Huge lineup of new 2019 iPhone & Apple Watch models revealed by regulatory filings [u]

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    jdiamond said:

    Many programs are still being released today in 32-bit, for no understandable reason.
    just out of curiosity, like what?
  • Reply 22 of 38
    It is always somewhat astonishing how many SKUs Apple actually has; a Laptop, a phone, a watch, a bit of color, a bit of material, size... ends up to quite some complexity. I wonder how strictly they keep a lid on that.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 38
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    ...and so if one wants a new retail mac that can still run a more debugged macOS and 32 bit apps is time running out...? Will the iMac be locked down and T2'ed as well ?
    Dude get over it -- 64-bit is coming and they’re not going to pull a Microsoft and bend over backwards to support legacy dinosaurs.
    Quite right, a 64 bit soc can use all 32 bit real-estate for additional 64 bit cores or less dissipation, running 64 bit on full whack so to say.
    I don't think Intel has true 64 bit processors at the moment? (This will extend Apples A processor lead even further ...)
    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 38
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,655member

    jdiamond said:
    ...and so if one wants a new retail mac that can still run a more debugged macOS and 32 bit apps is time running out...? Will the iMac be locked down and T2'ed as well ?
    Dude get over it -- 64-bit is coming and they’re not going to pull a Microsoft and bend over backwards to support legacy dinosaurs.
    Uhhhh.... they've been doing that since 206, with zero cost. There's no reason they can't release a software emulator to help out users who need certain older programs. Many programs are still being released today in 32-bit, for no understandable reason.
    Again.... Apple isn't going to keep 32-bit support forever to enable developers who are too lazy to update their apps, or even outright abandoned them. It isn't Apple's job to keep additional instruction set support around indefinitely because devs aren't supporting their users properly. 
    It's a little more complex than that.  There's the issue of having to subscribe to an app in order to update and a lot of people don't want to do that, not just because of the subscription fee, but because of the need for the app to be connected at times.    Personally, I'm still using Adobe CS6 and Office 2011 not because I'm too cheap to upgrade, but because I want stand-alone versions.    In addition, there are companies that are slow to update apps.   Nikon, for example, is notoriously slow in updating their apps for new MacOS versions.   It's very easy to say "well, screw 'em", but it's the end users who suffer as a result, sometimes not being able to do their jobs.    I haven't figured out what I'm going to do yet once the change comes.   And really, the OS code is already bloated - how much bigger would it have to be to still support 32 bit apps?    

    Back in the day, MacOS upgrades almost always went perfectly and everything just worked, even during the Intel transition.   But lately, each new version of MacOS seems to introduce more bugs.   Since a few upgrades ago, I can never open an Excel file from within Excel on the first try - it always works on the second try.    And in one of my Nikon photo importing apps, it used to recognize the iPhone and import those pics.   The app hasn't been updated, but MacOS has.   It does recognize that the phone is there, it just doesn't display any photos.    IMO, there's no good reason for those things to be happening.  They both used to work.   And considering all the resources Apple has, it's shameful that they introduce bugs that they don't fix.  

    I also think that average non-technical users probably are ignoring those messages about the apps that sometimes display.   When they next upgrade the MacOS, I predict that all hell is going to break loose when many of their apps stop working.    Yes, Apple did give them warnings, but were they warnings that they could understand the ramifications of?   If Apple is smart, the next Mac OS installer will first check all the apps and present a list to the end user of all the apps that aren't going to work if they proceed with the upgrade and give them a chance to bail out of the installation.    But they probably won't because Apple is arrogant.  
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 25 of 38
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

    jdiamond said:
    ...and so if one wants a new retail mac that can still run a more debugged macOS and 32 bit apps is time running out...? Will the iMac be locked down and T2'ed as well ?
    Dude get over it -- 64-bit is coming and they’re not going to pull a Microsoft and bend over backwards to support legacy dinosaurs.
    Uhhhh.... they've been doing that since 206, with zero cost. There's no reason they can't release a software emulator to help out users who need certain older programs. Many programs are still being released today in 32-bit, for no understandable reason.
    Again.... Apple isn't going to keep 32-bit support forever to enable developers who are too lazy to update their apps, or even outright abandoned them. It isn't Apple's job to keep additional instruction set support around indefinitely because devs aren't supporting their users properly. 
    Devs are lazy for not supporting 20 year old software?  Then Apple is lazy, because they stop support way before 20 years have past.

