Many Mac OS Users Not Getting Security Updates

AmiMoJo writes "According to security company Sophos, around 55% of home users and 18% of enterprise users have updated to Mavericks, the latest version of Mac OS (10.9). Unfortunately Apple appears to have stopped providing security updates for older versions. Indeed, they list Mavericks itself as a security update. This means that the majority of users are no longer getting critical security patches. Sophos recommends taking similar precautions to those recommended for people who cannot upgrade from Windows XP."

Comments

Does it matter?

[jaymz666]

Since you know, the switch ads told me Macs don't get viruses or other bad stuff

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's not like Macs suffer the same design and interface problems that made Windows 8 or Unity. Apple designed their system right the fiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

*head falls to the side, images from the latest WWDC can be seen flickering on eyeballs*

...rrrrrrrrst ugh are you STILL using Mavericks? Pssh, please. Snow Cheetah has been announced for a whole 7.33921 seconds already. Get with the times! Apple fixed all the obvious system design problems Mavericks has, making perfection even more perfecter! That's what happens when you design the system right the first time!

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Security updates aren't just for viruses.

That being said, I use a mac and I cannot upgrade to 10.9 because my machine isn't supported. It still does everything I need it to do, it's not slow. I don't think Apple doesn't support it because the hardware IS too old (Intel processor and all), I just think it's because Apple THINKS the hardware is too old. I can tell you that this is the last mac I buy. I dislike Microsoft and Windows with a passion, but at least they don't arbitrarily decide that your PC is too old to run their latest operating system. It may not run it fast, but generally it will run it.

Linux only from now on.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple fanboys and apple haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.

Re:Does it matter?

[Sockatume]

Yeah, it's so hard to get useful software for *nix systems.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple makes money from selling you hardware. They make less money if you only buy the OS.

Microsoft makes money from selling software only. Thanks to OEM discounts, I'd not be surprised if they made more money from you upgrading the old machine than if you bought a new machine with the new version preinstalled.

Re:Does it matter?

[tangelogee]

Driver support is not Micosoft's fault. That's the Vendors. And need we talk about the fact that up until recently, you could only install (basically) Apple sanctioned expansion cards in their machines? Or their new way of doing things, which is "We'll package all of the hardware up in a neat little box, which you can't open, so we can force you to upgrade the hardware in order to upgrade the OS."

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick google for "mavericks" and "beach ball" indicates otherwise.

Re:Does it matter?

[TWiTfan]

Father Steve only extends his divine blessings to those with the faith to maintain the latest holy hardware. Obviously, you have lost your faith and become a Windows or Linux heretic. Expect no welcome in the Great Apple Store when the end comes!

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

you certainly have no clue about the software availability for os x, yet you had to open your mouth just for the sake of it :)

Re:Does it matter?

[slashmydots]

I'm fairly certain he's being sarcastic but at the same time clueless since they do catch viruses constantly from 3rd party plugin-based attacks.

Re:Does it matter?

[flyingfsck]

So if your Mac is unsupported, install Fedora 20 on it and you'll be on the bleeding edge again.

Re:Does it matter?

[Old97]

Who cares about Posix? It's a checklist item for government procurement but in practical terms means nothing. It's a subset API. Windows NT was Posix compliant.

Re:Does it matter?

[Githaron]

Steve Jobs is going to have a second coming?!

Re:Does it matter?

[Alan Shutko]

OS X is UNIX 03 certified by The Open Group and carries the UNIX brand.

Re:Does it matter?

[jaymz666]

This!

The "free OS upgrades" are such a freaking lie.

Re:Does it matter?

[alexhs]

Apple fanboys and Apple haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.

Android fanboys and android haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Microsoft fanboys and microsoft haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Vi fanboys and vi haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Emacs fanboys and Emacs haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Bitcoin fanboys and bitcoin haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
True scotmen fanboys and true scotmen haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.

Who's left ? :)

Re:Does it matter?

[jaymz666]

Uh, no. Some hardware had driver issues, but that's all on the vendors

Re:Does it matter?

[jaymz666]

Fine, Saint Steve

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or floppy drives or mice with more than one button.

Mac users are so easy to troll, they'll probably still fall for the above sentence.

Re:Does it matter?

[228e2]

I was going to post exactly this. With my work now done, its time for an early lunch.

Re:Does it matter?

[KingOfBLASH]

What useful software are you missing?

The Mac has plenty of productivity software. If you want to write a report, code, surf the web, or whatever, you'll have no problems.

It does lack some special case software. That's slowly changing, but I can imagine that if you need to run an electron software designed for Windows XP you're SOL.

But such cases are few and far between. And if you really really wanted, you could purchase Parallels and run the windows software anyways.

Of course, maybe your favorite ____ isn't for a mac and you'll need to find an equivalent. And if you're looking to run the best new multiplayer games, you'll be saddened by the lack of selection.

Re:Does it matter?

[garyoa1]

The problem I "had" with Mac was, if I wanted to update some programs... sorry. OS is too old. Update the OS and another prog says.... sorry, OS is too new.

And I look over at the win8 machine that can still run dos based progs 20- 25 years old and say... why?

Re:Does it matter?

[NatasRevol]

However, Posix Compliant IS Posix.

Re:Does it matter?

[NatasRevol]

False scotsmen?

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about "apple invented everything"?

He said it's a real UNIX, which it is – it's a true blue, SUS03 certified UNIX OS.

Re:Does it matter?

[StrangeBrew]

Steve Jobs greatest achievement was convincing the world that a Mac wasn't a PC.

Re:Does it matter?

[KingOfBLASH]

The website you list is actually quite funny because it seems to reveal Apple hardware is quite well priced.

In the mac mini, for instance, to save money he leaves out wifi, and uses an i3 instead of an i5.

And OK maybe you won't use wifi. But you will need a keyboard and mouse and he leaves those out of the price as well.

Or, when the 21.5" imac is listed as being very over priced he lists "Any 21.5 monitor (1920x1080)"

IAAP (I am a Photographer) and I can tell you that the Apple screens in the iMacs are very, very high quality. To get a similar screen you'll be shelling out some money.

For most of these models, you're paying more for the Apple brand and look, yes that's true. But in many cases that look is much smaller (compare the size of his custom iMacs -- they're HUGE!) and you get Apple support (can you just walk into an apple store with your hackintosh)?

Of course that's all personal preference, and maybe sexy design isn't worth an extra $100 for you.

Regarding the Mac Pro, that's been in need of a refresh for quite some time. And they're finally out!

It would be interesting to know how much a hackintoshes for those cost :

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/mac-pro

Re:Does it matter?

[KingOfBLASH]

What kind of a place would slashdot be if people only opened their mouths when they knew what they were talking about?

Re:Does it matter?

[alexhs]

Aren't false scotsmen the worse true scotsmen haters ?
Or are they just a bunch of true scotsmen fanboys haters and true scotsmen haters fanboys ? In which case, they're also in the same group as true scotsmen fanboys fanboys and true scotsmen haters haters, and I say: Ban them too !

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of a place would slashdot be if people only opened their mouths when they knew what they were talking about?

A better place.

Then again I don't know what I'm talking about.

Re:Does it matter?

[mwvdlee]

Reality check.
What is more important nowadays; Unix compliance or Linux compliance?

Re:Does it matter?

[HybridST]

Win 7 ran fine on MY old hardware. (P4 2.8ghz nvidia gofx 5200)Perhaps you chose the wrong system when you bought it years back.

Re:Does it matter?

[ILongForDarkness]

Or dvd players or bluray within say 2 years of general availability on a PC. There is no doubt Apple is very opinionated with their design choices and since they have such a small product line (and they tend to try to make everything consistent across the line anyways) you won't find an option for you if you don't like their choices. Ex: I hate that the iMac doesn't have any forward facing usb ports. I'm constantly having to swap things in and out (find usb extenders don't charge my gadgets well and periodically drop them) but since the ports are in the back and the swivel mechanism is so loose every time I change a gadget out I have to stand up get the thing behind the machine then adjust my monitor back to the correct tilt.

Anyways a typical Apple fanboy's response is "but it is so beautiful and simple", and a typical PC fanboy's response is "but it doesn't do what I want", and a typical linux fanboy's is "I can't myself make it do what I want (ie I have to rely on someone else, or God forbid pay a company that developed a solution for me).

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whooooosh.

>Yeah, it's so hard to get useful software for *nix systems.

That was obviously sarcasm. No one agrees with you.

Name one important software type that doesn't exist on Mac. (And no. The latest FPS is not useful software)

Re:Does it matter?

[XxtraLarGe]

What useful software are you missing?

Don't feed the trolls, you'll only encourage them.

Re:Does it matter?

[ILongForDarkness]

That is the problem I find with the *nix market though (and I was a unix sys admin for several years with a Mac as my primary desktop): there is something that will work. It might be crap, it might just be a text file with no formatting it gets you 80% of the way there. It is the last 20% that keeps me using Windows (and now I'm a server side dev using MS tech): not every Windows app is great but there are 10X more of them so you can find one closer to doing exactly what you want and designed in the way that you like to work vs just having to drink the koolaid and say that product X which is one of few options on your platform is so cool because it is one of few products on your platform. Wow you really love me enough to make a program for me to use? I must love you too then :)

It is just a market domination thing Windows for PC, and probably iOS or Android for mobile because they are the ones drawing the developers to provide a wide range of options.

Re:Does it matter?

[zakkudo]

It may be a subset API, but apparently it was still too difficult to maintain for Microsoft. It has been removed from Windows since Windows 8.1 and deprecated since 8.

Re:Does it matter?

[yogibeaty]

"My computer runs well, does everything I want but I can't put the latest bells and whistles on it. Waaaaaahh."

The fact that you say that since you have an Intel Processor you should be able to run the latest OS means you don't know what you're talking about. Apple doesn't want your late night, drunken support calls, that's all.

Re:Does it matter?

[KingOfBLASH]

YMMV of course.

But I recently (within the past year switched to Mac). There are plenty of apps available, and I am as productive, if not more so then under Windows or Linux.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or their new way of doing things, which is "We'll package all of the hardware up in a neat little box, which you can't open, so we can force you to upgrade the hardware in order to upgrade the OS."

I take it you haven't seen the new Mac Pro, then. Not only can you open it, but the processor is even upgradeable. I know the product manager personally. He's been trying to move mountains in regard to changing that "new way of doing things". He is also the Mac mini product manager, and that is also evolving from the sealed box design from before his watch. Steve's gone, so things are going to change with regard to the "Steve's way or the highway" restrictions of the past product designs. BTW, who's market share grew the most last quarter in PC land? Oh yeah, Apple!

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is going to be beating Windows any time soon.

No one? iOS and Android are already well ahead in this area.

Mac OS is pretty close to windows except for in games too.

Re:Does it matter?

[jovius]

Lack of software is a non-issue. With Parallels for example you are able to have as many virtual operating systems as possible. I'm a developer and use OS X as the main system, along that I have Ubuntu, Windows 8, Windows XP and Android as guest OS's. Their applications can be run in native OS X windows.

It's not about the operating system anymore. With virtualization you can choose any tool that suits you best regardless of the OS.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

So $2,500 for something you can't build for $1,100 is reasonable?

Yes

Re:Does it matter?

[TWiTfan]

Father Steve didn't die. He ascended.

Now his Geniuses provide divine guidance for us all, so that we may one day be worthy of his presence once more.

Re:Does it matter?

[KingOfBLASH]

The old Mac Pro was in need of a refresh for quite some time. Literally they stopped refreshing them which is why at the time this article was written he could build something similar for so much less money.

But spec out the new Mac Pro. They're not something you could build for $1,100 or even close to that.

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/mac-pro

Re:Does it matter?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

What kind of a place would slashdot be if people only opened their mouths when they knew what they were talking about?

An unbelievably quiet place.

Re:Does it matter?

[andreicristianpetcu]

You don't have an official package manager. WTF? MacPorts, Hombrew are hacks.

Re:Does it matter?

[unixisc]

It is certified Unix by the Open Group, who owns the trademark. Like Solaris or HP/UX, but unlike FreeBSD or Linux

Re:Does it matter?

[iksbob]

Putting aside the ranking of Jobs' achievements, convincing the world of the non-PCness of Macs pales in comparison to Gates' achievement: Convincing the world that all PCs run Windows.

Re:Does it matter?

[unixisc]

You misspelt 'Father Richard'

Re:Does it matter?

[aztracker1]

Probably because anyone that *REALLY* cared about *nix software on windows already uses Cygwin, or windows builds against mingw.

Re:Does it matter?

[Old97]

Was it also removed from Windows Server? The government procurement requirement for Posix only applied to server operating systems. Though in all the development I've done in the Federal space using C/C++, we never talked about or considered whether or not something we were calling was part of Posix or not. Of course, I work in the application space so maybe others did. Federal fondness for Java makes Posix moot in the application space now.

Re:Does it matter?

[ray-auch]

Actually MS do decide sometimes - or at least they release required specs and checking tools (upgrade adviser) and sometimes your machine cannot be upgraded.
One of my PCs is about to go there - on XP and insufficient spec to upgrade to win7. But then, the machine is 12+ years old, and although it still does everything it did when it was bought, and just as well as it did then, my phone probably has more memory and more CPU power.

The big thing that MS does do well is provide EOL dates well ahead of time for the software you have, so you at least know when the software+hardware you've got will stop being supported (if the hardware doesn't die first). http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselectindex

As far as I know, Apple doesn't give out any information like this at all (or at least I can't find it), so you have no idea how long you've got before you have to buy a new shiny...

Re:Does it matter?

[UnknowingFool]

Driver support is not Micosoft's fault

Changing the OS enough to where drivers are needed almost every single release is whose fault? The vendors that wrote them based what worked in the last OS . . . right.

Or their new way of doing things, which is "We'll package all of the hardware up in a neat little box, which you can't open, so we can force you to upgrade the hardware in order to upgrade the OS."

But guess what? Apple tells you very clearly what version of OS X works with what hardware. And it does. If you would rather have more hardware choices and less certainty about future upgrades, you can choose the PC route.

Re:Does it matter?

[TheLink]

Apple not releasing updates doesn't matter to me coz I use Windows 7 on the corporate MacBook Pro.

So I'd still be getting updates way after Apple has stopped.

I know and do enough to avoid most viruses and other bad stuff. I might get pwned by the NSA or some top hacker, but other than that, antivirus software is more likely to give me problems than viruses (and neither AV software nor OS X will protect me against NSA/hacker zero day exploits).

Re:Does it matter?

[Nerdfest]

If you run Windows or OSX you already have been pwden by the NSA. There is even a small possibility this is the case if your run Linux.

Re:Does it matter?

[UnknowingFool]

I dislike Microsoft and Windows with a passion, but at least they don't arbitrarily decide that your PC is too old to run their latest operating system. It may not run it fast, but generally it will run it.

So you would rather have the opposite where MS arbitrarily tells you can run an OS even though it really can run the most basic version of that OS.

At the request of Intel who would have had millions of video chipsets that they could not sell, at the last minute, MS included hardware for Vista that could not run Aero (the video chips lacked a low level instruction required by Aero).

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you acknowledge that the article and the comparison was from a point in the past, yet also put down the fancy new one as some sort of ???

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple fanboys and apple haters should be banned from slashdot.

Would there be anyone left?

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cant you?

- lack the necessary skills
- Dont have the time
?

I got it.... Apple's intel processor is not the same as the one you can get off newegg? Perhaps apple's "Made in China" board is "blesssed", unlike gigabytes made in china boards?

Many others CAN and HAVE built them, someone even wrote a book on it: http://www.amazon.com/OSx86-Creating-Hackintosh-Peter-Baldwin/dp/0470521465/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1389375822&sr=8-4&keywords=hackintosh

Did mine a few years ago, total was around $700ish and it was much faster and more capable then anything Apple had (i7 long before apple used them).
Dual boots MINT and OS-X for the rate occasions i want to use it.

Re:Does it matter?

[tangelogee]

I'll believe that when I see it. So far, from what I've read, the only thing confirmed user-replaceable is the RAM. Everything else, even if it's possible, would void the warranty.

Re:Does it matter?

[armanox]

I've run Solaris on a desktop just fine. And I've seen AIX on Power as a desktop too.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

False Scotsmen are the Scotsmen that the True Scotsmen Fanboys and True Scotsmen Haters are arguing over, duh. ;)

Re:Does it matter?

[UnknownSoldier]

> Who's left ? :)

Trolls and ACs. /sarcasm Oh wait ... "They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots."

Hey quit hitting me with that ban hammer ;-)

Re:Does it matter?

