Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #30978 > unrolled thread
| Started by | sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-08 18:08 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-08-09 09:13 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 143 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps
Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-08-08 18:08 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-08 14:30 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-08-08 19:10 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-08 19:25 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-08 15:37 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-08-08 21:45 +0100
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-08-08 17:17 -0500
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 16:41 -0600
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-09 14:11 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-08-09 10:20 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-09 15:16 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-09 20:09 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-08-09 22:32 +0100
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-09 17:36 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-08-09 22:37 +0100
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-09 17:41 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-08-09 22:48 +0100
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-09 22:19 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-08-10 08:38 +0100
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2015-08-10 10:28 +0100
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-08-10 11:00 +0100
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-08-10 10:26 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-10 19:07 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-10 15:47 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-11 20:08 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-11 18:14 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-08-12 16:54 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-08-12 18:32 +0100
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-08-13 01:06 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-08-13 09:19 +1200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-08-13 14:58 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-13 15:16 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-08-14 06:00 +1200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-13 18:23 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-08-14 10:57 +1200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-14 13:48 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-15 20:29 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-08-16 09:14 +1200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-17 00:23 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-16 20:30 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-08-17 13:27 +1200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-17 13:24 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-19 21:45 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-17 13:24 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-08-18 06:22 +1200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-18 16:47 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-08-14 01:40 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-14 13:47 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-13 19:32 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-13 19:38 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-08-18 15:04 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-19 16:16 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-08-20 20:07 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 09:36 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-08-23 23:06 -0500
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-13 19:32 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-08-14 01:44 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-08-14 12:13 +1200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-14 03:32 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-08-14 23:56 +1200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-14 13:46 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-08-14 16:07 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-08-15 23:23 +1200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-15 04:39 -0700
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-08-15 17:37 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-17 13:20 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-15 21:06 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-15 20:29 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-14 12:52 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-13 19:32 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-13 19:40 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-14 03:37 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-08-14 01:51 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-12 14:36 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-13 18:44 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-13 15:27 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-13 19:37 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-13 15:54 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-13 20:09 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-13 16:34 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-15 20:29 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-15 22:31 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-17 00:23 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-08-14 10:57 +1200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-10 13:40 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-08-10 15:33 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-10 15:47 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-10 08:51 -0700
