5 ms·

Why do people update OS X? Just curious. If it works how you like, why update it? Security flaws are probably the main reason, but isn't there a way to get t

Why do people update OS X? Just curious. If it works how you like, why update it? Security flaws are probably the main reason, but isn't there a way to get those without acquiescing to an OS redesign?

overgard 12y ago
Because you have to: OSX doesn't have much of a culture of backwards compatibility, and every update tends to pressure developers into the latest greatest thing. Maintaining old software is just not a cultural value. Once the developers move, the users pretty much have to. I have an iMac from 2009. I had two OS's on it. Windows 7? Everything still works there. Runs fast, new software is great, etc. OSX 10.6.8? DEAD. It's basically useless. I guess it's nice that apple offers free upgrades, except that they mysteriously make a system that used to be lightning fast extremely slow, even though other OS's seem to run just fine..
- rsync 12y ago
  I am running snow leopard on a 2009 mac pro. It works perfectly. I have zero complaints or issues. It's no problem at all. I use chrome and terminal for most of my work, but I do run itunes and vmware fusion and run some apps that give me a tiled interface and focus-follows-mouse. No problems at all. I couldn't be happier. I am sure it would all go to hell if I got a current model and tried to run SL on it ...
  - Kadin 12y ago
    Snow Leopard is no longer receiving security updates; that'd give me pause in anything but a very firewalled desktop installation.
  - riffraff 12y ago
    I upgraded SL -> Mavericks a few months ago when it stopped receiving security updates. It's slightly worse (I don't like mission control, messages is useless to me) but not as bad as Lion (i.e. you'll just need to disable the stupid scroll behaviour, but performance is good). On the plus side, you get the option to use new software developed for "10.7+" (heroku's db client, atom editor, swift etc)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 12y ago
Until a version is EOL'd, sure, and that's what I've been doing. But 10.6 was EOL'd in late 2013, and by early 2014 at the latest it had unpatched major flaws, so I had to upgrade to 10.9.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  So Windows has become more sane than OS X in terms of security updates? EDIT: Windows 7 was released in 2009 and is still receiving security updates. 10.6 was released in 2011 and has been EOL'd. Seeing as both people still want to use these products, but one group is being forced not to, that's why I'm saying OS X is taking a less sane stance than Windows. Is this false?
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    OS X upgrades are free, more like Windows Service Packs in a way. Microsoft also drops support for pre-SP versions of Windows after a time. The clock is ticking for Windows 8.0; you have to upgrade to 8.1.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      Windows 7 will be supported through 2020 according to http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle The updates are free.
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        Did you read what I said about OS X upgrades being like Service Packs? Did you read your link? > Support for Windows 7 RTM without service packs ended on April 9, 2013.
        sillysaurus3 12y ago
        A service pack doesn't completely redesign how people interact with Windows, though. But OS X "service packs" tend to do just that. In fact, that was the author's frustration. Seeing as OS X service packs also come out very frequently, whereas Windows are very rare, I'm not sure the two are comparable. I should probably bow out now. I just thought it was interesting.
yourad_io 12y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I stuck with 10.6 until Linux. Took a look at anything past Lion... "nope!". I despised 10.8 enough to actually downgrade my 2012 MBP to 10.6. But as for "why update" - up until 10.6, there were performance improvements as well as useful features (subjective -I know- fine). As for "why update nowadays" - well, 10.6 isn't really supported nowadays. (cough Java 7 cough)
- threeseed 12y ago
  Blame Oracle for Java 7 not working on older OS releases. Apple stopped maintaining Java at version 6.
  - bondolo 12y ago
    Both were Apple's choice. Apple's Java 6 relied on proprietary interfaces that were not part of the contribution to OpenJDK. Oracle could not have even recreated the Java 6 MacOS port. The other big reason was that new MacOS versions were only x64 and going to the trouble of making a 32 bit port for only obsolete OSes was a non-starter.
- marssaxman 12y ago
  Yep, 10.6.8 was the best OS X ever, and I'd still be running it if I could.
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
The reason--the only reason--I'm seriously considering upgrading from 10.6 is that new programs increasingly don't support it anymore. I download a simple little helper app and it says "The program requires OS X 10.8 or higher." My best guess is that programmers build with the latest libraries, and the latest libraries require the latest OS version. If the dev is running on the latest version, it never crosses his mind to do otherwise.
- josh64 12y ago
  I'd like to keep 10.6 support in the open source app I help out with but there are so many improvements in 10.7 and 10.8 from a developer point of view that the latest release will be the last to support 10.6 (and 32-bit macs). By improvements I mean genuine time saving features like base localisation, not "ooh shiny dot syntax!".
- Kadin 12y ago
  I did the same thing recently, and I've hated it since. 10.7 removed Rosetta, broke "Save As", and annoyified the Save dialog. But there were just too many pieces of software that wouldn't run, and unpatched security holes didn't seem like a good idea either. To add insult to injury, Apple doesn't allow you to virtualize non-server versions of 10.6. You can, thankfully, hack VMWare Workstation and keep running your previous machine's image that way, but it's shitty that you have to jump through those hoops. It seems geared specifically towards keeping people from continuing to use their old apps.
- arthurfm 12y ago
  > If the dev is running on the latest version, it never crosses his mind to do otherwise. New and/or updated frameworks/APIs [1] make the developer's job easier. Why wouldn't you want to take advantage of them? [1] https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/releasenotes/MacOSX/WhatsNewInOSX/WhatsNewInOSX.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/releasenotes/MacOSX/...
Kadin 12y ago
Apple has a pretty vicious hardware/software upgrade treadmill. I resisted updating 10.4 for years; IMO that was the high water mark for OS X, everything has basically been downhill from there. If I could still run 10.4 plus bugfixes and security updates, with modern software, I would. But that's not possible. They push out new versions of the OS, along with new versions of development tools, which produce software that's not backwards-compatible past a certain point, such that eventually you can't run new software without installing major (0.1) updates. Apple's own products are the worst for this, but eventually you lose 3rd party apps as well. Even if you resist the demands of new software, you'll eventually get forced to upgrade via hardware. Each generation of Apple hardware has a minimum OS version, keeping you from going back too far. For instance, Mac Pro "quad core" and 8-core systems won't run OS 10.4; Nehalem-based machines won't run 10.6. And Apple has purposely killed off its compatibility layers, dropping first the Classic environment and more recently Rosetta, in order to introduce barriers to running old software. It's pretty frustrating as a user.
- threeseed 12y ago
  Classic/Rosetta were dropped during the moves to x86 and 64-bit. Given that almost all software was upgraded I can see why Apple didn't think the effort was worth it. And for all we know it could've been technically impossible.
jokoon 12y ago
xcode 5 requires you to update OSX

