> Here, in a nutshell, is the point that I am trying to communicate, perhaps
> poorly in previous messages:
>
> On a Windows OS, be it 98, ME or 2000, I can use Outlook 2000. I do not
> have to upgrade an operating system from 98 to be able to use the very
> latest upgrade or version of Outlook 2000. It is multi-OS version compliant
> (if there exists such a term).
Think of the MacOS Classic to MacOS X transition as the Win 3.1 to Win 95
transition. (Although, in truth, it is a transition of far greater scale).
When moving to Win 95, you could continue to use most of your Win 3.1
applications; however, in order to take full advantage of Win 95, you needed
new applications...new applications that were often written to a new API.
Now, as a user, these API's are things that you don't see or worry about it.
But as a developer these API's are what allow you to write software for a
given operating system.
Apple has an interesting transition. MacOS X, aside from coming from Apple
and running on Macintoshes, shares practically nothing in common with MacOS
Classic. It's an almost entirely new operating system.
> Why is it, however, that in order to use an upgraded, improved or future
> version of Entourage beyond the first release, that we will have to upgrade
> the Mac OS each time?
You are making an assumption (or twelve) that aren't entirely accurate.
Entourage for MacOS X, while sharing the same name, in most ways, amounts to
a new product. Entourage for MacOS Classic will, undoubtedly, receive
future upgrades.
But my suspicion is that most of the efforts will go into advancing
Entourage for MacOS X. Allegedly most software sales occur at the time of
new machine purchases. And as of this summer, new machines are supposed to
be shipping with MacOS X.
> Is this a double-standard from the way such programs are being developed for
> Windows, and if so, why?
Not really. If you buy an application written to take full advantage of Win
2k, it doesn't work all that well under WinNT. Similarly with Win98 versus
Win 95.
And none of 'em work well, if at all, with Win 3.1.
WinME isn't included above because it's purely a marketing release (think
Win98 bundled with updated Internet tools).
> From a sales and revenue standpoint it would seem like a wiser choice would
> have been for MS to continue to make future versions of Entourage compatible
> with 9.x _as well as_ OSX so that the customer base is as large as possible,
> rather than force consumers to upgrade their OS.
Had Microsoft chose to only write a MacOS Classic version of Office, they
would undoubtedly have been hounded by the Justice Department for using
their power in applications development to help maintain their "monopoly" in
operating systems.
Undoubtedly most smaller developers will have to write Classic apps for
awhile. Microsoft can afford to "swing for the fences" and be wrong.
Having deep pockets has its advantages.
Speaking of maximizing your customer base. The "logical" conclusion of this
argument is "Given that Macintosh customers can run your applications
underneath VirtualPC, writing a Macintosh specific application simply
undermines your PC's version's sales and consumes developer resources that
would best be spent improving Office for the entire customer base".
> Or is this a technical impossibility given that there are such dramatic
> differences between 9.x and OSX?
A MacOS X application that takes even reasonable advantage of OS X will not
be backwards compatible with MacOS Classic. As I said above, it's really an
entirely new operating system.
If there were a Linux for Macintosh (which, by the by, there is) and Apple
decided to switch to using that and Microsoft released "Office for Linux on
Macintosh" (OLM), would you reasonably expect OLM to run under MacOS
Classic?
'cause that's pretty much what's happening here.
Although MacOS X is based upon BSD UNIX instead of Linux. ;-)
mikel
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