    Apple's "job" in this context is to produce software that people want.  If people don't want older software that they like to stop running and therefore don't upgrade then Apple have failed.

    In some senses I prefer the Microsoft way.
  • Reply 26 of 38
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,568member
    jcs2305 said:
    GG1 said:
    Is it safe to say that the 11 Mac models listed are presumably all iMacs? I.e., no refreshed Mini's?

    Edit: I guess some models could be the rumoured 16-inch MBP.
    I have been holding off purchasing a new mac mini. I have been seeing price cuts all over the web.
    A refresh in less than a year?  Has that happened before.. I am thinking of a new mini myself. 
    Ah, back in ye olde days, Tower Macs were refreshed up to 4 times a year. Every time a slightly faster 680xx chip was available, we would see an update.
    SpamSandwichmuthuk_vanalingamlolliver
  • Reply 27 of 38
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 1,039member
    Would love to see a Mac mini with a BTO option for a discrete GPU. Do not expect it, but would be nice.
    razorpitlarrya
  • Reply 28 of 38
    GG1GG1 Posts: 483member
    davgreg said:
    Would love to see a Mac mini with a BTO option for a discrete GPU. Do not expect it, but would be nice.
    This is what I'm waiting for. Maybe not a Vega56, but a Vega20 would be nice.
    razorpitwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 38
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,932member
    zoetmb said:

    jdiamond said:
    ...and so if one wants a new retail mac that can still run a more debugged macOS and 32 bit apps is time running out...? Will the iMac be locked down and T2'ed as well ?
    Dude get over it -- 64-bit is coming and they’re not going to pull a Microsoft and bend over backwards to support legacy dinosaurs.
    Uhhhh.... they've been doing that since 206, with zero cost. There's no reason they can't release a software emulator to help out users who need certain older programs. Many programs are still being released today in 32-bit, for no understandable reason.
    Again.... Apple isn't going to keep 32-bit support forever to enable developers who are too lazy to update their apps, or even outright abandoned them. It isn't Apple's job to keep additional instruction set support around indefinitely because devs aren't supporting their users properly. 
    It's a little more complex than that.  There's the issue of having to subscribe to an app in order to update and a lot of people don't want to do that, not just because of the subscription fee, but because of the need for the app to be connected at times.    Personally, I'm still using Adobe CS6 and Office 2011 not because I'm too cheap to upgrade, but because I want stand-alone versions.    In addition, there are companies that are slow to update apps.   Nikon, for example, is notoriously slow in updating their apps for new MacOS versions.   It's very easy to say "well, screw 'em", but it's the end users who suffer as a result, sometimes not being able to do their jobs.    I haven't figured out what I'm going to do yet once the change comes.   And really, the OS code is already bloated - how much bigger would it have to be to still support 32 bit apps?    

    Back in the day, MacOS upgrades almost always went perfectly and everything just worked, even during the Intel transition.   But lately, each new version of MacOS seems to introduce more bugs.   Since a few upgrades ago, I can never open an Excel file from within Excel on the first try - it always works on the second try.    And in one of my Nikon photo importing apps, it used to recognize the iPhone and import those pics.   The app hasn't been updated, but MacOS has.   It does recognize that the phone is there, it just doesn't display any photos.    IMO, there's no good reason for those things to be happening.  They both used to work.   And considering all the resources Apple has, it's shameful that they introduce bugs that they don't fix.  

    I also think that average non-technical users probably are ignoring those messages about the apps that sometimes display.   When they next upgrade the MacOS, I predict that all hell is going to break loose when many of their apps stop working.    Yes, Apple did give them warnings, but were they warnings that they could understand the ramifications of?   If Apple is smart, the next Mac OS installer will first check all the apps and present a list to the end user of all the apps that aren't going to work if they proceed with the upgrade and give them a chance to bail out of the installation.    But they probably won't because Apple is arrogant.  
    No, it really isn't more complex than that. You're complaining that you want to use legacy software before the vendor of said software required subscriptions. That has zilch to do with the OS' shift to 64-bit only. Nada. You're upset at the vendor, for not serving your needs with a product you wish to pay for in a manner that you wish to. That's a valid complaint, but it's one you have with Adobe and Microsoft.

