|
by Motherhead 01/25/2006, 11:45am PST |
|
 |
|
 |
|
corax wrote:
Wow, so it only took three people to port GIMP 2 and Freetype? Did you even own a Mac back then?
Anyone who wanted to do anything in OS X for the first year or two was stuck dual-booting to do trivial tasks such as checking their email (Mail 1.0 was buggy and incomplete) or writing a letter (printing from Classic was nearly impossible). Even for the non-hackers, being told to revert to OS 9 after laying down $130 for OS X was not much fun. OS X was clearly beta software when it was first released, with far poorer backwards compatability than previously advertised.
Which brings us to the Intel Macs: once again, major apps only run under emulation, Rosetta in this case. There are two main differences this time, however: it's hardware emulation, so it's probably even slower (relatively) than Classic, and there is no OS 9-like fallback if something just refuses to work. If paying for beta software is bad, paying for beta hardware is even worse.
You are talking about 10.0? The actual public beta release? The one that Apple and all of the Apple press labled with "Do Not Use as Primary OS?" Well then yeah, that was a piece of shit. I think I booted that once, laughed and ignored it. I thought you were talking about 10.1 which was the first incarnation of OSX that could possibly be taken seriously.
Fuck Rosetta, I'm not now nor would I ever count on a compatibily layer to make money. Are you telling me you expect no Native versions of Adobe products shipping concurrently with 10.5? Do you know something we don't? Because news of Adobe not supporting Apple's platform shift would be arguably bigger news than Apple's platform shift. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Mac users loyal not to Apple, but to past by I need clarification 01/24/2006, 12:19am PST 
Buh? by Motherhead 01/24/2006, 1:23am PST 
Re: Buh? by corax 01/24/2006, 2:49am PST 
Re: Buh? by Motherhead 01/24/2006, 3:10am PST 
Re: Buh? by corax 01/24/2006, 11:24am PST 
Re: Buh? by Motherhead 01/24/2006, 12:29pm PST 
Re: Buh? by corax 01/24/2006, 7:01pm PST 
All 4 OSX 10.0 image processing hackers: snubbed NT by Entropy Stew 01/24/2006, 8:08pm PST 
Re: All 4 OSX 10.0 image processing hackers: snubbed by corax 01/25/2006, 7:06am PST 
Re: All 4 OSX 10.0 image processing hackers: snubbed by Entropy Stew 01/25/2006, 11:23am PST 
Re: All 4 OSX 10.0 image processing hackers: snubbed by Motherhead 01/25/2006, 11:45am PST 
With that said... by Motherhead 01/25/2006, 12:14pm PST 
Update on Adobe Updates by corax 02/02/2006, 4:28pm PST 
Re: Update on Adobe Updates by Motherhead 02/02/2006, 8:48pm PST 
Re: Buh? by co2 01/24/2006, 9:53am PST 
Re: Buh? by Entropy Stew 01/24/2006, 11:21am PST 
Re: Buh? by Ice Cream Jonsey 01/24/2006, 11:27am PST 
It's like I don't even know you NT by Entropy Stew 01/24/2006, 11:48am PST 
Re: Buh? by McMoo the Anti-Drug Cow 01/24/2006, 11:54am PST 
Creative's newer ones are much better than my old model by Entropy Stew 01/24/2006, 12:24pm PST 
*raising my hand* I like Office 2003. It's pretty good. NT by laudablepuss 01/24/2006, 1:52pm PST 
Re: Buh? by Motherhead 01/24/2006, 1:38pm PST 
Re: Buh? by Quentin Beck 01/24/2006, 3:51pm PST 
Re: Buh? by Co2 01/24/2006, 3:55pm PST 
Haha, someone was "annoyed" and you were like "fuck the attitude". NT by Fussbett 01/24/2006, 4:48pm PST 
ow, not so much teeth, fussbet NT by dick of Steve Jobs 01/24/2006, 5:00pm PST 
Yeah, you nailed it. I'm a huge Apple fan. NT by Fussbett 01/24/2006, 5:12pm PST 
embarassed, that's how the guy should have been and probably secretly was by co2 01/24/2006, 6:14pm PST 
Re: Buh? by Entropy Stew 01/24/2006, 8:01pm PST 
Re: Buh? by Motherhead 01/24/2006, 9:22pm PST 
Re: don't be messin w/ jouney by co2 01/24/2006, 9:35pm PST 
co2, if they EVER hurts you by Steve Perry 01/24/2006, 9:50pm PST 
"hurt" you, i mean. aw fuck it NT by Steve Perry 01/24/2006, 9:50pm PST 
hahah fag NT by neil schonn 01/24/2006, 9:50pm PST 
An unfunny reply by mark 01/25/2006, 4:17pm PST 
|
|