5 ms·

The fact that simply patching the O.S. can be enough to make it work on older hardware is a testament on how Apple could make it work on it too, if they wanted,

by j1elo 4y ago

The fact that simply patching the O.S. can be enough to make it work on older hardware is a testament on how Apple could make it work on it too, if they wanted, and without much effort. Which in my book reads as an artificial way to cut support for otherwise perfectly working machines. Forcing people to upgrade, buy more hardware, and discard the older one, even when they wouldn't otherwise have needed to do it (like when it isn't really crawling and too slow for your needs). Doesn't matter the years, if your 10-12 years old computer still works fine for you, and the needed changes for them are just a couple of driver adjustments, I don't buy the justification for not doing so. This doesn't feel like "well the gap between how our new software and old hardware work is so big that it isn't even remotely practical to keep them together any more". But more like "well we toggled a boolean and now your're out". So long for reducing the amount of e-waste in our polluted world!

goosedragons 4y ago
They've been doing this for a while. MacOS Tiger included "Built-in FireWire ports" as a system requirement which led to some weird things like the 2000 366MHz iBook and the 1999 B&W 300MHz PowerMac G3 being supported but not the 2000 350MHz iMac G3.
- drewzero1 4y ago
  The frustrating part was that the requirement was only checked by the installer, so you could put the drive in a supported machine[0] to install, then swap it back and it would run fine. I think there was a similar thing with a processor speed check on Leopard[1]. There were also third-party workarounds if you didn't have access to a supported Mac. I had a friend who always had the latest and greatest, so I borrowed his machines to upgrade my last-year's-models. 0: https://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20051211074138859 https://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=200512110741388... 1: https://lowendmac.com/2007/unsupported-os-x-10-5-leopard-installation/ https://lowendmac.com/2007/unsupported-os-x-10-5-leopard-ins...
jeroenhd 4y ago
Supporting old hardware costs money because you need to write more tests. Of course there aren't technical limitations for any but the lowest specced Macs. Things have changed the past few years but for a while upgrades to CPU performance weren't that meaningful between generations. A CPU that's over ten years old will still perform fine for light desktop use, because that's honestly all you need in most cases. All you need is a RAM upgrade and an SSD! There are some specific Mac downsides for using older models (the insufficient cooling solution in some laptop models, for example) that will impact long term usability, but the hardware still has a ways to go. With how much performance you can get out of an older laptop that cost a third of a Mac from the same era by installing an OS like Linux, it's a shame that Apple is abandoning these devices. The same is true for many smartphones; all the modern advancements are nice to haves, very different from the turbulent smartphone era around the late 00s. Apple needs to sell hardware to make the money needed to fund development but they exclusively focus on very expensive high-end devices, which naturally have a very long life span if it weren't for the software. I wouldn't be surprised if the higher end M1 Macs still be perfectly usable around the time when the 2k38 bug will wreak havoc across the world.
- 1over137 4y ago
  >Supporting old hardware costs money because you need to write more tests. Not supporting old hardware has major costs too: ewaste pollution. But of course those costs are 'externalized' and not borne by Apple, but by everyone else.
  - GeekyBear 4y ago
    > Not supporting old hardware has major costs too: ewaste pollution. I would not be at all shocked to find that, by volume, Android devices that vendors have refused to support with software updates over the years take up far more space in landfills.
    - 1over137 4y ago
      Indeed. But two wrongs don't make a right.
tyfon 4y ago
This should be illegal, my 2010 mac pro only got support for like 5 years. Especially when it's just a matter of flipping a bit in the bios.. I have a PC from 1998 that still works using linux. That mac pro also runs happily with linux :)
Maursault 4y ago
> The fact that simply patching the O.S. can be enough to make it work on older hardware is a testament on how Apple could make it work on it too, if they wanted, and without much effort. Don't fall for it. It's the same OS whether it has a cute new name or not. The only reasons to upgrade are a desire to use specific new features, to fix bugs that specifically affect you, patching pressing security issues that specifically affect you, and/or lack of restraint. For 99.9% of users, it is the last reason and only that reason. The real reason behind Apple's fast and furious upgrade schedule is to attract developers, i.e. to break software so that users will be forced to purchase the same software again and again.
BlackLotus89 4y ago
Got a few old iMacs here (10 years+) and they run with newer Mac OS versions, but they don't run well. Upgrading iMacs is a pain as well and since the ones I got have only 4G Ram it kind of hurts using them this way. I was given the task to get a "modern", "minimal" System up on it for non technical users. Windows 7 ran ok on them, old Mac OS ran great Win 10 crashed/had audio bugs, FreeBSD somehow ended in a bppt loop and now I got a system running kde plasma on it and I have to hope that my client will find this acceptable as well. I would, but that's just me.
tinus_hn 4y ago
In other unrelated, surprising news, the hurr durr Apple bad crowd suddenly stopped complaining about how the new OS is slowing down their computer and draining the battery.

by j1elo 4y ago

goosedragons 4y ago

They've been doing this for a while. MacOS Tiger included "Built-in FireWire ports" as a system requirement which led to some weird things like the 2000 366MHz iBook and the 1999 B&W 300MHz PowerMac G3 being supported but not the 2000 350MHz iMac G3.

drewzero1 4y ago
The frustrating part was that the requirement was only checked by the installer, so you could put the drive in a supported machine[0] to install, then swap it back and it would run fine. I think there was a similar thing with a processor speed check on Leopard[1]. There were also third-party workarounds if you didn't have access to a supported Mac. I had a friend who always had the latest and greatest, so I borrowed his machines to upgrade my last-year's-models. 0: https://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20051211074138859 https://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=200512110741388... 1: https://lowendmac.com/2007/unsupported-os-x-10-5-leopard-installation/ https://lowendmac.com/2007/unsupported-os-x-10-5-leopard-ins...

jeroenhd 4y ago

Supporting old hardware costs money because you need to write more tests. Of course there aren't technical limitations for any but the lowest specced Macs. Things have changed the past few years but for a while upgrades to CPU performance weren't that meaningful between generations. A CPU that's over ten years old will still perform fine for light desktop use, because that's honestly all you need in most cases. All you need is a RAM upgrade and an SSD! There are some specific Mac downsides for using older models (the insufficient cooling solution in some laptop models, for example) that will impact long term usability, but the hardware still has a ways to go. With how much performance you can get out of an older laptop that cost a third of a Mac from the same era by installing an OS like Linux, it's a shame that Apple is abandoning these devices. The same is true for many smartphones; all the modern advancements are nice to haves, very different from the turbulent smartphone era around the late 00s. Apple needs to sell hardware to make the money needed to fund development but they exclusively focus on very expensive high-end devices, which naturally have a very long life span if it weren't for the software. I wouldn't be surprised if the higher end M1 Macs still be perfectly usable around the time when the 2k38 bug will wreak havoc across the world.

1over137 4y ago
>Supporting old hardware costs money because you need to write more tests. Not supporting old hardware has major costs too: ewaste pollution. But of course those costs are 'externalized' and not borne by Apple, but by everyone else.
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  > Not supporting old hardware has major costs too: ewaste pollution. I would not be at all shocked to find that, by volume, Android devices that vendors have refused to support with software updates over the years take up far more space in landfills.
  - 1over137 4y ago
    Indeed. But two wrongs don't make a right.

tyfon 4y ago

This should be illegal, my 2010 mac pro only got support for like 5 years. Especially when it's just a matter of flipping a bit in the bios.. I have a PC from 1998 that still works using linux. That mac pro also runs happily with linux :)

Maursault 4y ago

> The fact that simply patching the O.S. can be enough to make it work on older hardware is a testament on how Apple could make it work on it too, if they wanted, and without much effort. Don't fall for it. It's the same OS whether it has a cute new name or not. The only reasons to upgrade are a desire to use specific new features, to fix bugs that specifically affect you, patching pressing security issues that specifically affect you, and/or lack of restraint. For 99.9% of users, it is the last reason and only that reason. The real reason behind Apple's fast and furious upgrade schedule is to attract developers, i.e. to break software so that users will be forced to purchase the same software again and again.

BlackLotus89 4y ago

Got a few old iMacs here (10 years+) and they run with newer Mac OS versions, but they don't run well. Upgrading iMacs is a pain as well and since the ones I got have only 4G Ram it kind of hurts using them this way. I was given the task to get a "modern", "minimal" System up on it for non technical users. Windows 7 ran ok on them, old Mac OS ran great Win 10 crashed/had audio bugs, FreeBSD somehow ended in a bppt loop and now I got a system running kde plasma on it and I have to hope that my client will find this acceptable as well. I would, but that's just me.

tinus_hn 4y ago

In other unrelated, surprising news, the hurr durr Apple bad crowd suddenly stopped complaining about how the new OS is slowing down their computer and draining the battery.