Why does Apple "outdate" OS/X for every version?

[sctvguy1]

I have a 2002 "Lamp" iMac, which came with 10.2 Jaguar. I bought
Panther, then finally got Tiger, which is the limit for this machine. I
run Linux and OS/2 on all of my other computers. I wonder why OS/X,
which has a consistent look, is constantly being outdated with every new
version? I cannot add newer apps, like Firefox or Chrome, or even an
iTunes past version 9.2(which still works with my iPod Nano).
This is not intended as a knock on Apple, just wondering why other OSes
seem to continue compatibility and run updated apps while still keeping
the original "look".
I would have like to buy a newer iMac, like a 21" Intel model, but cannot
really afford to keep purchasing OS upgrades all the time.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2014-12-21, sctvguy1 <sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:
> I have a 2002 "Lamp" iMac,

It's almost 2015 now. So your Mac has been in use for 13 years now.

> which came with 10.2 Jaguar. I bought
> Panther, then finally got Tiger, which is the limit for this machine.

So that's 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 - three major OS releases.

> I wonder why OS/X,
> which has a consistent look, is constantly being outdated with every new
> version?

It's not, as you say above. You were able to run three major versions on
your thirteen-year-old Mac.

> I cannot add newer apps, like Firefox or Chrome, or even an

> iTunes past version 9.2 (which still works with my iPod Nano).

That's because you are running an old operating system. If you were
running a newer operating system you would be able to run newer apps.

> This is not intended as a knock on Apple, just wondering why other OSes
> seem to continue compatibility and run updated apps while still keeping
> the original "look".

It's complicated, but essentially, backwards compatibility comes at
great cost, and while Apple does strive to provide it, Apple also
doesn't mind cutting the cord in the name of better design over time.

> I would have like to buy a newer iMac, like a 21" Intel model, but cannot
> really afford to keep purchasing OS upgrades all the time.

So don't purchase them. Also, don't upgrade your apps. It's unrealistic
to expect a 13 year old computer will be able to run all the latest and
greatest software. At some point the expense of maintaining backwards
compatibility outweighs the expense of moving forward.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[philo]

The situation is not unique to OSX, it's pretty much the way
/everything/ in the world behaves.

For most businesses to survive, they must keep creating better or more
appealing products. If one company made nothing but the same thing,
their competitors would soon outpace them.

Though there are plenty of exceptions, when it comes to technology it's
particularly true. Though there is some business sense in keeping newer
operating systems backwards compatible. There is plenty of business
sense not to.


Most people get upset when their old applications no longer work and
they are forced to purchase upgrades. OTOH: Giving 100% attention to
backwards compatibility can also hold a new and better idea back.


Here is one example (nothing to do with operating systems):


Many years ago when I was in the market for a new 35mm camera, the big
question was Nikon or Canon.

Both cameras are excellent but Nikon was the preferred camera for
professionals. Since I know a lot of professional photographers I asked
them why.

One reason was that Nikon is loyal to it's good customer base and made
great efforts not to "obsolete" them. If someone "traded up" to a better
camera, the photographer knew their old lenses would be compatible.

However...Canon came up with a new and better design that beat Nikon's
Nikon had committed to being "locked-in". During that period Canon made
significant gains and Nikon had to rethink their strategy.


I can only guess what Apple's philosophy is but to me it looks like
primary importance in making a better (or more appealing ) product and
back-wards compatibility be (at least somewhat) damned.


All that said: If everything is working OK , there is no one forcing you
to upgrade.


About 20 years ago I did some work for an extremely wealthy local
business man and noticed that he still had a dial phone in his bedroom.
He had several million dollars worth of art on his walls.

[sctvguy1]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 11:58:10 -0600, philo wrote:


> About 20 years ago I did some work for an extremely wealthy local
> business man and noticed that he still had a dial phone in his bedroom.
> He had several million dollars worth of art on his walls.

I have an old 1940 Western Electric dial phone in my bedroom. If someone
sneaks into the room, I can slam it over his head!

[sctvguy1]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 17:27:51 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:


>> This is not intended as a knock on Apple, just wondering why other OSes
>> seem to continue compatibility and run updated apps while still keeping
>> the original "look".
>
> It's complicated, but essentially, backwards compatibility comes at
> great cost, and while Apple does strive to provide it, Apple also
> doesn't mind cutting the cord in the name of better design over time.
>
>> I would have like to buy a newer iMac, like a 21" Intel model, but
>> cannot really afford to keep purchasing OS upgrades all the time.
>
> So don't purchase them. Also, don't upgrade your apps. It's unrealistic
> to expect a 13 year old computer will be able to run all the latest and
> greatest software. At some point the expense of maintaining backwards
> compatibility outweighs the expense of moving forward.

JR, Are these really "new" operating systems, or merely point updates to
OS/X? My Scientific Linux is now 6.6, but it is the same basic GNOME 2
and runs all the older stuff I need.

[philo]

Now that I have an iPhone, I'll probably be going with it and finally
drop my land line.

I have a very old phone here still hooked up, it's probably from the 30's.

My wife and I have a huge open house each year and get 100 people
through here during the course of the afternoon and evening.

A lot of people were amazed when I told them the phone was in working
order and all kinds of people took out their cell phones. called my
house and had their spouse answer it!


I even have some crank phones that are still used as an intercom and
signaling system.

[Ant]

Welcome to technology. Apple isn't alone.


On 12/21/2014 9:19 AM PT, sctvguy1 typed:

--
* <-- Tribble ... *********************** <-- Tribbles imitating ants
(unknown author)
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[Ant]

My parents, grandma and his son/my uncle, friends, etc. still use
landlines (coax cable with cable companies or old fashion copper phone
lines) too. A few them still use their old fax machines! I used to have
a copper phone line as my landline and dial-up Internet as backups in my
old nest.
--
"Bother," said Winnie the Pooh, as the ants devoured him.

