Apple retires Snow Leopard from support, leaves 1 in 5 Macs vulnerable(computerworld.com)
computerworld.com
Apple retires Snow Leopard from support, leaves 1 in 5 Macs vulnerable
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9246609/Apple_retires_Snow_Leopard_from_support_leaves_1_in_5_Macs_vulnerable_to_attacks
42 comments
My $2700 Cintiq is 7 years old and works dandy, but Wacom will not be making Maverick drivers -- ever. So I won't be upgrading ever. My TV is 10 years old and working. We have a 15 year old TV in the office. My 2001 ibook is going strong and my six year could use it -- but it can't even be updated to the new wireless networking protocols, and linux abandoned the G3.
I can't tell if you're complaining about Apple abandoning support for Snow Leopard, or just making a statement supporting why people still stick to old(er) hardware.
If the latter, then I completely understand, and you make a valid point.
If the former, though, then my question would be why would one be content with sticking to old(er) hardware, but not be content with sticking to old(er) software?
Again, not saying you fall into that boat, but in general, anybody protesting this decision should be asked that question.
And it's a genuine question -- maybe there is a valid reason. I just can't think of one.
If the latter, then I completely understand, and you make a valid point.
If the former, though, then my question would be why would one be content with sticking to old(er) hardware, but not be content with sticking to old(er) software?
Again, not saying you fall into that boat, but in general, anybody protesting this decision should be asked that question.
And it's a genuine question -- maybe there is a valid reason. I just can't think of one.
> If the former, though, then my question would be why would one be content with sticking to old(er) hardware, but not be content with sticking to old(er) software?
Security, and network effects.
Supporting deployment back to 10.6 / iOS 6 / etc isn't inherently difficult, but the fast pace of Apple's deployment, the lack of support for downgrading on iOS devices, and the now-constant API churn makes it seem like more hassle than it's worth.
Apple is intentionally driving new demand by pushing early obsolescence of old software and hardware.
Security, and network effects.
Supporting deployment back to 10.6 / iOS 6 / etc isn't inherently difficult, but the fast pace of Apple's deployment, the lack of support for downgrading on iOS devices, and the now-constant API churn makes it seem like more hassle than it's worth.
Apple is intentionally driving new demand by pushing early obsolescence of old software and hardware.
[deleted]
> Wacom will not be making Maverick drivers -- ever
For the Cintiq, or in general?
Are they necessary?
I ask because I have an Intuos Pro and haven't had a problem on Mavericks.
For the Cintiq, or in general?
Are they necessary?
I ask because I have an Intuos Pro and haven't had a problem on Mavericks.
It's Wacom. They announced it on their site. I could try it, but at this point I'm not up for the trials and tribulation of trying mavericks and having to revert.
Snow Leopard was the high watermark release for OS X, before focus and engineering talent migrated to iOS, and successive releases of OS X began to become cluttered with throwaway useless user interface candy and naggy GateKeeper dialogs.
YMMV, but a lot of that "useless user interface candy" makes my day noticeably better. Launchpad is silly, but Mission Control pretty much changed how I used a computer. I'd been using Macs since 10.4, but I didn't get Macs until Lion. And 10.9 made multi-monitor much much better by making Mission Control desktops per-monitor. This is the best OS X release by far.
As far as Gatekeeper dialogs go, I'm curious what you're doing with your machine because I have seen a Gatekeeper complaint exactly once, because Cisco hadn't signed their VPN software (which was really awesome of them).
As far as Gatekeeper dialogs go, I'm curious what you're doing with your machine because I have seen a Gatekeeper complaint exactly once, because Cisco hadn't signed their VPN software (which was really awesome of them).
> Launchpad is silly, but Mission Control pretty much changed how I used a computer. I'd been using Macs since 10.4, but I didn't get Macs until Lion. And 10.9 made multi-monitor much much better by making Mission Control desktops per-monitor
YMMV, but Mission Control completely broke the way Spaces worked as compared to prior Mac OS X releases -- which also happens to be the way I've worked since the 90s.
I don't need full screen apps, or separate spaces per head, so from my perspective, that change was an enormous net loss.
There are work-arounds, but they're imperfect: http://totalspaces.binaryage.com/
Factor in silly stuff like notification center, and all Apple seems to have done UX-wise for me is make it harder to actually get work done.
YMMV, but Mission Control completely broke the way Spaces worked as compared to prior Mac OS X releases -- which also happens to be the way I've worked since the 90s.
I don't need full screen apps, or separate spaces per head, so from my perspective, that change was an enormous net loss.
There are work-arounds, but they're imperfect: http://totalspaces.binaryage.com/
Factor in silly stuff like notification center, and all Apple seems to have done UX-wise for me is make it harder to actually get work done.
You can turn off spaces-per-monitor, so I don't know what your complaint there is.
I also don't really get what Mission Control's "your virtual desktops are in a line" rather than Spaces' "your virtual desktops are in a square" makes you lose. You can turn off the reordering (I do) and it becomes functionally the same thing.
