> "OS X couldn't run old OS 9 and below software. Period."

I believe you are mistaken on this. The Classic Environment (read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_%28Mac_OS_X%29 ) allowed Mac OS X to run OS 9 apps. Morgenstern even mentions this in his article:

> "...starting with the initial Cheetah release, Apple provided customers an emulation environment called Classic that could run OS 9 applications."

PowerPC-based applications can be run under emulation (Rosetta) on Intel Macs, and true it is slower. However, due to the speed of the new Intel processors most apps run at about the same speed under emulation.

I fail to understand how it's Apple's fault that Adobe doesn't have a Universal build of their CS products available one year later. Photoshop et al are surely complicated apps to port, but they are an exception to the rule: the vast, overwhelming majority of OS X apps are now offered as Universal builds.

From where I stand, it looks like Apple's customers are benefitting greatly from the transition to Intel.

Thanks for the comment Adam.

Adam -- actually, if you read more closely, OS X only supported OS 9 apps if you had a *complete installation of OS 9* along side of OS x.
That isn't compatibility in my book. (The equivalent would be if Microsoft released Vista and the only way to run XP apps was to have installed XP). It was special execution environment, very different from what Microsoft supports.

Apple is asking a lot of their ISVs everytime they do these major switches - be it from OS 9 to OS X or switch processor architectures. Microsoft continues to support the vast majority of DOS, old Windows, and even recent applications on Vista.

Eventually, Apple's ISVs will have universally compiled applications and older hardware and newer hardware will both work as well as they can. Until then though, users who buy new machines, especially graphic designers, aren't necessarily getting what they paid for.

Aaron -- I didn't know an installation of OS 9 was required. Naturally it depends on where you want to draw the line on compatibility, but I still find it is misleading to claim, "OS X couldn't run old OS 9 and below software. Period."

Microsoft -has- done an admirable (and sometimes shockingly complete) job of maintaining compatibility for ancient, ancient apps, drivers, and undocumented practices. (see: The New Old Thing)

As for designers (customers) getting what they've paid for with Intel Macs: if they do their homework, they'll wait to buy. Nobody has to upgrade to a new Intel Mac.

Taking a slight tangent: Perhaps I'm just a mean person, but if it were my decision to make, I'd make the same decision Apple has made: break compatibility but provide an emulation layer for 95% (made-up number) of legacy apps. How many hours have MS programmers toiled to keep countless legacy apps/drivers running? How many design decisions have been compromised? As a software engineer, I don't want my product's life cycle to become bloated by that kind of baggage. I guess that's the curse of being the world's most popular OS.

Adam -- what would you do if you were Microsoft and had such a large share of the marketplace and fewer overall percentage of people of all their customers who were "in love" with their products? It was the right thing for Apple to do over the long term definitely.

To designers/artists/musicians though -- they have traditionally been the lifeblood of Apple and remained true to the company over the years. It really bites that they still don't have many products that perform up to their full potential -- and they are the ones that have supported Apple all the way.

It's hard for a company to make the choice to alienate their customers though. It may be right, but it can be very hard to do (and to do right is harder than making the choice).

THanks for your comments!