I’m sorry, but them’s the facts directly from an Apple-related site. http://forums.macnn.com/archive/index.php/t-288180.html

Vista will run on a 800Mhz computer with 512MB RAM (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx). No doubt it will crawl, but it will install.

Re: Leopard - my bad.

I have no bias against Apple. In fact my next machine will be a MacBook.

I just find the ‘Microsoft is evil’ tirades tiresome - particularly over $1.50. It’s still $18.50 cheaper than the same stunt Apple pulled. And that’s without inflation taken into account.

If you judge this as an example of Microsoft being evil then surely you must hold Apple to the same standard thereby proving that Apple are 13.33 times more evil than Microsoft.

give Microsoft their due they go to incredible lengths to ensure backward compatibility with third party applications across versions of Windows

As do Apple - see my point on MacDraw.

Tiger which was released in April 2005 doesn’t install on low-end G3s released in 1999

I’m sorry but bollocks. Yes it does install on G3s. I have Tiger loaded on my son’s IMac G3 with 192mb ram. It is slow but it works fine.

Leopard arriving 2008(?) may only run on G4 processors and up (the last G3 product being released in 2003)

May only run on G3s? Again based on what? Yes it may only run on G3s and Vista may only run on Core Duo’s aren’t Microsoft the right bastards for not supporting backwards compatibility in Vista, maybe?

By the way, Leopard will ship late 2006 or early 2007 (I’m betting 2006 for the Christmas market) not 2008.

Derek, you seem to have a bias against Apple which you can’t support with any facts. Apple have gone the distance supporting legacy OSs and legacy architectures. Deal with it.

Apple will undoubtedly cut off OS support for PPC owners sometime within 5 years. Look at their previous record on this - Tiger which was released in April 2005 doesn’t install on low-end G3s released in 1999. Leopard arriving 2008(?) may only run on G4 processors and up (the last G3 product being released in 2003). The successor to Leopard will most likely follow that trend.

That gives Apple hardware a life span (in terms of active Apple support) of 5-6 years.

You can of course try to run your PPC software on your mactel box but that’s dependant on two factors: a) if it runs under emulation and b) if it runs satisfactorily under emulation (c/f PhotoShop).

It’s because Apple are a far smaller ecosystem that they can do this. If Microsoft followed the Apple route they would be slaughtered in the press.

How many years do you think it will be before Apple cut off support to PPC owners? I’ll bet they won’t get support for as long as Win9x users did.

What are you basing that on? If programs written in 1984 run on OS X today 22 years later who is to say that programs running today won’t run on Macs in another 22 years?

How many years do you think it will be before Apple cut off support to PPC owners? I’ll bet they won’t get support for as long as Win9x users did.

OS 7.5 and 8 apps never had any problems running on OS 9 (or by extension OS X). OS 7.5 first shipped in 1995. Many System 7 apps could also run under 9 with the exception of one or two very early OS 7 apps.

OS 7 (called System 7 at the time) came out first in 1991 - I think we can safely ignore anything before that.

How’s that for backwards compatibility?

I’m obviously missing something here Derek. OS X ran all OS 9 apps (full backwards compatibility) and similarly with the new Intel Macs - they run PowerPC software.

What are you referring to here?

I agree the switch to OS X was A Good Thing. All I saying is that Apple care less about providing upgrade routes and backward compability for their users than Microsoft do. The histories of Windows and Mac OS proves that.

On the Apple dig - the switch to OS X was one of the best moves Apple made. They now have an OS streets ahead of anything that has ever come out of Redmond and the switch was handled quite well - anyone with OS X could also run OS 9 apps for years after the rollout.

Similarly with the rollout of the Intel architecture. All the PowerPC based software will run on intel based Macs so the “nulling and voiding” comment is inaccurate.

Yawn. Oops - off to get more coffee!

BTW Microsoft also let you try Office online using a remote desktop thingy so you don’t even have to download it.

I honestly don’t see the beef here. There are tons of other beta/community releases that Microsoft provide for free if you’re interested. They even sent out shiny DVDs of stuff most of the time for nothing.

It’s not as if, oh I don’t know, switch to a completely different hardware/software architecture nulling and voiding your software in the process every five years like some other companies…

just ‘cos Apple charged for a Beta too (6 years ago) doesn’t justify Microsoft doing it now.

The amount Microsoft are charging is not as important as the fact that they are charging for it. Microsoft are trying to generate buzz around their new operating system by making it available for download and are getting users to report bugs in the software for them.

Now Microsoft, by starting to charge their beta testers for this privilige, are going to reverse the goodwill they have generated around this new OS.

The PCPro CD thing is a bit childish I agree but it’s fair enough if Microsoft want to charge for a beta download. It’s only $1.50 after all - not even the price of a cup of coffee.

It’s also a heck of a lot less than $20 Apple were looking for the initial OS X beta.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33363

The management FUD never ends…