7 ms·

This was my personal favourate statement in the article. "Deciding whether and when to upgrade macOS is one of the more difficult choices we face. If your Mac

This was my personal favourate statement in the article. "Deciding whether and when to upgrade macOS is one of the more difficult choices we face. If your Mac isn’t capable of running the current release of macOS, or you’re dependent on key hardware or software which is incompatible, then the decision is made for you." If you head over to the hackintosh side of things you will notice that very rarely does a hackintosh not upgrade to the next version. I don't want to get "conspiracy theory" here but I do wonder how often the next release is blocked by Apple, not by hardware? There are hacks to allow the new OS to run on real Apple hardware despite being blocked and people who have done this seem to be running the new OS just fine? Releasing an OS with serious bugs, then limiting someone from upgrading to a newer one which fixes those issues is just bad.

webmobdev 4y ago
We can indeed run newer macOS on older macs with the Opencore Legacy Patcher - https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/ https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/ . But the bugs aren't the only concern. There's also the revised terms of services and privacy policies that we have to consider with each new macOS, as Apple plans to become a service company at our expense. It is also clear that Apple has been taking away developer options, and rearchitecting macOS to be more and more like ios / iPadOS to have greater control of over what developers can do on the system. (There's now even talks of Apple working on a hybrid macOS and iPadOS merge so that they have one common OS for both platform).
ben-schaaf 4y ago
There is no excuse for the most profitable company in the world to drop support for working hardware. It's entirely within their capability to support even PowerPC macs. And that's besides fact that Apple has an incredibly small portfolio of hardware to support; so much so that they could trivially exhaustively test every update on every possible piece of hardware.
- hgsgm 4y ago
- calvinmorrison 4y ago
  I was just rereading the ppc history for Apple as they're doing it again for ARM and it seems quite reasonable to be honest. They pulled something off I think would be difficult for many others and have shown they're not married to a single architecture. Still RIP my favorite machine the last ppc Mac tower
  - kennend3 4y ago
    > They pulled something off I think would be difficult for many others and have shown they're not married to a single architecture. You mean like how MS Windows ran on the DEC Alpha as well as X86? Or how Linux runs on X86 and ARM CPU's? Running an OS on multiple CPU types goes back a very long time.
    - LoganDark 4y ago
      > Running an OS on multiple CPU types goes back a very long time. Yet moving the entire world onto this new architecture and getting all developers on board to start creating software for it is nearly unheard of outside of Apple.
      - macintux 4y ago
        That’s the strategy that Microsoft can’t/won’t pursue: be willing to abandon legacy vendors/customers by forcing a migration.
        eric-hu 4y ago
        I’m fan of how Apple does things for their ecosystem. I think only this strategy could have let them make the transition to arm as smooth as it’s been. That said, I also have deep respect for Microsoft for being so deeply committed to backwards compatibility. You can find developer stories about how they’ve gone out of their way to hard code support for legacy apps (even space pinball) in major Windows updates. That sounds really gross from a code perspective, but from a business/product perspective, it buys trust/loyalty from enterprise customers. We see the opposite issue with Google, who has established a reputation for unreliable long term support. Despite their reputation for strong engineering, their new product lines suffer from distrust. Potential customers ask themselves why pay the onboarding cost for a Google product when it’s unclear if it’ll be around in two to three years.
- kennend3 4y ago
  This is sort of my line of thinking. when you effectively have a very small product line and are incredibly profitable it does seem a bit greedy to artificially limit updates. It would be different if there was no way to bypass the upgrade lock, but given opencore legacy works.. Clearly the hardware is able to run the new OS.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Besides the impracticality of running new OS’s on a 2005 era Mac, what software engineer at Apple would be willing to take on that role? Also, even if the hardware were supported, what third party software company would still support PPC Macs?
  - ben-schaaf 4y ago
