[pheonixash]

Originally Posted by CNet

While Microsoft is still pushing Vista hard, the company is quietly allowing PC makers to offer a "downgrade" option to buyers that get machines with the new operating system but want to switch to Windows XP.

The program applies only to Windows Vista Business and Ultimate versions, and it is up to PC makers to decide how, if at all, they want to make XP available. Fujitsu has been among the most aggressive, starting last month to include an XP disc in the box with its laptops and tablets.

"That's going to help out small- and medium-size businesses," Fujitsu marketing manager Brandon Farris told CNET News.com.

Hewlett-Packard also started a program in August for many of its business models. "For business desktops, workstations and select business notebooks and tablet PCs, customers can configure their systems to include the XP Pro restore disc for little or no charge," HP spokeswoman Tiffany Smith said in an e-mail. She said it was too soon to gauge how high customer interest has been. "Since we've only been offering (it) for about a month, we don't really have anything to share on demand."


A Microsoft representative confirmed there were some changes made over the summer to the options computer makers have with respect to XP, but the representative was not immediately able to elaborate on those changes.

While there is always resistance by some to move to a new operating system, there appears to be particularly strong demand, especially from businesses, to stick with XP.

One of the challenges, for both businesses and consumers are Vista's hefty graphics and memory needs.

Lenovo, for its part, has details for its downgrade program on its IBM ThinkPad Web site.

Dell spokeswoman Anne Camden said Dell has been offering businesses that have a Premier Page set up the option to order systems with XP, Vista or Vista with XP downgrade rights. There is no extra charge for the downgrade rights.

"We've been offering it and we're still offering it," she said.

HP, Gateway and others also still sell machines with XP on them, nearly a year after Microsoft first started offering Vista to businesses. Vista went on sale broadly to consumers in January, at which point XP largely disappeared from retail shelves.

However, demand for XP has remained. In April, Dell brought XP back as an option even on consumer PCs.

There is an issue, though, over how long PC makers can keep selling machines with Windows XP as the preloaded operating system. Microsoft is requiring large PC makers to stop selling XP-based systems as of January 31, though some PC makers would like to sell XP machines for longer.

"We're all lobbying for it," Farris said.

Original Article

What do you guys make of this? They're now allowing people to downgrade from their latest and greatest OS.

[design219]

I think it's cool!

[theDreamer]

While I understand them (Microsoft) wanting to push there new operation system, it can not be a forced thing.
They must let the people decide at what rate it can be brought into the new main operating system. I know a few people who will not touch it until the end of next year, some upgrade the first few weeks it came out. Recently Microsoft brought some new updates that help gamers and there performance in games, and this made many people more pleased with there purchase. Yet even with this they must allow the market (people) choose how quickly they will accept it.

[scaught]

I just don't think they're offering what people want. Companies need to answer to the "voice of the customer" to remain relevant. I don't think anyone cares about something THAT fancy. Apple really straddles that line pretty well in terms of not letting an overly fancy graphical presentation get in the way of the user experience. Their presentation is a bit rough, granted (consistency being the main thing I'm talking about here), but overall I think they do a good job.

[Tuoder]

Vista is now officially the new Windows ME. 98SE>98>ME. XP:SP2>XP:SP1a>Vista.

[peeb]

Nobody's excited about it - I mean, what does it do that XP doesn't?

[Mithras]

It pops up warnings every time you click on anything, for one thing. That's pretty cool.

[theDreamer]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Nobody's excited about it - I mean, what does it do that XP doesn't?

~It revamps the sound system and has caused major problems with current (and even new) sound cards.
~It has added a higher level of security, with full on twenty questions or zero questions...no middle ground?
~A new interface that will take up your memory and hog it, can we not develop a good looking interface that does not eat up 40% or more of my system?

There are more, but to lazy to list them.
I think that Vista adds some positives, but it has attempted to change so much to quickly that an average person does not (or care to) deal with it.

[The Godfather]

Damn sure Billy G will jump ship and become Apple's newest poster child.

[0157988944]

I went to CompUSA to get my Mac fixed and messed with a Vista computer while I was there. After using Flip3D and looking at Aero and thinking "Cool, but unnecessary Effects," I realized that I felt really limited in it... Just like in XP. I tried to find something new... but couldn't. At face value, it's just XP with a new skin.

[alligator]

It's just not even in the same league as OS X 10.4.x - other than being an updated version of XP, I don't see the real improvement. They changed a couple of icons, added some security, and that's it. I'm really sorry I purchased Vista on all of my Windows machines. I won't make that mistake again. Plus, Apple blows them away on cost!

[shabbasuraj]

I use Windows 3.11 .........AWESOME

[Mithras]

Two things about Vista are nice: the desktop search is reasonably good, and I do like the shiny black part of the Aero interface, if not the silly glass stuff.

Flip3D is an atrocity.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

Flip3D is an atrocity.

You can download Switcher. It's free and looks better than Exposé.

The amount of warning windows UAC throws up is the only problem I have with Vista. It's a stable and fast OS that uses about the same amount of resources as Tiger. It's GUI is snappier than Tiger. It's Search is a little faster than Spotlight. Leopard fixes that. Leopard definitely holds all the cards (except gaming).

[pheonixash]

Well I like the thumbnails it pops up for items in the Taskbar(which we've had in the dock for a while). Besides that, it's pretty much just eye-candy.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

The amount of warning windows UAC throws up is the only problem I have with Vista. It's a stable and fast OS that uses about the same amount of resources as Tiger. It's GUI is snappier than Tiger.

NOw I wouldn't go that far.. as I've used both and Vista's GUI is a lot slower than 10.4. And 10.5s will be even faster.

[PB2K]

lots of people have several antivirus/spyware programs running at the same time. Norton is way too heavy. It slows everything down, they must have a good deal with microsoft to have it ruin their OS. i can rant about stupid windows too but fortunately i dont have to use it much so i 'll stay quiet.

bottomline is ; you just need to know too much about your pc to have it run normally, thats the real issue with microsoft : they make things way too complicated for the average user. People don't want to take their time to fine tune the computer, only nerds do that, they just want to work with their applications. Run messenger, run office.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by PB2K 

bottomline is ; you just need to know too much about your pc to have it run normally, thats the real issue with microsoft : they make things way too complicated for the average user.

I used to think this was untrue, back when I was a Windows user. Now I agree with it. After two and a half years of Mac usage, I’ve basic all but forgotten how Windows works, and I can really see how truly unintuitive and strange many things are in Windows. I can now see things from the non-experienced user’s point of view, which I couldn’t before.

Example: yesterday, while trying to figure out why the hard drive in one of my friends’ laptop showed up as only 40 GB, when it was supposed to be 120 GB, it took me ages to find,

a) Somewhere that would tell me the entire disk’s full capacity (not just the partition known as C), and even more so,

b) The disk managing utility that allowed me to create a secondary 80 GB partition of the unallocated space that was left (another friend of hers had partitioned the drive, but apparently he’d forgotten to actually make a partition in the second part).

On a Mac, both these things could be easily done in Applications -> Utilities -> Disk Manager. Logical place, logical name.

In Windows, I had to go into Control Panel -> System -> Hardware -> Hardware Management -> Storage, right-click on the hard drive, go to Properties, and choose the third or fourth tab just to be able to see the full capacity of the drive.

Then, when I wanted to make the second partition, I had to conjure up Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Computer Management -> Component Management -> Disk Management (or something like that—I’m not sure about the “Component Management” part, but something in that order). Granted, I could see the full capacity of the drive there, too, but it took me half a yonk just to find the damn thing!

[MacinTommy]

This is actually funny to me. At the bank I work at, we got all brand new computers throughout ALL of our branches and they came with XP on them. I asked the dell guy why they didn't have Vista on them and he said that they originally shipped with Vista on them but our company had to put XP on them because of compatibility issues. I had to laugh.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by PB2K 

lots of people have several antivirus/spyware programs running at the same time. Norton is way too heavy. It slows everything down, they must have a good deal with microsoft to have it ruin their OS. i can rant about stupid windows too but fortunately i dont have to use it much so i 'll stay quiet.

Yeah but this wasn't the case with this machine. I don't have anything installed of the like. Just bare bones Vista. It's GUI is a lot slower than XPs. And I know people who turn XP's GUI off cause it gives a performance hit. Can you do that with Vista? If so, cool. I always though OS X should have had the ability to go from Aqua to Platinum. It would have made the switch a lot more friendlier. On the eyes and the mind.

bottomline is ; you just need to know too much about your pc to have it run normally, thats the real issue with microsoft : they make things way too complicated for the average user. People don't want to take their time to fine tune the computer, only nerds do that, they just want to work with their applications. Run messenger, run office.

