Quote:
|
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot: I try to respond in kind with the original. |
The difference being I had a point...
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot: Five reasons I see: 1. *very* few things actually b0rked to the point where they didn't work in Classic (this doesn't include games) |
Depends on how you define usable. Classic is terrible, IMO... I don't use it for even the most basic things, because it's just a mess. And games can't just be discounted, they're a big part of it all.
Either way, the lack of support for hardware under Classic is another killer that has yet to be addressed.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot: 2. For those that did break even in Classic, re-booting into OS9 has remained an option on every single Mac sold before January 2003 |
That doesn't help those who need to upgrade, but still need (or desire) Classic compatibility on a usable scale.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot: 3. Rewriting something for OS X is probably quite a bit more work than rewriting something for System 6 --> System 7 |
Even with Carbon? I have no idea, I'm not a developer. You're probably right. That's not our problem, though. Nor should it be.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot: 4. Apple has a smaller marketshare these days. |
So angering it probably isn't the best idea.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot: 5. Free alternatives being ported over from other *nixes reducing pressure and incentive on commercial developers to port. As it is, I believe the number of applications now being ported to OS X from *other* OSen is probably quite a bit higher than the number of applications *not* being (or not yet) ported from Mac OS 9. -s* |
No doubt... but that's no good when I want to play Descent 3, for example.