[nospam]

In article <m76vea$cql$2...@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1

<sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:

> I have a 2002 "Lamp" iMac, which came with 10.2 Jaguar. I bought
> Panther, then finally got Tiger, which is the limit for this machine. I
> run Linux and OS/2 on all of my other computers. I wonder why OS/X,
> which has a consistent look, is constantly being outdated with every new
> version?

because there is no point in supporting old computers that people no
longer have anymore.

and that's assuming they even *could* support it. features in modern
systems and apps would not work on computers that old no matter what
anyone did.

it's not unique to apple. windows vista would not work on a 2002 pc.

[Savageduck]

On 2014-12-21 17:19:06 +0000, sctvguy1 <sctv...@invalid.net> said:

> I have a 2002 "Lamp" iMac, which came with 10.2 Jaguar. I bought
> Panther, then finally got Tiger, which is the limit for this machine. I
> run Linux and OS/2 on all of my other computers. I wonder why OS/X,
> which has a consistent look, is constantly being outdated with every new
> version? I cannot add newer apps, like Firefox or Chrome, or even an
> iTunes past version 9.2(which still works with my iPod Nano).
> This is not intended as a knock on Apple, just wondering why other OSes
> seem to continue compatibility and run updated apps while still keeping
> the original "look".

Try running Photoshop CC (2014) on a Windows NT machine, on a G4 Mac,
or any INTEL Mac running anything older than OSX 10.7.

> I would have like to buy a newer iMac, like a 21" Intel model, but cannot
> really afford to keep purchasing OS upgrades all the time.

You haven't been paying attention, both OSX 10.9 & OSX 10.10 (&
incremental updates) were/are free.

Then You have to look beyond Apple at other software developers and how
they draw upon IS development and improvement to refine their products
to the point where those third party applications will noy, cannot
function on an old defunct OS.

Consider Adobe and their lack of continued support for old OSs in their
new product releases. Apple and MS are not responsible for that
business decision. Many folks upgraded their computer, or their OS just
so they would be able to run current, supported Adobe software.

I can't run the version of Word I bought in 2000, or the version of
Office I bought in 2003 on any current OS.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Jolly Roger]

On 2014-12-21, sctvguy1 <sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:

Most of the time they are significantly different under the hood. They
are upgrades as opposed to the many, many updates they get between major
revisions.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <m76vea$cql$2...@dont-email.me>,
sctvguy1 <sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:

You seem to have it backwards.

Apple mostly makes new OS releases backward-compatible. This means that
you can continue to run most of your old applications on newer versions.
They've only violated this occasionally, and only affecting some really
old applications. For instance, after several releases they got rid of
"Classic", which allowed running pre-OSX applications, and a few
releases later they dumped Rosetta, which allowed running PowerPC
applications. Mavericks got rid of the ancient Open Transport networking
library -- the only popular application affected by this was
MT-Newswatcher.

To get to your point, it's the application developers who are to blame
for your not being able to run new versions of applications on old OSes.
They decide to take advantage of new features, so the applications will
not run on old OS releases that don't have those features.

It may be possible to code things in such a way that the new version
will continue to work on the old OS, just without the new features. But
this is likely to be complicated. It's harder to program, and testing it
requires that they keep all the old OSes around so they can make sure it
works with each one. And there's not much incentive for them to go to
all this trouble and expense -- people who don't upgrade their OS are
probably not going to buy new versions of applications, either.

Face it, when you're part of a tiny majority, things are likely to be
onconvenient.

--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[nospam]

In article <m77i5u$t30$1...@dont-email.me>, philo  <ph...@privacy.net>
wrote:

> I had been on POTS for many years but went to VoIP about a year ago.
>
> When I drop the land line entirely I don't know what I'm going to do
> with my phones.

hook them up to an ata, which could be wired into the existing phone
wiring in the house.

[David Empson]

sctvguy1 <sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:

> I have a 2002 "Lamp" iMac, which came with 10.2 Jaguar. I bought
> Panther, then finally got Tiger, which is the limit for this machine. I
> run Linux and OS/2 on all of my other computers. I wonder why OS/X,
> which has a consistent look, is constantly being outdated with every new
> version? I cannot add newer apps, like Firefox or Chrome, or even an
> iTunes past version 9.2(which still works with my iPod Nano).
> This is not intended as a knock on Apple, just wondering why other OSes
> seem to continue compatibility and run updated apps while still keeping
> the original "look".

The "look" of the operating system is only a minor detail. Under the
hood, there are major changes over time, and it eventually gets to the
point where it is impractical to continue supporting increasingly old
computers in the latest operating system.

The main driving factor is usually minimum performance or memory
requirements. Older computers are simply not fast enough to run the
latest OS at an acceptable speed, or are not able to have enough memory
installed to be able to run applications well enough.

Later operating systems may also require new features in the processor,
graphics controller, or other components in the computer, which means
older models not meeting those requirements cannot run the new operating
system at all.

Apple tends to be more agressive than other operating system vendors at
taking advantage of new hardware features, which typically results in
Macs being unsupported by a new Mac OS X version introduced about four
to seven years after the Mac model was superseded or discontinued. The
precise timing varies depending on the model and on exactly which
feature(s) Apple has decided to require or which components they have
decided to stop supporting.

The second part of the puzzle is that Apple used to support only one
preceding OS X version (with about two years between releases). They now
support two preceding OS X versions (with about one year between
releases). The main aspects of this support for the oldest version is
security updates to the operating system, and updates to the Safari web
browser. (Apple also supports iTunes one OS X version further back, to
allow iPhones, iPads and iPods to be used by somewhat older Macs.)

For their own applications (apart from iTunes), Apple is quite agressive
about quickly requiring the latest OS X version (or sometimes the
preceding version) if you want to run the latest version of the
application, e.g. the latest Pages, Numbers and Keynote were released at
the same time as OS X 10.10 and required it.

Third party developers vary in how far back they will support older OS X
versions. If they want to make use of new features in later OS X
versions (or in new hardware) it becomes increasingly difficult to
support older versions.