It takes far too much time to make Windows just usable in every day events. Having to run spyware removers and the like constantly would turn me off to computing all together. I guess I am spoiled.

While I am sure some windows user will reply telling me they don't get viruses, or have to run anything.. well these people aren't the average computer user. The average one DOES have to. And MS has made people believe that it's NORMAL behavior when owning a computer. When it's not. Only MSs OSs have these problems so bad.

And no, it's not just the market share either. Vista has come a long way to stop it.. but MS is still playing it's games. MS's need and desire for CONTROL comes above security.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Yeah but this wasn't the case with this machine. I don't have anything installed of the like. Just bare bones Vista. It's GUI is a lot slower than XPs. And I know people who turn XP's GUI off cause it gives a performance hit. Can you do that with Vista? If so, cool. I always though OS X should have had the ability to go from Aqua to Platinum. It would have made the switch a lot more friendlier. On the eyes and the mind.

Vista runs exactly the same on a MBP as XP. I noticed no real world slow down. It's use of system resources is in the same ballpark as Tiger. Yes, you can turn off Aero Glass, you can also turn off normal Aero and use the classic Windows theme.

It takes far too much time to make Windows just usable in every day events. Having to run spyware removers and the like constantly would turn me off to computing all together. I guess I am spoiled.

I haven't add those type of problems with XP or Vista. I don't install crapware from untrustable sources, don't use IM apps much and stay away from porn sites or anything that throws up a million cookies, javascripts and pop ups. That's also my ethos with Mac usage. I have never used any anti-virus or spyware cleaner either because they always slow down computers. Any time I saw a strange looking file or folder on my drive I Googled the name up and found them to be harmless (back ups from software update, etc).

I have seen that people who are careless with the way they use software or the internet are the ones with the worst Windows and Mac installations. I have a cousin who thinks he's a ****ing computer genius because he twiddles and tweaks settings all day every day but all his computers run like **** because he spends 70% of his time downloading torrents and porn and another 30% running warez from who knows where. His Tiger runs like a domesticated cat that has become disabled, old and blind. His XP is a dead dog. I'm not saying you do that but many do and it's their fault their computers are crashy and sluggish.

[macroy]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I used to think this was untrue, back when I was a Windows user. Now I agree with it. After two and a half years of Mac usage, I’ve basic all but forgotten how Windows works, and I can really see how truly unintuitive and strange many things are in Windows. I can now see things from the non-experienced user’s point of view, which I couldn’t before.

Example: yesterday, while trying to figure out why the hard drive in one of my friends’ laptop showed up as only 40 GB, when it was supposed to be 120 GB, it took me ages to find,

a) Somewhere that would tell me the entire disk’s full capacity (not just the partition known as C), and even more so,

b) The disk managing utility that allowed me to create a secondary 80 GB partition of the unallocated space that was left (another friend of hers had partitioned the drive, but apparently he’d forgotten to actually make a partition in the second part).

On a Mac, both these things could be easily done in Applications -> Utilities -> Disk Manager. Logical place, logical name.

In Windows, I had to go into Control Panel -> System -> Hardware -> Hardware Management -> Storage, right-click on the hard drive, go to Properties, and choose the third or fourth tab just to be able to see the full capacity of the drive.

Then, when I wanted to make the second partition, I had to conjure up Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Computer Management -> Component Management -> Disk Management (or something like that—I’m not sure about the “Component Management” part, but something in that order). Granted, I could see the full capacity of the drive there, too, but it took me half a yonk just to find the damn thing!

All that could have been done by clicking Start (or the damn MS icon) -> right click on Computer -> manage. Which will then give you something similar to the Control panel....

I think this is less to do with being intuitive and more to do with familiarity. You said it yourself that you were not affected by this when you were using Windows.... and I have co-workers who would have absolutely no idea on how to get a terminal window if it wasn't in my dock. I actually remember my reaction when I got my first PowerBook and had to go MY HD -> Applications -> Utilities -> Terminal... I thought... wow.. that's kinda lame.

To me, Windows explorer with the expandable folders on the left column still beasts OS X's column view.

However, Vista IS annoying. Had it for a month... and went back to XP. One thing I also found out is that Vista will not recognize more than 4GB of RAM. I have 6GB on my workstation at work... and couldn't use it all. Not sure if its a MS issue or a characteristic of 32-bit OS (their 64-bit version will), but that really stinks.