I also don't really get what Mission Control's "your virtual desktops are in a line" rather than Spaces' "your virtual desktops are in a square" makes you lose. You can turn off the reordering (I do) and it becomes functionally the same thing.
> You can turn off the reordering (I do) and it becomes functionally the same thing.
It's not.
You lose spatial organization; I place related projects next to each other (top and to the right) to make it easy to switch between related working contexts, eg LaTeX editor for documentation of a project + IDE for the actual project code + source code for a related project to use as a reference, etc
Ditching the grid also means decreasing the amount of room in which spaces can be laid out; The grid is a very efficient mechanism for switching between LOTS of spaces.
I maintain a 4x4 grid of 16 spaces, and I never quit anything, or close a document -- RAM is cheap. I simply treat different areas of the grid as different contextual workspaces. If I come back to a project two weeks later, it's all still there.
It's not.
You lose spatial organization; I place related projects next to each other (top and to the right) to make it easy to switch between related working contexts, eg LaTeX editor for documentation of a project + IDE for the actual project code + source code for a related project to use as a reference, etc
Ditching the grid also means decreasing the amount of room in which spaces can be laid out; The grid is a very efficient mechanism for switching between LOTS of spaces.
I maintain a 4x4 grid of 16 spaces, and I never quit anything, or close a document -- RAM is cheap. I simply treat different areas of the grid as different contextual workspaces. If I come back to a project two weeks later, it's all still there.
Have you tried Mavericks? I was on 10.6 until 10.9 came out, and I have not been disappointed. I actually gained about 30 minutes more battery time. I also enjoy the notification integration with so many apps. Growl used to do the job, but it didn't always work.
10.6 to 10.9 is a good upgrade, try it.
10.6 to 10.9 is a good upgrade, try it.
Considering we spent months where Mail.app didn't perform it's most basic duty (receiving mail) and Messages continued it's almost simulated organic decay, I beg to differ.
Nope. It didn't perform it's most basic duty with the non-standards compliant email provider that is Gmail. Literally every other service that offered standard IMAP worked fine.
I don't use or like Gmail, but given that it's quite likely the most popular IMAP server on the planet, I'd say it's Apple's responsibility to their users to not break compatibility.
Which service then? I'm using it with iCloud, Yahoo!, Exchange and my own heady build based on Dovecot. All work flawlessly. If a provider uses non-standards complaint implementations of services such as IMAP, it is their responsibility, not the email clients, to support the end user.
I'm sure all of Apple's customers agreed that, simply on principal, it was better that their e-mail was broken in the new OS release.
Company A makes standards compliant product. Company B produces an undocumented service that has extended the service beyond the standard model, essentially breaking it. In your world company A should be responsible for making company B's service work?
> In your world company A should be responsible for making company B's service work?
If I'm paying Company A? It used to work, and it doesn't now? Yes.
Why should users care whose fault it is? This isn't even about fault; the only fault is failing to adequately test with something so widely used. Just fix it.
If I'm paying Company A? It used to work, and it doesn't now? Yes.
Why should users care whose fault it is? This isn't even about fault; the only fault is failing to adequately test with something so widely used. Just fix it.
Just comply with the standards or document the extensions.
Not sure why we're discussing fault at all, what was being discussed is whether it was worth upgrading to Mavericks. The practical reality was that until 3 days ago, if you used Gmail everything was fine in every release of OS X except for Mavericks, regardless of the reason (knowing "why" is of no comfort when it just doesnt work, especially when it used to work and you were recommended to upgrade).
"Considering we spent months where Mail.app didn't perform it's most basic duty (receiving mail)..." It did work, just not with Gmail. I get that it doesn't help you, I was pointing out that the target for your ire was misplaced. Gmail is non standards compliant. It is a web based app and the best experience is to be had in a web browser. Any one of Safari, Chrome, Firefox or Opera are more than fit for purpose. I'm fairly sure that Apple and Google would tell you that.
Blame Google's crappy IMAP folder implementation.
Naggy GateKeeper dialogs? It's extremely rare that I see them, and even then it's nothing like UAC was back in the Vista days.
If you manually extract something and create a broken signature in the process, Gatekeeper helps you out by refusing to open the bundle in ANY application, and instead simply stating that the file is corrupt and should be deleted.
I've hit these things often enough that I just turned it off. Gatekeeper doesn't protect against unsigned code execution; it's merely the same old quarantine code with code signing bolted on. It prevents you from stupidly double clicking an evil executable -- in theory.
I've hit these things often enough that I just turned it off. Gatekeeper doesn't protect against unsigned code execution; it's merely the same old quarantine code with code signing bolted on. It prevents you from stupidly double clicking an evil executable -- in theory.
The thing about Snow Leopard is that it's the terminal release for 32bit intel machines. Like the one I'm typing on right now, the first white intel macbook. (Though, I recently switched it to Ubuntu 13.10 after a hard drive crash. It might go back. )
For a lot of things, It's still good enough. Chrome works. Mail works. ITunes. And for my purposes, terminal and ssh too.
Similarly, I've still got an old PPC mini running Leopard (also it's terminal release) as an iTunes server. It's no speed daemon, but it's not like serving a couple mp3 streams is that hard. But it hasn't gotten updates in a while, so I've got to look at moving on with that one.
For a lot of things, It's still good enough. Chrome works. Mail works. ITunes. And for my purposes, terminal and ssh too.
Similarly, I've still got an old PPC mini running Leopard (also it's terminal release) as an iTunes server. It's no speed daemon, but it's not like serving a couple mp3 streams is that hard. But it hasn't gotten updates in a while, so I've got to look at moving on with that one.
To put that in perspective, Windows 7 and Snow Leopard were released to manufacturing at about the same time, and that ~4 years is roughly 25% of the time that Microsoft supported Windows XP.
I'm biased, but that kind of organization-wide upgrade treadmill would be a nonstarter with most of my clients (ranging from small-business to enterprise). Strange move by Apple if they hope to challenge Microsoft's lion share of PCs in business.
I'm biased, but that kind of organization-wide upgrade treadmill would be a nonstarter with most of my clients (ranging from small-business to enterprise). Strange move by Apple if they hope to challenge Microsoft's lion share of PCs in business.
To put your comment into perspective, Vista came out almost 6 years after XP and was a disaster. The next usable (and far more widely adopted) release, Windows 7, came out 8 years after XP. Apple, on the other hand, has a far more rapid release cycle which tends to not break things as much.
It's a strange move by Microsoft for them to make huge changes every 5 years, rather than small ones every year or two like Apple. It's much easier to adapt to change incrementally.
It's a strange move by Microsoft for them to make huge changes every 5 years, rather than small ones every year or two like Apple. It's much easier to adapt to change incrementally.
If Apple's strategy is so sound and Microsoft's is so flawed, why did all of OS X combined never even manage to crack 50% of Vista's peak user base, according to global web stats[0] over that period?
Frankly, I have a hard time believing anyone technically minded really believes Vista was a disaster. Windows 7 was essentially Vista SP3, but people finally had decent hardware by that time and it seemed to be an improvement.
[0]: http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-os-ww-monthly-200807-2014...
Frankly, I have a hard time believing anyone technically minded really believes Vista was a disaster. Windows 7 was essentially Vista SP3, but people finally had decent hardware by that time and it seemed to be an improvement.
[0]: http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-os-ww-monthly-200807-2014...
Snow Leopard is the most recent version of OSX able to run on 32 bit Intel machines, like the one I have here. Sure, it's 8 years old but it's still running well and I'm in no hurry to throw it out.
While I don't have any macs still running Snow Leopard, it has a special place in my heart because it can still install Warcraft 3 as well as play many older Mac games pre-Intel.
This is one of the things I love about Linux. There was an announcement at the end of 2012 that kernel will no longer support 386 chip - after 21 years! And distributions will ship older kernels for many additional years.
Compare that to MS and Apple forcing new versions of OS (and in Apple's case, hardware) on its users... I can understand their position, but it is still frustrating for the users. I find Windows XP superior to both Vista and Windows 7 (not to mention "Lego" Windows).
Compare that to MS and Apple forcing new versions of OS (and in Apple's case, hardware) on its users... I can understand their position, but it is still frustrating for the users. I find Windows XP superior to both Vista and Windows 7 (not to mention "Lego" Windows).
And Wordpress is/was going to try the same thing with some official ancient stable/always-security-patched release. I don't follow the WP world anymore. It was a noble thought back then, I just wonder if anyone actually runs the old stable release.
It does seem strange that Apple, which does a great job regarding fragmentation on the mobile platform, has such difficulties with the issue on desktop platforms.
That will be less of an issue going forward with free OS updates. Then it will just be people who don't want to upgrade for whatever reason that stay behind.
I attempted to upgrade my old MacBook White (Core 2 Duo) to Mavericks, but apparently it only supports Snow Leopard.
Because you have 32 bit architecture. It is 2007 or 2008 model?
Vulnerable to what, exactly? Oh, at the end of the article they mention that SL might become vulnerable to some future security flaw. Kind of a link-baity headily if you ask me.
How old is snow leopard?
Well, The SSL bug only affected Mavericks. Additionally, I don't think we know if the security updates released for mountain lion and lion also affected Snow Leopard. And if it did, well, Apple moves quicker than Microsoft does anyway with new OS release every year.
If there are still people running Snow Leopard, either they have an old computer that is more than 5 years old, or they specifically don't want to upgrade to Lion. For the former, Apple knows most people will have upgraded their old computers by now, or will soon in the future. For the latter group, most know what they're doing by not upgrading.
Snow Leopard is 4 years old. And the last update for it was September 2013, just 5 months ago. It clearly was Apple's XP, if you will, and the longest supported out of all releases, I think.