    Trotting out the "But Apple is arrogant!" trope is hopelessly misguided here.
    lolliverradarthekatmacplusplusfastasleepmelgrosswatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 38
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,932member

    crowley said:

    jdiamond said:
    ...and so if one wants a new retail mac that can still run a more debugged macOS and 32 bit apps is time running out...? Will the iMac be locked down and T2'ed as well ?
    Dude get over it -- 64-bit is coming and they’re not going to pull a Microsoft and bend over backwards to support legacy dinosaurs.
    Uhhhh.... they've been doing that since 206, with zero cost. There's no reason they can't release a software emulator to help out users who need certain older programs. Many programs are still being released today in 32-bit, for no understandable reason.
    Again.... Apple isn't going to keep 32-bit support forever to enable developers who are too lazy to update their apps, or even outright abandoned them. It isn't Apple's job to keep additional instruction set support around indefinitely because devs aren't supporting their users properly. 
    Devs are lazy for not supporting 20 year old software?  Then Apple is lazy, because they stop support way before 20 years have past.

    Apple's "job" in this context is to produce software that people want.  If people don't want older software that they like to stop running and therefore don't upgrade then Apple have failed.

    In some senses I prefer the Microsoft way.

    No, devs are lazy for not updating a 32-bit app to 64-bit. Dunno why you brought up 20 years. Charge money for the new version and make your customers happy. Not rocket science. If your prized apps haven't been updated to 64-bit, the problem lies with the developer. Humbly said as a professional, full-time developer of software. Updating software is our job. If your tools are abandonware, oh well -- but there's no way the world is gonna hold itself back because you don't want to find a newer tool than some old abandonware. Lol, ridiculous proposition. 
     
    If you prefer MS, then get yourself a Dell and stop crying in your cup about the lack of 32-bit support on a better operating system. 
    edited August 2019 lollivermacpluspluswatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 38
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,866moderator
    It is always somewhat astonishing how many SKUs Apple actually has; a Laptop, a phone, a watch, a bit of color, a bit of material, size... ends up to quite some complexity. I wonder how strictly they keep a lid on that.
    Color, material, storage capacity, processor variant...  all a lot easier to roll out versus the insanity of having dozens of different models of each product ala Samsung’s smartphone range.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 38
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,435member
    zoetmb said:

    jdiamond said:
    ...and so if one wants a new retail mac that can still run a more debugged macOS and 32 bit apps is time running out...? Will the iMac be locked down and T2'ed as well ?
    Dude get over it -- 64-bit is coming and they’re not going to pull a Microsoft and bend over backwards to support legacy dinosaurs.
    Uhhhh.... they've been doing that since 206, with zero cost. There's no reason they can't release a software emulator to help out users who need certain older programs. Many programs are still being released today in 32-bit, for no understandable reason.
    Again.... Apple isn't going to keep 32-bit support forever to enable developers who are too lazy to update their apps, or even outright abandoned them. It isn't Apple's job to keep additional instruction set support around indefinitely because devs aren't supporting their users properly. 
    It's a little more complex than that.  There's the issue of having to subscribe to an app in order to update and a lot of people don't want to do that, not just because of the subscription fee, but because of the need for the app to be connected at times.    Personally, I'm still using Adobe CS6 and Office 2011 not because I'm too cheap to upgrade, but because I want stand-alone versions.    In addition, there are companies that are slow to update apps.   Nikon, for example, is notoriously slow in updating their apps for new MacOS versions.   It's very easy to say "well, screw 'em", but it's the end users who suffer as a result, sometimes not being able to do their jobs.    I haven't figured out what I'm going to do yet once the change comes.   And really, the OS code is already bloated - how much bigger would it have to be to still support 32 bit apps?    

    Back in the day, MacOS upgrades almost always went perfectly and everything just worked, even during the Intel transition.   But lately, each new version of MacOS seems to introduce more bugs.   Since a few upgrades ago, I can never open an Excel file from within Excel on the first try - it always works on the second try.    And in one of my Nikon photo importing apps, it used to recognize the iPhone and import those pics.   The app hasn't been updated, but MacOS has.   It does recognize that the phone is there, it just doesn't display any photos.    IMO, there's no good reason for those things to be happening.  They both used to work.   And considering all the resources Apple has, it's shameful that they introduce bugs that they don't fix.  