[Jawbone54]

Microsoft should allow vendors to sell XP if they'd like, but you know they have to be saying, "We're the biggest company in the world, we spent God-knows-how-much developing this thing (not to mention how long it took), and YOU'RE GOING TO USE IT!"

People don't like to be forced to use something, especially when they consider it inferior. That's why so many people were hacked off about the 5-year contract between Apple and AT&T for the iPhone.

It's nice to be able to sit on the outside and observe all this.

[Oisín]

All that could have been done by clicking Start (or the damn MS icon) -> right click on Computer -> manage. Which will then give you something similar to the Control panel....

I didn’t even know that existed. “Manage”, you say? I’ve right-clicked on My Computer many times and never noticed such a menu entry.

I think this is less to do with being intuitive and more to do with familiarity. You said it yourself that you were not affected by this when you were using Windows....

Well... I was less affected by it when using Windows constantly, because I had to use these tools fairly often, so I’d tend to remember their various locations. I’d still often be stumped as to which tab in which properties dialogue of which object in which window would bring up that one elusive tick box I was looking for, though.

and I have co-workers who would have absolutely no idea on how to get a terminal window if it wasn't in my dock.

That’s definitely familiarity. They’re obviously not in the least bit used to (or interested in, it would sound) using a Mac. Yet I’m sure they’d be able to learn how to find the Terminal very easily if they wanted to. It took me about 30 seconds of searching the first time I needed to locate the terminal, long before I had a Mac and was used to using it.

There are many things in Windows, though, that are damn near impossible to find—even for experienced users. I couldn’t, for instance, for the life of me find the Windows equivalent of the Bluetooth menu in OS X, i.e., somewhere to search for available Bluetooth units (in this case a Sony Ericsson mobile phone). Went searching high and low, and managed to locate a whole bunch of different Bluetooth connectors, modems, LAN ports (?!?), and all sorts of things, but never managed to figure out how to connect to the damn phone!

There are, in my experience, far fewer of those things in OS X. It didn’t take me more than about three days to be completely comfortable in OS X (despite some lingering Windowish instincts and thoughts). Nowadays, despite having continually used Windows at work and school (though only for very limited tasks, of course), I think it would take me more than three days to get back into the Windows way of doing things. Not to mention how long it would take a completely unexperienced computer user to find his way around Windows.

I actually remember my reaction when I got my first PowerBook and had to go MY HD -> Applications -> Utilities -> Terminal... I thought... wow.. that's kinda lame.

As opposed to..? What were you coming from, Windows? It’s more or less the same there, no? Start -> Programs -> Utilities [are they called that on Windows? I forget] -> DOS prompt.

Or Linux? I suppose it must be easier to bring up a terminal in Linux, but then it has a more generalistic functionality in Linux than it does in OS X.

(I don’t count “My HD” as a step, just like I don’t really count “Start” a step; I think of it as more the basic premise of finding anything)

[driven]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

I went to CompUSA to get my Mac fixed and messed with a Vista computer while I was there. After using Flip3D and looking at Aero and thinking "Cool, but unnecessary Effects," I realized that I felt really limited in it... Just like in XP. I tried to find something new... but couldn't. At face value, it's just XP with a new skin.

Honestly, what did you expect? They only had 5 years to work on it. It's like you were expecting miracles or something.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by MacinTommy 

This is actually funny to me. At the bank I work at, we got all brand new computers throughout ALL of our branches and they came with XP on them. I asked the dell guy why they didn't have Vista on them and he said that they originally shipped with Vista on them but our company had to put XP on them because of compatibility issues. I had to laugh.

Yeah, because Apple is so much better at backward compatibility than Microsoft is...

[Mastrap]

In all fairness, Apple is a lot better. Not perfect, but better.

[CharlesS]

No, they really, really aren't.

At least Microsoft tries to maintain backward compatibility. Apple doesn't care about it at all. Microsoft accidentally breaks some old apps in Vista in the process of improving their underlying OS, fixing security holes, fixing other problems, and everyone jumps on them. Apple deliberately makes a conscious decision to break old stuff, and everyone starts singing "rah rah rah! backward compatibility is evil! backward compatibility would turn OS X into Windows!" They do it with software (Classic environment), they do it with hardware (serial ports, etc). If you have legacy anything, don't expect it to work with Apple's latest.

