Aperture's Future

On 14/08/2016 15:40, Savageduck wrote:
[]
Yup! My iPad2 is running iOS 9.3.4 without issue and all apps are
constantly updated and improved.

The most important observation with regard to this thread is, George
failed to maintain his bought copy of Aperture by updating it when
appropriate. Then he failed to heed all the noise regarding its demise
and he didn't take action to save and protect his work until it was too
late. Now he is going to have to jump through a number of hoops to save
things.

But is your iPad compatible with iOS 10? From comments on another group
I understand that it may not be. You'll need to update just as my wife
will.

Perhaps if the level of compatibility with Apple were as good as that on
Windows George wouldn't be stuck with unusable software? Is there no
function to run a program for an older version of the OS? On Windows
that's built-in, and just one right-click away.

This is past the Apple processor change from PowerPC to Intel, I suppose?

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| It's true that the Win95 API is still there.
|
| it's also true that modern software (and even not so modern) isn't
| using the win95 apis anymore.
|

Not using the Win95 APIs would be *very* difficult,
except for things like .Net software that wraps those
APIs. Basic Windows functions, such as deleting a file
or reading from the Registry, date back to the original
API functions. If it worked in Win95 it works now.
Graphic functions such as managing an image as a
byte array, to allow for such things as resizing,
sharpening, etc, also date to gdi.dll in Win95.

the part you are missing is there's a ****load of functionality that
has been added since win95.

if you stick to the win95 apis and not use anything that came later,
you can't take advantage of all of the new features that have been
added since then, such as taking full advantage of multiple displays,
offload processing to gpus, unicode and much, much, much more.

and if it worked in win95, it *doesn't* necessarily mean it works now,
or there wouldn't be the need for this:
http://help.unc.edu/files/2012/04/1114-2.jpg

| that's why they require win7 or later, sometimes win8 or later. even xp
| or later for some older stuff, and usually sp3.

That's an interesting issue. You're talking
about what might be called "forward compatibility",
which is not the same problem as backward
compatibility that George Kerby is dealing with.

he's dealing with stupid user syndrome.

apple updated aperture several times since the version he has, which he
ignored, and is blaming apple for his own ****up.

not only does the latest version of aperture run on the current version
of mac os (el capitan/10.11) but it also runs on sierra betas (10.12),
which is expected to be released in a month or so.

all he needs to do is get the update.

Writing for forward compatibility means writing
software in such a way that it optimizes compatibility
by not using newer APIs unnecessarily, so as
not to break the software on older systems.

it also means not using features that are available on newer systems,
which people actually want and which competing products will use.

which do you think sells more product in 2016?
"still runs on win95"
"takes full advantage of the latest gpus and multiple 4k displays"

It's similar to the idea of writing webpages so
that most browsers can render them properly, by
not using the very latest HTML or CSS methods.
But some bad or ignorant programmers are like
Apple in that way, always assuming the very latest
hardware and software. I remember a program once
that I think broke in Win95 when the Win98 version
came out. After some investigation I discovered
the problem was that the Win98 release was using
a new function FlashWindowEx, which allows for
creating a flashing effect, to draw attention to an
inactive window without forcing it to the top. For
that trivial ability the programmer had broked
compatibility with Win95! I'm guessing it was just
ignorance on his part. Or maybe laziness. Maybe
he had a Win98 market and just couldn't be bothered
to support his older Win95 customers. But I guess
it might also have been Lord Jobs logic: If we don't
break it they won't buy another one.

or maybe that there weren't enough users still using win95 to justify
writing his own version of that function.

while you might be satisfied with using 20 year old apps that don't do
much of anything, the rest of the world sure as hell isn't and that has
absolutely nothing to do with apple either.

In article , David Taylor
wrote:

Yup! My iPad2 is running iOS 9.3.4 without issue and all apps are
constantly updated and improved.