We're now at the point where Mac OS X 10.5 support is rare, Mac OS X
10.6 is still reasonably well supported (e.g. several third paty web
browser options), and later versions have increasing levels of support.

By the end of next year I expect many more third party developers will
have dropped support for Mac OS X 10.6, possibly including Firefox and
Chrome.

> I would have like to buy a newer iMac, like a 21" Intel model, but cannot
> really afford to keep purchasing OS upgrades all the time.

Purchasing OS X upgrades isn't a factor any more: OS X 10.9 and later
are free upgrades, and 10.6 through 10.8 were much cheaper than earlier
versions.

The cost of upgrading third party applications to newer versions
(required to work properly with later OS X versions) is more likely to
be an issue.

The cost of replacing your Mac every few years is usually the biggest
issue.

Apple has been stretching their support for old Macs in recent years
(after it was compressed by the PowerPC to Intel transition): OS X 10.9
and 10.10 didn't drop support for any old Mac models. At the moment, all
Macs introduced in the last five and a half years can run the latest OS
X version, and the oldest supported models were introduced seven and a
half years ago.

I'd expect to see the next version or the one after that to increase the
requirements for memory, processor and/or graphics controller. This will
result in support being dropped for several more old Mac models,
probably maintaining a window of supporting four to seven year old Macs
in the latest OS X.

If you allow for a further two years of security updates on the last
supported OS X version, that means you can usually get away with buying
a new Mac every six to nine years and continue getting security updates
and a good to reasonable level of software support, as long as you
install OS X upgrades that are supported by your Mac.

If you want to be able to run the latest software and OS X version, your
Mac replacement cycle will be more like every four to seven years.

You can usually push your Mac towards the longer end of the replacement
cycle by buying higher specification models, e.g. iMacs or MacBook Pros
rather than Mac Minis or MacBook Airs.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[philo]

On 12/21/2014 06:03 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <m77lus$aho$2...@dont-email.me>, philoÝ <ph...@privacy.net>

> wrote:
>
>>>> I had been on POTS for many years but went to VoIP about a year ago.
>>>>
>>>> When I drop the land line entirely I don't know what I'm going to do
>>>> with my phones.
>>>
>>> hook them up to an ata, which could be wired into the existing phone
>>> wiring in the house.
>>

>> But when I get my cell phone activated I'm not going to be having a land
>> line any more.
>>
>> I think I'll leave the antique ones in place though.
>
> you said you converted to voip.
>
> if you get an ata, you can use that voip account with the old phones,
> either one single phone (plugged into the ata) or wire it into the
> existing phone wiring in the house and all of the phones can be used.
>
> a cellphone is separate.
>



I may have used the wrong term. I have an AT&T 2wire that provides voip
over the same "landline" wires I had when using POTS...so when I
activate my cell phone, I'm dropping AT&T's voip service.


I suppose I could get a "magic jack" though

[philo]

On 12/21/2014 04:53 PM, sctvguy1 wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 16:39:16 -0600, philo wrote:

>
>> On 12/21/2014 02:24 PM, Ant wrote:
>>> My parents, grandma and his son/my uncle, friends, etc. still use
>>> landlines (coax cable with cable companies or old fashion copper phone
>>> lines) too. A few them still use their old fax machines! I used to have
>>> a copper phone line as my landline and dial-up Internet as backups in
>>> my old nest.
>>
>>
>>

>> I had been on POTS for many years but went to VoIP about a year ago.
>>
>> When I drop the land line entirely I don't know what I'm going to do
>> with my phones.
>

> Let me know about your old telephone! I am a member of an old telephone
> group.
>



One of the phones still hooked up is like this

http://www.donwhiteley.com/pics/th25.jpg


Only the little woman that came with it is lost somewhere.

I have a standard black 50's style phone. It's not Bakelite though ,
it's metal.


Then as my intercom system I have a black Bakelite crank-phone in the
basement and on the 2nd floor which all connect to a standard wooden box
type crank phone on the ground floor. The Bakelite phones came out of an
old mine.



Speaking of crank phones, I was fortunate enough to actually have used
one. While I was on the Army in 1970 I was stationed at a missile range
in the middle of the desert and they had a pay phone on base that one
had to crank in order to get the operator!

[nospam]

In article <m77lus$aho$2...@dont-email.me>, philoÝ <ph...@privacy.net>

wrote:

> >> I had been on POTS for many years but went to VoIP about a year ago.
> >>
> >> When I drop the land line entirely I don't know what I'm going to do
> >> with my phones.
> >
> > hook them up to an ata, which could be wired into the existing phone
> > wiring in the house.
>

[philo]

On 12/21/2014 02:24 PM, Ant wrote:

> My parents, grandma and his son/my uncle, friends, etc. still use
> landlines (coax cable with cable companies or old fashion copper phone
> lines) too. A few them still use their old fax machines! I used to have
> a copper phone line as my landline and dial-up Internet as backups in my
> old nest.

[philo]

That's not quite true. I'm a computer refurbisher and have been
upgrading the H/W on a lot of older machines at the place where I do
volunteer work. Just about all the machines are P-4's that are from 2001
and up.

Once I add RAM most of them run Win7 OK and those that do not get Vista
installed. They now have no more XP machines. They use the Win7 machines
within the organization and the Vista machines are sold to members at
rock-bottom prices.

Though Vista was a piece of junk when released, Vista SP2, much to my
surprise is decent. As a matter of fact one of my professional
photographer friends just had the HD go on his Vista machine, and before
he even told me about it he went out and got a new Win8 machine.

HA! He then ended up with a non-supported $12,000 large format printer
and a $4000 (?) unsupported slide scanner. (His other scanners and
printers were fine with Win8)

Though ViewScan took care of the scanner,to use that printer he had me
replace the HD in the Vista machine and reload the OS.

[sctvguy1]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:11:02 +1300, David Empson wrote:


<snip>

> If you want to be able to run the latest software and OS X version, your
> Mac replacement cycle will be more like every four to seven years.
>
> You can usually push your Mac towards the longer end of the replacement
> cycle by buying higher specification models, e.g. iMacs or MacBook Pros
> rather than Mac Minis or MacBook Airs.

