Sarah Reichelt wrote:
On 6/3/07, Joe Lewis Wilkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now this is something I think we need to worry about less than having
a "Classic" potential; since most people who have OSX are going to be
moving up to the latest due to the ease with which Apple makes
updating the OS. Or am I in the minority when I get automatic updates
from Apple on just about everything whenever there is new software?
I'd be willing to bet that there are many, many fewer using OSX 2.8
than are using OS9.2.
I notice that an increasing number of applications list their
requirements as 10.4.x
It used to be that 10.2.8 was the cutoff. As far as I am concerned, I
just want to know what I should list as the minimum system needed to
run my programs: does 10.3 still work OK?
Seems to, at least here. I'm running 10.3.9 on my Powerbook and 10.4 on
my desktop Mac. I haven't had any trouble with any stacks in 10.3.9, and
I was running 10.3.7 for a very long time with Rev before that. I never
had Rev 2.8.1 on my 10.3.7 machine but I know 2.7.4 worked okay.
I've noticed a lot of software that requires 10.3.9 lately, I get the
feeling that was pretty much the cutoff these days.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
