Re: MacOSX 10.1/10.2 MarketShare split
Re: MacOSX 10.1/10.2 MarketShare split
- Subject: Re: MacOSX 10.1/10.2 MarketShare split
- From: Gary Robinson <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 21:23:55 -0400
>
The last time I heard anything, it was that 10.2
>
versus 10.1 was an 90/10 split.
Many thanks for the feedback on this. I appreciate it, and it helps a lot.
I think we're going to require 10.2.
Thanks again, especially for the chart at the bottom... I had no idea how
much share OS 9 still retained, only that I wasn't going to support it. ;)
--Gary
--
[
http://ThisURLEnablesEmailToGetThroughOverzealousSpamFilters.org]
Gary Robinson
CEO
Transpose, LLC
email@hidden
207-942-3463
http://www.transpose.com
http://radio.weblogs.com/0101454
>
From: Lance Drake <email@hidden>
>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 19:19:24 -0600
>
To: email@hidden
>
Cc: email@hidden
>
Subject: MacOSX 10.1/10.2 MarketShare split
>
>
Hi Gary,
>
>
This same question has come up for me on several occasions. Frankly,
>
supporting an old rev of the OS is a big timehole in that things are
>
broken that have since been fixed, new stuff has been added which isn't
>
in the old version and you have to create the old software with the old
>
tools - often lacking in features, functional and robustness when
>
compared to the newer stuff.
>
>
There is a website in Germany which purports to create some sort
>
of annual reporting of the split in installed versions of the MacOS.
>
Then there's the anecdotal stuff that comes back from people who are
>
also developers. The last time I heard anything, it was that 10.2
>
versus 10.1 was an 90/10 split.
>
>
The fact that 10.2 is a paid upgrade has caused the company I work
>
for to decide that 10% of the potential market was still too much to
>
discount and discard, so we came up with a 10.1.5 compatible version.
>
Since you can upgrade for free from 10.1 thru 10.5 over the net,
>
insisting the bug-set be limited to 10.1.5 seemed a reasonable demand.
>
If their OS version is less than 10.1.5, we suggest they upgrade via
>
the Preference Pane.
>
>
When first launched, we find out what is the OS version, then
>
branch to and launch the correct version of our app, abandoning the
>
little 10.1 compatible frontend and heading off to either the 10.2 or
>
10.1.5 versions of our apps.
>
>
It IS a pain but it turns out the incompatibilities we have to
>
support are not all THAT pervasive and most of our codebase is common.
>
We figure that, at some point, 10.3 (or 11 or whatever) will become the
>
'new' thing and that we'll still be supporting 10.2 as the 'old' thing.
>
So, getting our build environment, SCC and overall-mindset primed to
>
support more than one version of the OS was probably not a bad idea.
>
>
G'Luck in your decision process.
>
>
Lance Drake
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Christian Schmitz sent me this... from September 2002.
>
It's not the latest news but it does confirm that 10.2 is
>
quite dominant over 10.1 - even back last fall.
>
>
Christian's eMail: email@hidden (Christian Schmitz)
>
---------------------------------
>
Some websites like macgadget.de make polls every year about the OS
>
versions of their readers.
>
<http://www.macgadget.de/umfragen/umfrage.php3?nr=75>
>
>
Mac OS X 10.2 2762 (41,09 %)
>
Mac OS X 10.1 220 (3,27 %)
>
Mac OS X 10.0 5 (0,07 %)
>
Mac OS 9.x 3367 (50,09 %) <--- LD sez: THIS # SEEMS SIGNIFICANT!
>
Mac OS 8.5/8.6 210 (3,12 %)
>
Mac OS 8.0/8.1 48 (0,71 %)
>
Mac OS 7.5/7.6 110 (1,64 %)
>
>
It's not perfect, as not everyone is online with his Mac, but it's a
>
hint.
>
I for myself create CFM application to have my application available for
>
Mac OS 9.x and Mac OS X with some parts only enabled for 10.2.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
---
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.