[greenbird]

Driver support is not Micosoft's fault. That's the Vendors.

It's funny how this is the case when talking about Windows but when talking about Linux the opposite is true.

Re:Does it matter?

[UnknowingFool]

Much of the Mac Pro is replaceable according to iFixit with a score of 8/10. The issue is that the parts are not standard PC parts which is a different matter.

Re:Does it matter?

[tangelogee]

Just because the vendors refuse to make their drivers non-proprietary for linux, doesn't mean it isn't their fault.

Re:Does it matter?

[tangelogee]

The issue is that the parts are not standard PC parts which is a different matter.

Which would still make it cost prohibitive to do so, since it would be a mac-specific part. referring back to my original post, (the part of which you decided to ignore in your rebuttal)

And need we talk about the fact that up until recently, you could only install (basically) Apple sanctioned expansion cards in their machines?

which would appear to be making a comeback.

And therein lies the crux of it. And the iMac and mini still have most of their parts soldered on.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I can pop it open to add more RAM, but:

1: Where is the Kensington security slot, so the Mac Pro doesn't disappear, or installed RAM? The old Mac Pro ensured that stuff stayed put unless a thief pulled out bolt cutters or a hacksaw. I don't need huge enclosures... I just want the standard security slot just like every other computer in the world has so my desktop stays put.

2: Where do I put my FPGA boards? A breakout box on Thunderbolt uses a fraction of the PCIe lanes, and is pointless.

3: Additional HDDs? Yep, another box on the desktop if I want RAID (and yes, if I'm working on CAD stuff, I want desktop RAID.)

4: Rackability? Racks blow from forwards to back. The Mac Pro cylinder blows upward. This will require a lot of additional rackspace and some precision engineering to create the proper ductwork for cooling.

Why couldn't we have had something similar to the Compaq Pro? It functioned on its side as a desktop, it functioned standing up as a tower, and it functioned with some rack ears as a 3-4 RU computer. Cylinders are nice, but business needs rackable form factors.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple fanboys and Apple haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.

Android fanboys and android haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Microsoft fanboys and microsoft haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Vi fanboys and vi haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Emacs fanboys and Emacs haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Bitcoin fanboys and bitcoin haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
True scotmen fanboys and true scotmen haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.

Who's left ? :)

Best comment EVER!

Re:Does it matter?

[Sez Zero]

Who's left ? :)

Anonymous Cowards.

Re:Does it matter?

[StrangeBrew]

I'm not sure I've ever seen that Microsoft/Gates campaign, sources please.

Re:Does it matter?

[celle]

"Apple fanboys and apple haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots."

      You mean like the nuke apologists and environmentalists, vi vs emacs, apple vs pc, MS vs linux, etc, etc, etc. This board would be out of business without the 'biased' especially with Dice running the show. We all know this is true and we all willingly visit this board, so who are the real idiots again?

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

No mention of Linux fanboys? Double dumbass on you, good sir.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because the processor used in the MacPro costs more than $1100 alone, let alone all the other parts. You can build something no where near as good for $1100 that may or may not suit your needs, but you can't build a MacPro. You actually can't even build a MacPro equivalent for $3000, so the MacPro is rather a bargain just now.

Re:Does it matter?

[Valdrax]

Polite people capable of rational discourse?

So maybe, what? 20-30 people total?

Re:Does it matter?

[msobkow]

COBOL and FORTRAN programmers. :P

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that level of subtlety is why it worked so well ;)

Re:Does it matter?

[UnknowingFool]

Which would still make it cost prohibitive to do so, since it would be a mac-specific part. referring back to my original post, (the part of which you decided to ignore in your rebuttal)

This is your quote to which I was responding:

I'll believe that when I see it. So far, from what I've read, the only thing confirmed user-replaceable is the RAM. Everything else, even if it's possible, would void the warranty.

Your contention that the Mac Pro has few user replaceable parts is false. Also you don't know the cost so that's an assumption on your part.

which would appear to be making a comeback

How do you know this? AMD can easily make or spec out the graphics boards and chips. The SSDs can be made by third parties; they have to be PCIe and not SATA. The CPU is a socket LGA 2011. You don't know if there are 3rd parties that will offer parts. All we know is that they are not standard PC parts.

And therein lies the crux of it. And the iMac and mini still have most of their parts soldered on.

Which is not part of this thread.

Re:Does it matter?

[LanMan04]

Well, considering my Mac *is* supported and was built approx 6 years ago, your computer *is* getting a bit long in the tooth by conventional standards.

Re:Does it matter?

[denmarkw00t]

Everything else, even if it's possible, would void the warranty.

And every PC from every manufacturer I've worked with has a sticker or note or bit of tape that says "Warranty Void if Removed/Broken/Etc" - your point? If you plan to do something internally yourself, you're probably going to have to give up the warranty.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

you are coming to a sad realization

Re:Does it matter?

[Tharkkun]

Driver support is not Micosoft's fault

Changing the OS enough to where drivers are needed almost every single release is whose fault? The vendors that wrote them based what worked in the last OS . . . right.

Or their new way of doing things, which is "We'll package all of the hardware up in a neat little box, which you can't open, so we can force you to upgrade the hardware in order to upgrade the OS."

But guess what? Apple tells you very clearly what version of OS X works with what hardware. And it does. If you would rather have more hardware choices and less certainty about future upgrades, you can choose the PC route.

It's not very difficult to define which version of OSX works when you release a piece of hardware with the only configurable options being hard drive and memory.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

OMFG, did you read anything on the link at all?

Let me spell it out for you. The article is NOT from the last few months when apple finally presented its new "circular" mac pro.
The comparison is from the older gray boxes not the latest and greatest.

They came with a "Intel Xeon W3565 (3.2 GHz)" which is NOT "more then 1100 alone" (looks like around $370 on amazon). Its also about 1/2 the speed of an average i7 but probably supports ECC memory

I guess like this whole thread suggests, any of apple's previous products are immediately obsolete once the shinny new one comes out?
I would think the price of $2,500 should indicate it is not the new mac-pro which has a "base" price of $3,000?

So, in summary you CAN build a mac pro (as i said, they made them before the black circular ones) for 1/2 the price.

The new one, different cost structure and i don't think its been priced out as a hackintosh yet.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

> it probably doesn't have the software used by a video rental store

1998 is calling. They want their anti-Mac FUD back.

Re:Does it matter?

[KingOfBLASH]

If you read my post you'll see i have no problem agreeing the old mac pro was over priced because of the lack of refresh.

The other models and the new mac pro are marginally more expensive. But they come in a much better form factor then something you might be able to build yourself. AND with apple support.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Linux fanboys and haters :).

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slice up any way you like, but games are for loser faggots who would otherwise be in the arcade paying 1/4 a game.

Computers are for computing...the fact they can run games is irrelevant to the "usefullness" argument.

Games are useless, by default, no matter what a bunch of fat, basement -dwelling dorks thinks.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess virtual machines are new to you.

Or you're just a retard.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no....he "achieved" death....ask his sister....

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't even update to Mountain Lion because my laptop is too old but I understand the reason behind it as being to do with it not having a true 64-bit architecture from top to bottom thus making it incompatible (Intel X... video I believe). This makes sense and generally tends to be the reason why machines are incompatible.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

> It probably doesn't have the logistics software used by a trucking company,

That's going to be custom software anyway. Even on Windows.
All the basic ingredients are available on OSX.

>it probably doesn't have the software used by a video rental store,

ROFLMAO. What's a video rental store?
The 80s and 90s are calling. They want their retro stuff nobody cares about back.

>it probably doesn't have the latest accounting software.

WRONG.

You are such a miserable troll.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing OS-X is built from the ground up and not a mish-mash of freebsd and other things right?

Re:Does it matter?

[ILongForDarkness]

No that will likely be MS Dynamics, SAP or whatever the Oracle (which does support Mac). I have never seen a point of sale system that I could tell wasn't running windows. I have seen numerous that were (or still running DOS). Similarly for machinist equipment I've worked with (CNC mills/lathes/plasma tables), with tape libraries (sold by Sun no less, the fileserver was Sparc/Solaris but the actual hardware ran on Windows), etc. As for in house development my experience has usually the somewhat technical BA or manager hacks something together in Access or some other MS Office product it becomes important enough that it gets handed of to a full time dev/IT and since it is already imbedded in the MS world gets ported to say .Net, SQL Server. In house customization by relatively low level people (BA's, accounting, non-computer related engineers etc) just never seems to have caught on in the Mac/Linux space. Sure the IT guys hack away, companies that know enough what they want ahead of time might get the budget and make useable systems but the small/medium business (or siloed business unit) typically cobbles something together in Excel/Access and then throws it over the fence when it breaks or becomes important enough to do right.

Again this is changing in my experience but not the case yet. More people are coming out that are more familiar with javascript or python than VB/A|Office so it is becoming more common to see things hacked together in some web stack that might be running on anything (and Linux is a great choice because getting the LAMP stack up and running on a VM is trivial compared to both installing and getting permission to install on your work desktop a WAMP stack.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

(cricket... cricket... cricket...)

Re:Does it matter?

[TheRaven64]

I was going to contradict you, because Apple didn't bother certifying 10.7 as UNIX and don't use UNIX in their marketing anymore so I assumed they'd given up, but it appears that both 10.8 and 10.9 on Intel Macs are UNIX. Interestingly, it appears that nothing is certified UNIX08 yet...

Re:Does it matter?

[TheRaven64]

The typical response would more likely be to point out that Apple keyboards have a built-in USB hub with two ports in the back, so if you want a conveniently accessible port for plugging things into temporarily, the keyboard is probably closer to your hands than the front of the computer.

Re:Does it matter?

[TheRaven64]

The thing I miss on OS X is the Altera tools for FPGA programming. You can get them to work on FreeBSD via some hacks, and they natively support Linux and Windows, but there's no Mac version.

Oh, and Parallels is the company that takes your money, gives you something that causes host kernel panics, and then tries to charge you more money for the version that doesn't do that. I'll stick with VirtualBox thanks. Parallels is never getting more money from me, after their staggering incompetence with Core 2 IPIs.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

False scotsmen and true scotsmen think they are two........

Re:Does it matter?

[TheRaven64]

Microsoft, at least, creates a stable driver KBI for entire major OS versions. With Linux, you don't even get a guarantee of source compatibility across minor versions, so unless you upstream your driver it may be broken without warning (and if you do, the person 'fixing' it may not have access to the hardware, so will just compile test it). OS X also has stable KBIs for drivers, which are versioned to allow them to be incrementally deprecated and replaced. If you try to make life easy for vendors and they still don't produce drivers, then it ceases to be your fault.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation needed]

Seriously. $1,100 for the MBP CPU? Where are you buying it from?

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you admit an out of date reference is out of date.

This is good. We can accept it as historical and move on.

Right now Macs are an acceptable price. It is likely that unlike buying bits it will slide down to "not an acceptable price" then it will be refreshed and it "acceptable price". Just like a Dell.

Re:Does it matter?

[Keyboard Rage]

People who properly capitalise brand names whenever they use them.

You did it wrong everywhere except for Emacs and the scotmen. yoU sucK

Re:Does it matter?

[KingOfBLASH]

There was rumour Apple was going to kill off the Mac Pro for similar reasons.

If you buy an iMac, even though it's a little more expensive then a build-your-own you get a phenomenal package (yes, some people do care about looks), easy to set up, with Apple support. Ridicule it all you want, but it's the same reason people buy Louis Vuitton bags instead of just getting a magic marker and writing LV on a grocery bag. (Lesson: just because it's not important to you doesn't mean it's not important to other people).

Who is the MacPro for? Now it is clear -- they want the sort of people who do on the fly editing of 4k videos, real power users for whom cost is not an issue. There is a clear market, and if you care about saving a couple hundred bucks, you're not the target market.

Re:Does it matter?

[umafuckit]

I'm not sure I've ever seen that Microsoft/Gates campaign, sources please.

There is no campaign, of course, only the results. The results are that, for most people, PC==windows machine.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't arbitrarily decide. They pretty consistently adhere to a three-year support cycle, meaning that software shipping today should be fine on hardware up to three years old.

You may not like this approach, and you're entitled to vote with your wallet. But there are good reasons - maintaing support for older hardware comes at the expense of developing new software for newer hardware. Microsoft put a lot of effort into maintaining legacy support, and if that's whats important to you by-all-means, go with that platform.

But you portray the decision as the arbitrary-evil-dictum-on-high from the evil-Apple-overlords who do everything in their power to screw you, the consumer. That's not reality. The reality is that there are engineering factors, there are sales factors, there are consumer satisfaction factors. They have decided that three years is a reasonable cut-off, and as a software engineer on their platforms, I think it's a reasonable one.

Re:Does it matter?

[Blaskowicz]

Win 7 supports 2000 and XP drivers, if you run the 32bit version (which might be mandatory or desireable if your PC is that old). That's really exceptional support of ancient drivers, similar but (very) different to using linux - Windows supports old proprietary stuff while linux supports old open source stuff (unless support for your ancient graphics card is dropped from MESA or at worst Xorg)

Re:Does it matter?

[ILongForDarkness]

True which would have been great if my keyboard lasted longer than 6 months.

Re:Does it matter?

[UnknowingFool]

[sarcasm]So Macs have never ever used a different sound chip, video card, ethernet chip, throughout the years? It's always been the same chips generation after generation. And Apple has never made a transition from two different CPU architectures. Yes, the only thing different between two Macs is hardware and memory.[/sarcasm]

Re:Does it matter?

[samwichse]

Better than what? Certainly not better for expansion, regardless of what Apple might say WRT lightning ports.

I'd rather have the old mac pro case refreshed than the mac mini plus that they released.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that a package manager is what defines a UNIX is dumb. Linux style package managers have, with hindsight, turned out to be abominations which OS X is better off not having.

Why do I say they're awful when the conventional slashdot / linux dork wisdom is that they're the greatest thing ever? Because the Linux packaging / distro model sucks every distro into maintaining literally thousands of different application programs, even though they aren't the authors of those programs and probably shouldn't be involved. And on the flip side, application developers have to deal with other people doing evil things to their code when shipping distros (think: mutually contradictory patches from different distros, and that's when they're lucky enough to actually have each distro ship patches back to them). Furthermore, ironically, package-managed systems still frequently exhibit dependency hell, the very problem Linux package managers supposedly solved. I have never had to worry about what libraries are installed on OS X when installing a native OS X app. Can't say the same with Linux, and that includes recent experiences.

Linux packaging causes massive duplication of work, makes life hellish for application authors, and has arguably been one of the most important factors holding desktop Linux back. And it's a self-inflicted wound, rather than a Microsoft conspiracy or whatever. The OSX and Windows model is for the "distro vendor" to focus their work on a highly polished and small core OS (including a standard set of libraries) which every user is guaranteed to have installed, and let application developers worry about integrating their applications into this environment. This model is better in practice simply because it scales. The "distro vendor" gets far more real work done because they're not squandering their resources helping to maintain and "package" thousands of little apps, the app authors get more work done because they don't have to waste as much time interacting with a gazillion balkanized distros (there is a surprising amount of politics involved in getting your app into major and even minor Linux distros), dealing with the mess of testing so many possible scenarios, etc.

Linux package managers as a good thing is pretty much the biggest unexamined and unjustified assumption plaguing Linux.

I Don't Want Every Update

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want every update they send out. I wait to see if the updates make things worse (and there are updates for all sorts of software on every platform that can make things worse instead of fixing an issue).

Re:I Don't Want Every Update

[neoritter]

It's a security update, if you don't want to be hacked, it's generally good practice to update.

It's bad for all OS's

[zerosomething]

I'm woking in a large university where you find a larger percentage of Mac and Linux systems. It's hell keeping all operating systems updated properly. Researchers get grants to do something then spend $2million on the custom systems build on a particular version of an OS. Now it's 5 years later are still using the old OS because it would cost another $1million to upgrade the custom code and get new equipment that doesn't use parallel ports for data transfers.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Geoffrey.landis]

...Now it's 5 years later are still using the old OS because it would cost another $1million to upgrade the custom code and get new equipment that doesn't use parallel ports for data transfers.

In general, changing the OS breaks some stuff that used to work. It's always best to wait until the people willing to be drive the software first have found workarounds to the problems.

Or you can call support, which will tell you "Oh, that doesn't work with the new operating system."

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Anonymous Coward]

When did you last -- ever -- see a Mac with a Parallel port? ADB? iMacs were pretty much USB / FW from launch!

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Hatta]

Indeed. We have a microscope that's hooked up to a G4 powermac running 10.2. The company that made the camera doesn't exist anymore, and the most recent software available for it is for XP. The solution? Firewall the microscope computer except for communication with the department file server.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[jader3rd]

The solution? Firewall the microscope computer except for communication with the department file server.

