forum home | register | profile | members |search | faq
homepage | lost password? | chat room
|
|
QSA ToolWorks Public Feedback Forum forum home | register | profile | members |search | faq homepage | lost password? | chat room |
| QSA ToolWorks Public Feedback Forum > OS Version Support > OS Version Support | You are not logged in. Login or Register. |
| Pages: 1 |
|
| Author: | Topic: OS Version Support | |||
Matt Posts: 107 Registered: 2003-02-16  mstrange@mac.com  |
 Posted: Apr 10, 2003 8:30:54 pm    
Based on a comment elsewhere, there seems to be a misperception that Helix 6 will be an OS X only release. We have no plans to do that. We still have clients that use 68K Macs: requiring everybody to get rid of all 60_ based PPC Macs would cut the user base to a very small fraction of what it is. We will support the Mac OS versions back as far as it is practical. Currently it looks like OS 8.6 is as far back as we will be able to go. As it stands, the OS requirements will probably be "OS 8.6-9.2.2, or 10.2 and higher" as 10.0 (and to a lesser extent, 10.1) just isn't mature enough to be able to trust it. If this is unacceptable, make your case here.
|
|||
Tim Posts: 2 Registered: 2003-04-10 |
Posted: Apr 10, 2003 10:45:40 pm
Hopefully the application size, feature set and robustness will not be compromised by having the app run on too many OS's. Moving from OS 9 to 10 had its jitters, but I now would never consider going back. Similarly, having used Helix 5.1 I would never consider going back to previous versions. Are the folk who stay with old OS's the same as the ones with old Helix's? Are they the logical purchasers and supporters of Helix as it moves forward???
|
|||
Sven Posts: 24 Registered: 2003-04-09 |
Posted: Apr 11, 2003 9:50:39 am
We would be prepared at any time to switch to latest hardware and system on the machines running Helix Servers. I would say the same for the developer machines. We could handle that expense.* As for the clients we would like the ability to continue using yesterday's hardware with systems back to 8.6. We do not have client machines with systems earlier than 8.6. Maybe it does not make sense to differentiate, but in our case, RADE and SERVER would be OK if they supported only 10.2 boxes, whereas we must be able to run CLIENT on macs with older systems. * ) NOTE: As for now, however, Helix gives us more than enough speed using old hardware even for SERVER and RADE. This is true as long as there is enough physical RAM for a full RAMJet load; -- with current max collection sizes we need just 360 Mb in the macs used for SERVER or RADE, so we do of course take advantage of this and save our money for other purposes. Thank you  - Edited by Sven on: Apr 11, 2003 9:52:28 am - Edited by Sven on: Apr 11, 2003 10:05:50 am
|
|||
dkuchta Posts: 40 Registered: 2003-04-09 |
Posted: Apr 12, 2003 10:29:22 am
I agree that only the Client needs to be compatible with older OSs. While I don't personally have a need for any support prior to OS X, I can see where going to an OS X only release would limit marketability for some. Having an 8.6+ client would only require installed users to update one machine to OS X. However, I wonder if people who have older machines with older OSs are only doing so becuase they have to run legacy software - like Helix?
|
|||
| jimbob Posts: 1 Registered: 2003-04-09 |
Posted: Apr 12, 2003 3:08:11 pm
if enabling helix 6 to run any OS prior to 10.2 would take very much effort, it seems to me a waste of time. anyone who finds it necessary to run obsolete systems should continue using Helix 5. get Helix caught up with the current state of technology.
|
|||
| pampine Posts: 8 Registered: 2003-04-09 |
Posted: Apr 12, 2003 4:52:13 pm
I agree that only the Client needs to be compatible with older OS's. Pam
|
|||
| omnis Posts: 2 Registered: 2003-04-12 |
 Posted: Apr 13, 2003 2:00:03 pm
Client - back to 8.6 - Edited by omnis on: Apr 13, 2003 2:04:14 pm |
|||
| lessismore Posts: 1 Registered: 2003-04-14 |
Posted: Apr 14, 2003 7:17:33 am
I fail to understand why Helix 6 needs to support older OSs than X. If it is not going to include significant new features then there is little incentive for those who are still using older machines to upgrade anyway, so they are unlikely to become immediate customers for 6. By the time 7 comes along with new features, just about everyone will have upgraded and all that OS8.x, OS9.x compatibility work will have been wasted. Getting to X seems to be a big enough challenge as it is, and for reasons we all understand it is well overdue. My vote is for 6 to be OSX only so we can get it out and move forward as soon as possible. Meanwhile this discussion is getting far too serious, as Helix discussions tend to, so here's a totally gratuitous emoticon to lighten it up a litte. 
|
|||
| John Alcock Posts: 3 Registered: 2003-04-09 |
Posted: Apr 14, 2003 4:32:10 pm
Hardware for the past five years has been able to run 9.xx I'd suggest that anything earlier than 9.xx is not supported by Helix. |
|||
| BKSLDR7 Posts: 8 Registered: 2003-04-09 |
Posted: Apr 14, 2003 8:01:36 pm
I would agree with the suggestions that Helix 6 server need only be OSx compatible with the client being backward compatible to OS 9.x By the time Helix 6 ships surely those running multiuser Helix could come up with one OSX compatible cpu to run the server. I know that I am already getting G4's as hand-me-downs and OSX can run on G3's.
|
|||
keVin Posts: 30 Registered: 2003-04-09 |
Posted: Apr 15, 2003 3:07:22 pm
Matt didn't seem to indicate supporting other Mac OS's is a problem. quote: Backwards compatibility for as long as it is practical is a good thing. Both HT and Solutions Developers can sell to a larger audience. |
|||
| BKSLDR7 Posts: 8 Registered: 2003-04-09 |
Posted: Apr 15, 2003 4:00:22 pm
I agree, Kevin. And I can see the attraction, now that you mention it, for developers. If backward compatibility can be supported with little overhead then, by all means, let us have it. But if it involves delaying Helix 6 or 7 multiple months then minimize the distance backward or eliminate it in the interest of getting the new version out. I guess there is a trade-off here that only Helix Tech can optimize.
|
|||
gibhenry Posts: 5 Registered: 2003-04-26 GibH gibhenry@hotmail.com |
Posted: Jun 17, 2004 1:14:57 am
I agree with Bill's assessment. If there's no significant overhead, then let's support the oldest OS conveniently possible. If cutting off 8.x makes sense in terms of programming time, then so be it. If the same applies to OS 9.x, then so be it. The key is to look forward, while providing legacy support only insofar as it is economically feasible. This is a decision for the Helix folks to make, not for the users. Those "left behind" are only left behind by their own choice. Cheers,
|
|||
| rplaut6456 Posts: 1 Registered: 2006-03-07 |
Posted: Mar 07, 2006 9:56:26 pm
>>on a comment elsewhere, there seems to be a misperception that Helix 6 will be an OS X only release.<< I'm one of those. I thought I was buying an OSX application but what I got was an OS9. Hell 5.1 ran in classic mode. I feel I was scammed. I sure as hell hope an OSX version will be out soon and that I won't get hammered for an upgrade fee. One other thing why can't someone write the code so that you can open more than on collection at a time?
|
| Pages: 1 |
|
| Lost Password? Powered by UPB Version : 1.8 A script by PHP Outburst |