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-10 17:28 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-10 13:33 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-08-10 17:53 +0100
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-10 15:36 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 08:02 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-10 15:42 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-10 11:57 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-10 16:14 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-10 09:43 -0700
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-10 12:55 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-10 17:07 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-10 04:08 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-08-09 18:53 -0500
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-10 00:00 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Dedomen <avdija@eeepc.link.ba> - 2015-08-10 14:09 +0200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-10 14:18 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-10 18:53 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-08-10 21:25 +0100
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-10 20:56 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 18:47 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-10 16:37 -0700
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 12:23 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-09 23:13 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-09 23:32 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-10 20:50 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-10 04:12 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-10 21:03 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Dedomen <avdija@eeepc.link.ba> - 2015-08-10 14:07 +0200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-10 20:52 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Erilar <drache@notchibardun.net> - 2015-08-10 19:07 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-08-08 18:17 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-08-08 22:25 -0500
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-08 22:32 -0700
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-09 09:22 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-09 13:06 -0700
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-09 17:33 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-08-10 09:15 -0700
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-10 14:22 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-10 16:23 -0700
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-11 12:00 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-12 01:08 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-11 22:49 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-08-12 17:47 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-13 21:44 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-08-09 01:44 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-08-09 15:15 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-09 09:18 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-09 22:41 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-08-09 22:18 -0500
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-08-09 16:36 +1200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2015-08-09 19:27 -0500
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-09 22:41 -0400
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2015-08-10 17:29 +1200
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-08-10 18:27 +0000
Re: Why won't Apple update apps w/o updating the OS? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-08-09 09:13 -0400
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 22:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <080820152232330921%leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> |
| In reply to | #30987 |
In article <mq6h3i$s18$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > I do run Enterprise Linux 6.6 on three machines, and OS/2 on another. > Win XP/7 live in Virtual Box on this iMac and on a Linux laptop. Why > should apps be so tied to the OS? Wasn't that what got MS in so much > trouble? As in IE? Couldn't apps be separate? If I remember correctly, and I probably don't, integrated apps came about because of Microsoft vs Netscape. Bill Gates linked Explorer to his own OS while under subpoena, so that he could say that Explorer was part of his OS. That way, he could explain away why Explorer didn't cost anything while Netscape cost slightly less than a hundred bucks. He was under extreme duress, because he had completely underestimated the power of the Internet to his own vision and was losing the browser war to Netscape. What he did, frankly, destroyed Netscape as a browser company and probably saved his own company. I'm sure I got some of this wrong, but I'm right in general. leo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 09:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <D4CdnY_08-OxyVrInZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #30989 |