But those type of situations are fine; you've got a dedicated device doing a dedicated thing. Usually in those situations having a full OS is over kill and the system should have been built with an embedded OS in the first place. The type of scenarios which are worrying are ones where the computers are peoples internet personal files machines.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[NJRoadfan]

Macs never came standard with a parallel port. Printers used serial (din-8 port) for communication before USB came about.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[TangoMargarine]

If it's a properly network-isolated setup, who gives a fuck how old the security is?

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[UnknowingFool]

Now it's 5 years later are still using the old OS because it would cost another $1million to upgrade the custom code and get new equipment that doesn't use parallel ports for data transfers.

How old are your Macs if they have parallel ports? Since the original iMac (in 1997!), it's been Firewire, USB and now Thunderbolt. And before then I thought they used serial or ADB. Or are you just trolling?

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably need to go all the way back to the Apple II for the last machine with a parallel port.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Nemyst]

The physics dept over here still has computers running on Windows 98 because the scanner parts they're using don't work with anything else. They're dog slow, they don't support USB keys and they run on the shittiest screens I've ever seen, but they're the only thing that runs those old parts. At least they have the best firewall ever made: they aren't networked.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Solandri]

Hah. My uncle's print shop has a $20,000 laser film printer whose manufacturer folded in the early 1990s. The only drivers that work are for Windows 3.0 and Mac OS 7 (also works on 9, but not 10). So his fancy new graphics design computers send their output to an ancient Power Mac 8100 (with all of 32 MB of RAM) for printing silkscreens. It's so old that last time I visited to fix a problem he was having, the power button snapped off because the plastic had become brittle with age.

Nice to know he's not the only one in this type of situation. Software people need to realize that constantly updating is sometimes not an option, and for certain applications (like dedicated hardware drivers) you need to treat the software like an embedded system and make it as robust as you can out the box. Software may be obsolete in 3 years, but hardware can frequently last for 25+ years. (It prints onto roll film that's about 28 inches wide for printing posters, so please don't say just buy a new printer from Staples. Replacements are currently about $2500+ for inkjet, $10k+ for laser.)

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Anonymous Coward]

The recording studio where I work still has an Atari ST hooked up for running some synth editors and mixer automation.
We tried migrating to an emulator on a PC, but the copy protection on some software won't work, the midi timing is not good enough for reliable operation, and the emulators don't support the multiple output midi racks.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[zerosomething]

Of course your Mac doesn't have a parallel port. It was an example and your 5 year old Linux/UNIX box does have one which is typically what runs a lot of lab equipment. And yes there are Windows 98 systems still in use because of these issues.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[zerosomething]

Firewall the microscope computer except for communication with the department file server.

Yes and we've also found a NAT works fairly well to reduce the glaring security issues when the existing firewall software is inadequate.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[chispito]

I'm woking in a large university where you find a larger percentage of Mac and Linux systems. It's hell keeping all operating systems updated properly.

I never realized an operating system was required for proper stir-fry.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Anonymous Coward]

Our physics department still has, and uses, a PDP-11/20 because of custom hardware and old software. Windows 98? Bah

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[LordLimecat]

They probably shouldnt have hopped onto parallel ports back in 2008.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Burz]

I can think of only one good way to deal with this:

Demarcate systems and LANs as either Internetworked or Isolated, then require that all projects declare whether or not they need the Internet. Finally, assign extra administrative costs to the internetworked systems.

Even though the isolated systems still need security updates, having a clear demarcation for them takes you away from the mayhem created by the vendor's update schedules. Work on your own schedule when updating these systems and remove the headaches for you and your internal clients.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[motokochan]

My best guess is the user was thinking of the 25 pin DB connector Apple used for SCSI-1 equipment. It's really easy to confuse with a parallel port.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[cerberusss]

If it's a properly network-isolated setup, who gives a fuck how old the security is?

There's more infection vectors besides the network.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[UnknowingFool]

Which would make his computers more than 25 years old. Having machines that old and on any other OS would not help his situation.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, it would not make his computers 25 years old, more like about 15. Apple shipped that DB25 SCSI-1 port on Macs as recent as 1998 or so. They took it away roughly when they phased in USB and Firewire.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah. My uncle's print shop has a $20,000 laser film printer whose manufacturer folded in the early 1990s. The only drivers that work are for Windows 3.0 and Mac OS 7 (also works on 9, but not 10). So his fancy new graphics design computers send their output to an ancient Power Mac 8100 (with all of 32 MB of RAM) for printing silkscreens.

Why doesn't he put more RAM in? The 8100 supports up to 264 MB.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Millennium]

Good luck getting your hands on the right SIMMs, though.

Re:It's bad for all OS's

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck getting your hands on the right SIMMs, though.

https://www.google.com/search?q=32MB%2C+60ns%2C+72p+SIMM%2C+5v+fpm&rls=en - whew, that was hard work.

Just no

[Sockatume]

Far be it for me to say that a security company was using dodgy numbers to hype its product, but their MacOS adoption numbers are soley from Sophos-for-MacOS users, which I'd have to imagine is a really spectacularly unrepresentative sample. And their assertions that Mavericks was the only way to get security updates for MacOS going forwards seems to be contradicted by the fact that the previous version of MacOS was security patched when Mavericks was launched.

Re:Just no

[Anonymous Coward]

Dodgy or just plain wrong? The linked page for "stopped providing updates" lists several things, like Safari and Java that go back two previous versions-- three in the case of Java.

Re:Just no

[AmiMoJo]

If you check the linked page you can see that since Mavericks was released, listed as a security update, all other OS level updates and many of the app updates have required it. They claim not to support older versions.

Re:Just no

[rsmith-mac]

And their assertions that Mavericks was the only way to get security updates for MacOS going forwards seems to be contradicted by the fact that the previous version of MacOS was security patched when Mavericks was launched.

A big part of the reason they can even get away with that claim is because Apple doesn't publish a proper software lifecycle policy. For all I do like about Apple, that's the one big thing I feel they do wrong. Mac OS X and iOS badly need a documented support policy so that it's clear how long they'll receive security updates. Is 10.7 safe? How about 10.6? iOS 6?

Throwing a wrench in all of this of course is Apple's decision to stop charging for new Mac OSes as of Mavericks. Since it's free, is it a new OS or is it just another patch for Mountain Lion? From a pricing standpoint you can get away with calling it the continuation of Mountain Lion since you don't need to pay for it. But from a technical perspective it's definitely not the same OS, and introduces new features and makes changes that can break software. To use Microsoft as an example here, they treat Windows 8.1 as a service pack for Windows 8, which is to say that they'll be ending support for Win8 in just under 2 years. So there's certainly precedent for quickly dropping Mountain Lion.

Re:Just no

[Anonymous Coward]

Add to that that Mavericks is a FREE update to their OS, they're basically saying "zomg, if you ignore this update, apple stopped providing updates".

Re:Just no

[Anonymous Coward]

If you check the linked page you can see that since Mavericks was released, listed as a security update, all other OS level updates and many of the app updates have required it. They claim not to support older versions.

Show me on that Apple support page you referenced from the link above where it says they don't support older versions? I got updates for all my older versions of the iLife and iWork apps shortly after Mavericks launched. Also, Safari. You really shouldn't lie so much.

Re:Just no

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is Apple abuse their control of updates. E.g. They refuse to compile NVidia drivers in 64 bit code, rendering the earlier Xeon Mac Pros end of line. They're still full 64 bit Intel system, but Apple have killed future OS updates for them, despite the fact they're generic Intel boxes with UEFI ROMs. Planned obsolescence, and they do it with each OS release, they knock off the oldest tier despite being perfectly capable of handling the updates, which for the most part are merely UI and icon changes. The OS is still UNIX based.

If you want the latest software from a little outfit that plays ball, you have to replace your hardware. Something Apple fans do anyway, but utterly useless for business. Which is why you see offices selling off Apple and moving back to Wintel machines.

Re:Just no

[synthespian]

The changes that were made in the software kernel and objective-c are there for a good reason. Blocks, Grand Central Dispatch, LLVM, Clang - all highly non-trivial and important. You do not HAVE to use them if you don't want to. Anyways, the point is that you get amazing tools. Ever since Mac OS X became Unix, we knew we could write lasting software. Mac OS X is not going away anytime soon - hopefully.

Now, the OS upgrades were - are - much easier and safer than, say, your average Linux, where shit broke *all*l the time. The OS upgrade price was much smaller then Windows. All in all, with the top notch hardware, the OS patched up, the reasonably-priced and easy upgrades, Apple proved to be a nice investment in the long run, with good amortized cost.

Because you still got a nice Mac OS X workstation doesn't mean you don't buy new Apple hardware. At least, that's my experience, personal and social. This has to do with Apple aiming for consumers with higher income (meaning individuals and companies). The other hardware vendors have to scramble and figure out who their market is - and that's why they aren't really brands, or no can really figure out why a Dell notebook is better than the HP competitor (in fact, they're both unoriginal and probably one is just as bad as the other).

The fact that Apple kept your OS patched made you respect Apple, because it showed Apple respected and valued its customers. They were there for you in the long run. They didn't just make up shitty policies overnight, like Microsoft. Apple was hassle-free.

Now, with Apple leaving users out in the cold is really shooting itself in the foot. It's a fundamental shift in customers relation, and I predict Apple will pay dearly in the long run - this might be the turning point - maybe it's downhill for Apple, if the perception becomes one of a company that no longer cares about its customers.

Re:Just no

[Farmer Tim]

To be fair, the earliest MacPros are about to turn 8, and they're outclassed by an i7 laptop from three years ago. Any business thinking that's still a high end workstation (and hasn't written the depreciation off on tax) has bigger problems than software updates...

And BTW, my 2006 MacPro runs Mavericks just fine with a GeForce 8800GT using the drivers supplied with the OS, so your babble about 64 bit graphics drivers is nonsense (or maybe a distortion of the fact that Mavericks won't boot on a computer with 32bit UEFI, you need either a patched boot.efi file or the Chameleon bootloader). Mavericks won't work on graphics cards that don't support OpenGL 4 or OpenCL either...true, that does include most of the stock cards in the original MacPro, but in perspective that's no more surprising than a 1999 video card not supporting Windows Vista.

Re:Just no

[guruevi]

It's a 32-bit UEFI, you just can't make a 32-bit low-level chip like that into a 64-bit chip. And it's only the first Xeon Mac Pro's and Xserve machines - those things are almost 10 years old.

Updates vs Upgrades

[tysonedwards]

It is unfortunate that Apple didn't think that one through a little further.
If they are adopting the model of "the OS Upgrade IS a security update", then throw it in their normal update mechanism rather than having people seek it out.

Since they didn't, they must realize that there is a chance that their Upgrade could break things for people, so let them upgrade in their own time, and as such should back port the occasional update to the computers that they sold 3 months or so ago.

Re:Updates vs Upgrades

[Sockatume]

Don't all OSX updates come through the App Store now? Where they then show you a half-screen banner prompting you to download 10.9 if it's compatible?

Re: Updates vs Upgrades

[tysonedwards]

SoftwareUpdate isn't a part of the Mac App Store (different servers, backed, syncing, check mechanism, ...), despite being on a tab presented in the Mac App Store, aside updates that do come from there. And you do understand that there is a difference between "please download this, create an account, type in a couple passwords, have a credit card on your account, ..." And just press "update", right?

Re: Updates vs Upgrades

[Sockatume]

Well that's what I was asking, hasn't the App Store replaced the old "software update" mechanism for the delivery of OS-level updates?

Re: Updates vs Upgrades

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's what I was asking, hasn't the App Store replaced the old "software update" mechanism for the delivery of OS-level updates?

Yes it has. What he was saying is that all the infrastructure in the background, and completely invisible to the user, is different. However that is completely irrelevant to what you said.

Re:Updates vs Upgrades

[MisterSquid]

It is unfortunate that Apple didn't think that one through a little further. If they are adopting the model of "the OS Upgrade IS a security update", then throw it in their normal update mechanism rather than having people seek it out. Since they didn't, [. . .]

It is unfortunate that you didn't think your post through a little further.

I'm running Mac OS 10.8.5 (Mountain Lion) on two machines, and I am notified once every few days by the "App Store" application (which is the update mechanism for OS X starting with Mac OS 10.7 Lion) that Mavericks is ready to install.*

In other words, Mavericks *is* included as part of Apple's "normal update mechanism" and "normal people" do not have to seek it out; Mavericks seeks out them.

*I've not upgraded these two machines because they are running production software that is not yet ready to upgrade. One of my other personal machines has gotten the Mavericks update.

Re:Updates vs Upgrades

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to seek out Mavericks. I get annoyed every single week that there are updates, and 10.9 is indeed shown as an update, but it requires an apple store account to download. Since I don't intend to ever create an apple store account for myself, I'll probably buy a new notebook sooner that planned. It won't be an Apple.

Re: Updates vs Upgrades

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's what I was asking, hasn't the App Store replaced the old "software update" mechanism for the delivery of OS-level updates?

Yes it has. What he was saying is that all the infrastructure in the background, and completely invisible to the user, is different. However that is completely irrelevant to what you said.

No it isn't, many users eschew the "App Store" app in favor of running the softwareupdate command from a shell.

Re: Updates vs Upgrades

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't, an insignificant number of users eschew the "App Store" app in favor of running the software update command from a shell.

Re: Updates vs Upgrades

[Lisias]

No it isn't, an insignificant number of users eschew the "App Store" app in favor of running the software update command from a shell.

An insignificant number of airplanes passengers knows how to fly. And I extremely happy that they are there, flying the plane instead of some of the majority other ones.

OS Maverick upgrade for free

[Anonymous Coward]

If your Mac supports it, it seems to be a free upgrade. I got an email from Apple earlier this week offering the upgrade for free. Perhaps that`s their security strategy.

Re:OS Maverick upgrade for free

[kthreadd]

That doesn't mean that all your software works. If your company has decided to run OS X and their mission critical business app doesn't work with the new OS then they can't upgrade. And add the fact that new machines can't be downgraded to the older OS, so you can't buy new hardware either.

Re:OS Maverick upgrade for free

[aristotle-dude]

That doesn't mean that all your software works. If your company has decided to run OS X and their mission critical business app doesn't work with the new OS then they can't upgrade. And add the fact that new machines can't be downgraded to the older OS, so you can't buy new hardware either.

And the problem is? Apple is neither responsible or capable of testing all possible combinations of software and hardware. Do you expect them to support third party software directly? You make the choice to use a particular piece of software that does not offer an upgrade. In the meantime, you can simply use some common sense and avoid the most common potential vectors. If you are talking about a "work" machine then you should be using for "work" anyway and not surfing other sites.

Re:OS Maverick upgrade for free

[Valdrax]

If your Mac supports it, it seems to be a free upgrade.

To quote the Spartans: "If."

I have a late-2007 MacBook. Apple decided not to continue to support the Intel graphics driver for it and used it as an excuse to cut it off from 10.8 and above. The notion that I won't even get security updates anymore kind of ticks me off.

Re:OS Maverick upgrade for free

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you're here to defend microsoft when their OS update breaks existing software. Oh wait.. we never see you then.

Apparently your cheerleading is reserved only for Apple.

Re:OS Maverick upgrade for free

[aristotle-dude]

I'm glad you're here to defend microsoft when their OS update breaks existing software. Oh wait.. we never see you then.

Apparently your cheerleading is reserved only for Apple.

I spend the majority of my time during weekdays on windows because that is the platform of choice at my employer. There have been stories of patches from Microsoft breaking their "own" software so at my workplace, we tend to be quite conservative when it comes to patches applied in our production environment and we are still using Windows 7 on our desktops and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Windows 8.x is a disaster.

But you go ahead and continue with your irrational jumping to conclusions. For the same reason that my company does not upgrade to Windows 8 desktops, It does not make sense to upgrade to Mavericks in a company environment until you have checked for compatibility with all of the software used in your daily workflow. It might make sense to use a test machine to vet Mavericks before committing to an upgrade and as long as you are careful where you surf at work, you should be fine being behind patches or versions for a while.

Remember that no patches can protect you from zero day exploits so common sense is the only defence you have in that case. Don't be an idiot surfing to unknown sites when at work.

Re:OS Maverick upgrade for free

[aristotle-dude]

If your Mac supports it, it seems to be a free upgrade.

To quote the Spartans: "If."

I have a late-2007 MacBook. Apple decided not to continue to support the Intel graphics driver for it and used it as an excuse to cut it off from 10.8 and above. The notion that I won't even get security updates anymore kind of ticks me off.