Note that I'm not saying this is always a bad thing (although sometimes, it definitely is), but it does mean that we have absolutely no place to make fun of Microsoft's backward compatibility.

[Mastrap]

You can run the latest Apple OS on six or seven year old machines. Try and do the same with Vista.

[driven]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

You can run the latest Apple OS on six or seven year old machines. Try and do the same with Vista.

Agreed. I'm running OSX on a year 2000 iMac. Runs great! Less filling!

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

You can run the latest Apple OS on six or seven year old machines. Try and do the same with Vista.

That's forward compatibility, not backward compatibility.

And anyway, AppleInsider thinks that they're going to drop PPC support altogether for 10.6, so things aren't looking so great in that regard either.

[climber]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

That's forward compatibility, not backward compatibility.

And anyway, AppleInsider thinks that they're going to drop PPC support altogether for 10.6, so things aren't looking so great in that regard either.

They also admit they do not really know. So it is a bit premature to criticize Apple on that one. Also, they suggest 10.6 likely will not be done till 2009? When was the last PowerPC based computer sold? Intel has been a available for nearly two years. So a computer built in 2004 may not run an OS sold five years later (maybe). Seems like some are complaining Vista runs poorly on some machines sold the year it was released.

[CharlesS]

Again, that's forward compatibility, which is not what we are talking about.

Forward compatibility is the ability for your machine to work with stuff that doesn't exist yet (such as new OS versions, or perhaps 5G iPods *cough cough*). It's also known as future-proofing. Backward compatibility is where I can get the latest Mac with the latest OS on it, and still be able to use my old software and peripherals. This is an area to which Apple pays very little regard, and in which Microsoft has historically been very, very good. True, Vista broke some old stuff, but at least it wasn't deliberate, like it is when Apple suddenly decides "Okay, you don't need to run that anymore" and strips out all traces of the support that used to make that old app work.

And I wouldn't be one bit surprised if 10.6 dropped PPC anyway.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

That's forward compatibility, not backward compatibility.

Sorry to nitpick , but Apple releasing an OS that is still compatible with a machine six years old is backward compatibility, not forward compatibility.

I know what you mean by your comment, but in this case the OS is backward compatible with the hardware.

[peeb]

I'd be pretty surprised if they dropped all PPC support- I think we're more likely to see certain things not working, mostly to do with core animation etc. I think they will continue support for PPC for many years to come on some level.

[climber]

Forward, Backward...just semantics that do not interest me. What does, that my older Macs tend to stay usable longer than my PC's have. They hold their value well.

Microsoft, on the other hand has held on to the legacy code and API's with a death grip. I assume that is what you are referring to is old software working on new hardware. Perhaps that was a good business move, they are a successful company. Their recent break form that with Vista has most businesses staying put with XP.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by climber 

Microsoft, on the other hand has held on to the legacy code and API's with a death grip. I assume that is what you are referring to is old software working on new hardware. Perhaps that was a good business move, they are a successful company. Their recent break form that with Vista has most businesses staying put with XP.

Yup.

The thing that gets me is Macheads jumping on Microsoft for breaking old apps and peripherals in Vista, even assuring switchers that if they come to our platform, it'll be different than that, and their old stuff will work forever! It's such BS - Apple has never even been in the same ballpark regarding backward compatibility since Steve Jobs returned (before that, it was actually pretty good, I'll admit, other than System 7).

[Cadaver]

Microsoft is a victim of their own lock-in.

[CharlesS]

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

And anyway, AppleInsider thinks that they're going to drop PPC support altogether for 10.6, so things aren't looking so great in that regard either.

If I make a Web site and post totally unsourced speculation that Apple is going to leave computing and start making blenders, will you believe that too?

[theDreamer]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If I make a Web site and post totally unsourced speculation that Apple is going to leave computing and start making blenders, will you believe that too?

As long as you post what I want.

[climber]

I think that depends on what you value, software or hardware. For many businesses it is the software that is important. They have expensive custom made applications that have a decade between major upgrades and improvements. They can not afford to purchase new hardware that does not work with their old software.

Other companies use more mainstream applications like Office, Photoshop, etc. These applications are upgraded much more frequently. And If the old version stops working on the new OS no problem, the upgrades for the software are relatively cheap an painless. For these users the hardware is likely more important. We will spend a bit more on the computer knowing it will likely have the power and compatibility to run the stuff that has not even been invented yet.

As far a forward or backward. It is a forward compatibility problem for both. If I spend 5 grand on a software package for my business, I want to be able to use that for years into the future. If I spend 5 grand on a graphics workstation I want the same long term usability.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If I make a Web site and post totally unsourced speculation that Apple is going to leave computing and start making blenders, will you believe that too?

Well, the thing is, making 10.6 Intel-only actually makes sense and fits Apple's MO perfectly, whereas making blenders... doesn't.

You know, I really wish Leopard were released so I could go and compare its system requirements to Vista's, or to what the age of PPC machines will probably be when 10.6 ships, without worrying about NDA. Let me get back to you on that in a month.

Anyway, we'll see. But I don't have much faith in Apple to support old anything anymore.

[Tuoder]

I'd totally buy an Apple blender.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I don't have much faith in Apple to support old anything anymore.

Apple's backward compatibility is in general not as complete as Microsoft's. However, considering the massive hardware changes over the years, Apple has put in a HUGE amount of effort to make some reasonable backwards compatibility.

Going from 68k CPUs to PPC CPUs they used a 68k translator in the chip (or something like that), which worked flawlessly, as far as I'm aware. PPC to Intel, they've got Rosetta (mostly purchased from another company, but you can bet it didn't come cheap), and most PPC applications run well under Intel (I know there are some that run slow, and some that don't run at all, but they've made a lot of effort for a reasonably good result).

Going from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X, again they developed the Classic integration environment. Again about 90% of classic applications ran fine in Mac OS X (I actually found that some of my classic apps ran faster in the Classic environment than they did an straight OS 9).

So, yes, Apple does break backwards compatibility in some cases (eg, instant death to floppy disks and RS232 serial ports), but in other cases they do put in a fair bit of effort to maintain backwards compatibility.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

I'd totally buy an Apple blender.

I bet if you tried to use it with last year's bananas, you wouldn't want to drink the smoothie. See... NOT backwards compatible!

[driven]

I'd love to see how good Microsoft does with backwards compatability if they actually changed platforms. heck ... they can't even get a common driver model between their 64 bit and 32 bit versions of Windows XP. What happened to NT for RISC? NT for PPC? (Granted, not many folks bought those machines, but the latest OSX still runs on my G4 Cube.)

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Brass 

Going from 68k CPUs to PPC CPUs they used a 68k translator in the chip (or something like that), which worked flawlessly, as far as I'm aware.

That was pre-Steve Jobs. I specifically said since Steve's return, and acknowledged that in the old days, their backward compatibility was actually quite good. The 68k emulator was indeed an excellent example of this.

PPC to Intel, they've got Rosetta (mostly purchased from another company, but you can bet it didn't come cheap), and most PPC applications run well under Intel (I know there are some that run slow, and some that don't run at all, but they've made a lot of effort for a reasonably good result).

That was only recently introduced. Let's see how long Rosetta stays in the OS.

Going from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X, again they developed the Classic integration environment. Again about 90% of classic applications ran fine in Mac OS X (I actually found that some of my classic apps ran faster in the Classic environment than they did an straight OS 9).

And then they deliberately killed it off a few years later, thus removing any possibility of running said apps.

So, yes, Apple does break backwards compatibility in some cases (eg, instant death to floppy disks and RS232 serial ports), but in other cases they do put in a fair bit of effort to maintain backwards compatibility.

And sometimes they put in a fair bit of effort just to screw over backward compatibility. The iMac has no SCSI port, but I've got a SCSI device here! Oh well, I'll just get a PCI card - wha? It has no PCI slots either? Hmm. Well, maybe I can find a SCSI adapter for the high-speed port they've replaced SCSI with - what, there is none?!

It's like the thing was laughing at you.

[Mastrap]

The kind of backwards (or forward) compatibility you're alluding to is (in my personal opinion) impossible to deliver at a reasonable cost.

[CharlesS]

Software-wise, Apple managed to do it all the way until the introduction of the Intel Macs, and that's about 22 years, so I'd say it's possible.

Hardware-wise, they could have just put a freakin' FireWire port on the iMac, or maybe even *gasp* a PCI slot. All their machines up to the iMac tended to be decently backward compatible with older peripherals, so this really isn't an issue.

It's also standard practice on the PC side of the fence, which is way more cost-conscious than Apple is.