5 ms·

I fully understand about Windows XP. I'm disappointed about OS X 10.7 and 10.8, because many users with older (but still perfectly functional!) Mac hardware are

I fully understand about Windows XP. I'm disappointed about OS X 10.7 and 10.8, because many users with older (but still perfectly functional!) Mac hardware are stuck on those versions 4-5 years after their release because Apple won't extend support for newer OS X versions to that hardware. Apple also refuses to provide a way to upgrade a system to the maximum OS X version it supports; it's a huge hassle to do so.

fixermark 11y ago
I know that in the past, when you fought to upgrade a machine past Apple's recommendations, you could end up with a machine that was technically working, but so slow it was practically unusable. It's possibly the case that Apple's lack of upgrade support is a feature, not a bug (though it introduces the complexity of eventual lack of security support).
- yuhong 11y ago
  In particular, Mac OS X don't even run well with only 4GB of RAM anymore, and older machines use DDR2 where 4GB SO-DIMMs (and any other sticks based on 2Gbit DDR2) are rare and expensive. I wonder what is the current status of this bug BTW: http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42426/can-i-upgrade-my-macbook-mid-2010-to-16gb-of-ram-2x8g http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42426/can-i-upgrade...
  - pornel 11y ago
    I've upgraded 4GB 2007 iMac to Mavericks and it worked very well (for its age). Mavericks introduced RAM compression, so for RAM-constrained machines it may be even better than the previous OS.
  - glassx 11y ago
    > In particular, Mac OS X don't even run well with only 4GB of RAM anymore It actually runs great. I'm using a 2011 Air w/2GB (cheapest back then) and El Capitan and it's almost as fast as my 24GB Mac Pro. I push it a bit with Logic Pro X + drum samples (for my V-Drums), but it handles that without complaints. But for web, videos and programming there isn't much of a difference.
    - yuhong 11y ago
      But note that the Air has a SSD.
- ivraatiems 11y ago
  That makes sense, except: 1) It's up to the user to decide whether a machine is usable for their needs or not, not Apple. 2) Locking users in at an older version and then refusing to support that version even just 3 years after it's come out is just too short a time window. 3) Offering no way for users who need an old version to get it except illegally is a non-starter for any purpose, security or not, again, because 3 years old is just not old enough to so completely phase it out. While I agree that lack of usability is a concern, it seems to me that between lack of upgrade-ability, short OS version lifespans, and early phaseouts of old versions, Apple is intentionally forcing users to consistently upgrade once every 3-4 years at most. Fine business model, terrible for the end user, and a real detriment to Apple for me personally when the competition doesn't behave that way to that extent.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - iSnow 11y ago
    >It's up to the user to decide whether a machine is usable for their needs or not, not Apple. Well yes, but it is also a business decision. Further supporting an old machine with a changing toolchain means additional costs for development, testing and troubleshooting. Those are costs that Apple has to bear. I won't contest your point that 3-4 years is too early, just saying that there's more to supporting old hardware than just including the same drivers as in the last release.
    - ivraatiems 11y ago
      You're absolutely right, but at the same time, if something WILL work but may not work optimally (or may not be supported for business reasons), I think it's more appropriate to say "hey, this is not recommended and if you do it you're on your own" than "you may not do this, no matter how well you know the risks." Apple chooses the latter path.
pornel 11y ago
Looking at system requirements I don't see many models dropped between 10.8 and 10.9 (and 10.11 supports same models as 10.9). Dropping of 10.7 cuts off machines from 2006. That'll be about 10 years of support, which isn't too bad IMHO.
- ivraatiems 11y ago
  It affects machines from later than '06: I have a mid-2007 silver Macbrook Pro which allegedly should support 10.11, but which I can't actually upgrade past 10.7. Even getting it to 10.7 was a huge hassle because Apple doesn't make it available anywhere.
  - jonknee 11y ago
    Well then it's Apple abandoning you, not Google. Your machine is lacking a ton of security fixes anyway, it's well past time to upgrade.
  - twoodfin 11y ago
    I have one of the original (SSD even!) Macbook Airs from early 2008 that isn't supported past 10.7. I know it's a notoriously underpowered machine, but it still would have been nice to get more than 4.5 years of supported OS updates. Still perfectly functional as a portable secondary machine for mail, notes, terminal and light Chrome browsing. Apparently they didn't want to continue to support 32-bit EFI.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - bsimpson 11y ago
      Incidentally, Google is promising Chrome releases for 5 years from shipping for each Chromebook.
  - sambe 11y ago
    The first hit is this page: http://www.apple.com/uk/osx/how-to-upgrade/ http://www.apple.com/uk/osx/how-to-upgrade/ which says you can upgrade directly. What goes wrong? I upgraded 10.5 to latest 10.5 then bought 10.6 in store and got to 10.6.8 a year or so ago. I recently upgraded another machine to 10.6.8 too. I find free, smooth upgrades (not just updates) for a decade to be pretty good but guess you are having problems with "smooth".
mmahemoff 11y ago
Is Apple even maintaining these versions? I don't believe POODLE was patched for 10.7, which was already a year ago (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/apple-yosemite-patch,news-19799.html http://www.tomsguide.com/us/apple-yosemite-patch,news-19799....). That would suggest 10.8 is on the way out too, if not already. I don't think it's reasonable to expect third parties to support versions which the platform owner has deprecated.
maherbeg 11y ago
I totally get this, but Apple made a conscious decision to not support 32bit machines. While it does suck to be caught on that border, they've done a tremendous job of supporting machines from that era that are 64 bit capable. I don't think anyone should fault them for making that hard decision.
- yuhong 11y ago
  They first dropped support for all 32-bit only machines with Lion, then some 64-bit machines (including I think all 945 chipset machines that have only 32-bit physical addressing) with Mountain Lion.
anonymfus 11y ago
Why not install Windows or GNU/Linux on such Mac hardware?

fixermark 11y ago

I know that in the past, when you fought to upgrade a machine past Apple's recommendations, you could end up with a machine that was technically working, but so slow it was practically unusable. It's possibly the case that Apple's lack of upgrade support is a feature, not a bug (though it introduces the complexity of eventual lack of security support).

yuhong 11y ago
In particular, Mac OS X don't even run well with only 4GB of RAM anymore, and older machines use DDR2 where 4GB SO-DIMMs (and any other sticks based on 2Gbit DDR2) are rare and expensive. I wonder what is the current status of this bug BTW: http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42426/can-i-upgrade-my-macbook-mid-2010-to-16gb-of-ram-2x8g http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/42426/can-i-upgrade...
- pornel 11y ago
  I've upgraded 4GB 2007 iMac to Mavericks and it worked very well (for its age). Mavericks introduced RAM compression, so for RAM-constrained machines it may be even better than the previous OS.
- glassx 11y ago
  > In particular, Mac OS X don't even run well with only 4GB of RAM anymore It actually runs great. I'm using a 2011 Air w/2GB (cheapest back then) and El Capitan and it's almost as fast as my 24GB Mac Pro. I push it a bit with Logic Pro X + drum samples (for my V-Drums), but it handles that without complaints. But for web, videos and programming there isn't much of a difference.
  - yuhong 11y ago
    But note that the Air has a SSD.
ivraatiems 11y ago
That makes sense, except: 1) It's up to the user to decide whether a machine is usable for their needs or not, not Apple. 2) Locking users in at an older version and then refusing to support that version even just 3 years after it's come out is just too short a time window. 3) Offering no way for users who need an old version to get it except illegally is a non-starter for any purpose, security or not, again, because 3 years old is just not old enough to so completely phase it out. While I agree that lack of usability is a concern, it seems to me that between lack of upgrade-ability, short OS version lifespans, and early phaseouts of old versions, Apple is intentionally forcing users to consistently upgrade once every 3-4 years at most. Fine business model, terrible for the end user, and a real detriment to Apple for me personally when the competition doesn't behave that way to that extent.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- iSnow 11y ago
  >It's up to the user to decide whether a machine is usable for their needs or not, not Apple. Well yes, but it is also a business decision. Further supporting an old machine with a changing toolchain means additional costs for development, testing and troubleshooting. Those are costs that Apple has to bear. I won't contest your point that 3-4 years is too early, just saying that there's more to supporting old hardware than just including the same drivers as in the last release.
  - ivraatiems 11y ago
    You're absolutely right, but at the same time, if something WILL work but may not work optimally (or may not be supported for business reasons), I think it's more appropriate to say "hey, this is not recommended and if you do it you're on your own" than "you may not do this, no matter how well you know the risks." Apple chooses the latter path.

pornel 11y ago

Looking at system requirements I don't see many models dropped between 10.8 and 10.9 (and 10.11 supports same models as 10.9). Dropping of 10.7 cuts off machines from 2006. That'll be about 10 years of support, which isn't too bad IMHO.

ivraatiems 11y ago
It affects machines from later than '06: I have a mid-2007 silver Macbrook Pro which allegedly should support 10.11, but which I can't actually upgrade past 10.7. Even getting it to 10.7 was a huge hassle because Apple doesn't make it available anywhere.
- jonknee 11y ago
  Well then it's Apple abandoning you, not Google. Your machine is lacking a ton of security fixes anyway, it's well past time to upgrade.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  I have one of the original (SSD even!) Macbook Airs from early 2008 that isn't supported past 10.7. I know it's a notoriously underpowered machine, but it still would have been nice to get more than 4.5 years of supported OS updates. Still perfectly functional as a portable secondary machine for mail, notes, terminal and light Chrome browsing. Apparently they didn't want to continue to support 32-bit EFI.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - bsimpson 11y ago
    Incidentally, Google is promising Chrome releases for 5 years from shipping for each Chromebook.
- sambe 11y ago
  The first hit is this page: http://www.apple.com/uk/osx/how-to-upgrade/ http://www.apple.com/uk/osx/how-to-upgrade/ which says you can upgrade directly. What goes wrong? I upgraded 10.5 to latest 10.5 then bought 10.6 in store and got to 10.6.8 a year or so ago. I recently upgraded another machine to 10.6.8 too. I find free, smooth upgrades (not just updates) for a decade to be pretty good but guess you are having problems with "smooth".

mmahemoff 11y ago

Is Apple even maintaining these versions? I don't believe POODLE was patched for 10.7, which was already a year ago (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/apple-yosemite-patch,news-19799.html http://www.tomsguide.com/us/apple-yosemite-patch,news-19799....). That would suggest 10.8 is on the way out too, if not already. I don't think it's reasonable to expect third parties to support versions which the platform owner has deprecated.

maherbeg 11y ago

I totally get this, but Apple made a conscious decision to not support 32bit machines. While it does suck to be caught on that border, they've done a tremendous job of supporting machines from that era that are 64 bit capable. I don't think anyone should fault them for making that hard decision.

yuhong 11y ago
They first dropped support for all 32-bit only machines with Lion, then some 64-bit machines (including I think all 945 chipset machines that have only 32-bit physical addressing) with Mountain Lion.

anonymfus 11y ago

Why not install Windows or GNU/Linux on such Mac hardware?