On 2015-08-09 01:32, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: > In article <mq6h3i$s18$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 > <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > >> I do run Enterprise Linux 6.6 on three machines, and OS/2 on another. >> Win XP/7 live in Virtual Box on this iMac and on a Linux laptop. Why >> should apps be so tied to the OS? Wasn't that what got MS in so much >> trouble? As in IE? Couldn't apps be separate? > > If I remember correctly, and I probably don't, integrated apps came > about because of Microsoft vs Netscape. Bill Gates linked Explorer to > his own OS while under subpoena, so that he could say that Explorer was > part of his OS. That way, he could explain away why Explorer didn't > cost anything while Netscape cost slightly less than a hundred bucks. Netscape never cost a dime. > He was under extreme duress, because he had completely underestimated > the power of the Internet to his own vision and was losing the browser > war to Netscape. What he did, frankly, destroyed Netscape as a browser > company and probably saved his own company. > I'm sure I got some of this wrong, but I'm right in general. Only that belatedly realizing that the internet was important to how people would use computers that controlling the browser was key. Like MS destroying Borland, they next set sights on Netscape. And succeeded while rolling out the non plus ultra of crapware. But to state that destroying Netscape saved MS is a very long stretch - MS was indestructible then and still has massively strong foundations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mq8bpn$9g5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30993 |
On 8/9/15 PDT 6:22 AM, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2015-08-09 01:32, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: >> In article <mq6h3i$s18$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 >> <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: >> >>> I do run Enterprise Linux 6.6 on three machines, and OS/2 on another. >>> Win XP/7 live in Virtual Box on this iMac and on a Linux laptop. Why >>> should apps be so tied to the OS? Wasn't that what got MS in so much >>> trouble? As in IE? Couldn't apps be separate? >> >> If I remember correctly, and I probably don't, integrated apps came >> about because of Microsoft vs Netscape. Bill Gates linked Explorer to >> his own OS while under subpoena, so that he could say that Explorer was >> part of his OS. That way, he could explain away why Explorer didn't >> cost anything while Netscape cost slightly less than a hundred bucks. > > Netscape never cost a dime. There was indeed a time when most people bought the app., and it was way more than ten pennies. > >> He was under extreme duress, because he had completely underestimated >> the power of the Internet to his own vision and was losing the browser >> war to Netscape. What he did, frankly, destroyed Netscape as a browser >> company and probably saved his own company. >> I'm sure I got some of this wrong, but I'm right in general. > > Only that belatedly realizing that the internet was important to how > people would use computers that controlling the browser was key. Like > MS destroying Borland, they next set sights on Netscape. And succeeded > while rolling out the non plus ultra of crapware. > > But to state that destroying Netscape saved MS is a very long stretch - > MS was indestructible then and still has massively strong foundations. It certainly killed Netscape. I agree that MS wouldn't have folded with out the maneuvering of that cunning nerd team of Ballmer and Gates, but it would have made a financial dent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 17:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dbmdna5AuIysWlrInZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #31002 |
On 2015-08-09 16:06, John McWilliams wrote: > On 8/9/15 PDT 6:22 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >> On 2015-08-09 01:32, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: >>> In article <mq6h3i$s18$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 >>> <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I do run Enterprise Linux 6.6 on three machines, and OS/2 on another. >>>> Win XP/7 live in Virtual Box on this iMac and on a Linux laptop. Why >>>> should apps be so tied to the OS? Wasn't that what got MS in so much >>>> trouble? As in IE? Couldn't apps be separate? >>> >>> If I remember correctly, and I probably don't, integrated apps came >>> about because of Microsoft vs Netscape. Bill Gates linked Explorer to >>> his own OS while under subpoena, so that he could say that Explorer was >>> part of his OS. That way, he could explain away why Explorer didn't >>> cost anything while Netscape cost slightly less than a hundred bucks. >> >> Netscape never cost a dime. > > There was indeed a time when most people bought the app., and it was way > more than ten pennies. I used it and never paid for it. Perhaps it came bundled with a computer. >> >>> He was under extreme duress, because he had completely underestimated >>> the power of the Internet to his own vision and was losing the browser >>> war to Netscape. What he did, frankly, destroyed Netscape as a browser >>> company and probably saved his own company. >>> I'm sure I got some of this wrong, but I'm right in general. >> >> Only that belatedly realizing that the internet was important to how >> people would use computers that controlling the browser was key. Like >> MS destroying Borland, they next set sights on Netscape. And succeeded >> while rolling out the non plus ultra of crapware. >> >> But to state that destroying Netscape saved MS is a very long stretch - >> MS was indestructible then and still has massively strong foundations. > > It certainly killed Netscape. I agree that MS wouldn't have folded with > out the maneuvering of that cunning nerd team of Ballmer and Gates, but > it would have made a financial dent. None.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 09:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mqaikh$m04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31005 |
On 8/9/15 PDT 2:33 PM, Alan Browne wrote: > On 2015-08-09 16:06, John McWilliams wrote: >> On 8/9/15 PDT 6:22 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >>> On 2015-08-09 01:32, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: >>>> In article <mq6h3i$s18$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 >>>> <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I do run Enterprise Linux 6.6 on three machines, and OS/2 on another. >>>>> Win XP/7 live in Virtual Box on this iMac and on a Linux laptop. Why >>>>> should apps be so tied to the OS? Wasn't that what got MS in so much >>>>> trouble? As in IE? Couldn't apps be separate? >>>> >>>> If I remember correctly, and I probably don't, integrated apps came >>>> about because of Microsoft vs Netscape. Bill Gates linked Explorer to >>>> his own OS while under subpoena, so that he could say that Explorer was >>>> part of his OS. That way, he could explain away why Explorer didn't >>>> cost anything while Netscape cost slightly less than a hundred bucks. >>> >>> Netscape never cost a dime. >> >> There was indeed a time when most people bought the app., and it was way >> more than ten pennies. > > I used it and never paid for it. Perhaps it came bundled with a computer. Perhaps. But your statement was categorical. And hence wrong. >>>> He was under extreme duress, because he had completely underestimated >>>> the power of the Internet to his own vision and was losing the browser >>>> war to Netscape. What he did, frankly, destroyed Netscape as a browser >>>> company and probably saved his own company. >>>> I'm sure I got some of this wrong, but I'm right in general. >>> >>> Only that belatedly realizing that the internet was important to how >>> people would use computers that controlling the browser was key. Like >>> MS destroying Borland, they next set sights on Netscape. And succeeded >>> while rolling out the non plus ultra of crapware. >>> >>> But to state that destroying Netscape saved MS is a very long stretch - >>> MS was indestructible then and still has massively strong foundations. >> >> It certainly killed Netscape. I agree that MS wouldn't have folded with >> out the maneuvering of that cunning nerd team of Ballmer and Gates, but >> it would have made a financial dent. > > None. > > Well, no one's ever accused you of waffling. I believe it would have had a financial impact, but cannot prove a hypothetical long past.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 14:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qMKdneRIY8dUdlXInZ2dnUU7-TednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #31047 |
On 2015-08-10 12:15, John McWilliams wrote: > On 8/9/15 PDT 2:33 PM, Alan Browne wrote: >> On 2015-08-09 16:06, John McWilliams wrote: >>> On 8/9/15 PDT 6:22 AM, Alan Browne wrote: >>>> On 2015-08-09 01:32, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: >>>>> In article <mq6h3i$s18$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 >>>>> <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I do run Enterprise Linux 6.6 on three machines, and OS/2 on another. >>>>>> Win XP/7 live in Virtual Box on this iMac and on a Linux laptop. Why >>>>>> should apps be so tied to the OS? Wasn't that what got MS in so much >>>>>> trouble? As in IE? Couldn't apps be separate? >>>>> >>>>> If I remember correctly, and I probably don't, integrated apps came >>>>> about because of Microsoft vs Netscape. Bill Gates linked Explorer to >>>>> his own OS while under subpoena, so that he could say that Explorer >>>>> was >>>>> part of his OS. That way, he could explain away why Explorer didn't >>>>> cost anything while Netscape cost slightly less than a hundred bucks. >>>> >>>> Netscape never cost a dime. >>> >>> There was indeed a time when most people bought the app., and it was way >>> more than ten pennies. >> >> I used it and never paid for it. Perhaps it came bundled with a >> computer. > > Perhaps. > > But your statement was categorical. And hence wrong. Muskets at dawn or thirteen steps? > >>>>> He was under extreme duress, because he had completely underestimated >>>>> the power of the Internet to his own vision and was losing the browser >>>>> war to Netscape. What he did, frankly, destroyed Netscape as a browser >>>>> company and probably saved his own company. >>>>> I'm sure I got some of this wrong, but I'm right in general. >>>> >>>> Only that belatedly realizing that the internet was important to how >>>> people would use computers that controlling the browser was key. Like >>>> MS destroying Borland, they next set sights on Netscape. And succeeded >>>> while rolling out the non plus ultra of crapware. >>>> >>>> But to state that destroying Netscape saved MS is a very long stretch - >>>> MS was indestructible then and still has massively strong foundations. >>> >>> It certainly killed Netscape. I agree that MS wouldn't have folded with >>> out the maneuvering of that cunning nerd team of Ballmer and Gates, but >>> it would have made a financial dent. >> >> None. >> >> > Well, no one's ever accused you of waffling. I believe it would have had > a financial impact, but cannot prove a hypothetical long past. Would be lost in the rounding errors. 1. MS were giving away Exploder. 2. MS were selling Windows regardless of the existence or not of Netscape. 3. Netscape didn't prevent people from using MS s/w or services. MS were and are assholes. Forecast may be improving now that Ballmer is gone. New guy seems a hell of a lot nicer and is certainly smarter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 16:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <100820151623277570%leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> |
