6 ms·

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,

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.
        ZoF 12y ago
        Bow out if you will, but I've agreed with everything you've said thus far and don't think you made any false/slanderous/etc statements.
        tedunangst 12y ago
        I think the principle attribute that determines how long support lasts is the cost to get to the next supported version and not anything to do with feature differences. Apple made the decision to give away upgrades precisely so they could move people off old versions I suspect.
        lookrealclose 12y ago
        Apple shill salty for days.
  - yourad_io 12y ago
    Free upgrades can still come at a cost. Multi-monitor full-screen was broken from 10.7 through 10.8. Thousands complained, Apple claimed it a feature. Not fixable, not tweakable, not reversible. 10.6 or one full-screen monitor at a time. Fuck off, Apple.
    - kordless 12y ago
      > Fuck off, Apple. Log off, user.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - yourad_io 12y ago
        I took it personally because my vendor condescendingly told me that the fact that I can't use my environment (multi-monitor) the way I wanted (full-screening applications) was actually a feature. Apple was telling me to STFU or GTFO. So I did the latter :)
        kordless 12y ago
        All you can do is seek your own joy. Expecting others to do that for you is setting expectations. Not sure why I got the downvotes, but I'm happy you got free of OSX. I'm still hanging in there...for now.
    - ridiculous_fish 12y ago
      I worked on the full screen feature in 10.7 through 10.9! Full screen in 10.7 and 10.8 did render secondary displays useless. But it was a new feature in 10.7, so there was nothing to reverse. You can't take Safari, Mail, etc. full screen in 10.6. Perhaps there was an app you used that switched from a custom full screen implementation to the system one, and so regressed on secondary displays?
  - hackinthebochs 12y ago
    Is it meaningful to compare it to a service pack when there are significant changes such that they're driving users away?
  - Kadin 12y ago
    They'd be like Service Packs if Service Packs broke backwards compatibility and changed core functionality of the OS, which they typically don't. They are not analogous.
- hollerith 12y ago
  >10.6 was released in 2011 Wikipedia says 10.6 was released August 28, 2009.
- silviogutierrez 12y ago
  I believe 10.6 was released in 2009, not in 2011[1] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard

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.
      - ZoF 12y ago
        Bow out if you will, but I've agreed with everything you've said thus far and don't think you made any false/slanderous/etc statements.
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        I think the principle attribute that determines how long support lasts is the cost to get to the next supported version and not anything to do with feature differences. Apple made the decision to give away upgrades precisely so they could move people off old versions I suspect.
        lookrealclose 12y ago
        Apple shill salty for days.
- yourad_io 12y ago
  Free upgrades can still come at a cost. Multi-monitor full-screen was broken from 10.7 through 10.8. Thousands complained, Apple claimed it a feature. Not fixable, not tweakable, not reversible. 10.6 or one full-screen monitor at a time. Fuck off, Apple.
  - kordless 12y ago
    > Fuck off, Apple. Log off, user.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - yourad_io 12y ago
      I took it personally because my vendor condescendingly told me that the fact that I can't use my environment (multi-monitor) the way I wanted (full-screening applications) was actually a feature. Apple was telling me to STFU or GTFO. So I did the latter :)
      - kordless 12y ago
        All you can do is seek your own joy. Expecting others to do that for you is setting expectations. Not sure why I got the downvotes, but I'm happy you got free of OSX. I'm still hanging in there...for now.
  - ridiculous_fish 12y ago
    I worked on the full screen feature in 10.7 through 10.9! Full screen in 10.7 and 10.8 did render secondary displays useless. But it was a new feature in 10.7, so there was nothing to reverse. You can't take Safari, Mail, etc. full screen in 10.6. Perhaps there was an app you used that switched from a custom full screen implementation to the system one, and so regressed on secondary displays?
- hackinthebochs 12y ago
  Is it meaningful to compare it to a service pack when there are significant changes such that they're driving users away?
- Kadin 12y ago
  They'd be like Service Packs if Service Packs broke backwards compatibility and changed core functionality of the OS, which they typically don't. They are not analogous.
hollerith 12y ago
>10.6 was released in 2011 Wikipedia says 10.6 was released August 28, 2009.
silviogutierrez 12y ago
I believe 10.6 was released in 2009, not in 2011[1] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard