I have very reliable, but old Mac hardware that is intel based. Running on Catalina (10:15).
Whilst version 11 won’t run on my machine as it is not possible to take mac OS 12, version 10 still worked well enough until ancestry updated their API. I can see a lot of blame shifting potential in this, but it seems RM10 just got nobbled and no one really cares.
One way to at least keep loyal RM users on side would be to put out a supplementary RM10 with the updated ancestryAPI.
Surely not too difficult, is it for some of us that don’t have infinite budgets to keep on upgrading IT hardware every year?
Sounds like a matter of perspective.
From your problem statement it looks like the “nobbler” was Apple.
They moved on from You. Tahoe is the final version of macOS that supports Macs with Intel processors; the 2020 iMac, the 2019 16-inch MacBook Pro, the 2020 4-port 13-inch MacBook Pro, and the 2019 Mac Pro models. Successor versions will work only on Macs with Apple silicon systems on a chip (SoCs)
macOS 10.12 Sierra
macOS 10.13 High Sierra
macOS 10.14 Mojave macOS 10.15 Catalina
macOS 11 Big Sur
macOS 12 Monterey
macOS 13 Ventura
macOS 14 Sonoma
macOS 15 Sequoia macOS 26 Tahoe
We keep current on the programming tools and that is what determines what operating systems are supported. Even if we went against our policy of not updating older versions, there isn’t anyway to make the programming tools give you an updated RM10 that would work on Catalina.
Reasonably speaking, the upgrade in hardware and software that would bring back what you want (a functioning Ancestry API) does not require an infinite budget and is not a yearly upgrade demand.
Otherwise, I prefer that RM development for macOS focus on improving the compliance of its current and future versions to macOS UI guidelines rather than patching older versions to retro-fit updates to rather dated (if not already outdated) technologies for what might amount to one-off use cases.
Actually, the real “nobbler” is Ancestry. They could have maintained their existing API as legacy, and added the new API as the preferred API. To remove an API usually takes work, and is often done to deliberately shut-down access for a particular reason. E.g. Twitter and third party clients.
Ancestry’s financial model and its (stake in/partnership with) Kiev Software’s Family Tree Maker being contrary to the “free-use” nature of Bruce Buzbee’s RootsMagic Essentials and it’s retail offering.
That’s definitely “leverage” for compliance to changes in the API features. Backward compatibility is not in the realm of their concern for these two user sets. And, as has been mentioned other times before, it’s rather more “the norm” to halt updating previous versions (whether Apps or APIs) when newer versions come onto the scene.
I definitely understand the OP’s disdain in having “still-reliable” old Mac hardware that has gotten left behind in the evolution of computing. There’s plenty of that “flotsam and jetsam” strewn by the wake of advancement.
Yes, ancestry, google etc. updates… a lot can be driven by security issues as well as feature development (plus closing off access to third parties)
But my beef/issue/request was NOT updating all of RM10, it was just a supplementary modification so that the API module to get access to ancestry was updated
It’s sort of parallel to apple occasionally doing updates to older iOS and macOS for security patches, not the whole app itself.
I do defer to the RM developers and their resource allocations; time,$ old systems etc.
perhaps apple just made their old MacBook Pro models too damn well.
I will start saving for a replacement (but generally I hate the waste of constant hardware and software onsolence)
It’s reasonable not to maintain an old release of an app when the operating system changes - the deal is that you bought the app that works with the original OS and hardware, and always will. In this case (without knowing all the details), Ancestry could have left the old API in place as-is but made it officially deprecated, and released the new API, with presumably new features. If the new API just provides the same functionality as the old one and no more, then they’re just being manipulative.