| In reply to | #30993 |
In article <D4CdnY_08-OxyVrInZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > Netscape never cost a dime. The hell it didn't! Netscape 0.96b didn't. Netscape 1 did. I know because I bought it. Some inkling can be gleaned here <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator> but it doesn't tell the price. I wasn't a academic or non-profit. I paid for version 1 which Netscape shipped as one or two disks, I forget. Oh, here we go <http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1995q1/0010.html>. Hmm...cheaper than I remembered. Wait...<http://home.mcom.com/MCOM/products_docs/client.html>. Now that price, I seem to remember. > But to state that destroying Netscape saved MS is a very long stretch - > MS was indestructible then and still has massively strong foundations. Perhaps I overstated that. I remember this crap, because I lost money in Netscape stock when Microsoft crushed them with its free browser hastily put together and bundled with every copy of their OS which wasn't integrated and then miraculously integrated into their OS for the court appearance. You had to be there with skin in the game. I've hated MS ever since. leo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 12:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4eednWuBUKupgVfInZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #31068 |
On 2015-08-10 19:23, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: > In article <D4CdnY_08-OxyVrInZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne > <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >> Netscape never cost a dime. > > The hell it didn't! Netscape 0.96b didn't. Netscape 1 did. I know You're a little late correcting me. I know for a fact that I never paid a dime and I went through many versions of it. I possibly (see other post) got a free version with a computer or accessory. Too long ago and in a galaxy far, far away... > >> But to state that destroying Netscape saved MS is a very long stretch - >> MS was indestructible then and still has massively strong foundations. > > Perhaps I overstated that. I remember this crap, because I lost money > in Netscape stock when Microsoft crushed them with its free browser > hastily put together and bundled with every copy of their OS which > wasn't integrated and then miraculously integrated into their OS for > the court appearance. You had to be there with skin in the game. I've > hated MS ever since. I've hated MS since they deliberately went out to destroy Borland. Borland made compilers and IDE's that were very fast and efficient where MS still had you text editing here, compiling (slowly) here and linking (badly) here. Horrible stuff that Borland ran rings around.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 01:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-KCxTFB3f5sKi@localhost> |
| In reply to | #31070 |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:00:52 UTC, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015-08-10 19:23, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: > > In article <D4CdnY_08-OxyVrInZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne > > <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > > > >> Netscape never cost a dime. > > > > The hell it didn't! Netscape 0.96b didn't. Netscape 1 did. I know > > You're a little late correcting me. I know for a fact that I never paid > a dime and I went through many versions of it. I possibly (see other > post) got a free version with a computer or accessory. Too long ago and > in a galaxy far, far away... > > > > >> But to state that destroying Netscape saved MS is a very long stretch - > >> MS was indestructible then and still has massively strong foundations. > > > > Perhaps I overstated that. I remember this crap, because I lost money > > in Netscape stock when Microsoft crushed them with its free browser > > hastily put together and bundled with every copy of their OS which > > wasn't integrated and then miraculously integrated into their OS for > > the court appearance. You had to be there with skin in the game. I've > > hated MS ever since. > > I've hated MS since they deliberately went out to destroy Borland. > Borland made compilers and IDE's that were very fast and efficient where > MS still had you text editing here, compiling (slowly) here and linking > (badly) here. Horrible stuff that Borland ran rings around. I've hated Microsoft ever since they abandoned the TRS-80 for the IBM PC. -- John Varela
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 22:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <P4OdndfbidPOKVfInZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #31073 |