Are you an intelligent person? Are you responsible? If you act responsibly, the vectors for attack are few and far between. Take personal responsibility for your security. Think before you click.

This is the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

I will not personally use anything but open source software.

Re:This is the reason

[kommakazi]

Better log off the internet, by using it you are engaging with all kinds of non-open source software.

Re:This is the reason

[tepples]

Define "engaging". FSF has set one boundary for "engaging" at whether the non-free software runs on one's own computer, as described in the article The JavaScript Trap. Or are you referring to the "Service as a Software Substitute" phenomenon described in the article Who does that server really serve?

Re:This is the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm referring to software on machines I control. I'm just about to buy a machine with an open source/free/libre bios and then I'm really there. My goal is to have two laptops: one tracking Debian stable and the other OpenBSD current.

Yes, they are.

[tirerim]

I'm not sure where the author gets the idea that Apple has stopped releasing security updates for older systems. The page linked from the summary lists updates for software for OS X 10.7 and up as recently as 16 December, a Java update for versions 10.6 and up on 15 October, and the most recent actual security update, also for versions 10.6 and up, on 12 September. Apple releases security updates when necessary, not every Tuesday like Microsoft. The fact that they've released an OS update, which includes security patches, for the most recent version of the OS without releasing one for older versions most likely means that the vulnerabilities addressed were not present in older versions; this has been the Apple release strategy for at least a decade.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Sockatume]

Their support for that assertion is a link to one of their own articles:

1) From three months ago
2) Before 10.9 launched
3) Right after a major OSX 10.8 software update had been released
4) Which has had its thesis contradicted by the series of subsequent updates you list

I don't think Sophos are in the "critical thinking" business.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Sophos are in the "critical thinking" business.

Judging how their anti-virus software won't finish a scan if an sophos update is downloaded, they definitely aren't into critical thinking.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Lawrence_Bird]

So.. what about users pre 10.6? Forgotten? Microsoft still supports XP Does Apple still support OS X 10.1? They were released at the same time in 2001. I think nothing illustrates the difference between the companies than that fact. Apple obsoletes their users by force while Microsoft bends over backwards to maintain not only support but backward compatability.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

So.. what about users pre 10.6? Forgotten?

Fuck those guys and Fuck anyone still using XP.

Re:Yes, they are.

[AmiMoJo]

Here is the list from Apple's own web site, linked to in the summary:

19 Dec 2013 Motion 5.1 (OS X Mavericks v10.9 or later)
16 Dec 2013 OS X Mavericks v10.9.1
16 Dec 2013 Safari 6.1.1 and Safari 7.0.1 (OS X Lion v10.7.5, OS X Mountain Lion v10.8.5, OS X Mavericks v10.9)
22 Oct 2013 Apple Remote Desktop 3.7 (Apple Remote Desktop 3.0 or later)
22 Oct 2013 Apple Remote Desktop 3.5.4 (Apple Remote Desktop 3.0 or later)
22 Oct 2013 OS X Server 3.0 (OS X Mavericks v10.9 or later)
22 Oct 2013 Keynote 6.0 (OS X Mavericks v10.9 or later)
22 Oct 2013 OS X Mavericks v10.9 (Mac OS X v10.6.8 and later)

(Windows and iOS updates omitted)

So after the 22nf of October 2013 when Mavericks was released they don't seem to be back-porting all their patches for either the OS or all apps. Note that the 16th December patch to Mavericks appears to fix bugs that exist in older versions of Mac OS, which did not receive an update. There are all security patches specifically, not just feature updates.

Re:Yes, they are.

[UnknowingFool]

Um, "16 Dec 2013 Safari 6.1.1 and Safari 7.0.1 (OS X Lion v10.7.5, OS X Mountain Lion v10.8.5, OS X Mavericks v10.9)"? They haven't released a general security update in 4 months." Java for OS X 2013-005 and Java for Mac OS X v10.6 Update 17 Mac OS X v10.6.8, OS X Lion v10.7 or later, OS X Mountain Lion v10.8 or later 15 Oct 2013" Let me start planning for the apocalypse now.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Gr8Apes]

MS hasn't supported XP in years, unless you buy a support contract. I believe Vista is in the same status, and Win7 is joining it next year. So what's your point there? You don't have one, I see.

As for backwards compatibility, MS broke huge swaths of apps when Vista came out. Apple switched architectures and supported code from the previous architecture for years. I think you need to stop drinking the koolaid, it appears you've had enough.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

As for backwards compatibility, MS broke huge swaths of apps when Vista came out.

Oft repeated and oft wrong. What MS did with Vista was enforce by default that the user was not an administrator. That did break poorly written applications that violated the standard security practices as published by Microsoft since the release of Windows NT 3.1. Those same applications would have failed running under a standard Domain User for the same reasons. But what Microsoft did include by default with UAC is silent mitigation of the two most common violations by redirecting attempts at writing to either %PROGRAMFILES% or HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE to a directory under the user's profile or to HKEY_CURRENT_MACHINE respectively.

There were a few other breaking scenarios, generally involving drivers, but they were the exception and not the norm.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

So.. what about users pre 10.6? Forgotten? Microsoft still supports XP Does Apple still support OS X 10.1? They were released at the same time in 2001. I think nothing illustrates the difference between the companies than that fact. Apple obsoletes their users by force while Microsoft bends over backwards to maintain not only support but backward compatability.

You know why? DoD, Wall Street, and DoE labs need backward compatibility for their legacy systems running Windows XP. Hell, I even saw a Windows 2000 box hooked to a piece of equipment in a lab just last year! Apple doesn't want to play in that market so Microsoft takes the arrow of having to keep legacy code running or get bushwhacked by their biggest paying customers. Apple's market is the average consumer, NOT the banking, research equipment or military sectors. There's your clue for the day. The next bus will be by shortly.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Tom]

Yeah, but there's been only 2 releases of windows since then, while there have been 7 releases of OS X.

The iteration cycle of OS X is faster. If you don't like it, then nobody forces you to buy it, stay with windows.

Also, a new version of OS X is something like 20 or 30 bucks, while a new version of windows is ten times that amount. There's little excuse to still be running OS X 10.1

Re:Yes, they are.

[immaterial]

Note that the 16th December patch to Mavericks appears to fix bugs that exist in older versions of Mac OS, which did not receive an update. There are all security patches specifically, not just feature updates.

Mavericks 10.9.1: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT6084 "OS X Mavericks v10.9.1 includes the security content of Safari 7.0.1."

The same update that appears for Lion and Mountain Lion on the same day (the security issues were not present in Safari 5). You are a liar.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Lawrence_Bird]

Support as in security and bug fixes. When was the last one released for OS X anything below 10.6?

Re:Yes, they are.

[Lawrence_Bird]

That is only true since OS X 10.6. Prior upgrades: OSX 10.4 was $130 as was 10.5. And your point about iteration is not quite true either. Windows just put out 8.1 (for free). IIRC both XP and 7 got enhancements at the time official service packs were released.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anubis IV]

So after the 22nf of October 2013 when Mavericks was released they don't seem to be back-porting all their patches for either the OS or all apps.

From what I can tell, the list you're citing disproves every single claim you made, rather than affirming them.

They backported their Apple Remote Desktop security update (did you think they updated 3.5.4, which runs on older machines, on the same day as 3.7 just for fun?). Same goes for the Safari update, which saw versions of the app intended for older systems getting updated (again, did you miss the whole 6.1.1 in addition to 7.0.1 update thing in your list?). The Keynote security update was related to a feature introduced in the Mavericks-only version of Keynote, so backporting wasn't necessary. Likewise for the OS X Server 3.0 update, from what I can gather (though I'll admit I may be incorrect on this point).

Note that the 16th December patch to Mavericks appears to fix bugs that exist in older versions of Mac OS, which did not receive an update.

At this point, it's pretty clear you just decided to make stuff up about what was in the Mavericks update, since the entire security update for Mavericks consists of this one bullet point:

OS X Mavericks v10.9.1 includes the security content of Safari 7.0.1.

I.e. The Mavericks and Safari updates are patching the exact same security issue, hence why they were released on the same day, and as I already pointed out, the Safari update that was released was intended for older systems. How you can claim to have knowledge of what the Mavericks update fixes while not knowing that it was the exact same as the Safari update is beyond me.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anubis IV]

It's true. And there are benefits and drawbacks to doing so.

For Microsoft, it means that their customers rarely get left behind, and that they rarely will upgrade to discover that their favorite seldom-used feature has been phased out. On the flipside, it means that Microsoft's designs are saddled by needing to accommodate loads of legacy features, which leads to bloated designs with inconsistencies like mixed metaphors and cluttered UIs.

The exact opposite is true with Apple. They're unafraid to leave behind customers who don't keep up, and they're unafraid to cut out features that they can't or don't want to fit into the latest version of their software. But it also means that they are able to polish the latest iThing to its utmost, providing a tight user experience that isn't held back by needing to fit in legacy features.

Pick the one that appeals to you, or choose Linux, but don't fault Microsoft for not being Apple, or Apple for not being Microsoft. The two companies are cut from entirely different cloth, and it's for everyone's benefit that that's the case, since otherwise computing might be quite a bit more boring.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Disappointing that such an idiotic post gets modded up to +5. I guess this kind of flaw is inherent to the mod system - there are more mods who mod based on gut feeling than on actual info.

Literally everything in this post is teechnically-correct-but-factually-misleading.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as Anubis IV's post is correct but is getting modded troll, I am reposting it here without the negativity:

So after the 22nf of October 2013 when Mavericks was released they don't seem to be back-porting all their patches for either the OS or all apps.

They backported their Apple Remote Desktop security update (Version 3.5.4, which runs on older machines and covers the same update, was released on the same day as 3.7). Same goes for the Safari update, which saw versions of the app intended for older systems getting updated (6.1.1 (old systems) vs. 7.0.1 (new systems)). The Keynote security update was related to a feature introduced in the Mavericks-only version of Keynote, so backporting wasn't necessary. Likewise for the OS X Server 3.0 update, from what I can gather (though I'll admit I may be incorrect on this point).

Note that the 16th December patch to Mavericks appears to fix bugs that exist in older versions of Mac OS, which did not receive an update.

The security update for Mavericks consists of this one bullet point [apple.com]:

OS X Mavericks v10.9.1 includes the security content of Safari 7.0.1.

I.e. The Mavericks and Safari updates are patching the same security issue, hence why they were released on the same day, and the Safari update that was released was intended for older systems.

Re:Yes, they are.

[AmiMoJo]

Exactly as I said. They updated some apps, but not the core OS. Too bad if you use an app that wasn't updated our the OS.

Re:Yes, they are.

[guruevi]

Microsoft also releases updates only when necessary, the problem is that every Tuesday it's necessary to update your Windows computer. BTW: Solaris boxes regularly have uptime well over 400 days and need one or two patches once every couple of months, even though they run mission-critical and high-profile systems, well-designed systems simply don't require an inordinate amount of management.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

So.. what about users pre 10.6? Forgotten? Microsoft still supports XP Does Apple still support OS X 10.1? They were released at the same time in 2001.

Microsoft did drop support vor the original XP long ago. What is still supported is Windows XP Service Pack 3, which was released in 2008.

Re:Yes, they are.

[umafuckit]

MS hasn't supported XP in years, unless you buy a support contract.

They were releasing security updates, though. Still are, aren't they? The point of the previous user's post is that Apple aren't doing even that for an OS that's much newer.

Re:Yes, they are.

[spongman]

solaris boxes don't tend to run web browsers used by idiots that like to download the latest puppy screensaver from russia.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Waccoon]

What's a release? A complete re-engineering with a massive UI overhaul? "Service packs" and "technical improvements?" A new version number? A pricetag on the update?

For quite some time, OSX has seen only small changes here and there. It's iOS that gets the major overhaul on a regular basis.

Also, a new version of OS X is something like 20 or 30 bucks, while a new version of windows is ten times that amount. There's little excuse to still be running OS X 10.1

Other than what many people in this thread are complaining about the new OSX (and Windows8): old stuff not working on the new OS.

Re:Yes, they are.

[UnknowingFool]

This is what you said:

So after the 22nf of October 2013 when Mavericks was released they don't seem to be back-porting all their patches for either the OS or all apps. Note that the 16th December patch to Mavericks appears to fix bugs that exist in older versions of Mac OS, which did not receive an update. There are all security patches specifically, not just feature updates.

You specifically said "apps" which is not true if you actually read what you wrote. Also you are arbitrarily choosing Oct 22nd as a date because on Oct 03, a patch was released for Mountain Lion. It's been 4 months since that patch. Apple then released Mavericks and then a small update for Mavericks a few months later (which is normal for them). When Apple hasn't released patches for at least six months for older versions then you might have a point.

Re:Yes, they are.

[AmiMoJo]

I said "all apps". You even quoted it in bold. Some apps, like Safari, get updates but others do not.

Re:Yes, they are.

[UnknowingFool]

Wow you are really grasping at straws now. Apple updated their older OS on Oct 3 which you conveniently chose to leave out. By your ridiculous standard, MS must update every single one of their products within 4 months or they've abandoned Vista. Face it, you were wrong.

Re:Yes, they are.

[strikethree]

I'm not sure where the author gets the idea that Apple has stopped releasing security updates for older systems.

The article is correct. I have a Macbook Pro (5.1) which I run Snow Leopard on. Ever since they advertised a "security update" that prepares my operating system for Mavericks, I have not received any security updates.

To put that more clearly, all security updates for Snow Leopard have stopped. You must change your OS to Mavericks to get security updates.

I will not be changing the operating system on my computer and I will not be buying anymore Macs. Hell, I do not even run Windows anymore. All of the vendors suck hard.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Gr8Apes]

July 2011 It also states that SL is suspected to have reached EOL as of Sep 2013, based on patch release history.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Gr8Apes]

Call it what you want, the undisputed fact is a large number of applications widely in use and some even promoted by MS no longer ran in the new OS as is, and required patches. So I'll keep repeating that fact as appropriate.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Gr8Apes]

Apple continued to support PowerPC architectures for roughly 8 years after switching hardware. That is probably the best statement of support that can be made and goes far beyond what MS did with XP.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but there's been only 2 releases of windows since then, while there have been 7 releases of OS X.

The iteration cycle of OS X is faster. If you don't like it, then nobody forces you to buy it, stay with windows.

Also, a new version of OS X is something like 20 or 30 bucks, while a new version of windows is ten times that amount. There's little excuse to still be running OS X 10.1

Over those "7" major releases the price has varied quite a bit. If you paid the $100-something for 10.0 they gave you 10.1 for free. 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 were like $129 retail. ( In education we were able to get it for a third of that.) 10.6 you could get a disc for $30 which I think is $20 now direct from apple. Then they went digital download for the rest with 10.7 and 10.8 being $30. 10.9 being free is probably because it is just being subsidized by the NSA because they like it on all those computers with mics and cameras for some reason.

Whatever the schedule or cost, the general populous still does not understand that early adopter syndrome applies to software too.

I prefer a physical disc over digital download and i stopped at 10.6 (which also supports my legacy stuff) At least with linux I can make my own discs.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is only true since OS X 10.6. Prior upgrades: OSX 10.4 was $130 as was 10.5.

Who cares? That was then, this is now, and Tom was talking about now, not then.

As a matter of fact Apple has continued the downward pricing trend: the current version, 10.9, is $0. Yes, really, $0. Anyone with the Mac App Store installed on their Mac (which is to say anyone with 10.6.8 or later installed) can download 10.9 for free, provided that it's supported on their computer. If you wanted to provide a snotty "well no that's not true" response, you could've at least corrected Tom with the current price of OS X instead of the nearly-7-years-old price of a completely obsolete version that he wasn't even attempting to talk about.

And your point about iteration is not quite true either. Windows just put out 8.1 (for free).

Not unless you already own a copy of Windows 8.0. 8.1 is what Microsoft used to call a "service pack", is it not?

(If there's a way to get 8.1 for free without owning 8.0 and without piracy, I'd sure like to know it. It would be useful to set up an 8.1 virtual machine with.)

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

For quite some time, OSX has seen only small changes here and there. It's iOS that gets the major overhaul on a regular basis.

This is an Apple-hater meme which is completely false. As a matter of fact, since Apple shares so much code between iOS and OS X, a "major overhaul" for one implies that the same should (and will) happen to the other, sooner or later.

Does Apple completely upend the OS X UI often the way they did with iOS from 6 to 7? Nope. But you are falling for another ill-informed meme if you believe that changing the skin of a UI is a sign of a whole-OS "overhaul". For all that iOS 7 looks so different from iOS 6, the controls and gestures function pretty much the same, and my understanding is that the underlying software is evolution of iOS 6, not revolution.