The most important observation with regard to this thread is, George
failed to maintain his bought copy of Aperture by updating it when
appropriate. Then he failed to heed all the noise regarding its demise
and he didn't take action to save and protect his work until it was too
late. Now he is going to have to jump through a number of hoops to save
things.

But is your iPad compatible with iOS 10? From comments on another group
I understand that it may not be. You'll need to update just as my wife
will.

nothing lasts forever.

there are plenty of windows systems that can't run win10 (or win8).

when vista came out, even though a system was considered 'supported',
it ran like ****.

Perhaps if the level of compatibility with Apple were as good as that on
Windows George wouldn't be stuck with unusable software? Is there no
function to run a program for an older version of the OS? On Windows
that's built-in, and just one right-click away.

the level of compatibility with apple is miles ahead of anything
windows could ever dream of. more on that below.

perhaps if you weren't a blind apple hater, you'd realize that the
problem is not apple.

the latest version of aperture (which george does not have) runs
perfectly fine on the current version of mac os and even the yet to be
released version coming in a month or so.

all he needs to do is update.

This is past the Apple processor change from PowerPC to Intel, I suppose?

wtf does that have to do with anything?

and when apple did that, they made it so that powerpc apps would run
without any obvious difference to the user. just double-click and the
app runs.

all of the compatibility was done under the hood and without any action
by the user, completely opposite to windows.

when microsoft tried to change processors with their arm-based systems
and win rt, they didn't bother with any compatibility layer at all,
which meant all existing windows apps could not run.

and let's not forget how microsoft abandoned windows mobile users for
windows phone. no way to run those apps on a wp7 device.

in other words, apple did a much better job of maintaining
compatibility with existing apps than microsoft did.

On 2016-08-14 15:56:32 +0000, David Taylor
said:

On 14/08/2016 15:40, Savageduck wrote:
[]
Yup! My iPad2 is running iOS 9.3.4 without issue and all apps are
constantly updated and improved.

The most important observation with regard to this thread is, George
failed to maintain his bought copy of Aperture by updating it when
appropriate. Then he failed to heed all the noise regarding its demise
and he didn't take action to save and protect his work until it was too
late. Now he is going to have to jump through a number of hoops to save
things.

But is your iPad compatible with iOS 10? From comments on another
group I understand that it may not be. You'll need to update just as
my wife will.

My iPad2 will not be compatible with the soon to arrive iOS10. iOS 10
will be compatible with all 4th Generation or newer iPads, and iPhones
back to the iPhone 5. Basically a minimum of being powered by an A6
chip is required. That does not mean that my iPad2 will cease to
function, but I understand the future limitations it will face. When
that happens my iPad2 will have served me well since 2011 and I will
buy myself a far more powerful iPad Pro, probably sometime in 2017.

Perhaps if the level of compatibility with Apple were as good as that
on Windows George wouldn't be stuck with unusable software? Is there
no function to run a program for an older version of the OS? On
Windows that's built-in, and just one right-click away.

I was very happy with an even earlier version of OSX, OS X 10.6, which
might have been considered as Apple's XP, and like XP it had reached
its end of life and was no longer supported. So when updates to
software such as PS and Lightroom were no longer developed for the
defunct OS's updating OS and software was a no-brainer for me. Now my
2010 iMac is running quite happily on OS X 10.11.6, "El Capitan", and
will be able to run macOS 10.12 "Sierra".

Since this thread has nothing to do with Windows consider George's
responsibility in his dilemma.

What George failed to do was keep his edition of Aperture up to date,
even though it had been declared dead by Apple two years ago. If he had
done so, he would still be able to run the no longer
supported/developed Aperture on his Mac running OS X 10.11. He can
still fix things, but it will not be as simple as it would have been
had he done so when the last Aperture updates were announced and its
fate was written in stone.

This is past the Apple processor change from PowerPC to Intel, I suppose?

Long past.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-08-14 15:39:46 +0000, "Mayayana" said:



That's an interesting issue. You're talking
about what might be called "forward compatibility",
which is not the same problem as backward
compatibility that George Kerby is dealing with.