On 2015-08-11 21:08, John Varela wrote: > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:00:52 UTC, Alan Browne > <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >> On 2015-08-10 19:23, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: >>> In article <D4CdnY_08-OxyVrInZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne >>> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> Netscape never cost a dime. >>> >>> The hell it didn't! Netscape 0.96b didn't. Netscape 1 did. I know >> >> You're a little late correcting me. I know for a fact that I never paid >> a dime and I went through many versions of it. I possibly (see other >> post) got a free version with a computer or accessory. Too long ago and >> in a galaxy far, far away... >> >>> >>>> But to state that destroying Netscape saved MS is a very long stretch - >>>> MS was indestructible then and still has massively strong foundations. >>> >>> Perhaps I overstated that. I remember this crap, because I lost money >>> in Netscape stock when Microsoft crushed them with its free browser >>> hastily put together and bundled with every copy of their OS which >>> wasn't integrated and then miraculously integrated into their OS for >>> the court appearance. You had to be there with skin in the game. I've >>> hated MS ever since. >> >> I've hated MS since they deliberately went out to destroy Borland. >> Borland made compilers and IDE's that were very fast and efficient where >> MS still had you text editing here, compiling (slowly) here and linking >> (badly) here. Horrible stuff that Borland ran rings around. > > I've hated Microsoft ever since they abandoned the TRS-80 for the > IBM PC. That was a good move.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 17:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-i2dD2kqlUsG0@localhost> |
| In reply to | #31074 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 02:49:55 UTC, Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2015-08-11 21:08, John Varela wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:00:52 UTC, Alan Browne > > <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > > > >> On 2015-08-10 19:23, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: > >>> In article <D4CdnY_08-OxyVrInZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne > >>> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Netscape never cost a dime. > >>> > >>> The hell it didn't! Netscape 0.96b didn't. Netscape 1 did. I know > >> > >> You're a little late correcting me. I know for a fact that I never paid > >> a dime and I went through many versions of it. I possibly (see other > >> post) got a free version with a computer or accessory. Too long ago and > >> in a galaxy far, far away... > >> > >>> > >>>> But to state that destroying Netscape saved MS is a very long stretch - > >>>> MS was indestructible then and still has massively strong foundations. > >>> > >>> Perhaps I overstated that. I remember this crap, because I lost money > >>> in Netscape stock when Microsoft crushed them with its free browser > >>> hastily put together and bundled with every copy of their OS which > >>> wasn't integrated and then miraculously integrated into their OS for > >>> the court appearance. You had to be there with skin in the game. I've > >>> hated MS ever since. > >> > >> I've hated MS since they deliberately went out to destroy Borland. > >> Borland made compilers and IDE's that were very fast and efficient where > >> MS still had you text editing here, compiling (slowly) here and linking > >> (badly) here. Horrible stuff that Borland ran rings around. > > > > I've hated Microsoft ever since they abandoned the TRS-80 for the > > IBM PC. > > That was a good move. Which was? Hating Microsoft or abandoning the TRS-80? Or both? -- John Varela
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 21:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pvmdnRUyX6xl2lDInZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #31078 |
On 2015-08-12 13:47, John Varela wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 02:49:55 UTC, Alan Browne > <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: > >> On 2015-08-11 21:08, John Varela wrote: >>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:00:52 UTC, Alan Browne >>> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-08-10 19:23, Leonard Blaisdell wrote: >>>>> In article <D4CdnY_08-OxyVrInZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne >>>>> <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Netscape never cost a dime. >>>>> >>>>> The hell it didn't! Netscape 0.96b didn't. Netscape 1 did. I know >>>> >>>> You're a little late correcting me. I know for a fact that I never paid >>>> a dime and I went through many versions of it. I possibly (see other >>>> post) got a free version with a computer or accessory. Too long ago and >>>> in a galaxy far, far away... >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> But to state that destroying Netscape saved MS is a very long stretch - >>>>>> MS was indestructible then and still has massively strong foundations. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps I overstated that. I remember this crap, because I lost money >>>>> in Netscape stock when Microsoft crushed them with its free browser >>>>> hastily put together and bundled with every copy of their OS which >>>>> wasn't integrated and then miraculously integrated into their OS for >>>>> the court appearance. You had to be there with skin in the game. I've >>>>> hated MS ever since. >>>> >>>> I've hated MS since they deliberately went out to destroy Borland. >>>> Borland made compilers and IDE's that were very fast and efficient where >>>> MS still had you text editing here, compiling (slowly) here and linking >>>> (badly) here. Horrible stuff that Borland ran rings around. >>> >>> I've hated Microsoft ever since they abandoned the TRS-80 for the >>> IBM PC. >> >> That was a good move. > > Which was? Hating Microsoft or abandoning the TRS-80? Or both? MS taking on the 8088 (IBM-PC) was a good move. DOS was (fasten your seatbelt) a proper DOS which the TS-80 didn't have. The TRS-80 was a groundbreaker, to be sure (IMO much more so than the Apple II). But, for PC's to become mainstream it took the might of IBM to introduce the non-nerd world to personal computing - even with the limp along, expensive 8088 based IBM-PC. The lore regarding Gates and the PC is that. Opportunity and timing and luck (and a lot of hard work) coincided to make MS the miserable stinkpile it is today. Can't be faulted. Once in that position, Gates et al took full advantage (and then some) of the circumstances. The TRS-80 would never have gone that route and made PC's mainstream no more than the VIC-20 or commodore-64 (both nice little machines ... but).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 01:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <090820150144473615%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #30987 |
sctvguy1: > >> I just like the interface of Mountain Lion. I do not like the newest > >> versions of OSX. I guess that I will just forget Safari and use Chrome/ > >> Firefox. I just like Safari's interface. Davoud: > > You've got a dilemma. You want the latest apps, but you don't want the > > OS that can run them. Windows XP is cheap on ebay, and the price of Win > > 7 is coming down. Linux is free or very cheap. sctvguy1: > I do run Enterprise Linux 6.6 on three machines, and OS/2 on another. > Win XP/7 live in Virtual Box on this iMac and on a Linux laptop. Why > should apps be so tied to the OS? Wasn't that what got MS in so much > trouble? As in IE? Couldn't apps be separate? I'm afraid that you have mistaken me for someone who knows why the computer industry is the way it is. The only thing that I know is that I've got six late-model Macs in my house, all running the latest version of the MacOS and the latest versions of the software that is important to me, and it all works satisfactorily. It's likely that I'm just an easy-going guy who goes with the flow and when something new comes along and I don't entirely like it I get used to it and get on with my life. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 15:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d2p948Fjsd9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #30990 |
On 2015-08-09, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote: > sctvguy1: >> >> I just like the interface of Mountain Lion. I do not like the newest >> >> versions of OSX. I guess that I will just forget Safari and use Chrome/ >> >> Firefox. I just like Safari's interface. > > Davoud: >> > You've got a dilemma. You want the latest apps, but you don't want the >> > OS that can run them. Windows XP is cheap on ebay, and the price of Win >> > 7 is coming down. Linux is free or very cheap. > > sctvguy1: >> I do run Enterprise Linux 6.6 on three machines, and OS/2 on another. >> Win XP/7 live in Virtual Box on this iMac and on a Linux laptop. Why >> should apps be so tied to the OS? Wasn't that what got MS in so much >> trouble? As in IE? Couldn't apps be separate? > > I'm afraid that you have mistaken me for someone who knows why the > computer industry is the way it is. The only thing that I know is that > I've got six late-model Macs in my house, all running the latest > version of the MacOS and the latest versions of the software that is > important to me, and it all works satisfactorily. > > It's likely that I'm just an easy-going guy who goes with the flow and > when something new comes along and I don't entirely like it I get used > to it and get on with my life. +1 : ) -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 09:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <D4CdnYz08-OhzlrInZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #30987 |
On 2015-08-08 23:25, sctvguy1 wrote: > On 2015-08-08 22:17:25 +0000, Davoud said: > >> sctvguy1:\ >>> I just like the interface of Mountain Lion. I do not like the newest >>> versions of OSX. I guess that I will just forget Safari and use Chrome/ >>> Firefox. I just like Safari's interface. >> >> You've got a dilemma. You want the latest apps, but you don't want the >> OS that can run them. Windows XP is cheap on ebay, and the price of Win >> 7 is coming down. Linux is free or very cheap. > > I do run Enterprise Linux 6.6 on three machines, and OS/2 on another. > Win XP/7 live in Virtual Box on this iMac and on a Linux laptop. Why > should apps be so tied to the OS? OS' evolve too. And app writers take advantage of the evolution. Simple apps last longer (fewer and more primitive dependencies) and complex apps need to take advantage of newer stuff available in the evolved OS. Once they go there they eventually drop support for older methods as they tidy up and simplify their code. As more apps developers switch to Swift and Metal you'll probably see several upgraded apps needing later versions of OS X to run - indeed later versions of H/W.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 22:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <090820152241060457%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #30987 |