Getting back to OS X, Apple famously spent an entire release cycle (10.6) on a true non-UI overhaul. They modernized and optimized the inner workings to set themselves up for focusing future releases on user-facing features. It was one of the most popular releases of OS X because from a users' perspective it took 10.5 (which most people were pretty happy with) and perfected it.

Subsequent releases have all included far more user-visible changes than 10.6, and some of these have caused controversy. Mostly in pundit circles, not with real users -- prior to the release of 10.7 "Lion" there was much screaming and wailing that adapting some UI features from iOS meant that Apple was trying to make OS X into iOS. The wailing turned out to be baseless because (in keeping with Apple's own public statements about their own direction) they were actually just adapting (not copying un-altered) a handful of iOS UI features which Apple thought might make sense on the desktop, rather than trying to force the whole of the iOS interface onto desktop users.

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post (and TFA) seems to be jumping to conclusions.

10.5 = Leopard (October 2007)
10.6 = Snow Leopard (August 2009)
10.7 = Lion (July 2011)
10.8 = Mountain Lion (July 2012)
10.9 = Mavericks (October 2013)

IIRC, security updates for 10.5 ceased when Apple released OS X 10.8, and this was a pattern on previous releases too -- they (usually) support hardware and operating systems for about 5 years. (Note for nitpickers: only talking about desktop stuff here. iOS is different.) If it is true that they have stopped security patches for 10.6, the OS you're running, it's a little ahead of the informal schedule, but not by much.

I say "if" because we don't even know whether that's true yet -- Apple doesn't announce things like this (which is one of their faults, IMO, they tend to be far too uncommunicative). I have a computer running 10.6.8 too and the frequency of security updates in recent years has seemed uneven. Not having had one in the ~three months since the release of Mavericks doesn't imply much to me, especially since we just went through the holiday season (which always slows Apple down, they pretty much shut down for two or three weeks).

Re:Yes, they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

You quickly understand that Apple is not releasing security upgrades for older versions of OS X by comparing the CVEs (aka security issues) documented as fixed in OS X 10.9 versus documentation that those CVEs are fixed in earlier versions of OS X (If you don't know what a CVE is then you are aren't reading Apple Security documentation let alone any other security documentation).

Apple has repeatedly ignored security issues, the number of outstanding issues is much worse with the older versions of OS X. A simple example is OpenSSL versions, track all the CVE's for OpenSSL and find out which ones Apple documented as fixed for it's different versions. There are dozens of other CVE's that Apple has ignored. Compare that track record with Debian Linux (though Apple did fix one OpenSSL CVE faster than Debian Linux, once...).

On top of that nobody has mentioned the serious bug in OS X 10.8.x where software updates don't even appear in the GUI interface, you have to use the Terminal to update 50% of those machines.

When you support 50+ OS X machines you learn about problems that aren't documented.

OS X 10.7, 10.8, and 10.9 are virtually the same OS, only difference from a MS Service Pack is that 10.8 is a paid update.

OS X 10.9 has numerous problems, I can't even log into my Open Directory Account (serviced by a 10.9 server) from an 10.9 machine anymore, but no problem from a 10.8 machine. All I did was change my DHCP hosting from my router to the server. Before that I couldn't use iCloud document hosting with Apple's Office software because I was using an Open Directory account under OS X 10.9. The official response is that that feature is disabled because OS X server is an enterprise product and enterprise users shouldn't be using iCloud for documents. OS X Server is a $20 product that they dumbed down to make it usable for home and small business use and they dictate which features you can use. What percentage of purchases of OS X Server are business related? At $20 I'm sure home use overwhelms business use.

Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[nonsequitor]

When my iPhone 3G could not be upgraded to iOS4, I switched to andriod for security concerns.
Then my 2 generation intel Macbook Pro was too old to upgrade to Mavericks, so I bought a Lenovo.
I'm seeing a pattern here. I will not buy Apple anymore as a result of their withholding security updates from older and perfectly functional hardware. My response is not to buy a newer model, but to switch away from Apple products.
I initially switched to Apple because I liked their hardware and as a developer I wanted to experience a variety of OS's. Seeing how they abandon products only a few years old has left a sour taste in my mouth, I'm done buying Apple products, I've learned my lesson.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

My Core2 MacBook Pro upgraded to Mavericks without a problem.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

When my iPhone 3G could not be upgraded to iOS4, I switched to andriod for security concerns.
Then my 2 generation intel Macbook Pro was too old to upgrade to Mavericks, so I bought a Lenovo.
I'm seeing a pattern here. I will not buy Apple anymore as a result of their withholding security updates from older and perfectly functional hardware. My response is not to buy a newer model, but to switch away from Apple products.
I initially switched to Apple because I liked their hardware and as a developer I wanted to experience a variety of OS's. Seeing how they abandon products only a few years old has left a sour taste in my mouth, I'm done buying Apple products, I've learned my lesson.

Statement 1 is a lie. The iPhone 3G was upgraded to iOS 4.

And your Late 2006 laptop could be upgraded to Lion which still receives security fixes.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if you're being a troll throwing out bait, or if you're just misguided and uninformed, but I'll assume the latter: you're making premature statements and erroneous assumptions. You're assuming this article is legit, while it in fact contains multiple mistakes and errors, as well as deliberate allusion errors. You're jumping on the bandwagon. Also, the iPhone 3G runs iOS4, and the second generation MB Pro runs Maverick (in fact, even the 2007 non-pro MacBooks run Mavericks) - not sure where you got the idea that it doesn't, but I suppose you leapt to those conclusions as well without looking into it.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Sockatume]

When iOS 4 came out, you switched to Android because you wanted more software updates? Summer 2010, at the height of the Android software update panic, when Motorola had to be pressured to even update the Droid to 2.2, and most phones were lucky to see an update outside of the first six months?

Then when you couldn't get a new version of MacOS for a five-year-old laptop, rather than just install Windows 7 on it, you bought a whole new computer?

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[carlhaagen]

Troll detected. But just in case... iOS 4 does actually run on the 3G, and Mavericks runs on as hold hardware as the last normal MB models prior to the Pro notation, which I believe were released in 2007.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

When my iPhone 3G could not be upgraded to iOS4, I switched to andriod for security concerns.
Then my 2 generation intel Macbook Pro was too old to upgrade to Mavericks, so I bought a Lenovo.
I'm seeing a pattern here. I will not buy Apple anymore as a result of their withholding security updates from older and perfectly functional hardware. My response is not to buy a newer model, but to switch away from Apple products.
I initially switched to Apple because I liked their hardware and as a developer I wanted to experience a variety of OS's. Seeing how they abandon products only a few years old has left a sour taste in my mouth, I'm done buying Apple products, I've learned my lesson.

So, that Windows XP-era Core2 laptop you've got lying around I'm certain will have NO problems whatsoever installing and running Windows 8.1, since all Windows software runs with maximum efficiency. 5+ years from now, let us know how your Lenovo runs on the latest and greatest Windows software, since that's exactly the kind of bullshit you're demanding from Apple.

Hardware eventually does need replacing. This is not fucking news at 11. Just because you blew 2 grand on a laptop doesn't mean it's going to last twice as long, but you probably own a BMW for the same reason.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[jeremyp]

The second gen Macbook Pro is supported with Mavericks. In fact, the only Macbook Pros not supported seem to be the original 32 bit only ones.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[nonsequitor]

Only for a very limited definition of run. I had dropped calls increase to about 1 in 5 and the software made the phone run sluggish. It cannot be upgraded beyond that and upgrading to that point is a mistake if you actually like to use your phone.

You are all calling me a troll, but I don't like being extorted into hardware upgrades due to lack of continued support for older hardware.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[CastrTroy]

You switched to Android because you iPhone couldn't get an update? Hope you picked the right model. Android phones have terrible track records for receiving updates. Many of them never receive an update after leaving the factory floor. People say the Nexus line of phones get better support, but I'm not sure if I believe that. The Nexus One is stuck on Gingerbread (2.3) after only being released in 2010. The Nexus S is only at 4.1, Then Galaxy Nexus is at 4.2 or 4.3 depending on the hardware revision. The only ones you can run the latest OS on are the Nexus 4 and 5, the former of which is only from late 2012. Meanwhile, in with Apple, IOS 7 is supported all the way back to the iPhone 4, which was released in early 2011.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[kommakazi]

Hardware becomes obsolete, or at least too old to run current software. That's a fact of life, always has been. You logic is fatally flawed. Once your android phone is not able to be updated (hell it already may be) are you going to switch to something else? Once you Lenovo laptop is too old to run Windows are you going to switch to some other OS? Do you expect to pull an old 386 out of the basement and install Windows 8 on it? You're fucking stupid.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[nonsequitor]

I needed to buy a laptop with a German keyboard since I now work in Germany and need practice with the new layout (it's more than just Z & Y reversed if you code for a living). Switching to Windows 7 is what I did with that laptop but that's not what the article is about. It's about updating OS X, not Windows, who's trolling now?

By the time I realized iOS 4 had borked my phone, CyanogenMod was an option for Android.

It's not about more "Software Updates", it's about adequate security for devices I use for online banking.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[nonsequitor]

When was the last time iOS 4 recieved a security update? Additionally, if you actually had an iPhone 3G you would know that upgrading to iOS 4 basically rendered it useless even though it was technically possible.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

So wait, let me get this straight, you switched from a device that got three major (as it *did* support iOS 4), and several minor OS updates, to a device that will never receive any updates at all, because the manufacturer will never push out the patches to you?

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Culture20]

I've got a couple single core laptops with 2GB of RAM from the XP era which would have no problems running win7 or win8. Maybe a little slow, but they'd get security updates. They're currently running latest versions of Linux and are definitely getting updates.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Additionally, if you actually had an iPhone 3G you would know that upgrading to iOS 4 basically rendered it useless in my feebleminded opinion even though it was technically possible.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[nonsequitor]

My late 2006 2nd generation intel Macbook Pro cannot be upgraded to Mavericks. I'm not making this up just to spite the Apple fanboys, I got an error message when I was attempting the upgrade. That's hardly leaping to conclusions..
And the iPhone 3G hardly runs iOS 4, since it causes the phone which worked fine before the update to drop 1 in 5 calls. And it certainly cannot be upgraded beyond that point meaning it does not receive anymore security updates.

In short, I would have to be a fool to continue using my iPhone 3G for anything important like online banking. And by extension, I would be a fool to buy more Apple products given their propensity to force users to buy newer hardware if they want to be able to receive security patches.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[TangoMargarine]

Just get one of those plastic keyboard covers and remap the key layout!

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[nonsequitor]

You're comparing 20+ year old hardware not being able to run the latest software, to 2 year old hardware not being able to run the latest software and I'm the idiot? I was late to buy the iPhone 3G, does that mean it's okay for Apple to stop providing updates less than 18 months later??

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[nonsequitor]

I replaced it with a Samsung Galaxy S which is now running CyanogenMod, no regrets here.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[nonsequitor]

It's more than just that, a lot of the keys are a different shape too. I still get lots of #'s when going for enter even after 9 months here. Gotta train new muscle memory. Fortunately, learning the QWERTZ layout hasn't degraded my ability to type on a QWERTY keyboard in the slightest.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah so the story has changed. Way to go champ.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I was late to buy the iPhone 3G, does that mean it's okay for Apple to stop providing updates less than 18 months later??

Yes

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

When my iPhone 3G could not be upgraded to iOS4, I switched to andriod for security concerns.

Funny,

when I got Galaxy S, it was never updated to new Android release (ever). I switched to iPhone TO BE ABLE TO GET the latest OS updates for security reasons. At least, with Apple, I am guaranteed 2-3 years of updates from release date. On Android, with US phone companies to "support" you, you are guaranteed NO updates ever.

I have learned the lesson differently ;-)

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

It made it so slow there was no reason to use it. Certainly not worth the premium Apple pricing.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll detected

Fanboi detected...

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[CrashNBrn]

Not correct, we have an iMac that's about 6 years old, and a MacPro Core2Duo (x64) from early 2007.
Neither can upgrade past Lion. And if we upgrade those machines past Snow Leopard, all the Adobe software needs to be repurchased - architechture change - will not run on Lion or beyond.

Now compare that to my PC-Desktop/Workstation, since 2005 (it's original build) I've changed the CPU and Motherboard once (plus replacements of the mobo upgrade due to failures), added Ram twice: switched to 8GB (2x4GB) for ~$80, then added 16GB on a crazy tiger-direct sale last year ~$90 (delivery took 4 weeks).

Original cost of the first 2005 build, including monitor, ~$800. Plus upgrades (including newer HD's) $500.

My PC started with Win2K in 2005, Win7 in 2011-2012, and Win8 for $30 last year.

Year-in-year-out the non-Mac PC can be kept up to date for linux or Windows with minimal upgrades that really don't cost that much. Whereas Mac propositions are almost always replacing the machine completely at a nearly unreasonable cost.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

A 2006 MacBook Pro is first generation, and early first generation at that. 32-bit EFI is not supported starting in OS X 10.8, but since that machine was 7 years old when 10.9 was released, it's hardly a tragedy. Very little software is incompatible with 10.7, which your computer does support.

Indeed, you could have installed Windows 7 on it and continued to use it without buying a new computer if you were upset about "forced" software updates from Apple. But in fact, what you needed to do was replace a 7-year old machine and get one with a new keyboard layout, so you decided to troll for dramatic effect.

Just like claiming you "can't" install iOS 4 on your phone, when you can, but it lacks the hardware resources to run well. Considering the similar hardware-lock conditions of Android hardware of similar vintage. Humorously, you bought a Galaxy S to replace it, which came with Android 2.2 and could only officially be upgraded to 2.3 (one year of updates). Meanwhile, the iPhone 4 of the same vintage, which shipped with iOS 4, will run and support iOS 7 (three years of updates).

Yet you seem to claim that the Galaxy S was a solution to your inability to upgrade your phone's software.

If you got tired of Apple and bought something else, congratulations, but your trolling drama fest is horseshit.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to make shit up at least do your fucking research. I'm typing this from Mavericks on a mid-2007 iMac.

Why do people do this? Why does this affect you so personally that you lie?

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anubis IV]

When my iPhone 3G could not be upgraded to iOS4

You and I must exist in different realities, since my iPhone 3G seemed to be able to upgrade to iOS 4 just fine. I ran it that way for about six months, before upgrading the entire family to newer models.

Then my 2 generation intel Macbook Pro was too old to upgrade to Mavericks, so I bought a Lenovo.

Every single second-gen (i.e. unibody) MacBook Pro is capable of running Mavericks. Most first-gen (pre-unibody) MacBook Pros can do so as well, in fact.

If you don't want to buy Apple products, that's fine (I certainly have my own reasons for not buying most of what they make), but don't try to pass off false rationalizations you've created for yourself as fact.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you just had some bad timing with models. The next iPhone model, the 3GS, received 4 years of software updates. The iPhone 4 will run iOS7.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anubis IV]

Additionally, if you actually had an iPhone 3G you would know that upgrading to iOS 4 basically rendered it useless even though it was technically possible.

...says the guy who claims he didn't update to iOS 4. As for me, I actually did have an iPhone 3G and actually did update it to iOS 4. iOS ran fine. My only issue was that a small handful of my apps got updated with new features that made them perform sluggishly. That was to be expected, given the big performance gains occurring between hardware revisions and the fact that developers would be eager to take advantage of them. The iPhone 4 I replaced it with back in 2010 only just got replaced two weeks ago, since it was only just now starting to feel a bit long-in-the-tooth, but I'd have been content to keep it for longer.

When was the last time iOS 4 recieved a security update?

July 2011, three years after the iPhone 3G's release. Updates were indeed more frequent on Android, but they were also going out to fewer devices due to the carriers and manufacturers controlling how they get pushed out (not much has changed on that front, unfortunately). At the time you upgraded, I can't think of a single Android phone that had a software update lifetime anywhere close to as long as the 3G's, so it seems a bit disingenuous of you to suggest you abandoned the 3G for Android over a lack of updates. Considering the best-supported Android phone at the time you jumped ship was the Nexus One, which only received software updates for 21 months before being end-of-lifed, your rationalization for switching to Android doesn't make much sense (which isn't to say that you didn't have your reasons, just that the ones you've provided are factually inaccurate and irrational).

