can't upgrade browser because can't upgrade mac

[chscag]

The latest version of Chrome is not 39. Version 41.0.2224.3 dev (64-bit) is the latest available from the Chrome download site.

 

[josehill]

The latest version of Chrome is not 39. Version 41.0.2224.3 dev (64-bit) is the latest available from the Chrome download site.

Version 39 is the latest "production" version. Version 41 is the beta testing release.

 

[chscag]

Right, as noted above by the "dev". It's a stable beta, 64 bit, works great, and much faster than the 32 bit versions. Going from 32 to 64 bit, you won't lose your extensions or bookmarks. No reason not to use it.

 

[urbanman2004]

According to this page from the RoaringApps database Final Cut Pro and X work under OS versions from 10.6 to 10.10. Some component parts do not work on all versions of the OS>

Take a look at the photos below. This is what I was talking about.

 

[pigoo3]

@urbanman2004:

I went to Roaring Apps to check out Final Cut X compatibility info…and the oldest version of Final Cut Pro X that is listed is 10.0.6…and with 10.0.6 it says "no data" for Yosemite (it does list that 10.0.6 is compatible with 10.7, 10.8, and 10.9).

Your version 10.0.5 isn't listed. You need at least version 10.1.2 of Final Cut Pro X for Yosemite compatibility according to Roaring Apps. I would imagine this should be a free update.

HTH,

- Nick

 

[urbanman2004]

@urbanman2004:

I went to Roaring Apps to check out Final Cut X compatibility info…and the oldest version of Final Cut Pro X that is listed is 10.0.6…and with 10.0.6 it says "no data" for Yosemite (it does list that 10.0.6 is compatible with 10.7, 10.8, and 10.9).

Your version 10.0.5 isn't listed. You need at least version 10.1.2 of Final Cut Pro X for Yosemite compatibility according to Roaring Apps. I would imagine this should be a free update.

HTH,

- Nick

Ok I hear you, I am aware that I need to update. The point I was trying to get at was the fact that it's frivolous IMO to have to update it after I upgrade to the latest OS.

 

[MacInWin]

It's not frivolous if you want it to work.

 

[Slydude]

It's not unusual for most apps to work across multiple OS updates / upgrades. It doesn't generally happen after each one. If you look at each of the versions listed there they span several OS versions for the most part.

 

[dtravis7]

10.10 is NOT an update like most say. It's a new version of OSX like Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8. Unlike Windows Apple does major changes not just to the interface but the under the hood part. Thus some older apps do not work.

I much prefer a better OS over all the bloat compatibility gives you just to keep old apps running.

BTW Updates are like 10.10.1 .2 .3 ETC like Windows service packs.

 

[pigoo3]

Ok I hear you, I am aware that I need to update. The point I was trying to get at was the fact that it's frivolous IMO to have to update it after I upgrade to the latest OS.

If the update for Final Cut X is free (so that it's compatible with Yosemite)…what's the issue??

It's not really frivolous. If you upgrade the OS (Yosemite)…sometimes applications need to be updated.

Now if you had to UPGRADE Final Cut (after installing Yosemite)…and spend some serious bucks to do that…then that would be a different matter.

AND…before ANY OS upgrade is performed…it's ALWAYS a good idea to check app compatibility that is installed on a computer. What's the point of installing a free OS upgrade…if hundreds of dollars need to then be spent upgrading apps.

So assuming that the update for Final Cut X is free (for Yosemite compatibility)…what's the issue??

- Nick

 

[urbanman2004]

Nick, I get what you're saying but even though the update is free that is besides the point. Not trying to start a flame war here but I could count on one hand how many times I had to update my apps on Windows after upgrading the OS (aside from DOS, which was almost 20 years ago), and all of my apps still worked after the upgrade. Although I am not denying the necessity of updates to keep the apps' functionality intact for future use, I'm just not in favor of my routinely used apps requiring an update as a resolution because it became defunct after I upgraded the OS. What if I don't like the new features that come with an update but yet I want to upgrade to the latest OS that recently released? I think what I just made is a fair assessment.

 

[dtravis7]

Did you like the features that came with Windows 8? A Touch OS on a desktop? Was Windows 7 and 8 an Update or new OS?