    I also think that average non-technical users probably are ignoring those messages about the apps that sometimes display.   When they next upgrade the MacOS, I predict that all hell is going to break loose when many of their apps stop working.    Yes, Apple did give them warnings, but were they warnings that they could understand the ramifications of?   If Apple is smart, the next Mac OS installer will first check all the apps and present a list to the end user of all the apps that aren't going to work if they proceed with the upgrade and give them a chance to bail out of the installation.    But they probably won't because Apple is arrogant.  
    Again, Office has a current "standalone" version you can buy: 
    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/office-home-student-2019/cfq7ttc0k7c8?activetab=pivot:overviewtab

    CS6 is 7 years old already. Get over it. 

    The bugs you listed aren't Apple's bugs, they're the 3rd party developer's bugs they haven't addressed in newer versions of macOS. It's on you to make sure the software you need to get things done is compatible with newer versions of the operating system, it's allllllllways been that way. Also, why the hell are you using a Nikon app to access photos on your iPhone? Image Capture or Photos already works fine. You're literally creating problems for yourself.

    Run a Parallels VM of whichever earlier macOS/OS X you have to.

    "But they probably won't because Apple is arrogant." — waaaaaahhhhh
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 38
    blah64blah64 Posts: 993member
    zoetmb said:

    jdiamond said:
    ...and so if one wants a new retail mac that can still run a more debugged macOS and 32 bit apps is time running out...? Will the iMac be locked down and T2'ed as well ?
    Dude get over it -- 64-bit is coming and they’re not going to pull a Microsoft and bend over backwards to support legacy dinosaurs.
    Uhhhh.... they've been doing that since 206, with zero cost. There's no reason they can't release a software emulator to help out users who need certain older programs. Many programs are still being released today in 32-bit, for no understandable reason.
    Again.... Apple isn't going to keep 32-bit support forever to enable developers who are too lazy to update their apps, or even outright abandoned them. It isn't Apple's job to keep additional instruction set support around indefinitely because devs aren't supporting their users properly. 
    It's a little more complex than that.  There's the issue of having to subscribe to an app in order to update and a lot of people don't want to do that, not just because of the subscription fee, but because of the need for the app to be connected at times.    Personally, I'm still using Adobe CS6 and Office 2011 not because I'm too cheap to upgrade, but because I want stand-alone versions.    In addition, there are companies that are slow to update apps.   Nikon, for example, is notoriously slow in updating their apps for new MacOS versions.   It's very easy to say "well, screw 'em", but it's the end users who suffer as a result, sometimes not being able to do their jobs.    I haven't figured out what I'm going to do yet once the change comes.   And really, the OS code is already bloated - how much bigger would it have to be to still support 32 bit apps?    

    Back in the day, MacOS upgrades almost always went perfectly and everything just worked, even during the Intel transition.   But lately, each new version of MacOS seems to introduce more bugs.   Since a few upgrades ago, I can never open an Excel file from within Excel on the first try - it always works on the second try.    And in one of my Nikon photo importing apps, it used to recognize the iPhone and import those pics.   The app hasn't been updated, but MacOS has.   It does recognize that the phone is there, it just doesn't display any photos.    IMO, there's no good reason for those things to be happening.  They both used to work.   And considering all the resources Apple has, it's shameful that they introduce bugs that they don't fix.  

    I also think that average non-technical users probably are ignoring those messages about the apps that sometimes display.   When they next upgrade the MacOS, I predict that all hell is going to break loose when many of their apps stop working.    Yes, Apple did give them warnings, but were they warnings that they could understand the ramifications of?   If Apple is smart, the next Mac OS installer will first check all the apps and present a list to the end user of all the apps that aren't going to work if they proceed with the upgrade and give them a chance to bail out of the installation.    But they probably won't because Apple is arrogant.  
    Again, Office has a current "standalone" version you can buy: 
    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/office-home-student-2019/cfq7ttc0k7c8?activetab=pivot:overviewtab
    You actually had me a little excited there for a minute.  Then I read the FAQ on the listing page:

    -- Do I need internet access to run Office?

    Internet access is required to install and activate Office, but not to use Office applications such as Word, Excel, and PowerPoint once you have these fully installed on your computer.

    -- How do I download, install, reinstall, activate or update Office?

    Once you have purchased Office, you can install it from the Services & subscriptions section of your Microsoft Account page.


    So I have to create a Microsoft account and associate my computer with that account and let it talk to Microsoft?  No thanks.  I'm okay paying $150 for Office, but I'm not okay letting *any* software on my computers phone home.  Ever.  If you're a dev, you'll understand that there's absolutely no way to know what information an app can gather and transmit back to the home office.

    I do appreciate the link though, I was not aware of this product.


    CS6 is 7 years old already. Get over it. 
    The above info was appreciated, but this is just a rude and unjustified comment.  The whole "get over it" theme hails from the hugest asshole Scott McNealy, with his "You have no privacy, get over it" comment.  When things are getting worse, it's not okay to tell people to "get over it".  It's reminiscent of when another asshole, Bobby Knight said "If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it".  That's bullshit.

    Hell, I use an older version than CS6, for exactly the reasons zoetmb brought up.  The entire mindset is wrong.  Spyware, surveillance-ware, subscription-ware that phones home, none of it is okay.  But so many people have just rolled over while they being taken advantage of and told to "just enjoy it", that it's becoming the norm.  Company after company wants to have their software phone home (for a huge variety of reasons), personal data is being harvested in hundreds of different ways, and everyone seems to think they can just add free revenue streams by moving to subscriptions instead of actually delivering software worth paying to upgrade.

    When people say "get over it", they're contributing to the problem by helping normalize bad behavior. 


    The bugs you listed aren't Apple's bugs, they're the 3rd party developer's bugs they haven't addressed in newer versions of macOS. It's on you to make sure the software you need to get things done is compatible with newer versions of the operating system, it's allllllllways been that way. Also, why the hell are you using a Nikon app to access photos on your iPhone? Image Capture or Photos already works fine. You're literally creating problems for yourself.

    Run a Parallels VM of whichever earlier macOS/OS X you have to.

    "But they probably won't because Apple is arrogant." — waaaaaahhhhh
    Although I'm sympathetic so a bunch of zoetmb's points, I do agree with your last bit, the "Apple is arrogant" comment was too much.

    Unfortunately, running Parallels (Desktop Lite) has now become yet another dead-to-me piece of software after they pushed an update that killed basic functionality and replaced it with a required subscription to continue using their software.  Sound familiar?



    GG1watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 38
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

    crowley said:

    jdiamond said:
    ...and so if one wants a new retail mac that can still run a more debugged macOS and 32 bit apps is time running out...? Will the iMac be locked down and T2'ed as well ?
    Dude get over it -- 64-bit is coming and they’re not going to pull a Microsoft and bend over backwards to support legacy dinosaurs.
    Uhhhh.... they've been doing that since 206, with zero cost. There's no reason they can't release a software emulator to help out users who need certain older programs. Many programs are still being released today in 32-bit, for no understandable reason.
    Again.... Apple isn't going to keep 32-bit support forever to enable developers who are too lazy to update their apps, or even outright abandoned them. It isn't Apple's job to keep additional instruction set support around indefinitely because devs aren't supporting their users properly. 
    Devs are lazy for not supporting 20 year old software?  Then Apple is lazy, because they stop support way before 20 years have past.

    Apple's "job" in this context is to produce software that people want.  If people don't want older software that they like to stop running and therefore don't upgrade then Apple have failed.

    In some senses I prefer the Microsoft way.

    No, devs are lazy for not updating a 32-bit app to 64-bit. Dunno why you brought up 20 years. Charge money for the new version and make your customers happy. Not rocket science. If your prized apps haven't been updated to 64-bit, the problem lies with the developer. Humbly said as a professional, full-time developer of software. Updating software is our job. If your tools are abandonware, oh well -- but there's no way the world is gonna hold itself back because you don't want to find a newer tool than some old abandonware. Lol, ridiculous proposition. 
     
    If you prefer MS, then get yourself a Dell and stop crying in your cup about the lack of 32-bit support on a better operating system. 
    You really need to grow up, this attitude isn't cute.

    Software can have a long history, some apps are old, and no longer being updated, despite being very good.  In some cases the developer doesn't even exist any more.   As a professional, full-time developer of software* you will of course be aware of this, since I find it very hard to believe that you're actively maintaining your entire legacy codebase.  Therefore there's no laziness involved, and your aggressive petulance does no one, including Apple, any favours.  There's no mileage in the claim that the world is being held back by 32 bit compatibility, that's patent nonsense.

    I have a Dell, the fact there's very little software released through the lifetime of Windows that I can't run is very advantageous.  I also have a Mac, which I'll continue to use, because I like it very much, but I may well not upgrade to the next version of macOS for some time, because losing 32 bit apps is a bitter pill, and I can't imagine the new features will outweigh that.


    * I doubt this.  You write like a 14 year old.
    edited August 2019
  • Reply 35 of 38
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,568member
    blah64 said:
    zoetmb said:

    jdiamond said:
    ...and so if one wants a new retail mac that can still run a more debugged macOS and 32 bit apps is time running out...? Will the iMac be locked down and T2'ed as well ?
    Dude get over it -- 64-bit is coming and they’re not going to pull a Microsoft and bend over backwards to support legacy dinosaurs.
    Uhhhh.... they've been doing that since 206, with zero cost. There's no reason they can't release a software emulator to help out users who need certain older programs. Many programs are still being released today in 32-bit, for no understandable reason.
    Again.... Apple isn't going to keep 32-bit support forever to enable developers who are too lazy to update their apps, or even outright abandoned them. It isn't Apple's job to keep additional instruction set support around indefinitely because devs aren't supporting their users properly. 
    It's a little more complex than that.  There's the issue of having to subscribe to an app in order to update and a lot of people don't want to do that, not just because of the subscription fee, but because of the need for the app to be connected at times.    Personally, I'm still using Adobe CS6 and Office 2011 not because I'm too cheap to upgrade, but because I want stand-alone versions.    In addition, there are companies that are slow to update apps.   Nikon, for example, is notoriously slow in updating their apps for new MacOS versions.   It's very easy to say "well, screw 'em", but it's the end users who suffer as a result, sometimes not being able to do their jobs.    I haven't figured out what I'm going to do yet once the change comes.   And really, the OS code is already bloated - how much bigger would it have to be to still support 32 bit apps?    

    Back in the day, MacOS upgrades almost always went perfectly and everything just worked, even during the Intel transition.   But lately, each new version of MacOS seems to introduce more bugs.   Since a few upgrades ago, I can never open an Excel file from within Excel on the first try - it always works on the second try.    And in one of my Nikon photo importing apps, it used to recognize the iPhone and import those pics.   The app hasn't been updated, but MacOS has.   It does recognize that the phone is there, it just doesn't display any photos.    IMO, there's no good reason for those things to be happening.  They both used to work.   And considering all the resources Apple has, it's shameful that they introduce bugs that they don't fix.  

    I also think that average non-technical users probably are ignoring those messages about the apps that sometimes display.   When they next upgrade the MacOS, I predict that all hell is going to break loose when many of their apps stop working.    Yes, Apple did give them warnings, but were they warnings that they could understand the ramifications of?   If Apple is smart, the next Mac OS installer will first check all the apps and present a list to the end user of all the apps that aren't going to work if they proceed with the upgrade and give them a chance to bail out of the installation.    But they probably won't because Apple is arrogant.  
    Again, Office has a current "standalone" version you can buy: 
    https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/office-home-student-2019/cfq7ttc0k7c8?activetab=pivot:overviewtab
    You actually had me a little excited there for a minute.  Then I read the FAQ on the listing page:

    -- Do I need internet access to run Office?

    Internet access is required to install and activate Office, but not to use Office applications such as Word, Excel, and PowerPoint once you have these fully installed on your computer.

    -- How do I download, install, reinstall, activate or update Office?

    Once you have purchased Office, you can install it from the Services & subscriptions section of your Microsoft Account page.


    So I have to create a Microsoft account and associate my computer with that account and let it talk to Microsoft?  No thanks.  I'm okay paying $150 for Office, but I'm not okay letting *any* software on my computers phone home.  Ever.  If you're a dev, you'll understand that there's absolutely no way to know what information an app can gather and transmit back to the home office.

    I do appreciate the link though, I was not aware of this product.


    CS6 is 7 years old already. Get over it. 
    The above info was appreciated, but this is just a rude and unjustified comment.  The whole "get over it" theme hails from the hugest asshole Scott McNealy, with his "You have no privacy, get over it" comment.  When things are getting worse, it's not okay to tell people to "get over it".  It's reminiscent of when another asshole, Bobby Knight said "If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it".  That's bullshit.

    Hell, I use an older version than CS6, for exactly the reasons zoetmb brought up.  The entire mindset is wrong.  Spyware, surveillance-ware, subscription-ware that phones home, none of it is okay.  But so many people have just rolled over while they being taken advantage of and told to "just enjoy it", that it's becoming the norm.  Company after company wants to have their software phone home (for a huge variety of reasons), personal data is being harvested in hundreds of different ways, and everyone seems to think they can just add free revenue streams by moving to subscriptions instead of actually delivering software worth paying to upgrade.

    When people say "get over it", they're contributing to the problem by helping normalize bad behavior. 