Since that time, Apple has improved their support for iPhones from three years to four, based on this compatibility chart, while Android phones remain a bit of a hodge-podge, with very few currently-sold ones even shipping with the latest version of the OS, let alone receiving updates for an extended period of time. Of course, Google is doing a bit of an end-run around the carriers and manufacturers with some of their recent changes, so that may help matters.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[mcgrew]

I'm seeing a pattern here. I will not buy Apple anymore as a result of their withholding security updates from older and perfectly functional hardware. My response is not to buy a newer model, but to switch away from Apple products.

Considering XP's end of life in a few months, Microsoft is equally bad here (and there are even more reasons to avoid Microsoft). That said, the only Apple I have is an ancient G3 that still works (or did the last time I turned it on). What's the use of quality hardware when you need to landfill it in a few years?

That's one of the things I like about Linux. When the last XP patch comes out I can simply throw kubuntu on it and it will run like a champ. I'm not sure how hard it would be to get Linux on an older Mac box, I'm sure there would be at least driver issues.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[JabrTheHut]

All your adobe software has to be repurchased and that's Apple's fault? Why don't you admit Adobe is price gouging you?

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[AmiMoJo]

Another way to look at it is that Google decided that the new OS wouldn't run well enough on old hardware so didn't push it at users. They still get feature updates via core apps, so for example can run the latest Maps or Gmail. For people who really busy have the latest version the boot loader is unlocked so they can install cyanogen, but for most users this seems to be a reasonable compromise given how relatively old the hardware is now.

Apple gets 95%+ adoption of its updates, but they make older phones horrendously show and there is no way to downgrade. At least with Google your phone remains as good as the day you bought it.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I was late to buy the iPhone 3G, does that mean it's okay for Apple to stop providing updates less than 18 months later??

When you personally chose to buy it has no bearing on how much software support you get. If you choose to buy outdated hardware, that's your decision and you'd have to be an idiot not to know that one of the consequences is a shorter usable life.

The 3G was introduced in June 2008. It received all current software updates until October 2011--40 months. For it to have been purchased "less than 18 months" before the updates stopped, you would have had to buy it in February or March of 2010. Don't bitch that you bought a product that was already nearly two years old. Identify just one Android phone released in the same season as the iPhone 3G that had a longer usable life.

Your Android phone received exactly one official update, a year after launch. That's it. Had you started with an Android phone of similar vintage to the iPhone 3G, you probably would have received ZERO post-purchase updates. You're butthurt about one and not the other, but the wrong one.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[umafuckit]

Don't even bother with the cover, just re-map the layout. I type Greek sometimes. I've go keyboard layout changes bound to a short-cut combo and away I go. You learn the layout pretty quickly that way and it's totally free. I don't think the German layout has extra keys, so no new keyboard needed.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[umafuckit]

Which keys are different shapes and is that manufacturer specific? I ask because I too might have to learn the German layout soon.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[bhiestand]

Only for a very limited definition of run. I had dropped calls increase to about 1 in 5 and the software made the phone run sluggish. It cannot be upgraded beyond that and upgrading to that point is a mistake if you actually like to use your phone.

You are all calling me a troll, but I don't like being extorted into hardware upgrades due to lack of continued support for older hardware.

They're calling you a troll because you lied.

When my iPhone 3G could not be upgraded to iOS4, I switched to andriod for security concerns.

It was upgraded to iOS4, but it had some sort of bug, so you switched to a platform that was currently far worse for updates. Statement above? False.

Then my 2 generation intel Macbook Pro was too old to upgrade to Mavericks, so I bought a Lenovo.

Again, false. Do you mean that Mavericks was buggy for you? If you supplied the actual model number and configuration I could tell you why you couldn't upgrade (maybe a bad DIMM so don't meet 2 GB requirement?) .

All second generation MacBook Pros meet the OS X Mavericks System Requirements. As do the bulk of 1st generation MacBook Pros (2007 on).

Not that the truth really matters, since apparently you wanted to switch laptops to get a German keyboard anyways. And you wonder why we call you a troll?

---

As I went to post this, noticed in another post that you had defined it as "late 2006 2nd generation". Either wiki is wrong, or your description is. To my knowledge, that is first generation. Either way, good luck getting over 7 years out of your Lenovo laptop.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple

[mcgrew]

I'm reminded of someone's sig, something like "If I'm modded troll it's because a fanboi has mod points."

Mac OS vs Windows XP

[DogDude]

That's some real troll-bait comparing Mac OS to Windows XP. There's really little similarity. Microsoft is discontinuing security patches for a 12 year old OS. Apple is discontinuing security updates for an 18 month old OS.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft won't stop offering patches for months. Apple is doing it now. Just another example of how Apple is ahead of the curve.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

...and still, Microsoft is evil and Apple is cool...

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[jeremyp]

There's no evidence that Apple has stopped providing security updates for older versions of OS X.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[kqs]

It's even less similar than that, since Apple hasn't actually discontinued security updates. So it's bullshit all the way down.

I'm amused how many people actually believed this article, though. Sometimes I wonder why the quality of journalism is so low, but then I realize that the journalists are giving us exactly what we want. Sigh.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[kommakazi]

Some evidence to back this up? Thought so.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[UnknowingFool]

Apple isn't discontinuing security updates to Mountain Lion. Even in the link provided, Apple updated Safari just last month and updates to versions as old as Snow Leopard in October. Unlike MS, Apple doesn't have a regular patch Tuesday.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

The Apple article is actually hogwash, but could we stop calling XP a 12 year old OS? Yes the namesake was released 12 years ago but the last version was released only 5 years ago.

It's not as bad as the Sophos rubbish, but it's still dishonest distortion.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

They're BOTH evil... ALL corporations are inherantly evil... evil soulless corporations, beholden ONLY to their stockholders..

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

really? try getting Safari updated when you are not on the latest version of the OS, oh you can't?, that's right.
the problem is that Apple bundles all apps as part of the OS, Safari is not a separate install from the OS so if you want browser security updates, you need to upgrade the whole OS. The same goes for Mail and many other apps, even if iLife and other Pro tools are sold separately, newer versions are likely to require an OS upgrade.
this is silly considering that apps on OSX can rely on static libraries and could in theory be OS version independent.

furthermore, there's a considerable amount of people (maybe not the majority though) that some times do not upgrade because you usually loose stuff, like USB sync for the iPhone, which is removed from Mavericks. Apple is worse than Microsoft in that regard, Apple breaks backward compatibility very often (dock connector -silly thing to do considering the size of the iPads and the fact that they will end up releasing bigger iPhones, so a smaller connector, which killed true 1080p output by the way, was a mistake anyway) and without any reason. That goes as far as iOS 7 and its stupid borderless buttons that set back usability to prehistoric times.

Windows looks ugly (especially since Vista) and is virus ridden and crash prone, etc. but Microsoft does a whole better job at keeping backwards compatibility. The reason may be that they make as much (if not more) money with Office and other services than with Windows, so as long as they can sell you a new version of that, they are fine. For Apple is about the same just that they do not make much money with Macs and whatever money they do is with the hardware and not the software, so they have an incentive to sell you new hardware, and given the stupid GHz race is off because computers have practically reached a speed peak (for consumers at least), the only way to sell you new hardware is thru software.

Compared with the iOS app store, is different because they make money with the hardware and then everytime you buy some app, so they have an incentive to have as many compatible devices as possible ready to buy new apps.

Compared to Google and other phone manufactures, the phone manufacturers only make money when they sell a phone, so their incentive is to sell you a new one, not that you update it to run newer apps, because they don't get a cut there, Google does, but then again Google makes most of its money with ads, regardless of the version of Android installed, so their incentive is to have as many devices running Android as possible and if that means that they have to keep the phone manufacturers happy by not updating the Google branded ones, they will keep them happy.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the "windows XP" you are referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP

It says it was released August 24, 2001.

Perhaps you are mistaken a "service pack" (bug fixes, etc) for a release?
SP3 was released in 2008 so i guess that is where you get the "only 5 years ago"?

Even with the service pack, it still identifies itself as "XP sp3 which is a different model then OS-X and its 10.x stuff.

Regardless of your confusion over XP and the Service pack, 5 years is still older then the 18 months people are discussing on the thread.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

there is also no evidence that there is anything between your ears except empty space.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP

[Anonymous Coward]

really? try getting Safari updated when you are not on the latest version of the OS, oh you can't?, that's right.

Please don't lie. I have gotten Safari updates on not-latest versions of OS X many, many times. Through Apple's official update channels, not hacks.

the problem is that Apple bundles all apps as part of the OS, Safari is not a separate install from the OS so if you want browser security updates, you need to upgrade the whole OS.

I repeat: please don't lie. It is clear from what you're writing that you have no direct experience with how things work in Apple-land and are merely operating by assuming that your worst prejudices must be true.

Not really going to bother reading the rest of your giant wall of trollfail.

No evidence to support it

[MrMickS]

Looking at the Apple update release page there hasn't been a Security Update since Mavericks was released so there is no evidence to support the assertion from Sophos.

The last Security Update from Apple was 2013-004 and included updates for Snow Leopard, Lion, and Mountain Lion. Until Apple releases a security update that *only* targets Mavericks this is just Sophos FUD.

Re:No evidence to support it

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the Apple update release page there hasn't been a Security Update since Mavericks was released so there is no evidence to support the assertion from Sophos.

The last Security Update from Apple was 2013-004 and included updates for Snow Leopard, Lion, and Mountain Lion. Until Apple releases a security update that *only* targets Mavericks this is just Sophos FUD.

Since Apple has listed Mavericks itself as a security update, if you're not installing it, then you are in fact not getting security updates.

Call it Mavericks. Call it Toad Yogurt. Call it Security Update #7175.23. Call it Lucy. Just don't call me ignorant. Install it, or remain vulnerable. Period. This isn't hype or bullshit. It's common fucking sense.

Re:No evidence to support it

[Uberbah]

Since Apple has listed Mavericks itself as a security update, if you're not installing it, then you are in fact not getting security updates.

Call it Mavericks. Call it Toad Yogurt. Call it Security Update #7175.23. Call it Lucy. Just don't call me ignorant. Install it, or remain vulnerable. Period. This isn't hype or bullshit. It's common fucking sense.

It's a fucking tautology, is what that is. Name another version of OS X where support was immediately dumped for the previous version.

Well no wonder!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac OS was deprecated 12 years ago when OS X stepped in.

As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[MikeRT]

I have a 5.5 year old MBP and it runs Mavericks almost perfectly as well as it ran Leopard. The case for not upgrading to Mavericks if you have a x86 Mac that is the age of mine or newer is based almost entirely on being a curmudgeon who doesn't want someone telling him to just move onto the next version. The vast majority of the refuseniks are likely not savvy users objecting to the "iOSification" of MacOS X or something like that, but ordinary idiots who blink at you with a blank expression when you ask what version of OS X they use. "Huh? Macs haver versions?" Yeah. My wife and I have met a lot of casual Mac users who don't seem to understand that no, really, MacOS X has versions just like Windows and that using the same OS X that came with your Mac three or four years later is like saying "I don't need that service pack shit" on Windows.

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[Malc]

My MBP is just about to turn six (and it's had almost as many batteries, but that's a different story). Mavericks breathes new life in to it because of memory compression. The 6GB RAM I've got in it just ain't enough anymore, but it doesn't hit the swap file as much as it did before.

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[NJRoadfan]

A few people are stuck on 10.6 because they have PowerPC applications that won't ever be updated to x86.

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[danlip]

I'm kinda pissed they dropped PowerPC emulation, and I can't imagine it was that expensive to maintain. I have an old piece of specialty hardware that requires an old piece of software, so I'm kinda screwed that way.

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with everything that you have said, I believe that Apple has fallen short in the following areas.

1: Failing to provide the latest PPC OS X (10.6 or something?) to those of us with legacy PPC machines, free of charge, so that we can continue using them to the edge of the hardware's lifetime. I have an old G5 iMac running 10.5, and am experiencing great difficulty obtaining 10.6 PPC media in a legitimate fashion. Linux is probably my best option.

2: There's an issue with 64bit intel macs with 32bit UEFI (or something) not supporting Mavericks. That needs to be remedied.

3: It looks like Apple is attempting to make iCloud a requirement for things like calander/contact synchronization (Local sync may not be an option soon). Apple needs to make the alternatives clear for those who are unable to leverage iCloud. Whether that means the return of local sync or setting up OSX server calendar services, it needs to be spelled out so that we can better prepare ourselves. Remember that it may be illegal in some jurisdictions/professions to sync data to iCloud, even if it's accidental.

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of the refuseniks are likely not savvy users objecting to the "iOSification" of MacOS X or something like that

Hmm. I have one machine on Snow Leopard and another on Mountain Lion. I'd need to upgrade so many pieces of software and 3rd party hardware that the cost of new machines would be negligible. I'm not looking to make that outlay at the moment when the systems I have are functioning perfectly well.

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 2,1 Mac Pro, 8 core, 18gb of ram.. that I got free from a salvage pile 2 years ago.

i bought a video card and memory riser.. it's been very stable.

last week I upgraded the video card to a NVIDIA GTX 560. not state of the art but it is fast, cheap, and works in a mac pro running 10.7.5

on googlecode there is a boot loader that supports mavericks. i tried it. it works. the os on the other hand ... is too dumbed down for me.

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

My 84 year old Grandmother's 2006 macbook runs just fine, but apple won't allow any new OS versions to work on her intel cpu.

There is no good reason she should be forced to spend over a thousand bucks for a new machine. We were already forced to upgrade it to 2GB to install a newer macos version. You don't need 2GB to browse the internet and print coupons and recipes.

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think with Mavericks the use of older versions of OS X in VMs is explicitly allowed ? Haven't tried it but that is one way to get around needing Rosetta surely?

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[strikethree]

at, but ordinary idiots who blink at you with a blank expression when you ask what version of OS X they use.

I am not upgrading from Snow Leopard because I updated my iPad to IOS7 and regret it terribly. It looks like Windows 8. I do not want my Macbook Pro to look like Windows 8, all flat and nasty looking.

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is late, but re: 1. You already have the latest PPC version - 10.5. 10.6 was Intel only. No wonder you are "experiencing great difficulty obtaining 10.6 PPC media in a legitimate fashion" - it doesn't exist!

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was probably harder to maintain than you think, because it turns out there was a lot more to it than a CPU emulator (which, once written can be expected to keep working).

Rosetta required all the shared libraries bundled with OS X to be compiled as dual-architecture or "fat" binaries, so that PowerPC applications had PPC code to link to. This was complicated by the fact that Apple did partially transition to 64-bit PowerPC before switching to Intel, so there were actually two separate PPC architectures (and ABIs) to support, not just one. On top of that, Rosetta also had to know about every argument and return value for every possible syscall, since it needed to translate between the emulated PPC32/PPC64 environment and the native environment. Which could actually be one of two options, i386 or AMD64, since Apple did their initial port of OS X to i386 rather than AMD64.

Rosetta was much better than a virtual machine precisely because it did this translation to native system calls instead of emulating the whole stack, but that also meant that maintaining it for new OS releases was probably a pain. Keep in mind that over time x86 APIs and ABIs were drifting away from what the remaining PowerPC applications would have been compiled for, so it would have increasingly been less like translating between dialects and more like translating to a totally different language. However, even before so much as mild interface drift happened I'm sure it was already a pain just thanks to how much compatibility testing and debugging they'd have to do for every OS release.

Also, Rosetta was actually licensed from a startup company (Transitive) which provided similar emulator/ABI-translator layers to many commercial UNIX operating systems which were also transitioning from one CPU architecture to another. At some point the startup got acquired by one of their clients (HP, I think, but I don't remember clearly) and announced EOL of support for their other licensees. It's plausible that this development might have involuntarily changed Apple's plans for how long to support running PowerPC applications -- they might not have had the people in-house to keep it current without Transitive's help.

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mavericks only changed the licensing terms for Mavericks, not older releases. It's still against the terms of the 10.6 license to run it in a VM.

The one workaround is that the "Server" version of 10.6 does (and always did) explicitly allow virtualization in its license agreement. It's harder and more expensive to acquire a legitimate copy of 10.6 Server, but if you have it I know of at least one Mac VM hypervisor (VMWare Fusion) which supports installing it.

Parallels probably supports this too, but a few years back I decided I was done even thinking about looking at their product when they ran a really scummy internet ad campaign. They set up this fake review / community website full of anti-VMWare/pro-Parallels astroturf, and then dialed things up to 11 by designing it to visually look a lot like the official VMWare website, SEOing it to come up in searches for VMWare, and so on. I'm not willing to buy from a company that pulls that kind of cynically manipulative BS unless there is truly no other alternative (and if their product was that much better, they wouldn't really need to do that to sell it).

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

In that particular case, there actually is a strong incompatibility and it's not totally arbitrary. Apple's switch to Intel was two architecture changes, not one. It was timed just a little bit too early for Intel's whole CPU line to be 64-bit. The first generation Intel Macs (early-2006 iMacs, Mac Minis, and MacBooks) all used 32-bit CPUs. Everything afterwards had 64-bit CPUs.

The compatibility issue is that as of 10.8, Apple dropped support for 32-bit CPUs. It can still run 32-bit Intel application software, but the OS kernel itself is 64-bit only and can no longer run on 32-bit hardware.

The annoying case (to me, anyways) is machines like my late-2006 Mac Pro and many 2007 Macs. These have 64-bit CPUs with 32-bit EFI boot firmware. The EFI32 firmware is because it took Intel a while to roll out 64-bit EFI, and then some more time for Apple to incorporate it. In theory these machine can run 64-bit OS X just fine, but in practice Apple's OS X bootloader doesn't support loading a 64-bit kernel starting from an EFI32 boot environment. This also means that while 10.6 and 10.7 are supported on my computer, they will only load the 32-bit kernel even though the CPUs are 64-bit. In 10.8 there is no 32-bit kernel to load any more, and rather than altering the bootloader to work around whatever issues would be involved in bootstrapping a 64-bit kernel from a 32-bit environment, they chose to drop support for all EFI32 Macs.

There are hacks out there to boot a 64-bit kernel (including 10.9 Mavericks) on EFI32 Macs with 64-bit CPUs, but there's downsides. Not all the drivers work quite right, because you're actually using EFI BIOS emulation and treating the Apple hardware like it's a hackintosh rather than a real EFI Mac. There is no hack which will let 10.8 or 10.9 boot on that 2006 MacBook, though. No way to run x86-64 instructions on a 32-bit CPU.

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for taking the time to post that great explanation. I can see why Apple did not want to support a 32bit kernel, but it's a drag for users with perfectly good hardware. I still run a 32bit linux kernel with PAE on a 4GB T61.

Of course all that 32 vs 64bit kernel talk won't make any difference to Gram ;-)

Arbitrary hardware limitations

[gman003]

I have an old, first-gen Mac Pro, which I use as a regular desktop. I tend to spend the bulk of my time in Windows, but I use OS X on occasion.

For whatever reason, the firmware on it is for 32-bit systems, something Mountain Lion and now Mavericks does not support. I'm still running Lion because I don't care about their new features and don't want to risk breaking something trying to hack it into working. Getting 64-bit Windows onto the machine was difficult enough.

So yeah, for me at least, it's because Apple doesn't want to give me security updates, not because I don't want to download them.

Re:Arbitrary hardware limitations

[kthreadd]

The idea is of course that you should buy new hardware.

Re:Arbitrary hardware limitations

[Anonymous Coward]

The first-gen MacBooks don't run Lion because they had 32-bit Intel processors. I had one until I spilled water on it, and if I hadn't done that I'd still be using it; Snow Leopard was all that it could run, but that was enough to do my work. The first generation also can't do 802.11n networking.

The second-gen MacBooks were 64-bit and could run Lion; my mother has one of those still, in nearly pristine condition too: runs like a sweet charm.

Standard Apple Crap ...

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll keep pushing updates until we deem your platform obsolete and stop supporting it. Then you get nothing.

They did it with the iPad 1 after about two years and abandoned people.

Which is why I have replaced my iPad with a Google Nexus.

Re:Standard Apple Crap ...

[kommakazi]

Lets see how many updates you get 2 years after you purchased your Nexus. Troll.

Re:Standard Apple Crap ...

[Anonymous Coward]

As others have said, just put cyanogenmod on it, they are already working on the latest release of android (kitkat?).
I've done this with my samsung galaxy tab 2 so i don't really care if samsung releases a new version as i already have it.

Can you clarify your options for the IPAD again?

Re: Standard Apple Crap ...

[Scowler]

My wife has a Nexus 4, and if I told her she could improve the security of the device by updating to CM, she'd just stare back at me uncomprehendingly. Even if I explained, she'd never figure out HOW to do it. I suspect the majority of Nexus owners are not far off from that description as well. Let's keep the discussion tied to official vendor security support, ok?

Mavericks really isn't a new OS

[sjbe]

Apple is discontinuing security updates for an 18 month old OS.

Calling Mavericks a "new OS" is really something of a stretch. It is at best a modest revision of the previous version. When Apple does something as dramatic as the difference between XP and Vista or Windows 7 and Windows 8, then maybe it might be realistic to call it a new OS.

Re:Mavericks really isn't a new OS

[UnknowingFool]

Depends on what you consider "new". If your criteria is that crucial things must break in between versions requiring new drivers, then it is not new like XP -> Vista. For the most part, the last several OS versions have more work done at the core level rather than a lot of new UI.

Re:Mavericks really isn't a new OS

[sjbe]

If your criteria is that crucial things must break in between versions requiring new drivers, then it is not new like XP -> Vista.

Things that I would make me consider it a new operating system
1) Breaks lots of drivers and/or applications
2) Major user interface changes
3) Major additional OS (not application) features not previously available
4) Complete (or nearly so) backend rewrite

Rewriting back end stuff really doesn't constitute a new operating system unless it is a complete backend rewrite. If I as a user cannot tell the difference then it probably isn't a new system. There're probably some corner case exceptions I'm not thinking of but I think I've hit the important ones. I'm not sure there has been a truly new OS from Apple for quite some time. Easily a decade. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything I'd call a "new" Mac OS in the last 7-10 years.

Bear in mind that under my criteria some versions of Windows don't really constitute a new OS either.

Re:Mavericks really isn't a new OS

[UnknowingFool]

I think the main difference is that Apple does things in small steps rather than large steps so transitions are easier. For example between OS X Cheetah (10.1) and Leopard (10.5) there was so much change that many programs that worked in Cheetah may not work in Leopard but each versions was only a small change from the previous. MS did the same thing in the same time from XP -> Vista but the changes were so abrupt that it broke so many things. Leopard brought in the new Intel CPUs. Snow Leopard contained a great deal of changes to the core systems including the transition to 64-bit. The pattern from Apple has been major architectural changes then refinements for a few versions then major architectural change.

Re:Mavericks really isn't a new OS

[spongman]

it's "new" enough that it doesn't run on 3 of the Macs in my household.

Re:Mavericks really isn't a new OS

[Uberbah]

Rewriting back end stuff really doesn't constitute a new operating system unless it is a complete backend rewrite.

Sounds like pedantry.

If I as a user cannot tell the difference then it probably isn't a new system.

Depends on the user. Most of their under the hood improvements seem to focus on battery life and memory conservation. So if you have a Mac Pro with 32 gigs of ram, you probably DGAF. If you do most of your work on a laptop on the go, you might.

you mean like Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I dislike Microsoft and Windows with a passion, but at least they don't arbitrarily decide that your PC is too old to run their latest operating system."

You mean like Linux dropping support for Pentium class CPUs?

Re: you mean like Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's one massive parabole you got there.

Re:you mean like Linux?

[xaxa]

"I dislike Microsoft and Windows with a passion, but at least they don't arbitrarily decide that your PC is too old to run their latest operating system."

You mean like Linux dropping support for Pentium class CPUs?

Linux dropped support for 80386 CPUs, 486s and later are still supported.

This isn't that remarkable for Apple

[drcagn]

For quite some time now, it's been Apple's policy to support the current OS release as well as the previous OS release. That means that since the release of Mavericks, they would be supporting Mavericks (current release) and Mountain Lion (previous release). But, this is also the first generation that the new OS 1) supports every machine that the previous release supported 2) is offered for completely free. So, practically speaking, there's very little reason to not just force all Mountain Lion users to upgrade to Mavericks to have support. However, I don't see any evidence on their page that they are even instating this policy? If they did, though, it would be very aggressive, but not really unremarkable for Apple.

Don't think it is true.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am stuck on 7.5 for hardware reasons and still am getting security updates.

X11

[tepples]

As long as it runs POSIX and an X11 server, it should run desktop applications designed for desktop Linux or FreeBSD with minimal porting work. The POSIX-certified versions of Windows did not include an X11 server and therefore were not very useful as *n?x workstations. Likewise, despite using the Linux kernel, Android uses different apps because its GUI layer runs on something other than an X11 server.

Screw them...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple, PC or otherwise, there are just too many people who are willfully ignorant of computer security... They think they are some kind of club

DOS compatability in Win8

[nojayuk]

I'm running Doom in Win8, does that count?

Compatibility mode in Win8.1 goes as far back as Win95. It's not guaranteed but I've got 15-year old Windows programs written under NT4 to work under Win8.1.

Re:DOS compatability in Win8

[TangoMargarine]

Running on Windows 95 does not make it a DOS program. And you evidently must have a 32-bit version of 8 as 64 won't run 16 anymore, I hear.

Re:DOS compatability in Win8

[garyoa1]

Actually I'm running win8 pro 64 and do run dos progs. And I mean LITERALLY old pre-windows dos based progs. The old workhorse nutplus database works just fine. Many old games run well too. Of course, on the other hand, it's kinda brutal to stare at the ancient graphics. :)

Now, I'm not saying everything works. But the vast majority do. I think most of the problems with 16 vs 64 bit came from hardware that the vendors refused to update drivers for. A lot of scanners hit the trash pile over it.

Re:DOS compatability in Win8

[BasilBrush]

Right. But in order to support some of those old programs (many don't work), Windows has to keep all the old crappy libraries and APIs that haven't been current in decades hanging around.

Which is what makes Windows such bloatware, slows it down, causes many defects, and multiples potential security vectors.

Backwards compatibility isn't free. It doesn't just cost the developer, it costs the user.

Re:DOS compatability in Win8

[garyoa1]

Quite debatable. The user doesn't have to spend a gazillion dollars upgrading progs to the latest and greatest. In fact, doesn't have to find a new program to replace the one that works well but doesn't exist anymore.

Re:DOS compatability in Win8

[BasilBrush]

See that "right"? That's where I agreed with your original statement of the advantage of backward compatibility. And right after that I list the cost. Pros and cons - that's what makes it debatable.

Was the Amiga a PC?

[tepples]

The Mac was a PC exactly to the extent that an ST or Amiga was a PC. Until the Intel transition, the architecture of the Mac wasn't anywhere near that of the IBM-compatible (now Lenovo-compatible) PC. Nor was the architecture of Mac OS or OS X anything like that of MS-DOS or Windows.

Back-compat of 32-bit vs. 64-bit Windows

[tepples]

Then you must be using a 32-bit version of Windows 8.1. The x86-64 version of Windows does not run 16-bit applications (such as Windows 3.1 applications), DOS+DPMI applications (such as Doom), or 16-bit games (such as Donkey Kong Country) without an emulator (such as DOSBox or higan).

Re:Back-compat of 32-bit vs. 64-bit Windows

[nojayuk]

Nope, it's Win8.1 64-bit, 8GB of RAM etc. I'm running one of the DOOM clones (zdoom I think), probably written around the W95 era so maybe 20 years old. I'm thinking of installing DOSbox to run GWBasic later just for the laughs. Are there emulators like DOSbox for Mavericks to run 68k MacOS programs? I assume so...

Re:Back-compat of 32-bit vs. 64-bit Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Closer to Windows 98 era actually. And last updated in 2013. How old is the binary you have?

Re:Back-compat of 32-bit vs. 64-bit Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

How about GLDoom or such native ports.

Stuxnet

[tepples]

If it's a properly network-isolated setup, who gives a fuck how old the security is?

Tell that to the Iranians who got their centrifuges destroyed by Stuxnet. Network isolation is not necessarily enough.

Re:Stuxnet

[TangoMargarine]

Yeah, I'm sure the university this guy is talking about is working to build its own nukes.

Older Macs?

[HBrazee]

So if someone has a computer that is too old to run Mavericks, he's SOL with regards to security issues?

Re:Older Macs?

[UnknowingFool]

Not really. Snow Leopard is still getting updates. It may not last forever as those machines will be pretty old, generally speaking 6 years or older.

Needing to buy a new Mac to run the new OS

[tepples]

Throwing a wrench in all of this of course is Apple's decision to stop charging for new Mac OSes as of Mavericks. Since it's free, is it a new OS or is it just another patch for Mountain Lion?

If the system requirements have increased, it is a new operating system because it is likely to require hardware replacement.

To use Microsoft as an example here, they treat Windows 8.1 as a service pack for Windows 8

The system requirements of Windows 8.1 are identical to those of Windows 8, and they don't even differ noticeably from those of Windows Vista.

Re:Needing to buy a new Mac to run the new OS

[egranlund]

The system requirements of Windows 8.1 are identical to those of Windows 8, and they don't even differ noticeably from those of Windows Vista.

This is not entirely true. I have at least one machine that refuses to install because it's missing an instruction set that was made a requirement in Windows 8.1 (CMPXCHG16b) Link: http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-confirms-some-older-amd-processors-do-not-support-windows-81

The processor is almost 10 years old which I guess is a good run, however.

Re:Needing to buy a new Mac to run the new OS

[immaterial]

Throwing a wrench in all of this of course is Apple's decision to stop charging for new Mac OSes as of Mavericks. Since it's free, is it a new OS or is it just another patch for Mountain Lion?

If the system requirements have increased, it is a new operating system because it is likely to require hardware replacement.

Mavericks has the same system requirements as the previous version (Mountain Lion) did (that is, all Macs 4 years old or newer and most models back 5 or 6 years - dependent on 64bit EFI). Mac hardware went through a lot of changes in the PC->Intel and then 32->64 bit transitions, but now that that's settled as of 4+ years ago I expect system requirements won't get any harder for a good while.

Re:Needing to buy a new Mac to run the new OS

[immaterial]

Bloody autocorrect, that's PPC.

Re:Needing to buy a new Mac to run the new OS

[konohitowa]

If the system requirements have increased, it is a new operating system because it is likely to require hardware replacement.

So XP SP3 was a new OS as compared to SP2.

Some of us have no choice

[alispguru]

I have a MBP provided to me by a contractor to a Large Government Agency.

It has mandated anti-virus (which kills the battery), mandated third-party whole-disk-encryption (instead of File Vault), mandated third-party remote backup (instead of Time Machine), mandated third-party remote access...

The contractor support team routinely takes a year or more to certify the mandated suite for new OS releases.

I will probably be on 10.8 on this MBP in 2015, considering we leaped forward from 10.6 last year.

And Lehigh

[tepples]

Speaking of universities, the Lehigh virus spread through Lehigh University without networking.

Upgrade cure is worse than disease with Apple!

[Anonymous Coward]

My last upgrade broke my entire software development process:
1. Upgraded to Mavericks and Xcode 5.
2. Command line tools were silently uninstalled without asking me. I needed them, so I found a web site that explained how to get them with Xcode 5 since they're no longer anywhere obvious you can get them from within Xcode 5.
3. But now ant is no longer included!
4. Downloaded ant binaries from Apache.
5. Mavericks had silently uninstalled the JDK.
6. Again found a web site that had a command to restore the JDK.

All this to get back to where I was to begin with!!! Does Apple not think there's a reason this stuff was installed in the first place? At least ASK if it should be uninstalled rather than silently doing it?

FPS Russia

[SpaceManFlip]

You can get Metro: Last Light on Mac OS. Also there are some other nice new ones like Bioshock Infinite etc.

If you wanted any of those Windows-only business applications you could always just run XP or 7 in a virtual machine. Parallels is fast due to hardware acceleration but it costs money, and VirtualBox is free but not quite as fast. I know of a CEO who uses a MacBookPro exclusively, where all of the business software is Windows-only and he uses ether Parallels or Boot Camp for the odd occasion when he wants to delve into the workers' business output.

Re:FPS Russia

[ILongForDarkness]

So he uses Windows right? The point is Mac fanboy's say OS X does everything you need it to then they tell you well just install Parallels or do a Bootcamp install. So pay a premium for the hardware then spend loads more getting a non-OEM install of windows and potentially a license for your VM solution. That isn't want I call "just is good" that is what I call "a workaround exists". In corporate environment they then have to insure both OSs are getting updated properly, have a directory service and other access systems setup to play with 2+ different platforms etc.

I have an iMac at home boot camped to Win 8.1 and virtualbox copies of XP as well. I got sick of the performance of a VM solution and waiting for a reboot whenever I wanted to do some heavy lifting. So I run windows exclusively. I'm yet to have a reason where I had to boot into Mac to get something done but I had the problem every day or two when I tried to use Mac exclusively. The point is the platform: if one has complete coverage of everything you need and the other only misses a small amount you end up having to VM, swap between etc. Much simpler to stick with the one that covers your needs.