I told you above why windows apps keep working. Same old OS basically and all kinds of Bloat. Windows 7 cut that bloat down a lot as the install is 1/2 the size of Vista and many older Apps no longer run in 7 that used to run in older windows.

For the record, I have used Windows since 3.0 and every DOS version out there and still do use Windows for some things, so I am not just an Anti Windows person, but know a lot about it.

 

[Slydude]

Good point Dennis. I think the other factor is the length of time between major OS revisions. Microsoft may have sped up development of Windows 7 and 8 compared to earlier versions but they aren't on the one year cycle Apple has been on for the last several OS versions.

 

[urbanman2004]

Did you like the features that came with Windows 8? A Touch OS on a desktop? Was Windows 7 and 8 an Update or new OS?

I told you above why windows apps keep working. Same old OS basically and all kinds of Bloat. Windows 7 cut that bloat down a lot as the install is 1/2 the size of Vista and many older Apps no longer run in 7 that used to run in older windows.

For the record, I have used Windows since 3.0 and every DOS version out there and still do use Windows for some things, so I am not just an Anti Windows person, but know a lot about it.

A wise man once said, "if ain't broke, don't fix it." That's my mantra. And for the record, my focus of discussion was on apps, not the features of the OS. That's a topic I'd rather save for another day.

 

[dtravis7]

Sly, agree. Lets see how long Windows 10 takes to come out. From all I have seen of it I like it.

 

[dtravis7]

If we did that and never fixed it, never improved it we would still have a 8-16 bit computer and OS!

I was telling you why the apps do not work Vs Windows with all the old code left behind to run them. We do not need an OS that is 25-50GB installed! Like I said before that is a lot of the reason Vista was so slow on so many systems and so many people hated it.

 

[pigoo3]

Nick, I get what you're saying but even though the update is free that is besides the point. Not trying to start a flame war here but I could count on one hand how many times I had to update my apps on Windows after upgrading the OS (aside from DOS, which was almost 20 years ago), and all of my apps still worked after the upgrade.

If this situation was something new…I might tend to agree with you. But the reality is…this is very very normal in the "Apple/Mac World"…and it really is a non-issue…since the update you need would be free.

In the Windows World this sort of thing may NOT be normal. In the Apple world this IS normal! The Windows World & the Apple World are DIFFERENT!

Please don't try to "cherry-pick" what is/was good about the Windows World…then find something disagreeable about the Apple World…and then say…This Apple World thing stinks! Both the Windows World & the Apple World have some positives…and some negatives.

For example. Windows 8.1 Pro costs $199.99. How much did Mac OS:

- 10.6 cost??…$29.99
- 10.7 cost??…$29.99
- 10.8 cost??…$19.99
- 10.9 cost??…FREE!
- 10.10 cost??…FREE!

We could total up what the last 5 Mac OS X releases have cost ($79.97)…and this total wouldn't even be 50% of what Windows 8.1 Pro costs ($199.99).

This of course is just one example of a positive thing about Apple and the Mac OS. I'm sure we could come up with more positives…and probably some negatives.

The bottom line is. The update you need to make Final Cut X compatible with Mac OS 10.10 Yosemite compatible…is free! No big deal what so ever.

Just update Final Cut X…and let's move on to more important things…like:

- The search for the meaning of life.
- Discovering the sound of one hand clapping.
- The cure for cancer!
- Ending world hunger!
- etc.

* Nick

p.s. And let's not even start talking about all the virus & malware issues with the "Windows World"!!!

 

[Slydude]

The virus problem is the other side of that long development cycle coin. Starting with about Windows 7 I remember seeing reports from numerous sites that improving security in Windows would really require a couple rewrite and getting rid of legacy code.

I understand Microsoft's reluctance to do that. It would make software run by a large part of their user base obsolete. Apple faced this issue years ago with the transition from OS 9 to OS X. They were able to solve the pro,blem with a version of OS 9 that ran on OS X machines. Don't see how that would work for Windows without reintroducing code they would be trying to remove.

 

[chscag]

Microsoft tried that years ago when they went from Win98 to WinME and got rid of the DOS component or at least hid it from the user. The next version of Windows - Windows 2000 finally transitioned to all NT code and it's been that way ever since. Windows currently is so bulky that it would take a freight train to carry all the code. ;D

 

[Slydude]

I forgot about the transition to NT. Didn't that retain some of the legacy code?