3 ms·

In the past, doesn't Apple just EOL computers past 5 years of age? imo this is why Apple historically "just works". Compared to MS's strategy of supporting ever

In the past, doesn't Apple just EOL computers past 5 years of age? imo this is why Apple historically "just works". Compared to MS's strategy of supporting every hardware variation and configuration under the sun, Apple just ends support for anything that doesn't conform to the new paradigm. I'm not keen on having to spend $2000 every 5 years, but it makes sense.

gumby 6y ago
Seven years is required by California and I believe Apple uses that limit as a floor for all US support. They have also occasionally shipped security updates for even older hardware. I don't like using Windows but I admire MS's commitment to back compatibility. I know it adds a tremendous amount of work and makes some vulnerabilities very difficult or impossible to address. TBF I don't believe MS can or does ship firmware updates for any hardware other than their own. So they are less likely to suffer this particular failure.
- chaostheory 6y ago
  > Seven years is required by California and I believe Apple uses that limit as a floor for all US support. Ah, that's why they changed it from 5 > They have also occasionally shipped security updates for even older hardware. Yes, only security updates > I don't like using Windows but I admire MS's commitment to back compatibility. I know it adds a tremendous amount of work and makes some vulnerabilities very difficult or impossible to address. Yes, but there's a price for backwards compatibility. It makes the goal of "it just works" near insurmountable. I'm not saying what MS or Apple is doing either is good or bad. I'm just explaining the pros and cons of both approaches. There's no wrong choice. You just need to be aware of the pros and cons before making a commitment on your choice. Dropping support for old stuff has been Apple's MO for decades now, while it feels to be the opposite for Microsoft

gumby 6y ago

Seven years is required by California and I believe Apple uses that limit as a floor for all US support. They have also occasionally shipped security updates for even older hardware. I don't like using Windows but I admire MS's commitment to back compatibility. I know it adds a tremendous amount of work and makes some vulnerabilities very difficult or impossible to address. TBF I don't believe MS can or does ship firmware updates for any hardware other than their own. So they are less likely to suffer this particular failure.

chaostheory 6y ago
> Seven years is required by California and I believe Apple uses that limit as a floor for all US support. Ah, that's why they changed it from 5 > They have also occasionally shipped security updates for even older hardware. Yes, only security updates > I don't like using Windows but I admire MS's commitment to back compatibility. I know it adds a tremendous amount of work and makes some vulnerabilities very difficult or impossible to address. Yes, but there's a price for backwards compatibility. It makes the goal of "it just works" near insurmountable. I'm not saying what MS or Apple is doing either is good or bad. I'm just explaining the pros and cons of both approaches. There's no wrong choice. You just need to be aware of the pros and cons before making a commitment on your choice. Dropping support for old stuff has been Apple's MO for decades now, while it feels to be the opposite for Microsoft