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

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

[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

[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: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

[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.