Thanks Esteban,

30 works indeed. I haven't had a chance to try 40, will try it tonight.

Cheers,

Stefano



On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:41 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> hi,
>
> I would say
>
> get.pharo.org/30+vm
>
> or
>
> get.pharo.org/20+vm <http://get.pharo.org/30+vm>
>
> one of both should work.
> there is also a chance that
>
> get.pharo.org/40+vm <http://get.pharo.org/30+vm>
>
> … will work, but you need to try it ;)
>
> Esteban
>
> ps: but as Marcus say, it will be an older image and an older VM. Still
> very usable (as it *was* usable at the time), but not the fresh stuff :)
>
>
> On 6 Mar 2018, at 08:47, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5 Mar 2018, at 20:16, stefano franchi <stefano.fran...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.s...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Did you check
>>
>> http://get.pharo.org
>>
>> because we keep everything.
>>
>>
>
> Apologies for not having stated my question more precisely. Indeed, I
> started from get.pharo.org, but the zeroconf script did not guess right.
> The app it downloaded crashes at startup. Then I saw the *long* list of
> versions available and had no idea where to begin. So my real question is:
>
> Does anyone know which among the many VMs available on
> http://get.pharo.org would work on a MacOs Powerbook Pro running 10.6.9?
> It was the latest 32 bit only machine Apple made, based on the Intel Core
> Duo (NOT the Intel  Core 2 Duo that came out a few months later).
>
> you could look for old VMs and downloads here: http://files.pharo.org/
>
> But it is quite hard to for us (with our limited man power) to support old
> machines forever… e.g the vm from that time should run,
> but at some point the VM gets improved and newer images require a newer VM
> as we want to actually use the features that
> new VMs provide.
>
> Keeping everything compatible in all possible directions (old images on
> new VMs, new image on old VMs …) puts quite some
> constraints on what you can do in future… an maintaining new VMs for all
> possible old MacOS versions could soon just
> use up all our manpower.
>
> So this is not a simple problem to solve. Even very financially capable
> projects (like Mozilla) can not support old MacOS
> versions. And they spend 150K per *month* just on CI infrastructure…
> imagine if they decide to not support anything older
> then MaOS 10.9… can we? should we?
>
> There are things to do on this front, but if I would spend effort the
> first thing I would work on is running *old* images on
> *new* VMs and explore what kind of abstraction would be needed to to that
> nicely and in a way that it can be maintained
> and in a way that all the needed code ( e.g. translation byte code from
> old to new) would be not part of the VM but
> part of the image.
>
> Making sure to run *current* images on old Machines can only be done by
> backporting the current VM to the old OS.
> This should be not that hard, worst case is that you need to combine some
> old OS related code with the rest of the new VM,
> but that should not be much.
>
> But one question: Considering what developer time costs… I am quite sure
> that it is cheaper to just buy a current Mac.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>


-- 
__________________________________________________
Stefano Franchi

stefano.fran...@gmail.com <stef...@tamu.edu>
http://stefano.cleinias.org

Reply via email to