BARISTABRIAN >> "I like when developers drop old OS support so that they can use new technologies in new OS." What an ignorant statement! What, developers can *not* implement "new technologies" if they *do* support an "old OS?" Since when? And, what's "old" to you is not necessarily *old* by somebody *else's* definition? Everheard of Windows XP [versus Vista]? Apparently not. >> "10.4 is more than 4 years old ... " So? What's your point? Too old for you? Then move on and be quiet about it. >> "there is no reason to still use it." Says who, you? Some troll ...or just some opinionated and loudmouthed *early adoter.* What, you want a pat on the back? You got money and need for the "latest and greatest?" Good for you. One size does *not* fit all, unfortunately. >> "Backward compatibility is the reason Windows Vista is so slow and bloated." We're not talking about an *OS,* now, are we? We're talking about a "developer* and their application . . . and a possible flaw in the "update" delivery system. A person, apparently, was *mistakenly* led to believe that they were getting a *viable* update when, possibly, they were provided a version that is *not* compatible. Besides, how does this have *anything* to do with *your* pre-suppositions about what *is* or is *not* "old" and "unnecessaary" for everybody else --- besides you? (Version 3.2b23) |