    > what software engineer at Apple would be willing to take on that role? One being paid to do so? People still work with COBOL. If you have trouble finding engineers to do it, offer a higher salary. > Also, even if the hardware were supported, what third party software company would still support PPC Macs? Some software is still supported for Windows XP, and that's considerably older than the last PPC Macs. It would certainly be a whole lot easier to support if Apple still did the same. In any case my point is that they absolutely have the resources to do this. I don't see how that's at all controversial given how much money they have.
    - goosedragons 4y ago
      There's still Linux distros supporting 32bit PPC Macs.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        And how many people are actually getting paid to do so and how many companies are selling software for them?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      > One being paid to do so? People still work with COBOL. If you have trouble finding engineers to do it, offer a higher salary. Higher salary than who? Do you really think old COBOL programmers (FWIW I’m 48) are making more than the average new college grad working at any major tech company? And besides if you know how raises and promotions work at tech companies, you would know they are based on “impact” and “scope”. You don’t demonstrate either by saying “I spent all last year supporting MacOS on a PowerPC 6100 from 1994 doesn’t speak well to either. Unless you work at Google where it’s based on creating new messaging app that will be killed in a year. Is the average COBOL programmer even making close to the same $170K+ that I’ve seen returning interns make at major tech companies (including the one I mentored) > Some software is still supported for Windows XP, and that's considerably older than the last PPC Macs. How much mainstream software is supported by XP? Microsoft Office? Adobe software? Modern browsers? Modern games? > In any case my point is that they absolutely have the resources to do this. I don't see how that's at all controversial given how much money they have Yes and they also had the money to buy Twitter. But what moron would do something that stupid?
geraneum 4y ago
I have a Macbook Pro 2015 and the latest OS it supports officially is Monterey. The new Ventura (2022) is not supported anymore. I consider my device to have had software support for about at least seven years so far and until when they stop releasing security fixes for Monterey. I believe this to be sufficient for my needs and the frequency of which I upgrade the laptop. P.S. I don’t think that it’s ok for Apple to stop supporting older devices. I am just pointing out my personal view concerning my needs.
- LoganDark 4y ago
  My 2015 MBP runs Mojave (~2020) and will until it dies. Catalina was just too much for me. Besides, OS X looks much better than the newer iOS-based design, imho.
- Aloha 4y ago
  I wish apple would do 'best effort' support on older macs. Meaning, it'll let you install after you click thru two pages of warnings, and might work, or might not.
  - kennend3 4y ago
    This is a much more sensible approach vs the "installer lock" apple took.
    - Toutouxc 4y ago
      But it isn’t the way Apple does things. They obviously don’t want Apple computers in the wild running a version of an Apple OS that might or might not work.
      - kennend3 4y ago
        Yes.. artificially limiting them from upgrading by checking the SMBIOS in the installer and preventing an upgrade is MUCH BETTER for the users. And as posted here several times, what about those who use opencore legacy patcher and upgrade despite the block. What "doesn't work" for them? SO to your point, apple prefers machines in the wild running an old and out of date OS because???
protomyth 4y ago
I tell people that I haven't looked forward to new features in the 'California' era like I did in the 'Cat' era. Now, I worry about what Apple will break or take away. If Microsoft wasn't so intent on spying and advertising to me, I might consider them. I get the feeling I will switch to a BSD eventually.
- ticviking 4y ago
  I’ve been leaning the same way. I’m curious why you also lean towards BSD instead of Linux? It’s a gut feeling for me after watching the Linux ecosystem churn a lot and seeing BSDs with well documented core systems and the “core/ports” distinction make clear what is and isn’t really supported
  - protomyth 4y ago
    I'm much more familiar with OpenBSD and FreeBSD on the server-side, and I don't feel real comfortable with Linux. The two biggest vendors, Red Hat and Ubuntu, don't really give the warm fuzzies. Maybe something like System 76 backs.
    - loloquwowndueo 4y ago
      What about plain Debian :) if you’re comfortable with BSD then Debian should be a cakewalk for you.
      - protomyth 4y ago
        The funny thing is I tried to setup and Arch Linux box. I can setup OpenBSD with thinking with all the partitions and such, but that Arch Linux install was just a bad time. I'll try Debian when I get back to work. We are replacing our Samba server and the BSDs aren't real current given some changes the Samba team made.
    - jayp1418 4y ago
      I have tried all three and much comfortable with NetBSD.

