3 ms·

Don't forget to include the request that OS X 10.9 supports your current computer.

sjwright 14y ago
Apple has generally been pretty good on this front. For example, the last PowerPC mac was discontinued August 2006, and the first incompatible OS (10.6) was introduced August 2009. That's three years. Similarly, the last 32 bit x86 Mac was discontinued August 2007 (Mac mini) and the first incompatible OS (10.7) was introduced October 2010. And that's the most pessimistic view possible. Looking at typical purchaser lifespans, it seems you can look forward to around three major upgrades to Mac OS X over the life of a particular machine.
- sjwright 14y ago
  Great Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_models_grouped_by_CPU_type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_models_groupe...
- mirashii 14y ago
  Three to four years is an absolutely terrible window. Applecare lasts 3 years and they're introducing OS updates that make the devices obsolete just outside of that window? Compared to both Windows and Linux, Apple is the absolute worst on this front. They break backwards compatibility and leave old devices in the dust all the time. It gives them the advantage of almost forcing upgrades upon people, and allows them to keep advancing at a fast pace because they don't have to maintain legacy systems. It comes at the cost of early 2008 macbooks with no problems becoming significantly less valuable since they will not longer receive software updates.
  - assafs 14y ago
    What's wrong with it? It keeps system with less cruft, allows the vendor to focus on current attack surface only, and makes everyone stay more-or-less up to date. Just look at how quickly, relatively, the whole Flashback outbreak simply... died out. Apple issued critical updates going back as far as Tiger, which is ANCIENT, and barely has 1% of the market. A 2008 MacBook would easily run 10.6 and 10.7, both of which receive updates just fine.
  - batista 14y ago
    >Compared to both Windows and Linux, Apple is the absolute worst on this front. They break backwards compatibility and leave old devices in the dust all the time. Better than having millions of people using Windows XP in 2012, and keeping everybody back. But it's not like Apple specifically goes for it. They made some major changes that necessitated that: the move to Intel, for one, and the move to 64-bit. I doubt transitions of that scale will happen again soon. >It comes at the cost of early 2008 macbooks with no problems becoming significantly less valuable since they will not longer receive software updates. Well, as for resale value, Apple's stuff is among the best of the industry anyway, if not _the_ best. So it's OK some 4 year old laptops getting a resale value hit once in a while. Plus, they DO receive software updates for security and such, just no major versions.

Apple has generally been pretty good on this front. For example, the last PowerPC mac was discontinued August 2006, and the first incompatible OS (10.6) was introduced August 2009. That's three years. Similarly, the last 32 bit x86 Mac was discontinued August 2007 (Mac mini) and the first incompatible OS (10.7) was introduced October 2010. And that's the most pessimistic view possible. Looking at typical purchaser lifespans, it seems you can look forward to around three major upgrades to Mac OS X over the life of a particular machine.

sjwright 14y ago
Great Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_models_grouped_by_CPU_type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_models_groupe...
mirashii 14y ago
Three to four years is an absolutely terrible window. Applecare lasts 3 years and they're introducing OS updates that make the devices obsolete just outside of that window? Compared to both Windows and Linux, Apple is the absolute worst on this front. They break backwards compatibility and leave old devices in the dust all the time. It gives them the advantage of almost forcing upgrades upon people, and allows them to keep advancing at a fast pace because they don't have to maintain legacy systems. It comes at the cost of early 2008 macbooks with no problems becoming significantly less valuable since they will not longer receive software updates.
- assafs 14y ago
  What's wrong with it? It keeps system with less cruft, allows the vendor to focus on current attack surface only, and makes everyone stay more-or-less up to date. Just look at how quickly, relatively, the whole Flashback outbreak simply... died out. Apple issued critical updates going back as far as Tiger, which is ANCIENT, and barely has 1% of the market. A 2008 MacBook would easily run 10.6 and 10.7, both of which receive updates just fine.
- batista 14y ago
  >Compared to both Windows and Linux, Apple is the absolute worst on this front. They break backwards compatibility and leave old devices in the dust all the time. Better than having millions of people using Windows XP in 2012, and keeping everybody back. But it's not like Apple specifically goes for it. They made some major changes that necessitated that: the move to Intel, for one, and the move to 64-bit. I doubt transitions of that scale will happen again soon. >It comes at the cost of early 2008 macbooks with no problems becoming significantly less valuable since they will not longer receive software updates. Well, as for resale value, Apple's stuff is among the best of the industry anyway, if not _the_ best. So it's OK some 4 year old laptops getting a resale value hit once in a while. Plus, they DO receive software updates for security and such, just no major versions.