On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Chris Lawson <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 23:38 -0800 on 24/01/2010, Faisal N Jawdat wrote: > >>I'd like to make a case for not actually forcing people to the latest and >>greatest OS. I know of several power user types who haven't jumped to SL >>because they are mid-project and loathe to take on a major OS update at the >>moment. > > Aside from that, I'd like to know what the compelling argument for 10.6-only > support *is*, other than "it simplifies things". Because presumably we aren't > going to be dropping support for the previous OS version as soon as a new > version ships going forward. I'm not trying to say we should support 10.4, > *ever*, but if we get this thing out the door and 10.5 is still > current-minus-one, I'd like to know why, exactly, we're going to force people > to upgrade to 10.6. That seems...unfriendly. 10.6 introduced some nice technologies such as Grand Central Dispatch. By being able to leverage on these improvements, and not having to implement duplicate, legacy code, we'll not only get a better 1.0, we'll get it earlier. Do you want to postpose Letters 1.0 by, say, two months, because we have to support 10.5, which at release time will enjoy even fewer users? 10.7 may even be out at that time. Remember, the target group is developers such as ourselves. Chances are that more than 90% of us are running 10.6 by now. And even more when Letters 1.0 ships. We're developing Letters in our sparetime, or at least at the cost of doing paid work. Any complexity we can avoid, must be avoided. Joachim http://cocoastuff.com @osteslag _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