webmobdev 4y ago

We can indeed run newer macOS on older macs with the Opencore Legacy Patcher - https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/ https://dortania.github.io/OpenCore-Legacy-Patcher/ . But the bugs aren't the only concern. There's also the revised terms of services and privacy policies that we have to consider with each new macOS, as Apple plans to become a service company at our expense. It is also clear that Apple has been taking away developer options, and rearchitecting macOS to be more and more like ios / iPadOS to have greater control of over what developers can do on the system. (There's now even talks of Apple working on a hybrid macOS and iPadOS merge so that they have one common OS for both platform).

ben-schaaf 4y ago

There is no excuse for the most profitable company in the world to drop support for working hardware. It's entirely within their capability to support even PowerPC macs. And that's besides fact that Apple has an incredibly small portfolio of hardware to support; so much so that they could trivially exhaustively test every update on every possible piece of hardware.

hgsgm 4y ago
calvinmorrison 4y ago
I was just rereading the ppc history for Apple as they're doing it again for ARM and it seems quite reasonable to be honest. They pulled something off I think would be difficult for many others and have shown they're not married to a single architecture. Still RIP my favorite machine the last ppc Mac tower
- kennend3 4y ago
  > They pulled something off I think would be difficult for many others and have shown they're not married to a single architecture. You mean like how MS Windows ran on the DEC Alpha as well as X86? Or how Linux runs on X86 and ARM CPU's? Running an OS on multiple CPU types goes back a very long time.
  - LoganDark 4y ago
    > Running an OS on multiple CPU types goes back a very long time. Yet moving the entire world onto this new architecture and getting all developers on board to start creating software for it is nearly unheard of outside of Apple.
    - macintux 4y ago
      That’s the strategy that Microsoft can’t/won’t pursue: be willing to abandon legacy vendors/customers by forcing a migration.
      - eric-hu 4y ago
        I’m fan of how Apple does things for their ecosystem. I think only this strategy could have let them make the transition to arm as smooth as it’s been. That said, I also have deep respect for Microsoft for being so deeply committed to backwards compatibility. You can find developer stories about how they’ve gone out of their way to hard code support for legacy apps (even space pinball) in major Windows updates. That sounds really gross from a code perspective, but from a business/product perspective, it buys trust/loyalty from enterprise customers. We see the opposite issue with Google, who has established a reputation for unreliable long term support. Despite their reputation for strong engineering, their new product lines suffer from distrust. Potential customers ask themselves why pay the onboarding cost for a Google product when it’s unclear if it’ll be around in two to three years.
kennend3 4y ago
This is sort of my line of thinking. when you effectively have a very small product line and are incredibly profitable it does seem a bit greedy to artificially limit updates. It would be different if there was no way to bypass the upgrade lock, but given opencore legacy works.. Clearly the hardware is able to run the new OS.
scarface74 4y ago
Besides the impracticality of running new OS’s on a 2005 era Mac, what software engineer at Apple would be willing to take on that role? Also, even if the hardware were supported, what third party software company would still support PPC Macs?
- ben-schaaf 4y ago
  > what software engineer at Apple would be willing to take on that role? One being paid to do so? People still work with COBOL. If you have trouble finding engineers to do it, offer a higher salary. > Also, even if the hardware were supported, what third party software company would still support PPC Macs? Some software is still supported for Windows XP, and that's considerably older than the last PPC Macs. It would certainly be a whole lot easier to support if Apple still did the same. In any case my point is that they absolutely have the resources to do this. I don't see how that's at all controversial given how much money they have.
  - goosedragons 4y ago
    There's still Linux distros supporting 32bit PPC Macs.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      And how many people are actually getting paid to do so and how many companies are selling software for them?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > One being paid to do so? People still work with COBOL. If you have trouble finding engineers to do it, offer a higher salary. Higher salary than who? Do you really think old COBOL programmers (FWIW I’m 48) are making more than the average new college grad working at any major tech company? And besides if you know how raises and promotions work at tech companies, you would know they are based on “impact” and “scope”. You don’t demonstrate either by saying “I spent all last year supporting MacOS on a PowerPC 6100 from 1994 doesn’t speak well to either. Unless you work at Google where it’s based on creating new messaging app that will be killed in a year. Is the average COBOL programmer even making close to the same $170K+ that I’ve seen returning interns make at major tech companies (including the one I mentored) > Some software is still supported for Windows XP, and that's considerably older than the last PPC Macs. How much mainstream software is supported by XP? Microsoft Office? Adobe software? Modern browsers? Modern games? > In any case my point is that they absolutely have the resources to do this. I don't see how that's at all controversial given how much money they have Yes and they also had the money to buy Twitter. But what moron would do something that stupid?