Thank you for the very detailed explanation. Yes, the costs of Macs has
always been way above all but the top of the line PCs. In 2002, that iMac
cost us $1299, minus $100 educator discount. Just use my old iMac now as
a music server, and iTunes store account.
I switched to enterprise linux in 2009, and have been used to OS
upgrades, without having to really upgrade hardware(running on Thinkpad
T400s).

[sctvguy1]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 16:39:16 -0600, philo wrote:

[philo]

[nospam]

In article <m77osl$if7$1...@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1

<sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:

> > If you want to be able to run the latest software and OS X version, your
> > Mac replacement cycle will be more like every four to seven years.
> >
> > You can usually push your Mac towards the longer end of the replacement
> > cycle by buying higher specification models, e.g. iMacs or MacBook Pros
> > rather than Mac Minis or MacBook Airs.
>
> Thank you for the very detailed explanation. Yes, the costs of Macs has
> always been way above all but the top of the line PCs.

mac prices are not 'way above' anything.

prices are similar for systems with similar specs.

in many cases, they're cheaper, such as with the new imac.

> In 2002, that iMac
> cost us $1299, minus $100 educator discount. Just use my old iMac now as
> a music server, and iTunes store account.

that was a typical price for a similar spec pc back then, but without
an articulating arm.

> I switched to enterprise linux in 2009, and have been used to OS
> upgrades, without having to really upgrade hardware(running on Thinkpad
> T400s).

linux is great for a server, but for desktop use the software
availability is very limited.

[sctvguy1]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 19:59:24 -0500, nospam wrote:


>> In 2002, that iMac cost us $1299, minus $100 educator discount. Just
>> use my old iMac now as a music server, and iTunes store account.
>
> that was a typical price for a similar spec pc back then, but without an
> articulating arm.

I do have the "Lamp" model with the chrome swinging arm. I do not have
the multi-colored iMac all-in-one model.

>> I switched to enterprise linux in 2009, and have been used to OS
>> upgrades, without having to really upgrade hardware(running on Thinkpad
>> T400s).
>
> linux is great for a server, but for desktop use the software
> availability is very limited.

Running Scientific Linux, a clone of RH/Centos, I have Firefox, Chrome,
Pan newsreader, Thunderbird, games(both GNOME and KDE), utilities, VLC,
libdvdcss2 for movies, and other desktop apps. I have LibreOffice, Adobe
Reader, Skype, GIMP, etc.

[nospam]

In article <m78378$dt3$1...@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1

<sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:

> >> I switched to enterprise linux in 2009, and have been used to OS
> >> upgrades, without having to really upgrade hardware(running on Thinkpad
> >> T400s).
> >
> > linux is great for a server, but for desktop use the software
> > availability is very limited.
>
> Running Scientific Linux, a clone of RH/Centos, I have Firefox, Chrome,
> Pan newsreader, Thunderbird, games(both GNOME and KDE), utilities, VLC,
> libdvdcss2 for movies, and other desktop apps. I have LibreOffice, Adobe
> Reader, Skype, GIMP, etc.

the apps you list are poor imitations of the real thing.

for example, the gimp is roughly where photoshop was 10 years ago and
is still missing some features photoshop had 20 years ago, plus it's
*substantially* slower than photoshop.

you can't run adobe creative suite, final cut pro, bbedit, microsoft
office, itunes, xcode and much, much more.

that's why linux users invariably dual-boot to windows, so that they
can run the apps they need, or hope that a given app works with wine.

[Alan Browne]

On 2014.12.21 12:19 , sctvguy1 wrote:
> I have a 2002 "Lamp" iMac, which came with 10.2 Jaguar. I bought
> Panther, then finally got Tiger, which is the limit for this machine. I
> run Linux and OS/2 on all of my other computers. I wonder why OS/X,
> which has a consistent look, is constantly being outdated with every new

> version? I cannot add newer apps, like Firefox or Chrome, or even an
> iTunes past version 9.2(which still works with my iPod Nano).
> This is not intended as a knock on Apple, just wondering why other OSes
> seem to continue compatibility and run updated apps while still keeping
> the original "look".

Things change. The OS X look is better in most respects - and that
included suitability to the much larger and finer pixel densities of
today v. 10 - 15 years ago.

OS versions are maintained for about 2 more major version cycles. eg:
10.4 was being maintained (updated) when 10.6 was the latest. (Possibly
longer...)

Also of course, Macs switched to intel in 2006/7 and so maintaining PPC
code died a few years after that.

> I would have like to buy a newer iMac, like a 21" Intel model, but cannot
> really afford to keep purchasing OS upgrades all the time.

OS upgrades dropped in price to about $20 each a few cycles ago. All
Macs under one household were covered by one license.

Now OS updates are free.

--
<< Among Broad Outlines, conception is far more pleasurable
than “carrying [the children] to fruition.”
Sadly, “there’s a high infant mortality rate among
Broad Outlines—they often fall prey to Nonstarters.” >>
"Bestiary of Intelligence Writing" - CIA

[sctvguy1]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 06:44:31 +0000, Lewis wrote:

> Okay, so one time? In band camp? sctvguy1 <sctv...@invalid.net> was
> all, like:

>> I have a 2002 "Lamp" iMac, which came with 10.2 Jaguar. I bought
>> Panther, then finally got Tiger, which is the limit for this machine.
>> I run Linux and OS/2 on all of my other computers. I wonder why OS/X,
>> which has a consistent look, is constantly being outdated with every
>> new version? I cannot add newer apps, like Firefox or Chrome, or even
>> an iTunes past version 9.2(which still works with my iPod Nano).
>> This is not intended as a knock on Apple, just wondering why other OSes
>> seem to continue compatibility and run updated apps while still keeping
>> the original "look".
>

> You're running current browsers and apps on OS/2?

Yes, there is the latest Firefox and Seamonkey and Thunderbird developed
for OS/2 and its modern successor, eComStation. Mensys in Holland still
develops updated apps. Also, Hobbes.edu in New Mexico is a huge
repository for updated apps.

[sctvguy1]

I do not do photography apps, so really all that stuff is not relevant to
me. Are you saying that FireFox, VLC, Thunderbird, LibreOffice(which
reads/writes Word documents), Skype, Adobe Reader are poor imitations?
Of what "real" things are they imitations of?
I just found out, through this group, about the TenFourFox ESR 31 browser
and it installed correctly on my Tiger OS. The Mac Mail still functions
well with Gmail, the Thor newsreader still works, I think at about 1.8.x.
Isn't OS/X based on unix/Darwin? Well, my linux has bash, vim, emacs,
LyTex, and other editors and word processors. Of course, I do not have
iTunes, but that is what the old iMac is for, a music server that still
connects to the iTunes Store(hopefully it will not be outdated/blocked
anytime soon).
As to games, I have DosBox installed, and have tons of old DOS games
installed, even games that have been ported to Linux. I play Simcity,
Wesnoth, and a lot of SSI strategic war games.
I do not need all the Adobe apps that you mentioned, I do not really do
photo apps, except Digikam, and sometimes use GIMP.

[sctvguy1]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 12:50:39 -0800, Savageduck wrote:


> Try running Photoshop CC (2014) on a Windows NT machine, on a G4 Mac, or
> any INTEL Mac running anything older than OSX 10.7.

Have never had a need for PS, not into professional photography or media
manipulation.

>> I would have like to buy a newer iMac, like a 21" Intel model, but
>> cannot really afford to keep purchasing OS upgrades all the time.
>
> You haven't been paying attention, both OSX 10.9 & OSX 10.10 (&
> incremental updates) were/are free.

You are correct, I had to stop paying attention when my iMac would only
go up to 10.4.11.

> Then You have to look beyond Apple at other software developers and how
> they draw upon IS development and improvement to refine their products
> to the point where those third party applications will noy, cannot
> function on an old defunct OS.
>
> Consider Adobe and their lack of continued support for old OSs in their
> new product releases. Apple and MS are not responsible for that business
> decision. Many folks upgraded their computer, or their OS just so they
> would be able to run current, supported Adobe software.

The only Adobe products I use/ever used, were Reader and Flash. Adobe
Reader still updates, and now that Chrome uses a sandboxed version of
Flash, I do not have to worry about that being updated.

> I can't run the version of Word I bought in 2000, or the version of
> Office I bought in 2003 on any current OS.

I have not used Office since I left teaching. Dade County/Palm Beach
County used Office 97/Office 2000 until I retired in 2007(on a myriad of
crappy Dell GX260's and IBM PC300's). They were up to XP on these
machines and were still running Office 2000! Some, in the library, were
running Office 97. That is the last time I have used Office. My father,
who gave me his old Dell GX620 with XP, still had his copy of Office 97
on it, and it was working.

[Savageduck]

On 2014-12-22 17:45:08 +0000, sctvguy1 <sctv...@invalid.net> said:

> On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 12:50:39 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
>
>> Try running Photoshop CC (2014) on a Windows NT machine, on a G4 Mac, or
>> any INTEL Mac running anything older than OSX 10.7.
>
> Have never had a need for PS, not into professional photography or media
> manipulation.

Well that is a reason for not updating you can check off your list.

>>> I would have like to buy a newer iMac, like a 21" Intel model, but
>>> cannot really afford to keep purchasing OS upgrades all the time.
>>
>> You haven't been paying attention, both OSX 10.9 & OSX 10.10 (&
>> incremental updates) were/are free.
>
> You are correct, I had to stop paying attention when my iMac would only
> go up to 10.4.11.

So all options are open. Live with stasis, or buy a new computer.

>> Then You have to look beyond Apple at other software developers and how
>> they draw upon IS development and improvement to refine their products
>> to the point where those third party applications will noy, cannot
>> function on an old defunct OS.
>>
>> Consider Adobe and their lack of continued support for old OSs in their
>> new product releases. Apple and MS are not responsible for that business
>> decision. Many folks upgraded their computer, or their OS just so they
>> would be able to run current, supported Adobe software.
>
> The only Adobe products I use/ever used, were Reader and Flash. Adobe
> Reader still updates, and now that Chrome uses a sandboxed version of
> Flash, I do not have to worry about that being updated.

Nothing wrong with that. However, some of us actually use a fair number
of Adobe Adobe applications, some free, some bought, and some
subscribed to.

>> I can't run the version of Word I bought in 2000, or the version of
>> Office I bought in 2003 on any current OS.
>
>
> I have not used Office since I left teaching. Dade County/Palm Beach
> County used Office 97/Office 2000 until I retired in 2007(on a myriad of
> crappy Dell GX260's and IBM PC300's). They were up to XP on these
> machines and were still running Office 2000! Some, in the library, were
> running Office 97. That is the last time I have used Office. My father,
> who gave me his old Dell GX620 with XP, still had his copy of Office 97
> on it, and it was working.

...and since I retired I have had little need for Word or Excel, and no
incentive to replace my unsupported versions.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[David Empson]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> Okay, so one time? In band camp? David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> was
> all, like:

> > I'd expect to see the next version or the one after that to increase the
> > requirements for memory, processor and/or graphics controller. This will
> > result in support being dropped for several more old Mac models,
> > probably maintaining a window of supporting four to seven year old Macs
> > in the latest OS X.
>

> Maybe. But every machine that could run 10.8, and almost every machine
> that could run 10.7, can also run 10.10.

"Almost every machine that could run 10.7"? Hardly. The Late 2006 to
Late 2008 MacBooks were probably the most popular Mac models in those
years and they can't upgrade to 10.8 or later.

Excluding the MacBook, most Mac models which could run 10.7 can also run
10.8 or later.

10.8 dropped support for one generation of iMac, MacBook Pro, MacBook
Air and Mac Mini; two generations of Mac Pro and Xserve; five
generations of MacBook. That left five supported generations of MacBook.

10.7 dropped support for one generation of iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro;
two generations of Mac Mini.

10.6 wins on this measure. On a generation basis and ignoring server
variants: two Mac Mini, four eMac, iBook and Xserve; five iMac; six
PowerBook; nine PowerMac.

10.5 wasn't far behind. On a generation basis and including partially
unsupported generations: two eMac; four PowerBook; six iMac; seven iBook
and PowerMac. (Most of the unsupported models which had G4 processors
could run 10.5 via an easy workaround.)

10.4 dropped support for one generation of iBook and PowerBook; four
generations of iMac (including partially unsupported generations).

10.3 dropped support for one generation of PowerMac and PowerBook
(counting speed bumps as part of the same generation).

10.0 matches 10.6 on model count: support was dropped for 54 models as
counted by MacTracker (including lots of very similar Performas and
PowerMacs which I can't be bothered analysing).

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[David Empson]

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2014.12.21 12:19 , sctvguy1 wrote:
> > I have a 2002 "Lamp" iMac, which came with 10.2 Jaguar. I bought
> > Panther, then finally got Tiger, which is the limit for this machine. I
> > run Linux and OS/2 on all of my other computers. I wonder why OS/X,
> > which has a consistent look, is constantly being outdated with every new
> > version? I cannot add newer apps, like Firefox or Chrome, or even an
> > iTunes past version 9.2(which still works with my iPod Nano).
> > This is not intended as a knock on Apple, just wondering why other OSes
> > seem to continue compatibility and run updated apps while still keeping
> > the original "look".
>
> Things change. The OS X look is better in most respects - and that
> included suitability to the much larger and finer pixel densities of
> today v. 10 - 15 years ago.
>
> OS versions are maintained for about 2 more major version cycles. eg:
> 10.4 was being maintained (updated) when 10.6 was the latest. (Possibly
> longer...)

No it wasn't. 10.4 got its last security update just before the release
of 10.6. It did get iTunes and Safari updates for another year. The
extra year of Safari updates for Tiger appear to be an anomaly because
no other version of OS X has had that privilege.

Apart from occasional overlap of one update (e.g. 10.4.11 was late and
was released after 10.5), Apple was maintaining a pattern of supporting
the latest version with minor updates, and the previous version with
security and Safari updates. (I'm not counting one-off very late
targetted updates, as happened with Leopard for FlashBack, for example.)

That pattern held through the 10.4-10.6 era. Based on a roughly two year
release cycle in that period, each version was getting security and
Safari updates for about four years after it was introduced.

Due to switching to annual releases with 10.7 onwards, 10.6 got security
and Safari updates until just before 10.9 was released, so it still had
four years of support. (10.6 is still getting Xprotect updates, so we
don't know what timeframe Apple is following there.)

Apple has now established a pattern of supporting three versions at
once. 10.7 stopped getting security and Safari updates just before 10.10
was released, so it appears that 10.7 and later are only getting three
years of support.

In the case of 10.7, that disadvantages Macs which cannot upgrade to
10.8 or later, but the worst case (Mac Mini sold until March 2009) still
got more than five years of security and Safari updates as long as it
was upgraded to Lion.

iTunes is a special case and is generally supported about one OS X
version longer than everything else (e.g. iTunes dropped OS X 10.6
support when OS X 10.10 was released, after a carefully timed iTunes
11.4 to allow OS X 10.6 to work with iOS 8).

> Also of course, Macs switched to intel in 2006/7 and so maintaining PPC
> code died a few years after that.
>
> > I would have like to buy a newer iMac, like a 21" Intel model, but cannot
> > really afford to keep purchasing OS upgrades all the time.
>
> OS upgrades dropped in price to about $20 each a few cycles ago. All
> Macs under one household were covered by one license.
>
> Now OS updates are free.


--

David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Alan Browne]

Your expertise in this is paled by the headache I get trying to follow
everything. But thanks for the punishment I deserve for putting out too
general a statement.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <1lx3vfa.1n48bfd12lsgj7N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,

dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> iTunes is a special case and is generally supported about one OS X
> version longer than everything else (e.g. iTunes dropped OS X 10.6
> support when OS X 10.10 was released, after a carefully timed iTunes
> 11.4 to allow OS X 10.6 to work with iOS 8).

I'm running SL and I still see occasional iTunes updates.

[nospam]

In article <barmar-6E18A5....@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > iTunes is a special case and is generally supported about one OS X
> > version longer than everything else (e.g. iTunes dropped OS X 10.6
> > support when OS X 10.10 was released, after a carefully timed iTunes
> > 11.4 to allow OS X 10.6 to work with iOS 8).
>
> I'm running SL and I still see occasional iTunes updates.

given that itunes 12 no longer supports snow leopard, you won't be
seeing additional updates unless apple decides to update 11.4 for some
reason, which is very unlikely.

[dorayme]

In article <barmar-6E18A5....@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <1lx3vfa.1n48bfd12lsgj7N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
> > iTunes is a special case and is generally supported about one OS X
> > version longer than everything else (e.g. iTunes dropped OS X 10.6
> > support when OS X 10.10 was released, after a carefully timed iTunes
> > 11.4 to allow OS X 10.6 to work with iOS 8).
>
> I'm running SL and I still see occasional iTunes updates.

iTunes 11.4 might be the last update? Today, I ran software update on
my SL Macbook, the only thing offered - I think - was a cup of tea. O
well, better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick, milk, no sugar
please.

--
dorayme

[David Empson]

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <1lx3vfa.1n48bfd12lsgj7N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
> > iTunes is a special case and is generally supported about one OS X
> > version longer than everything else (e.g. iTunes dropped OS X 10.6
> > support when OS X 10.10 was released, after a carefully timed iTunes
> > 11.4 to allow OS X 10.6 to work with iOS 8).
>
> I'm running SL and I still see occasional iTunes updates.

You _saw_ occasional iTunes updates up to and including iTunes 11.4,
which was released in September 2014, the same month that Apple released
the final Safari and security updates for Lion, and released iOS 8 and
the iPhone 6 (which are compatible with iTunes 11.4 and Snow Leoapard,
as are the iPad models released in October).

iTunes 12 was released in October alongside OS X 10.10. iTunes 12
dropped support for Snow Leopard. This means future versions of iTunes
will also not support Snow Leopard.

In theory, Apple could release a separate iTunes 11.x update for Snow
Leopard alongside a future iTunes 12.x update for later systems, but I
don't recall any occasion in the past where they have done that.

Once iTunes has dropped support for an OS X version, it also means that
future major iOS versions will not be compatible with the unsupported OS
X version, because you need an iTunes update to support the new iOS.

That almost certainly means Macs running Snow Leopard will not be able
to sync with or manage devices running iOS 9 (about September 2015).

The same thing already happened about two years ago for Leopard and four
years ago for Tiger.

iTunes 10.6.3 (June 2012) was the last version which ran on Leopard. The
iPhone 5 and iOS 6 require iTunes 10.7, therefore Mac OS X 10.6.8 or
later.

iTunes 9.2.1 (July 2010) was the last version which ran on Tiger. The
iPhone 4 and iOS 4 did support iTunes 9.2, but according to MacTracker
the iPhone 4 required Mac OS X 10.5.8 or later. I seem to recall the
Leopard requirement coming a little later, perhaps with the iOS 4.1
update.

Earlier in 2010, the original iPad (which came with iOS 3.2) had a
requirement for Leopard, whereas iPhones at the time running iOS 3.1.x
were compatible with Tiger.


If Apple maintains the current pattern, Lion will get a final iTunes
update which supports iOS 9 in September 2015, then Lion support will be
dropped by an iTunes update coinciding with OS X 10.11 in October. Lion
is in a slightly better position than Snow Leopard, because Lion is able
to sync some data with iOS devices via iCloud.

Google is a possible alternative for calendar and contact sync.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[David Empson]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> Okay, so one time? In band camp? David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> was
> all, like:
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >> Okay, so one time? In band camp? David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> was
> >> all, like:
> >> > I'd expect to see the next version or the one after that to increase the
> >> > requirements for memory, processor and/or graphics controller. This will
> >> > result in support being dropped for several more old Mac models,
> >> > probably maintaining a window of supporting four to seven year old Macs
> >> > in the latest OS X.
> >>
> >> Maybe. But every machine that could run 10.8, and almost every machine
> >> that could run 10.7, can also run 10.10.
>
> > "Almost every machine that could run 10.7"? Hardly. The Late 2006 to
> > Late 2008 MacBooks were probably the most popular Mac models in those
> > years and they can't upgrade to 10.8 or later.
>

> The 2006 MacBook Pro cannot run 10.7, it maxes out at 10.6.8.

I wasn't talking about MacBook Pros, and that statement is wrong anyway
because it mixes up two generations with different limits.

The Late 2006 MacBook (November 2006) and Late 2006 MacBook Pro (October
2006) have Core 2 Duo processors and max out at 10.7.5.

The original MacBook (May 2006) and early 2006 MacBook Pro (February,
April or May 2006 depending on the model) have Core Duo processors and
max out at 10.6.8.

> The June 2007 Mac Book Pro can run 10.10. The only ones capped at 10.7.5
> are the first core 2 duo machines (late 2006-June 2007), which is two
> models, one 15" and one 17".

Again, I wasn't talking about MacBook Pros.

As I said earlier, MacBook Pros, iMacs, Mac Minis and MacBook Airs only
had one generation which lost support with 10.8. The MacBook was the
significant "victim" of 10.8, with five generations (half of the
remaining ones) losing support.

Therefore your earlier statement that "almost all Macs which can run
10.7 can also run 10.8 or later" is not reasonable because half of the
MacBooks (the most popular model) were excluded.

> On the Macbooks, the machines pre-2009 are stuck at 10.7.5, but I would
> challenge anyone claiming these were the most popular anything at the
> time.

During that time period, Apple sold considerably more notebook models
than desktop models, and there is clear evidence that the MacBook was
the most popular Apple notebook model (presumably due to its lower
price) when it was still being sold. Since then, the MacBook Air has
probably taken over as the most popular model.

The weighting of models can be estimated based on Apple's financial
reports, which reported unit sales and revenue split between desktop and
notebook categories at the time. From that, we can calculate that the
average selling price of Mac Portables in the financial year ending
September 2008 was about US$1444, which falls within the high end of
prices of standard MacBook models and well below the lowest price of
MacBook Pros and MacBook Airs, indicating MacBooks were the highest
proportion of sales.

Notebook ASP was slightly higher in 2007 (US$1456, still well within
MacBooks), slightly lower in 2006 (US$1414, indicating MacBooks and
iBooks were most popular that year).

Notebook ASP was in the $1250-$1320 range in 2009-2012 (which had other
models getting cheaper and eventually the MacBook was eventually
discontinued). Apple doesn't report separate figures for Notebook sales
after their 2012 financial year.

> I certainly saw far more MacBook Pros than I saw regular Macbooks,
> but then again, that could just be the coffee shops I hung out in (and
> hang out in).

MacBook Pros were more popular among my friends who were Mac developers
or professional users, but among "regular" Mac users in my user group
and other people I know, the MacBook outnumbered the MacBook Pro.

