Ask your clients - how many are on older versions of the OS?
Can you afford to lose them?
Edit: (following comment)
If you don't know what your target audience is using, you have a problem. You need to get an idea of the magnitude of how many potential customers you will not be able to serve if you go with your new library.
Having said that, shipping is a feature, so if you get the product out much quicker, you can always refactor the code to use the old libraries if you think it will gain many sales.
In general you should base your decisions like that around the interests of your paying customers. You should present the issues to them and the risks involved in each alternative and let them make the decision.
Depending upon your particular application and requirements, I would personally ship this as a major update (i.e. version 2 compared to version 1) and explicitly state that a minimum of OSX 10.5 is required.
You could still support your previous version with bug fixes, just not new features that depend on library X.
Another way to think about it is that if someone is on 10.4, then they likely haven't been an active upgrader / software purchaser for the last 3 years. So the likelihood that they will want to spend money on your software is low.
Additionally, if they really want your software, they'll upgrade to 10.5 or 10.6 and gain loads of other advantages at the same time. While that OS upgrade won't be free, it will come with so many other advantages to the customer, they might not mind.
It's also important to consider how much time and effort it will take to develop your software. If these newer libraries mean that you ship the product months earlier, or with better features, that will also pay off.
正如其他人所说，这实际上归结为您是否能够承受失去尚未使用 10.5 的客户的损失。也就是说，许多公司似乎在新的主要版本中支持 OS X 的两个最新版本，尽管旧版本通常可供使用旧系统的用户使用。
As others have said, this really boils down to whether you can afford to lose customers who aren't on 10.5 yet. That said, lots of companies seem to support the two most recent versions of OS X in their new major releases, although older versions are often available for people with older systems.
我的例子：2000年之前与2005年相比，几乎不可能重建。1999-2001年100%保存和封存的Visual Studio 6.0项目的100万行的构建过程，获取该时代的所有第三方库，准备适当的 SDK、平台本身、所有补丁，使结果二进制相同。决不。
但它几乎适用于 Studio 2005。
If software ownership is stable and software vendor is not pushing too hard in phasing out their own obsolete software, then there are no reasons to not support.
The problem is much worse, when vendor is passively aggressive or committed the phasing out: dead download links, dead 3rd party companies, who made the hardware/drivers/compilers/libraries, unobtainable documentation, incompatible media/installer to recover/reinstall the product.
My example: pre-2000 vs 2005, it is nearly impossible to reconstruct say.. the build process of 1 mln lines of 100% saved and mothballed Visual Studio 6.0 projects from year 1999-2001, obtain all 3rd party libraries from the era, prepare proper SDK, platform itself, all patches, make results binary identical. No way.
发布评论
评论（7）
询问您的客户 - 有多少使用旧版本的操作系统？
你能承受失去他们的代价吗？
编辑：（以下评论）
如果您不知道目标受众正在使用什么，那么您就有问题了。您需要了解如果您使用新图书馆，您将无法服务多少潜在客户。
话虽如此，运输是一项功能，因此，如果您更快地推出产品，并且您认为它会获得更多销量，那么您始终可以重构代码以使用旧库。
Ask your clients - how many are on older versions of the OS?
Can you afford to lose them?
Edit: (following comment)
If you don't know what your target audience is using, you have a problem. You need to get an idea of the magnitude of how many potential customers you will not be able to serve if you go with your new library.
Having said that, shipping is a feature, so if you get the product out much quicker, you can always refactor the code to use the old libraries if you think it will gain many sales.
一般来说，您应该根据付费客户的利益做出这样的决定。您应该向他们提出问题以及每种替代方案所涉及的风险，然后让他们做出决定。
In general you should base your decisions like that around the interests of your paying customers. You should present the issues to them and the risks involved in each alternative and let them make the decision.
根据您的特定应用程序和要求，我个人会将其作为主要更新（即版本 2 与版本 1 相比）发布，并明确声明至少需要 OSX 10.5。
您仍然可以通过错误修复来支持以前的版本，只是不能支持依赖于库 X 的新功能。
Depending upon your particular application and requirements, I would personally ship this as a major update (i.e. version 2 compared to version 1) and explicitly state that a minimum of OSX 10.5 is required.
You could still support your previous version with bug fixes, just not new features that depend on library X.
另一种思考方式是，如果有人使用 10.4，那么他们可能在过去 3 年里不是活跃的升级者/软件购买者。因此，他们愿意花钱购买您的软件的可能性很低。
此外，如果他们确实需要您的软件，他们会升级到 10.5 或 10.6，并同时获得大量其他优势。虽然操作系统升级不是免费的，但它会给客户带来许多其他优势，他们可能不会介意。
考虑开发软件需要多少时间和精力也很重要。如果这些较新的库意味着您可以提前几个月发布产品，或者具有更好的功能，那么这也会带来回报。
Another way to think about it is that if someone is on 10.4, then they likely haven't been an active upgrader / software purchaser for the last 3 years. So the likelihood that they will want to spend money on your software is low.
Additionally, if they really want your software, they'll upgrade to 10.5 or 10.6 and gain loads of other advantages at the same time. While that OS upgrade won't be free, it will come with so many other advantages to the customer, they might not mind.
It's also important to consider how much time and effort it will take to develop your software. If these newer libraries mean that you ship the product months earlier, or with better features, that will also pay off.
正如其他人所说，这实际上归结为您是否能够承受失去尚未使用 10.5 的客户的损失。也就是说，许多公司似乎在新的主要版本中支持 OS X 的两个最新版本，尽管旧版本通常可供使用旧系统的用户使用。
As others have said, this really boils down to whether you can afford to lose customers who aren't on 10.5 yet. That said, lots of companies seem to support the two most recent versions of OS X in their new major releases, although older versions are often available for people with older systems.
如果软件所有权稳定并且软件供应商没有太努力地淘汰自己的过时软件，那么就没有理由不支持。
当供应商被动进攻或承诺逐步淘汰时，问题会更严重：死的下载链接、死的第三方公司、制造硬件/驱动程序/编译器/库的人、无法获取的文档、用于恢复/重新安装产品的不兼容的媒体/安装程序。
我的例子：2000年之前与2005年相比，几乎不可能重建。1999-2001年100%保存和封存的Visual Studio 6.0项目的100万行的构建过程，获取该时代的所有第三方库，准备适当的 SDK、平台本身、所有补丁，使结果二进制相同。决不。
但它几乎适用于 Studio 2005。
If software ownership is stable and software vendor is not pushing too hard in phasing out their own obsolete software, then there are no reasons to not support.
The problem is much worse, when vendor is passively aggressive or committed the phasing out: dead download links, dead 3rd party companies, who made the hardware/drivers/compilers/libraries, unobtainable documentation, incompatible media/installer to recover/reinstall the product.
My example: pre-2000 vs 2005, it is nearly impossible to reconstruct say.. the build process of 1 mln lines of 100% saved and mothballed Visual Studio 6.0 projects from year 1999-2001, obtain all 3rd party libraries from the era, prepare proper SDK, platform itself, all patches, make results binary identical. No way.
But it pretty much works for Studio 2005.
您需要与销售和支持人员交谈，让他们判断会产生什么影响。
You need to talk to both sales and support, and let them judge what the impact will be.