 |
 |
Oracle taking over for Apple for Java updates
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Looks like it's Lion only. 
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Oracle has less motivation than Apple to support 5-7 year old OS releases.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell 
Oracle has less motivation than Apple to support 5-7 year old OS releases.
According to Oracle's Java SE information they support Windows XP (11 years old), Windows 2003 Server (9 years old), and Windows Vista (6 years old) along with newer versions of Windows so not sure how you came to that conclusion. Probably a more viable explanation is that Oracle's history with Java development on OSX began within a year or so (e.g. right around the launch of OSX Lion) so they used that as a starting point which would also make it the minimum version of system they would support henceforth.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by cgc
According to Oracle's Java SE information they support Windows XP (11 years old), Windows 2003 Server (9 years old), and Windows Vista (6 years old) along with newer versions of Windows so not sure how you came to that conclusion. Probably a more viable explanation is that Oracle's history with Java development on OSX began within a year or so (e.g. right around the launch of OSX Lion) so they used that as a starting point which would also make it the minimum version of system they would support henceforth.
Platforms with hundreds of millions of users that they've supported throughout the product lifecycle. Tiger and Leopard have neither of those factors. They're not coming to market to support old platforms they haven't previously supported.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Okay.
Pretend I'm just a user who wants a current version of this Java thing on my machine.
Where the **** do I download it?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
Platforms with hundreds of millions of users that they've supported throughout the product lifecycle. Tiger and Leopard have neither of those factors. They're not coming to market to support old platforms they haven't previously supported.
So your initial logic wasn't fully developed or are you changing your mind? Java can die and I'd be fine with it...wasn't one of the C language derivatives (e.g. C, C++, etc.) supposed to be the cross-platform language of choice? Now we get crappy Java that's only tolerable because our computers are much faster now...but we really get 2000-era native app performance in a 2012 Java app equivalent.
(
Last edited by cgc; Apr 29, 2012 at 07:44 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top