In article <mq6h3i$s18$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > >> I just like the interface of Mountain Lion. I do not like the newest > >> versions of OSX. I guess that I will just forget Safari and use Chrome/ > >> Firefox. I just like Safari's interface. > > > > You've got a dilemma. You want the latest apps, but you don't want the > > OS that can run them. Windows XP is cheap on ebay, and the price of Win > > 7 is coming down. Linux is free or very cheap. > > I do run Enterprise Linux 6.6 on three machines, and OS/2 on another. > Win XP/7 live in Virtual Box on this iMac and on a Linux laptop. Why > should apps be so tied to the OS? because some apps use features that are part of the newer os so there's no way they can run in an older os. you called leo laporte's radio show, didn't you? he told you the same thing you were told here: upgrade. > Wasn't that what got MS in so much > trouble? As in IE? Couldn't apps be separate? microsoft got in trouble because they abused their monopoly position. bundling the browser was just one part.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 22:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mq953s$qqq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #31017 |
On 2015-08-10 02:41:06 +0000, nospam said: > In article <mq6h3i$s18$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 > <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > >>>> I just like the interface of Mountain Lion. I do not like the newest >>>> versions of OSX. I guess that I will just forget Safari and use Chrome/ >>>> Firefox. I just like Safari's interface. >>> >>> You've got a dilemma. You want the latest apps, but you don't want the >>> OS that can run them. Windows XP is cheap on ebay, and the price of Win >>> 7 is coming down. Linux is free or very cheap. >> >> I do run Enterprise Linux 6.6 on three machines, and OS/2 on another. >> Win XP/7 live in Virtual Box on this iMac and on a Linux laptop. Why >> should apps be so tied to the OS? > > because some apps use features that are part of the newer os so there's > no way they can run in an older os. > > you called leo laporte's radio show, didn't you? he told you the same > thing you were told here: upgrade. > >> Wasn't that what got MS in so much >> trouble? As in IE? Couldn't apps be separate? > > microsoft got in trouble because they abused their monopoly position. > bundling the browser was just one part. Yes, I did call Leo today! Guess some people on the group listen. I was watching Twit on Roku. Used to listen over the Internet radio to KFI before we got the Roku to watch Twit live.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 16:36 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <1m8wbcs.1xjgb7xjxtz1N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> |
| In reply to | #30978 |
sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > Runnning OSX 10.8.5, and last night FB said that my Safari was > "deprecated". I have the latest Chrome/Firefox/Tor/Operal running good. > Why can't Apple simply update the Safari browser without having to update > the operating system? I do no want to upgrade to Yosemite/El Capitan, > but would like the newest apps. I think that apps should be separate > from the operating system, not tied/integrated so tightly with the OS. > My Virtual Box XP even has the newest Chrome/Firefox. Even my Virtual > Box OS/2 has the latest Firefox(from OS/2 developers). You "have the latest Chrome/Firefox/Tor/Operal running good". Perhaps it is a flippant answer - but why then do you need Safari? -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 19:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mq8r2j$v3j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30988 |
On 2015-08-09 04:36:35 +0000, Jamie Kahn Genet said: > sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > >> Runnning OSX 10.8.5, and last night FB said that my Safari was >> "deprecated". I have the latest Chrome/Firefox/Tor/Operal running good. >> Why can't Apple simply update the Safari browser without having to update >> the operating system? I do no want to upgrade to Yosemite/El Capitan, >> but would like the newest apps. I think that apps should be separate >> from the operating system, not tied/integrated so tightly with the OS. >> My Virtual Box XP even has the newest Chrome/Firefox. Even my Virtual >> Box OS/2 has the latest Firefox(from OS/2 developers). > > You "have the latest Chrome/Firefox/Tor/Operal running good". Perhaps it > is a flippant answer - but why then do you need Safari? I would say that to have the working Safari when called from URLs. Is there a way to change the call for a browser, like from a link in the email(sent from a trusted source!}. Also, I like the elegance of the browser showing me different startup windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 22:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <090820152241050405%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #31015 |
In article <mq8r2j$v3j$1@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> wrote: > > You "have the latest Chrome/Firefox/Tor/Operal running good". Perhaps it > > is a flippant answer - but why then do you need Safari? > > I would say that to have the working Safari when called from URLs. Is > there a way to change the call for a browser, like from a link in the > email(sent from a trusted source!}. Also, I like the elegance of the > browser showing me different startup windows. in safari, set the default browser to whatever you want. it may be in other browsers too. it should be in system prefs but apple thinks setting a default app should be done in the app itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps
csiph-web