overgard 12y ago

Because you have to: OSX doesn't have much of a culture of backwards compatibility, and every update tends to pressure developers into the latest greatest thing. Maintaining old software is just not a cultural value. Once the developers move, the users pretty much have to. I have an iMac from 2009. I had two OS's on it. Windows 7? Everything still works there. Runs fast, new software is great, etc. OSX 10.6.8? DEAD. It's basically useless. I guess it's nice that apple offers free upgrades, except that they mysteriously make a system that used to be lightning fast extremely slow, even though other OS's seem to run just fine..

rsync 12y ago
I am running snow leopard on a 2009 mac pro. It works perfectly. I have zero complaints or issues. It's no problem at all. I use chrome and terminal for most of my work, but I do run itunes and vmware fusion and run some apps that give me a tiled interface and focus-follows-mouse. No problems at all. I couldn't be happier. I am sure it would all go to hell if I got a current model and tried to run SL on it ...
- Kadin 12y ago
  Snow Leopard is no longer receiving security updates; that'd give me pause in anything but a very firewalled desktop installation.
- riffraff 12y ago
  I upgraded SL -> Mavericks a few months ago when it stopped receiving security updates. It's slightly worse (I don't like mission control, messages is useless to me) but not as bad as Lion (i.e. you'll just need to disable the stupid scroll behaviour, but performance is good). On the plus side, you get the option to use new software developed for "10.7+" (heroku's db client, atom editor, swift etc)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

