 2008 07:33 UTC
Legal Earlier this week we reported on the court case between Apple and PsyStar, stating they went into settlement negotiations. Details, however, were sparse. The law firm representing PsyStar has now replied to the matter, and there's good news for those of us who hope to see crazy EULA clauses tested in court.
Thread beginning with comment 334562
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Not Surprised
by bert64 on Wed 22nd Oct 2008 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not Surprised"
bert64
Member since:
2007-04-23

Apple retain backwards compatibility long enough...
And they retain it by providing emulation, rather than encumbering new software with old bugs and design flaws...
I have an Intel based Mac, and it can run ppc osx apps through emulation despite the different hardware. I can also emulate PPC or M68k macs running OS9 or earlier and run older apps, which in some cases are faster than the real hardware was. That said, i have very little use for such old apps, mostly proprietary games.
On the other hand, old open source apps can generally just be recompiled - i run xv on my mac, which was written for unix systems in the early 90s and hasn't really changed since then.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Not Surprised
by niemau on Wed 22nd Oct 2008 16:08 in reply to "RE[4]: Not Surprised"
niemau Member since:
2007-06-28

Apple retain backwards compatibility long enough...
And they retain it by providing emulation, rather than encumbering new software with old bugs and design flaws...
I have an Intel based Mac, and it can run ppc osx apps through emulation despite the different hardware. I can also emulate PPC or M68k macs running OS9 or earlier and run older apps, which in some cases are faster than the real hardware was.


agreed, mostly. apple, after all, has dropped 'classic' support from leopard. this is remedied, fairly easily, by running sheepshaver, or basilisk for very old applications. albeit, without the integration that apple provided via 'classic'. point being, apple isn't providing the compatibility there. Mac OS 9 is a very old OS, though. i don't consider it absolutely critical that apple maintain that particular support.

what would be absolutely perfect (for me, at least) would be if somebody would put effort back into the Mac-On-Linux project (or something similar), to support an intel build of OS X. i realize that there are people who have gotten 'hackintosh distros' of OS X running in vmware; but, it would be very nice to be able to use a vanilla install in a virtual machine on a *nix box. or, for that matter, even on an actual mac already running mac os x. as far as i know, we're still not allowed to virtualize mac os x on mac os x. hmmmph.

it's really because of these limitations that people have resorted to 'ducking into back-alleys' to run mac os x in a less-than-approved manner. well, that, and people really like bittorrent.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Not Surprised
by google_ninja on Wed 22nd Oct 2008 19:42 in reply to "RE[4]: Not Surprised"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

There is a difference between keeping a legacy api around, and keeping binary compatibility between major revisions. If an app is targeting cocoa, it will break with every major revision.

Reply Parent Score: 2