To start with this thread has nothing to do with Windows, it has to do
with George Kerby's failure to update a now defunct and unsupported
application, Aperture, when he was given fair warning and the
opportunity to do so. Had he done so, and had he followed all the
information and warnings concerning the end of life of Aperture, there
would have been little need for this thread, and his final updated
edition would be running without issue on his currently updated OS X.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2016081410084474165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:


This is past the Apple processor change from PowerPC to Intel, I suppose?

Long past.

that one is, however, the intel-arm change is not that far off, with
the groundwork already there for compatibility that will be even *more*
seamless than with ppc-intel.

"Savageduck" wrote

| To start with this thread has nothing to do with Windows, it has to do
| with George Kerby's failure to update a now defunct and unsupported
| application, Aperture, when he was given fair warning and the
| opportunity to do so. Had he done so, and had he followed all the
| information and warnings concerning the end of life of Aperture, there
| would have been little need for this thread, and his final updated
| edition would be running without issue on his currently updated OS X.
|

But he didn't do that. So your solution is
to scold him for not being an obedient
AppleSeed? Or to tell him that he should
buy yet more software he doesn't need, this
time from Adobe?

I'm surprised that v. 3.6 is
not still available. I would think his two
possible options would be to revert back
to the older MacOS or to find a copy of
v. 3.6. But no one has suggested either
approach. Maybe those are also things that
one can't do on a Mac? David Ritz did seem to
suggest updating Aperture, but it's not clear
from his links whether that's possible. Does
Apple just cut people off that way?

Frankly I don't see a problem with George
Kerby's logic. He had software that worked.
Newer versions brought in cloud integration
that he might not have wanted. Which gets
back to my original point: There's simply no
excuse for Apple not supporting their product
without people having to submit to every new
update of everything.

(I'm still using Outlook Express 6, from 2001,
to write this. It works great! Much better than
Microsoft's later email products. The time when
one could assume new updates were improvements
passed a long time ago.)

In article om, JF
Mezei wrote:


Apple tends to write code to disable an app just because.

no they don't.

(the Snow
Leopard server CLIENt apps are disabled on later versions so you can't
manage a snow leopard server from a more recent desktop).

the later versions come with compatible apps.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| To start with this thread has nothing to do with Windows, it has to do
| with George Kerby's failure to update a now defunct and unsupported
| application, Aperture, when he was given fair warning and the
| opportunity to do so. Had he done so, and had he followed all the
| information and warnings concerning the end of life of Aperture, there
| would have been little need for this thread, and his final updated
| edition would be running without issue on his currently updated OS X.
|

But he didn't do that. So your solution is
to scold him for not being an obedient
AppleSeed? Or to tell him that he should
buy yet more software he doesn't need, this
time from Adobe?

I'm surprised that v. 3.6 is
not still available.

it is still available.

I would think his two
possible options would be to revert back
to the older MacOS or to find a copy of
v. 3.6. But no one has suggested either
approach.

yes they have.

Maybe those are also things that
one can't do on a Mac? David Ritz did seem to
suggest updating Aperture, but it's not clear
from his links whether that's possible.

of course it's possible.

Does
Apple just cut people off that way?

no.

Frankly I don't see a problem with George
Kerby's logic. He had software that worked.
Newer versions brought in cloud integration
that he might not have wanted. Which gets
back to my original point: There's simply no
excuse for Apple not supporting their product
without people having to submit to every new
update of everything.

they support it just fine, offering *free* updates that work with
current and even a yet to be released system.

On 2016-08-14, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-08-13 17:10, George Kerby wrote:

After updating my MacPro OS to the latest, I found that my professional
photo software, Aperture 3.4.5 that I purchased on disc for over $225 was
now USELESS and FUBAR.

Apple tends to write code to disable an app just because.

That's a lie born of pure ignorance of the technical issues at hand.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR