Wavelab 8 on Mac OS 10.6, but not Windows XP

Sorry for the criticism, because Wavelab is a wonderful program, but why is Wavelab 8.0.2 allowed to run on (unsupported) Mac OS 10.6, but not Windows XP? I’d still like to see the next update unblock Windows XP, as it was with Wavelab 8.0.1. Either that or equality for the platforms, blocking Mac OS 10.6 and 10.7.
I don’t care if something doesn’t work in Win XP. It’s unsupported. We know that. As, I would assume, the Mac users using 10.6 know.

I don’t know if WaveLab 8.0.2 is compatible with OSX 10.6, it was never tried. Only 10.7 and 10.8 are supported.

People are using it on 10.6, maybe even 10.5, because they’re not forbidden from installing it. Maybe somebody even got it working on OS 8.7 PPC somehow, I don’t know. My point is, if it’s “bad” on XP, then it’s “bad” on 10.6, because neither has been tested. But these OS shouldn’t be tested, because they’re not supported.

Maybe if there is a problem, it’s a hundred times worse on Mac 10.6 than XP and all of their 10.6 wav files are going to vaporize in six months. I don’t know. But that’s the user’s problem for being stupid enough to run an unsupported OS. I think the court of public opinion would back up Steinberg on that.

This is where I don’t see the logic of making it impossible to install on XP. XP seems to be singularly targeted for exclusion, whereas it doesn’t matter what happens on the OSX earlier versions.

And that’s why I also don’t understand why it’s such a big deal to give back the XP.

As I said, I’d really like to see the ability to install on XP in future updates, like it was in 8.0.1. Either that or exclude the untested Mac OS users too. That’s only logical.

Is there another Windows mastering program that can’t be installed on Win XP? I don’t think so. Wavelab is the only one, far as I know.

C’mon, this is seriously childish to come back after clear explanations have been provided… it’s not tested on either, and the installation issues are the result of compiler incompatibility (whichever toolkit is used to write the app itself), not a desire to cripple or lock out Win XP users. This has been stated repeatedly.

The fact is you don’t like the options selected in the compiler PG/Steinberg used to deliver this particular feature set. That it happens to run on older versions of OSX is entirely beside the point, especially after PG has stated those older versions are also unsupported and untested. If anything it shows good will; no one has gone out of their way to cripple the app on either platform, it just happens that the compiler and featureset on the windows side doesn’t go back quite as far. This shouldn’t be terribly surprising: OSX is built on top of a Unix kernel that’s 30+ years old, Windows seemingly changes with every breeze and marketshare hiccup experienced by MS. Blame Steve Ballmer, not PG for that.

Maybe you’re not aware that Mac users often have to hack older apps to install as well? By default Mountain Lion limits installations to “trusted developers” and you must turn off that limit in a control panel to install apps you download etc. WL7 had issues installing on NEWER OSX versions, similar failure at the other end of the development spectrum. So it’s not all green grass and high tides on the mac side either, for the record.

At any rate PG and Steinberg have no incentive or reason to deliberately cripple the app to lock you out. But assuming it’s possible it wouldn’t necessarily be wise to encourage people to install on machines that can’t properly support the app. Have you ever been on the receiving end of support calls? Users who know their Hackintosh isn’t quite kosher don’t report they’re running on non-Apple hardware when things go wrong. Jailbroken iPhones are reverted to stock when hardware problems arise and service is needed. Human nature, frustration and desperation lead people to make mistakes then blame others in all kinds of settings. We all get that you’ve got XP and think Steinberg should make it possible for you to install an app compiled for newer OS’s. It’s not clear whether you realize how that might increase the costs of supporting WL8 and lead to greater customer frustration overall, as people read that it “kind of works” on Gearslutz, then discover it’s a grenade on many older systems.

Anyway, these lines are drawn all the time on every platform and application. It’s not news, and we all get caught on the wrong side sooner or later, and yeah I’m with you, it sucks. I sympathize since learning and maintaining an OS is a job in itself, and change tends to be painful. We all prefer to do this on your own time and pace. If the time isn’t right for you to make this change, maybe WL7 works on your rig?

Agreed. So just because the architecture of xp is no longer supported for whatever reasons… Steinberg should lock out older versions of OSX just because it happens to still function eventhough it has not been officially supported?? :unamused:

Let it go… and choose your battles wisely.

You guys are right, I am being a jerk, just still very disappointed at how this has turned out, as I would imagine Mac 10.7 and 10.6 users would be if they were locked out midway into a release. But because unsupported support comes up in every discussion of this, I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to question the Mac side too. If absolute logic was used based on Sys Req, OSX 10.7 and down, and Win Vista and down would all be blocked from install.

There are still many XP users. I use Windows 7 and XP with Wavelab 6,7,8.
All other Win mastering programs welcome and support XP, save one. Even so, that one is still compiled for XP.
Many Win users expected 8.0.2 to install on XP, just as many Mac users expect 8.0.3 to install on OS 10.7. What if that doesn’t happen?

Re: complete compatibility, wasn’t this sorted out by Microsoft in VS 2012 due to overwhelming user demand for XP support (see comments), with complete XP support continued in VS 2013:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2012/06/15/10320645.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2013/06/26/visual-studio-2013-preview-now-available.aspx

I’m well aware of gatekeeper, running Lion and Mountain Lion here (but not for Wavelab). Ctrl modifier key is all that’s needed, don’t need to change Sys Prefs. But it’s no different than Windows users having to click OK for Unidentified Publisher all these years (including XP). Some software vendors are just too cheap or lazy to use proper certificates. Not the case with Steinberg.

So yes. Still being a jerk, and still asking for XP compile, especially given the midway circumstances.

Daved already said it: “the installation issues are the result of compiler incompatibility (whichever toolkit is used to write the app itself), not a desire to cripple or lock out Win XP users.” Noone was deliberately trying to block your XP install, but still you want the older Mac OSes and Vista blocked. That’s nothing to do with logic, more with envy, methinks.

I know I wasn’t blocked. I get it. If I said the word block, I shouldn’t have.

PG specifically said:
“WaveLab 8.0.2 uses updated tools to make it more optimized with Windows 7 and 8, and that is not compatible with the old Windows XP. Keeping compatibility “for ever” with an old OS, prevents using capabilities found only in new OS.”

End of story. 8.0.2 is using tools that nobody else is using, because everybody else is compiling for Win XP. That’s great, but in my case, unfortunate.

I don’t think anyone should be blocked. That’s not what I said. I was just suggesting blocking as a logical solution for the problem of unsupported OS support calls that Daved was talking about.

Just for the record, I love Wavelab. I think it’s one of the most brilliant computer programs ever invented. Using Wavelab 8 I’m amazed by everything that’s in there every day. I just wish it worked on XP. I know I have zero percent chance of changing anybody’s mind about how they’re doing what they’re doing, but I’ve tried. With that, I’m probably done.

Fair enough. And you can still use WL 8.0.1 on XP, so not all is lost…

btw. The support of Win XP from Microsoft itself ends in spring 2014. So why you will go on with an old, unsupported OS?

bob99. This must be the most lopsided comparison in history. You can’t compare MacOS X 10.6 and Windows XP! 10.6 was released in 2009 and XP in 2001. If want to compare XP with a Mac OSX version, it’s 10.0 (also released in 2001) and I asure you that WL won’t install on OSX 10.0!

The correct Windows version to compare 10.6 with is Windows 7 (both released in 2009).

What are you complaining about? The 2009 Windows version is supported. The 2009 Mac version isn’t. If you wanna complain, at least get your facts right.

I wasn’t talking about year of release. I was talking about named major versions. Going backwards, XP = Leopard. I can’t help it Microsoft is slower than Apple. Application system requirements don’t say Mac 2009 or Windows 2008.

You’re sooooo wrong.
XP = Cheetah
W7 = Snow Leopard (not Leopard)

Of cause you have to take the date into account. Would you pay the same price for a 13 year old car as for a 4 year old? In that case I have an old Atari lying around somewhere that you might be interested in (for the same price as a 2013 Mac Pro, of course).

Come on now-u cant equate xp to osx 10.6-seriously!!! I DO have an atari st running cubase for real if interested. I cant get wavelab 8, le 4 or 6 to run on my mac pro running 10.6.8 anyway-cubase has gone down hill since the vst audio re-write many moons ago-buy a mac and get logic-atleast it runs!!!

I admit it was a bit of a stretch, and I regret my campaign to retain XP. It was stupid and obnoxious. But from what I’ve read, Apple stopped updates to 10.6 late last year, before Microsoft stopped updates for XP in April.

Apple stopped updates to 10.6 years ago, when 10.7 was released. Since then we’ve got 10.8, 10.9 and soon 10.10.