_delirium 12y ago

Until a version is EOL'd, sure, and that's what I've been doing. But 10.6 was EOL'd in late 2013, and by early 2014 at the latest it had unpatched major flaws, so I had to upgrade to 10.9.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
So Windows has become more sane than OS X in terms of security updates? EDIT: Windows 7 was released in 2009 and is still receiving security updates. 10.6 was released in 2011 and has been EOL'd. Seeing as both people still want to use these products, but one group is being forced not to, that's why I'm saying OS X is taking a less sane stance than Windows. Is this false?
- tedunangst 12y ago
  OS X upgrades are free, more like Windows Service Packs in a way. Microsoft also drops support for pre-SP versions of Windows after a time. The clock is ticking for Windows 8.0; you have to upgrade to 8.1.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Windows 7 will be supported through 2020 according to http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle The updates are free.
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      Did you read what I said about OS X upgrades being like Service Packs? Did you read your link? > Support for Windows 7 RTM without service packs ended on April 9, 2013.
      - sillysaurus3 12y ago
        A service pack doesn't completely redesign how people interact with Windows, though. But OS X "service packs" tend to do just that. In fact, that was the author's frustration. Seeing as OS X service packs also come out very frequently, whereas Windows are very rare, I'm not sure the two are comparable. I should probably bow out now. I just thought it was interesting.

yourad_io 12y ago

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I stuck with 10.6 until Linux. Took a look at anything past Lion... "nope!". I despised 10.8 enough to actually downgrade my 2012 MBP to 10.6. But as for "why update" - up until 10.6, there were performance improvements as well as useful features (subjective -I know- fine). As for "why update nowadays" - well, 10.6 isn't really supported nowadays. (cough Java 7 cough)

threeseed 12y ago
Blame Oracle for Java 7 not working on older OS releases. Apple stopped maintaining Java at version 6.
- bondolo 12y ago
  Both were Apple's choice. Apple's Java 6 relied on proprietary interfaces that were not part of the contribution to OpenJDK. Oracle could not have even recreated the Java 6 MacOS port. The other big reason was that new MacOS versions were only x64 and going to the trouble of making a 32 bit port for only obsolete OSes was a non-starter.
marssaxman 12y ago
Yep, 10.6.8 was the best OS X ever, and I'd still be running it if I could.

PhasmaFelis 12y ago

The reason--the only reason--I'm seriously considering upgrading from 10.6 is that new programs increasingly don't support it anymore. I download a simple little helper app and it says "The program requires OS X 10.8 or higher." My best guess is that programmers build with the latest libraries, and the latest libraries require the latest OS version. If the dev is running on the latest version, it never crosses his mind to do otherwise.

josh64 12y ago
I'd like to keep 10.6 support in the open source app I help out with but there are so many improvements in 10.7 and 10.8 from a developer point of view that the latest release will be the last to support 10.6 (and 32-bit macs). By improvements I mean genuine time saving features like base localisation, not "ooh shiny dot syntax!".
Kadin 12y ago
I did the same thing recently, and I've hated it since. 10.7 removed Rosetta, broke "Save As", and annoyified the Save dialog. But there were just too many pieces of software that wouldn't run, and unpatched security holes didn't seem like a good idea either. To add insult to injury, Apple doesn't allow you to virtualize non-server versions of 10.6. You can, thankfully, hack VMWare Workstation and keep running your previous machine's image that way, but it's shitty that you have to jump through those hoops. It seems geared specifically towards keeping people from continuing to use their old apps.
arthurfm 12y ago
> If the dev is running on the latest version, it never crosses his mind to do otherwise. New and/or updated frameworks/APIs [1] make the developer's job easier. Why wouldn't you want to take advantage of them? [1] https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/releasenotes/MacOSX/WhatsNewInOSX/WhatsNewInOSX.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/releasenotes/MacOSX/...

Kadin 12y ago

Apple has a pretty vicious hardware/software upgrade treadmill. I resisted updating 10.4 for years; IMO that was the high water mark for OS X, everything has basically been downhill from there. If I could still run 10.4 plus bugfixes and security updates, with modern software, I would. But that's not possible. They push out new versions of the OS, along with new versions of development tools, which produce software that's not backwards-compatible past a certain point, such that eventually you can't run new software without installing major (0.1) updates. Apple's own products are the worst for this, but eventually you lose 3rd party apps as well. Even if you resist the demands of new software, you'll eventually get forced to upgrade via hardware. Each generation of Apple hardware has a minimum OS version, keeping you from going back too far. For instance, Mac Pro "quad core" and 8-core systems won't run OS 10.4; Nehalem-based machines won't run 10.6. And Apple has purposely killed off its compatibility layers, dropping first the Classic environment and more recently Rosetta, in order to introduce barriers to running old software. It's pretty frustrating as a user.

threeseed 12y ago
Classic/Rosetta were dropped during the moves to x86 and 64-bit. Given that almost all software was upgraded I can see why Apple didn't think the effort was worth it. And for all we know it could've been technically impossible.

jokoon 12y ago

xcode 5 requires you to update OSX