[virtue3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_(API)

"Carbon was an important part of Apple's strategy for bringing Mac OS X to market, offering a path for quick porting of existing software applications, as well as a means of shipping applications that would run on either Mac OS X or the classic Mac OS. As the market has increasingly moved to the Cocoa-based frameworks, especially after the release of iOS, the need for a porting library was diluted. Apple did not create a 64-bit version of Carbon while updating their other frameworks in the 2007 time-frame, and eventually deprecated the entire API in OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion, which was released on July 24, 2012. Carbon was officially discontinued and removed entirely with the release of macOS 10.15 Catalina."

I think you are confusing "supported" with EoL. Adobe was pissed because there was originally talk of doing a carbon64bit and they never supported it so they had to move their entire app over.

The main point is, that Windows would never stop that api from "existing" In some manner. Unlike Apple.

This is just a difference in how both companies view themselves. While Apple claims "it just works". That isn't quite true in some of the cases we have seen. Microsoft has actually done a far better job of this.

I know someone that worked on the visual studio team. They literally had 100-200 servers that would run overnight with each build guaranteeing that the software would install and run on every single permutation of windows on an array of hardware.

[scarface74]

So, what exactly did you say they refuted anything I said?

The Carbon API was 32 bit only and was supported until the latest release of MacOS.

Do you realize how many deprecated end of life frameworks that Microsoft has been lugging around for decades?

So should Apple have kept support for 68K software in 2019?

Also, do you realize that for all intents and purposes the entire .Net Framework is deprecated and EOL except for minor compatibility updates?

There are plenty of “pissed” .Net Framework developers who feel abandoned by MS.

[jsgo]

I've only heard complaints from Silverlight and Windows Phone/Mobile developers anecdotally.

From a web perspective (and my experience), .NET Framework 2/4 -> Core is actually not a big changeover outside of the views (probably better if you switched to MVC).

The Windows Phone apps I built are dead now, but that isn't a matter of APIs no longer being supported, but an entire platform going under.

As a macOS user, I had one operating system update kill external GPU w/ Nvidia cards (that sucked) and another update kill 32 bit apps (that one isn't a big one for me personally). All on the same computer.

[scarface74]

The entire ASP.Net Core and Entity Framework architecture was changed and is not compatible. Not to mention all of the legacy third party .Net Framework only third party packages that don’t work.

Microsoft also completely abandoned Windows CE/Compact Framework while there were plenty of companies that had deployed thousands of $1200-$2000 ruggedized devices for field services work.

[cptskippy]

> The entire ASP.Net Core and Entity Framework architecture was changed and is not compatible.

There's been a lot of confusion, due in no small part to Microsoft's branding and communication, but what you said is not at all accurate if not intentionally misleading.

What's been know as .NET for the last 20 years is now called ".NET Framework", this is not unlike how OS X is now called MacOS retroactively. ".NET Core" is an entirely new framework that just happened to be compatible with ".NET Framework" but as time goes on the two have diverged.

> Not to mention all of the legacy third party .Net Framework only third party packages that don’t work.

".NET Framework" and ".NET Core" are similar to Cocoa and Cocoa Touch in the sense that you can write code that will compile under both AND you can write code for either that will be incompatible with the other. In fact I maintain a half dozen packages that are compatible with both.

> Microsoft also completely abandoned Windows CE/Compact Framework while there were plenty of companies that had deployed thousands of $1200-$2000 ruggedized devices for field services work.

Microsoft didn't "abandoned" Windows CE, it stopped development for it 6 years ago as it was largely dead and Microsoft offers many pathways off of Windows CE. The CF actually runs on platforms other than CE intentionally such that any apps written for the CF will just work elsewhere. AND they still support CE and CF to this day, they just don't maintain or develop new versions of them.

[scarface74]

What's been know as .NET for the last 20 years is now called ".NET Framework", this is not unlike how OS X is now called MacOS retroactively. ".NET Core" is an entirely new framework that just happened to be compatible with ".NET Framework" but as time goes on the two have diverged.

The two weren’t initially slated to diverge at all. .Net Framework and .Net Core were suppose to be separate implementations of “.Net Standard”. In fact, you could originally create ASP.Net Core and EF Core apps that ran on top of .Net Framework.

NET Framework" and ".NET Core" are similar to Cocoa and Cocoa Touch in the sense that you can write code that will compile under both AND you can write code for either that will be incompatible with the other. In fact I maintain a half dozen packages that are compatible with both.

Which will not be the case for long since MS has stated that no new features will come to .Net Framework.

Microsoft didn't "abandoned" Windows CE, it stopped development for it 6 years ago as it was largely dead and Microsoft offers many pathways off of Windows CE. The CF actually runs on platforms other than CE intentionally such that any apps written for the CF will just work elsewhere. AND they still support CE and CF to this day, they just don't maintain or develop new versions of them.

Which is also not true. The last version of Visual Studio that supported Compact Framework was VS 2007. It was far from dead in the Enterprise by 2010 or even 2012. Companies were still relying on CF to run on their $1200-$2000 ruggedized field service devices. They had deployed literally thousands of devices in the field. I know, I was developing on VS 2007 until 2011 just to support them.

I mean devices like these that cost $1300 each. I deployed software for a few companies that’s had thousands of Intermech and ruggedized Motorola devices.

https://3er1viui9wo30pkxh1v2nh4w-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...

[cptskippy]

> The two weren’t initially slated to diverge at all. .Net Framework and .Net Core were suppose to be separate implementations of “.Net Standard”.

Uh... no. Hard fucking no. .NET Standard is the commonalities between Core and Framework. Core and Framework were NEVER the same or intended to be the same.

Framework is all of the legacy Windows specific Libraries for things like the File System, Active Directory, etc.

Core is intended to be platform agnostic and cross platform.

Read this, specifically Figure 5:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2017/...

> The last version of Visual Studio that supported Compact Framework was VS 2007.

Windows Embedded Compact 2013 shipped with CF 3.9 in 2012.

[int_19h]

And yet you can still run .NET 1.0 apps on Win10, and this isn't changing in the foreseeable future.

Hell, you can run VB6 apps on Win10 - it even ships the runtime! - and the remaining hold-outs in that developer community have been complaining about abandonment for two whole decades now.

[scarface74]

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/install/ru...

The .NET Framework 1.1 is not supported on the Windows 8, Windows 8.1, Windows Server 2012, Windows Server 2012 R2, or the Windows 10 operating systems. In some cases, the .NET Framework 1.1 is specifically identified as required for an app to run. In those cases, you should contact your independent software vendor (ISV) to have the app upgraded to run on the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1 or later version. For additional information, see Migrating from the .NET Framework 1.1.

[int_19h]

You can't install .NET 1.x itself on Win10. But you can install .NET 3.5, and it can run .NET 1.x apps.

[scarface74]

From the article “In some cases, the .NET Framework 1.1 is specifically identified as required for an app to run”

By “specifically identified” it means that some applications actually hard coded a check of 1.1.

[thomasz]

If app developers explicitly prevent their code from running on future platforms, this is hardly the fault of the platform.

[FireBeyond]

Which would be no different to a macOS app hard coding a check for 10.3 and not working if you have anything newer. Neither says that the app _couldn't_ run, just that a badly thought gate prevents it.