geraneum 4y ago

I have a Macbook Pro 2015 and the latest OS it supports officially is Monterey. The new Ventura (2022) is not supported anymore. I consider my device to have had software support for about at least seven years so far and until when they stop releasing security fixes for Monterey. I believe this to be sufficient for my needs and the frequency of which I upgrade the laptop. P.S. I don’t think that it’s ok for Apple to stop supporting older devices. I am just pointing out my personal view concerning my needs.

LoganDark 4y ago
My 2015 MBP runs Mojave (~2020) and will until it dies. Catalina was just too much for me. Besides, OS X looks much better than the newer iOS-based design, imho.
Aloha 4y ago
I wish apple would do 'best effort' support on older macs. Meaning, it'll let you install after you click thru two pages of warnings, and might work, or might not.
- kennend3 4y ago
  This is a much more sensible approach vs the "installer lock" apple took.
  - Toutouxc 4y ago
    But it isn’t the way Apple does things. They obviously don’t want Apple computers in the wild running a version of an Apple OS that might or might not work.
    - kennend3 4y ago
      Yes.. artificially limiting them from upgrading by checking the SMBIOS in the installer and preventing an upgrade is MUCH BETTER for the users. And as posted here several times, what about those who use opencore legacy patcher and upgrade despite the block. What "doesn't work" for them? SO to your point, apple prefers machines in the wild running an old and out of date OS because???

protomyth 4y ago

I tell people that I haven't looked forward to new features in the 'California' era like I did in the 'Cat' era. Now, I worry about what Apple will break or take away. If Microsoft wasn't so intent on spying and advertising to me, I might consider them. I get the feeling I will switch to a BSD eventually.

ticviking 4y ago
I’ve been leaning the same way. I’m curious why you also lean towards BSD instead of Linux? It’s a gut feeling for me after watching the Linux ecosystem churn a lot and seeing BSDs with well documented core systems and the “core/ports” distinction make clear what is and isn’t really supported
- protomyth 4y ago
  I'm much more familiar with OpenBSD and FreeBSD on the server-side, and I don't feel real comfortable with Linux. The two biggest vendors, Red Hat and Ubuntu, don't really give the warm fuzzies. Maybe something like System 76 backs.
  - loloquwowndueo 4y ago
    What about plain Debian :) if you’re comfortable with BSD then Debian should be a cakewalk for you.
    - protomyth 4y ago
      The funny thing is I tried to setup and Arch Linux box. I can setup OpenBSD with thinking with all the partitions and such, but that Arch Linux install was just a bad time. I'll try Debian when I get back to work. We are replacing our Samba server and the BSDs aren't real current given some changes the Samba team made.
  - jayp1418 4y ago
    I have tried all three and much comfortable with NetBSD.