Similarly Windows Phone isn't a winner because their are hundreds of important apps that only exist on Android or iOS. In a lot of ways I like the UI better, I definitely like the development and development toolset better for Win Phone but I probably won't develop anything for it because I don't want to piss away my weekends so I can make 10's of dollars on Windows Store when I can make 100's of dollars on iOS.

Re:FPS Russia

[UnknowingFool]

So pay a premium for the hardware then spend loads more getting a non-OEM install of windows and potentially a license for your VM solution.

Yes, because getting an OEM versions of Windows for the PC I built myself is rather easy and cheap. Also the cost of Windows is $0 for all OEM systems right? I didn't pay anything for it at all.

Re:FPS Russia

[ILongForDarkness]

Compared to a Mac with the same specs? Yeah you didn't pay anything. You also probably got a box with a design closer to what you want (better graphics card but smaller drive? You can do that. More USB on the front but no bluray? You can do that. Etc).

Re:FPS Russia

[bbsalem]

I think by "useful" he means no different from Word 2000. Some people go to great lengths to resist change or the notion that using a different tool might actually improve how they do a task, and there is a cost trade-off there, as well.

I know that I might be in the minority just because when I first encountered operating systems, all we had was CLI, but I am familiar with the *nix command line and I wouldn't give it up for anything. Because of its usefulness I have installed Cygwin on every Windows install I have had to deal with and wouldn't work in a place where Linux or Cygwin was not allowed and supported by the IT department. I use terminal on Mac OS X and on Linux despite the GUI's and I still think that emacs is a better editor than all the editors for GUIs. I often run it inside a terminal with a zoomed font in preference to its GUI. If I were mentoring young people I would insist that they get some exposure to the shell and to things like Limited Regular Expressions, especially if they had any desire to be computer scientists or top-notch programmers.

Re:FPS Russia

[UnknowingFool]

Compared to a Mac with the same specs?

Form factor is a spec for some people you know. Some people want a really small form factor computer. Some people don't care.

Yeah you didn't pay anything.

Which is pure bullshit. Everyone pays for Windows in the cost of a new computer. They just don't know that they do as it is rolled into the price of a computer. Proof of this is that you can request a refund for Windows.

One good thing I can say about Dell is that they seem to be granting refunds for Windows, but only on new systems (not refurbished). The key to getting the refund is to politely contact them after you have received your new PC, and state that you have read the Windows license agreement on your screen, and are following the instructions and asking for a Windows refund.

You also probably got a box with a design closer to what you want (better graphics card but smaller drive? You can do that. More USB on the front but no bluray? You can do that. Etc).

How do you know what my requirements are? You don't.

ZDoom is 32-bit

[tepples]

I'm running one of the DOOM clones (zdoom I think), probably written around the W95 era so maybe 20 years old.

Based on a quick Google search, ZDoom appears to be a source port to Windows. This and other 32-bit Windows applications run in 64-bit Windows.

Are there emulators like DOSbox for Mavericks to run 68k MacOS programs?

There is Basilisk, but not being a regular Mac user I can't offer an opinion on it.

Re:ZDoom is 32-bit

[metaforest]

Basilisk has some rather arbitrary limits to its functionality, and is not very stable. It could be a good legacy solution with better instance management. Same is true of the 68K mac emulators.

  But I had fun at one point running an Apple IIe emulator inside of a MacPlus emulation, inside of a Basilisk (PPC MacOS 8) inside of OSX Snow Leopard(i7 2.98GHz 10.6.8). The performance of each emulation was more than capable of running faster than the hardware being emulated. The Host OS was only using 25% of available CPU for the nested emulators.

Citation needed

[itsdapead]

Unfortunately Apple appears to have stopped providing security updates for older versions.

A statement that is cast into severe doubt by the continuing appearance of security updates for older versions, like Safari 6.1.1 on December 16th, Apple Remote Desktop 3.5.4 on 22 October and the lack of any claim that Apple has stopped releasing security updates in the article they link to to support their claim that Apple has stopped releasing security updates. It does talk about some of the security updates in 10.9 - a couple of which are covered by those Safari and Remote Desktop updates. As for the rest, TFA doesn't take the trouble to actually establish whether they are fixes c.f. 10.8 or fixes for issues in the 10.9 beta that was widely released to developers - so neither will I.

Now, is Apple maybe prioritising which security fixes it backports to 10.8 or earlier, and only bothering with the "OMG remote pwnage imminent" ones? Maybe. I will try and contain my fear.

Re:Citation needed

[AmiMoJo]

You understand the difference between an application and an operating system, right? Also note that not all apps were updated for older versions of the OS.

IF you cant install 10.9....

[Lumpy]

Ubuntu runs FANTASTICALLY on that "out of date" hardware.

I have a couple of 24" iMac's that are the bit white plastic variety that utterly scream running linux. It's still fantastic hardware, s oyou can use a different OS on it to keep it in service. Makes an awesome Kitchen PC.

Will upgrade from 10.6 when Eudora works on 10.7+

[Anonymous Coward]

When Apple dropped support for Rosetta in 10.7 it means that I couldn't run Eudora on anything higher than 10.6. Eudora is still the greatest email software ever written. Losing it isn't worth updating MacOS beyond 10.6. But I would be happy if Qualcomm would finally release the source so it can be updated to run without Rosetta. Yes I know about the Eudora-Thunderbird integration but that was an abomination which was later abandoned.

Just a thought..

[JavaLord]

Maybe some people aren't updating because new OS X features have been more annoying than helpful of late. Taking "Save As" out of textedit and creating a version control system was the point where I decided I'd wait out future upgrades until I had the time to read about what people were whining about with the new version.

Re:Just a thought..

[macshome]

You can now choose if you want the auto-reopen behavior from 10.7 or not. The built in versioning has been great for working on documents in my experience.

Unlikely

[angel'o'sphere]

A few weeks ago my Mac started nagging me to instal the latest patches for 10.6.8.
Did not do that yet ...

Anyway: I really doubt Apple has or will stop system updates for 10.6.x, 10.7.x or 10.8.x.

They never have done something like that before and I doubt they ever will.

It does not even make any sense.

Re:Unlikely

[macshome]

Typically Apple continues to release security patches for n-2 where n is the current OS. I think they are still patching their old Java runtime for 10.6.8 Macs as well.

Mavericks, same requirements as previous version

[perpenso]

Mac OS X Mavericks (10.9) has the same requirements as Mountain Lion (10.8). So the comparison to Windows 8.0 and 8.1 is correct.

Windows 8.1 64-bit???

[BUL2294]

...I dislike Microsoft and Windows with a passion, but at least they don't arbitrarily decide that your PC is too old to run their latest operating system.

Microsoft just did this... Windows 8.1 64-bit has a requirement that your CPU (and BIOS) support the "CMPXCHG16b" instruction, which does not exist on all AMD64 processors, especially early AMD models, and some Intel ones where the manufacturer has (for some reason) disabled the instruction via BIOS--often without an explicit option to turn it on. So, those people are stuck on Windows 8.0 64-bit or need to "up/downgrade" to Windows 8.1 32-bit, which doesn't require the instruction.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2058683/new-windows-8-1-requirements-strand-some-users-on-windows-8.html

Of course, Microsoft is setting themselves up for a lawsuit since they went on record giving Windows 8.0 a 10-year support lifecycle, which has now been changed to a ~3 years, and don't offer a free license to go from 64-bit Windows to 32-bit... Ironically, Windows Server 2012 R2 (which is 64-bit only) does not require this instruction, so there's some real confusion as to what has been gained by this requirement change...

64-bit hardware but no drivers ...

[perpenso]

The second gen Macbook Pro is supported with Mavericks. In fact, the only Macbook Pros not supported seem to be the original 32 bit only ones.

Careful, some "32-bit" Macs have 64-bit hardware but Apple never wrote 64-bit drivers and thus restricted these Macs to 32-bit versions of Mac OS X.

Google phones get updates ...

[Anonymous Coward]

When my iPhone 3G could not be upgraded to iOS4, I switched to andriod for security concerns.

Funny,

when I got Galaxy S, it was never updated to new Android release (ever). I switched to iPhone TO BE ABLE TO GET the latest OS updates for security reasons. At least, with Apple, I am guaranteed 2-3 years of updates from release date. On Android, with US phone companies to "support" you, you are guaranteed NO updates ever.

I have learned the lesson differently ;-)

Buy your Android phone from Google and you will get updates. At least until the system requirements exceed the installed RAM, which is basically what is happening with the Apple phones.

I'd Love to update to Mavericks...

[Kaitiff]

but the one app I have to have on this company laptop is Parallels, and as it so PAINFULLY and FREQUENTLY pops up in my face, I can't run the version I had just bought a few months ago with Mavericks... like that wasn't a known quantity or anything. I guess I just don't ever get another security update, because I refuse to feed a company money for an 'upgrade' to their product (like it wouldn't work anyways) every time a security update is released. BLAH

Re:I'd Love to update to Mavericks...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you just bought Parallels a few months ago, it must be version 8 or 9 (v9 was released on September 5, 2013 - a few months ago). Version 9 fully supports Mavericks, but we'll assume you don't have that because of your complaint. As for version 8, see this from the horse's mouth:

http://kb.parallels.com/en/117805

Parallels Desktop 8 for Mac

The latest update of Parallels Desktop 8 for Mac does support OS X Mavericks and is available to address the majority OS X Mavericks compatibility issues. There are some known issues such as USB devices assignment, limited multiple displays support.

Please make sure that you have the latest update by downloading it here.

Parallels Desktop 9 for Mac

Full OS X Mavericks feature set support in Parallels Desktop 9 for Mac.

Update to Mavericks requires login to iTunes

[franciscohs]

So no, I'm not doing it. Maybe I'm paranoid but I can accept my phone requiring an iTunes account, but I will not put an apple account or anything on my personal computer.
I also suspect that this means that to get these security updates I will need to be logged in to get updates, even if I got mavericks from another "source", so not gonna happen for me, that's my limit...

Re:Update to Mavericks requires login to iTunes

[macshome]

It doesn't require an iTunes login, it requires an AppleID. You can make one just to use on your Mac if you want. Security and OS updates aren't restricted to being logged into the store either, just updates for apps that you got from the Mac App Store.

All of the AppleID functionality is optional as well. You can use 10.9 with no AppleID plugged in at all, but you give up the benefits of the iCloud services.

Why don't you want to login to a service? You logged into /. didn't you?

Not sure they are reading the KBase Correctly

[macshome]

Sophos says that the security updates have stopped for anything older than Mavericks, but the article they link to has updates for 10.7, 10,8, and 10.9 in it that are less than 30 days old.

So I'm not sure how they are reading this that Apple isn't releasing updates.

Re:Not sure they are reading the KBase Correctly

[strikethree]

Sophos says that the security updates have stopped for anything older than Mavericks, but the article they link to has updates for 10.7, 10,8, and 10.9 in it that are less than 30 days old.

Odd. I have Snow Leopard and have not received any updates in roughly 2 months now. The only update I keep getting offered is some sort of program that will prepare my system for Mavericks.

Re:Will upgrade from 10.6 when Eudora works on 10.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an inflexible autist. This is the problem you are facing.

Mavericks breaks many applications.. 10.7.5

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped upgrading macos at 10.7.5

I run vmare fusion for my linux vms... 3d runs fine. I upgraded to mavericks last week. man I'm lucky I cloned my 10.7.5 system drive.
iPhoto is broken.. when you use redeye eleliminator you don't get the redeye you ... you end up with gray boxes over the eyes. I rebuilt my iPhoto database.. same issue. Next..the nre imovie upgrade was CRAP. Dumbed down to the point a 4 year old could use it.. but the library/event management and all are all gone.
many tools and effects are gone. Next issue.. when you use 64bit addressing there is a cost. the cost is memory. My machine has 18gb... so I figured no biggie.
Bzzzzzz.. wrong. I usually run a vm.. my linux web servers are running in a vm while I develop inside my eclipse environment on my mac desktop.
well my whole environment just worked better in 10.7.5

If this is the direction apple is going I am going to go to 100% Linux. I am already test using Cineralla for my video editing.
I don't want a dumbed down operating system.

I switched back to 10.7.5, upgraded my video card to an nvidia gtx 560 (thank you nvidia for support PC cards in a MAC!
I made a carbon copy clone of mavericks and sometimes I boot the drive in my ESATA Black Widow dock. All I have to say is apple keep you dumbed down operating systems on iphones and tablets. Desktops should not be dumbed down.

I don't care about any network security issues. I've got a firewall(real firewall not software on the desktop) between my home network and the outside.
I do port forwarding only for devices and services that I want to reach form the outside.

Crapple

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep singing those praises fanboi.

Need Legacy Support

[pubwvj]

We need legacy support.
It is only greed and laziness that prevents this.
With graceful fall back Apple could keep supporting old hardware back to the last century.
More importantly I want support for old software into the new operating systems so we can continue to access our data.

Clever Girl!

[Anonymous Coward]

OS X 10.9 Mavericks (a security update) disables the ethernet hardware so the user cannot downgrade 10.6.x.

This is like the joke about the NSA's new supercomputer avatar that when the switch was flipped on, it came out of its closet, looked around frantically, found a loaded M1911, cocked the trigger, put barrel to head, pulled trigger.

Ha ha }:-D

And MacOS was a huge turd

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever tried to program on that thing? It was good for publishing and graphic design. Of course now OS X is good for a wide variety of things like publishing, graphic design, and DJing. My how far they have come.

Bring back Rosetta and I'll update

[Anonymous Coward]

Until then, I can't move off 10.6.8 until there's a real alternative to Macromedia Freehand MX (and no, Illustrator, which I've been using since v3.2 is not an alternative).

There are lots of other people with other PowerPC apps which they need --- either write replacements (I'm still looking for my nightly builds stage stack devs --- I donated) or allow people to use their old apps.

Just updating to Leopard now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I only use PPC macs. I understand many Intel macs can't go to Mavericks either.

Can't upgrade

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't "upgrade" to Mavericks because the software I use is not certified for Mac OS X 10.9.

Reducing risk

[Anonymous Coward]

Can one significantly reduce the risk by turning the firewall on its maximum setting and trying to use only FOSS applications where possible?

Doom is an edge case

[tepples]

Source ports of Doom are 32-bit Windows applications, and 32-bit Windows applications run in 64-bit Windows. But not all 16-bit or DOS+DPMI applications happen to have source ports to 32-bit or 64-bit Windows. Emulators are useful for running apps that lack a source port.

Re: Mavericks, same requirements as previous versi

[macsimcon6500]

That is just flat-out wrong. There are several models which can run 10.8 but cannot run 10.9.

Apple Swcurity updates

[paulmacguyscott]

I have seen 10,8 machines getting security updates since 20.9 launched.

Re: Mavericks, same requirements as previous versi

[perpenso]

That is just flat-out wrong. There are several models which can run 10.8 but cannot run 10.9.

Apple's listed specs look the same to me. The MacBook list was consolidated but they are equivalent.

OS X Mavericks: System Requirements
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5842
To install Mavericks, you need one of these Macs:
iMac (Mid-2007 or later)
MacBook (13-inch Aluminum, Late 2008), (13-inch, Early 2009 or later)
MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid-2009 or later),
MacBook Pro (15-inch or 17-inch, Mid/Late 2007 or later)
MacBook Air (Late 2008 or later)
Mac mini (Early 2009 or later)
Mac Pro (Early 2008 or later)
Xserve (Early 2009)
Your Mac also needs:
OS X Mountain Lion, Lion, or Snow Leopard v10.6.8 already installed
2 GB or more of memory
8 GB or more of available space

OS X Mountain Lion system requirements
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5444
To install Mountain Lion, you need one of these Macs:
iMac (Mid 2007 or newer)
MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer)
MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer)
MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer)
Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer)
Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer)
Xserve (Early 2009)
Your Mac needs:
OS X v10.6.8 or OS X Lion already installed
2 GB or more of memory
8 GB or more of available space

Because XP was shit and Longhorn was dropped

[Uberbah]

Microsoft still supports XP

Because Microsoft didn't start to give a rat's ass about security until Windows 7, leaving hundreds of millions of vulnerable computers from buggy code and open services.

Because XP has a critical design flaw: piss poor privilege separation. Even some of Microsoft's own apps had to be run as Administrator to launch.

Because Microsoft dropped the ball on Longhorn. Hell, we're still waiting on some of the (actually useful) features that were promised a decade ago.

Because Vista was an abomination worse than ME, and Windows 8 went so far down in the bottom of the barrel that they had to dig a new basement for it. And they all have dramatically higher hardware requirements than XP.

Because Microsoft overcharges for Windows, badly. Whereas Mountain Lion was $30, and Mavericks is free.