Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Safari 1.0 is now available at Apple's web site and in the software
> update preferences.

Does it run under 10.1, or does it require 10.2?

In article <Xns93A47056D583Cburnshotmailcom[at]127.0.0.1>,
Robin Burns <r_f_burns[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Safari 1.0 is now available at Apple's web site and in the software
> > update preferences.
>
> Does it run under 10.1, or does it require 10.2?

10.2 or later

--Michelle

--
Never play strip tarot.

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <Xns93A47056D583Cburnshotmailcom[at]127.0.0.1>,
> Robin Burns <r_f_burns[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Safari 1.0 is now available at Apple's web site and in the software
>> > update preferences.
>>
>> Does it run under 10.1, or does it require 10.2?
>
> 10.2 or later

Damn! Why did they do that? What does a browser need from the OS that's in
10.2, but not in 10.1? Seems to me they're playing games again to get
everyone to pony up the $129 to upgrade to 10.2.

Has anyone tried it on 10.1 and verified that it doesn't work?

In article
<tomstiller-6C7838.15504124062003[at]news.comcast.giganews.com>,
Tom Stiller <tomstiller[at]comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <Xns93A480076A49Fburnshotmailcom[at]127.0.0.1>,
> Robin Burns <r_f_burns[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Xns93A47056D583Cburnshotmailcom[at]127.0.0.1>,
> > > Robin Burns <r_f_burns[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > Safari 1.0 is now available at Apple's web site and in the software
> > >> > update preferences.
> > >>
> > >> Does it run under 10.1, or does it require 10.2?
> > >
> > > 10.2 or later
> >
> > Damn! Why did they do that? What does a browser need from the OS that's in
> > 10.2, but not in 10.1? Seems to me they're playing games again to get
> > everyone to pony up the $129 to upgrade to 10.2.
>
> Internal OS frameworks.

And some behaviors as well. Weak linking, for example, made its return
to the Mac in 10.2 IIRC.

Jaguar was a much bigger upgrade than a lot of people seem to have
realized, even a year later.

G

In article <Xns93A480076A49Fburnshotmailcom[at]127.0.0.1>, Robin Burns
<r_f_burns[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> Damn! Why did they do that? What does a browser need from the OS that's in
> 10.2, but not in 10.1? Seems to me they're playing games again to get
> everyone to pony up the $129 to upgrade to 10.2.

Considering how many bugs got fixed in 10.2, I don't think this is all
that unreasonable. Apple would probably like the bugs present in 10.1
to become history as quickly as possible. To be honest, I don't think
$129 is all that much for the upgrade, considering how much better 10.2
is than 10.1!

--
-Thomas

e-mail me at thomasareed at philadelphia.net minus phil

In article <Xns93A480076A49Fburnshotmailcom[at]127.0.0.1>,
Robin Burns <r_f_burns[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns93A47056D583Cburnshotmailcom[at]127.0.0.1>,
>> Robin Burns <r_f_burns[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > Safari 1.0 is now available at Apple's web site and in the software
>>> > update preferences.
>>>
>>> Does it run under 10.1, or does it require 10.2?
>>
>> 10.2 or later
>
>Damn! Why did they do that? What does a browser need from the OS that's in
>10.2, but not in 10.1? Seems to me they're playing games again to get
>everyone to pony up the $129 to upgrade to 10.2.

Apple updated all sorts of frameworks in the OS from 10.1 to 10.2.
Why should they restrict themselves to the least-common-denominator of
what's available in 10.1? Particularly when, as you point out, they
benefit from not doing so?
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto[at]speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Robin Burns <r_f_burns[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> Damn! Why did they do that? What does a browser need from the OS that's in
> 10.2, but not in 10.1? Seems to me they're playing games again to get
> everyone to pony up the $129 to upgrade to 10.2.

If there were nothing in 10.2 they wanted to use, there would have been no
point to the upgrade.

10.1 -> 10.2 was a *major* upgrade, with enormous benefits. It would be
silly of Apple to make such a move and then not take advantage of their
own work.

--
Jeremy | jeremy[at]exit109.com

In article <240620032218361375%thomasareed[at]dont.spam.me>,
Thomas Reed <thomasareed[at]dont.spam.me> wrote:

> In article <Xns93A480076A49Fburnshotmailcom[at]127.0.0.1>, Robin Burns
> <r_f_burns[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Damn! Why did they do that? What does a browser need from the OS that's in
> > 10.2, but not in 10.1? Seems to me they're playing games again to get
> > everyone to pony up the $129 to upgrade to 10.2.
>
> Considering how many bugs got fixed in 10.2, I don't think this is all
> that unreasonable. Apple would probably like the bugs present in 10.1
> to become history as quickly as possible. To be honest, I don't think
> $129 is all that much for the upgrade, considering how much better 10.2
> is than 10.1!

On the other hand, with Panther coming soon (by the end of the year),
upgrading to Jaguar now becomes a difficult decision. If one has held
out this long, one might well decide to hold out on 10.1.x until Panther
arrives.

This one didn't wait that long for Jaguar...he paid his money on day 1
(day 0 actually).

--John