    The bugs you listed aren't Apple's bugs, they're the 3rd party developer's bugs they haven't addressed in newer versions of macOS. It's on you to make sure the software you need to get things done is compatible with newer versions of the operating system, it's allllllllways been that way. Also, why the hell are you using a Nikon app to access photos on your iPhone? Image Capture or Photos already works fine. You're literally creating problems for yourself.

    Run a Parallels VM of whichever earlier macOS/OS X you have to.

    "But they probably won't because Apple is arrogant." — waaaaaahhhhh
    Although I'm sympathetic so a bunch of zoetmb's points, I do agree with your last bit, the "Apple is arrogant" comment was too much.

    Unfortunately, running Parallels (Desktop Lite) has now become yet another dead-to-me piece of software after they pushed an update that killed basic functionality and replaced it with a required subscription to continue using their software.  Sound familiar?



    The problem is, as I’ve found out in my almost 70 years of living in it, is that we have to deal with the way the world is, and not with the way we want it to be.

    if companies aren’t happy about too many people not upgrading software, and so they have subscriptions, which allows them to eventually discontinue the “legacy” versions, then we have to deal with that. If you aren’t in a very competitive environment, then you might be able to live with old software. But if you are, then, like it or not, you have got to keep up.

    and eventually, something is going to break, and your software will stop working. While I have sympathy for that, I also shrug when people tell me it’s happened. It’s to be expected, and anyone who doesn’t understand that is well below the curve. So sometimes we have to bite the bullet, so to speak, and give in to reality. We don’t always have to like it, but at some point, we have to do it.
    fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 38
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,568member

    crowley said:

    crowley said:

    jdiamond said:
    ...and so if one wants a new retail mac that can still run a more debugged macOS and 32 bit apps is time running out...? Will the iMac be locked down and T2'ed as well ?
    Dude get over it -- 64-bit is coming and they’re not going to pull a Microsoft and bend over backwards to support legacy dinosaurs.
    Uhhhh.... they've been doing that since 206, with zero cost. There's no reason they can't release a software emulator to help out users who need certain older programs. Many programs are still being released today in 32-bit, for no understandable reason.
    Again.... Apple isn't going to keep 32-bit support forever to enable developers who are too lazy to update their apps, or even outright abandoned them. It isn't Apple's job to keep additional instruction set support around indefinitely because devs aren't supporting their users properly. 
    Devs are lazy for not supporting 20 year old software?  Then Apple is lazy, because they stop support way before 20 years have past.

    Apple's "job" in this context is to produce software that people want.  If people don't want older software that they like to stop running and therefore don't upgrade then Apple have failed.

    In some senses I prefer the Microsoft way.

    No, devs are lazy for not updating a 32-bit app to 64-bit. Dunno why you brought up 20 years. Charge money for the new version and make your customers happy. Not rocket science. If your prized apps haven't been updated to 64-bit, the problem lies with the developer. Humbly said as a professional, full-time developer of software. Updating software is our job. If your tools are abandonware, oh well -- but there's no way the world is gonna hold itself back because you don't want to find a newer tool than some old abandonware. Lol, ridiculous proposition. 
     
    If you prefer MS, then get yourself a Dell and stop crying in your cup about the lack of 32-bit support on a better operating system. 
    You really need to grow up, this attitude isn't cute.

    Software can have a long history, some apps are old, and no longer being updated, despite being very good.  In some cases the developer doesn't even exist any more.   As a professional, full-time developer of software* you will of course be aware of this, since I find it very hard to believe that you're actively maintaining your entire legacy codebase.  Therefore there's no laziness involved, and your aggressive petulance does no one, including Apple, any favours.  There's no mileage in the claim that the world is being held back by 32 bit compatibility, that's patent nonsense.

    I have a Dell, the fact there's very little software released through the lifetime of Windows that I can't run is very advantageous.  I also have a Mac, which I'll continue to use, because I like it very much, but I may well not upgrade to the next version of macOS for some time, because losing 32 bit apps is a bitter pill, and I can't imagine the new features will outweigh that.


    * I doubt this.  You write like a 14 year old.
    The problem with updating software is monetary. It’s always about money. If that software is still selling well, and the developer is making money, with the future being that the software won’t work without some upgrade, then they will do it. If it’s not, then very likely, they won’t. Some of my favorite apps for iOS are no longer available to me on my latest ipad. I have older iPads for that purpose. I don’t expect everyone to do that, as I don’t expect everyone to have an older Mac around for that purpose, though some do.

    the backward compatibility of the win/Intel monopoly is both good and bad. Yeah, cheaper and easier to maintain, but backwards in a number of ways, as well as less reliable, and confusing. If people think that Apple OS upgrades and updates are a problem, it’s paradise in comparison. And there are plenty of Windows apps that don’t work, or work properly, on win 10 that worked on win 7, and we can step further back, and see the same thing.and no, I’m not going to enumerate all of them here. Just go to the Windows forums, and you’ll see.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 38
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,435member
    blah64 said:
    You actually had me a little excited there for a minute.  Then I read the FAQ on the listing page:

    -- Do I need internet access to run Office?

    Internet access is required to install and activate Office, but not to use Office applications such as Word, Excel, and PowerPoint once you have these fully installed on your computer.

    -- How do I download, install, reinstall, activate or update Office?

    Once you have purchased Office, you can install it from the Services & subscriptions section of your Microsoft Account page.


    So I have to create a Microsoft account and associate my computer with that account and let it talk to Microsoft?  No thanks.  I'm okay paying $150 for Office, but I'm not okay letting *any* software on my computers phone home.  Ever.  If you're a dev, you'll understand that there's absolutely no way to know what information an app can gather and transmit back to the home office.

    I do appreciate the link though, I was not aware of this product.
    Software activation over the internet is nothing new. It's not even a continuous thing in this case, as it is with many other types of software, you just activate it and leave it be. I don't share your paranoia especially with regard to a major well-known software provider.

    The above info was appreciated, but this is just a rude and unjustified comment.  The whole "get over it" theme hails from the hugest asshole Scott McNealy, with his "You have no privacy, get over it" comment.  When things are getting worse, it's not okay to tell people to "get over it".  It's reminiscent of when another asshole, Bobby Knight said "If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it".  That's bullshit.

    Hell, I use an older version than CS6, for exactly the reasons zoetmb brought up.  The entire mindset is wrong.  Spyware, surveillance-ware, subscription-ware that phones home, none of it is okay.  But so many people have just rolled over while they being taken advantage of and told to "just enjoy it", that it's becoming the norm.  Company after company wants to have their software phone home (for a huge variety of reasons), personal data is being harvested in hundreds of different ways, and everyone seems to think they can just add free revenue streams by moving to subscriptions instead of actually delivering software worth paying to upgrade.

    When people say "get over it", they're contributing to the problem by helping normalize bad behavior.  
    Although I'm sympathetic so a bunch of zoetmb's points, I do agree with your last bit, the "Apple is arrogant" comment was too much.

    You're projecting, and quite a bit at that. Rape? Get out of here.

    My point is that you can't expect Apple to care about supporting 7 year old software. You literally do not have to update to Catalina, so in your case, just don't. You'll be fine. Just don't expect sympathy from normal users who simply keep up with the times.

    Adobe CC is a tool. I have no problems subscribing to it as it allows me to do my job, like most normal people. In no way do I feel like Adobe is "taking advantage" of me. Again, I do not share your paranoia about Adobe harvesting my data. What do you think they're doing, exactly? 

    Unfortunately, running Parallels (Desktop Lite) has now become yet another dead-to-me piece of software after they pushed an update that killed basic functionality and replaced it with a required subscription to continue using their software.  Sound familiar?

    Dunno what you're on about. You can still buy Parallels Desktop without a subscription. In my case, I plan to upgrade to the latest version for $50 from the years-old version I already have to run a Mojave VM for my 32bit Steam games. No subscription required.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 38
    It is always somewhat astonishing how many SKUs Apple actually has; a Laptop, a phone, a watch, a bit of color, a bit of material, size... ends up to quite some complexity. I wonder how strictly they keep a lid on that.
    Color, material, storage capacity, processor variant...  all a lot easier to roll out versus the insanity of having dozens of different models of each product ala Samsung’s smartphone range.  
    I’m well aware of the insane variants S. is putting out. My points were twofold: first up, at a glance you wouldn’t expect that many variants - somehow the 2x2 matrix of SJ and the first iPhone with - was it two? Sizes comes to my mind. 
    Second, #variants have the tendency to creep and lead to undesirable complexity. I am just wondering how strict they are with introducing a new variant. Are they doing this on strict business case estimates (increased costs vs increased revenue) or go more easy in a “ let’s try and find out” manner. 
Sign In or Register to comment.