I know quite a few people with 2007-2008 MacBooks who had to replace
them to upgrade beyond 10.7.5.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Erilar]

Thank you for the warning to reject iTunes "up"dates!
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[nospam]

In article <slrnm9pleg....@jaka.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> On the Macbooks, the machines pre-2009 are stuck at 10.7.5, but I would
> >> challenge anyone claiming these were the most popular anything at the
> >> time.
>
> > During that time period, Apple sold considerably more notebook models
> > than desktop models, and there is clear evidence that the MacBook was
> > the most popular Apple notebook model
>

> OK. What clear evidence? As far as I know, Apple's never broken down sales by
> model type, so someone is at best making an educated guess. I I said, I saw
> more 15 and 17 MacBookPros at the time than plastic MacBooks, but I will
> certainly concede that's just me.

apple sometimes reports laptop/desktop breakdown.

what they don't do is report specific model breakdowns, such as imac or
mac mini.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

philo <ph...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On 12/21/2014 02:24 PM, Ant wrote:
> > My parents, grandma and his son/my uncle, friends, etc. still use
> > landlines (coax cable with cable companies or old fashion copper phone
> > lines) too. A few them still use their old fax machines! I used to have
> > a copper phone line as my landline and dial-up Internet as backups in my
> > old nest.
>
>
>
> I had been on POTS for many years but went to VoIP about a year ago.
>
> When I drop the land line entirely I don't know what I'm going to do
> with my phones.

Late to this thread, but I've had naked DSL (no phone signal, only data)
for... nine years? Thereabouts. I'm moving to fibre this January, so
then I'll not even have any live copper wire in my place.

The only time I've missed an old analog phone signal, is during very
brief ISP outages, when it would have been nice to have been able to use
dialup as a backup (I used to keep a pay as you go dialup plan with
another ISP, when I had regular DSL, and for when I was away from home -
this being before WiFi was common). Oh, and one time in the past decade
when someone asked me to send them a fax, heh.

So yeah - bring on the future in this regard, I say.

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[David Empson]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> Okay, so one time? In band camp? David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> was all,
> like:

> > Therefore your earlier statement that "almost all Macs which can run
> > 10.7 can also run 10.8 or later" is not reasonable because half of the
> > MacBooks (the most popular model) were excluded.
>

> You've said that twice now. I see no evidence anywhere that the MacBook as the
> most popular model in the 2006-2008 era.

See below.

> >> On the Macbooks, the machines pre-2009 are stuck at 10.7.5, but I would
> >> challenge anyone claiming these were the most popular anything at the
> >> time.
>
> > During that time period, Apple sold considerably more notebook models
> > than desktop models, and there is clear evidence that the MacBook was
> > the most popular Apple notebook model
>

> OK. What clear evidence? As far as I know, Apple's never broken down sales by
> model type, so someone is at best making an educated guess. I I said, I saw
> more 15 and 17 MacBookPros at the time than plastic MacBooks, but I will
> certainly concede that's just me.
>

> > The weighting of models can be estimated based on Apple's financial
> > reports, which reported unit sales and revenue split between desktop and
> > notebook categories at the time. From that, we can calculate that the
> > average selling price of Mac Portables in the financial year ending
> > September 2008 was about US$1444, which falls within the high end of
> > prices of standard MacBook models and well below the lowest price of
> > MacBook Pros and MacBook Airs, indicating MacBooks were the highest
> > proportion of sales.
>

> That is one way to look at the numbers, sure. Another way is to say that the
> majority of MacBook sales were at the high end and the majority of MBP sales
> where at the low end.

That wouldn't work, because the ASP is lower than the price of the high
configuration MacBook, and much lower than the lowest price of any
MacBook Air or MacBook Pro. There must have been a lot of cheap MacBooks
sold for the ASP to be that low.

Just looking at early 2008 models for simplicity (earlier generations
were similar), the standard prices were:

MacBook: $1099 and $1499
MacBook Air: $1799
MacBook Pro 15": $1999 and $2499
MacBook Pro 17": $2799

If every MacBook Air/Pro sale was counterbalanced by a sale of the
cheapest MacBook, the ASP for (MacBook + MacBook Air) is $1449 (slightly
too high) and the ASP for (MacBook + MacBook Pro) is even higher.
Therefore there must be more sales of the cheapest MacBook than combined
sales of the MacBook Air and Pro to get the ASP lower than $1449.

Any sales of the expensive MacBook configuration would push the ASP up,
so yet more cheap MacBooks would need to be sold to bring the ASP down
again (both of which contribute to the MacBook side of the equation).

Therefore if all models were sold at standard prices, there must have
been more MacBooks sold than MacBook Airs and Pros combined.

Education pricing complicates the argument somewhat. Assuming a $100
education discount, if all notebook sales were to education, and there
was one cheap MacBook sold for each MacBook Air or Pro, then the ASP for
(MacBook + MacBook Air) was $1349, but the ASP for (MacBook + MacBook
Pro) was at least $1449.

Therefore if the vast majority of Mac notebook sales were to education,
and a lot more MacBook Airs were sold than MacBook Pros, it is
theoretically possible that combined MacBook Air and Pro unit sales
could have exceeded combined MacBook unit sales.

I don't think that is a realistic situation, especially once you factor
in configuration options, all of which would push the ASP higher,
requiring even more cheap MacBook sales to bring the ASP down again.

Therefore outside of that edge case, it is mathematically impossible for
Apple to have sold fewer MacBooks than all other notebooks combined in
2008.

The prices and arguments are similar for 2007: there was also a $1299
MacBook, but there was no MacBook Air, therefore the cheapest
non-MacBook was the entry level 15" MacBook Pro at $1999, requiring
proportionally more MacBook sales to keep the ASP lower than $1499.

> I suspect that is partially true since the 17" was *HUGE* and the people
> using it were buying it as a desktop replacement.

Apple stopped selling the 17" in 2012, because not enough people were
buying it to justify its continued existence.

In my own circle, the ratio of 15" to 17" MacBook Pros I've seen is in
the order of 10:1.

> And didn't we still have iBooks driving the ASP down?

Not in 2007 or 2008. Apple stopped selling the iBook (apart from
"refurbished") when they introduced the MacBook in May 2006, which
predates the area of interest for 10.7 vs 10.8 compatibility.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[David Empson]

If you are running Snow Leopard, you won't be offered any more iTunes
updates after 11.4, so there will not be an iTunes update to "reject".
If you tried to download and install iTunes 12 or later manually, the
installation would refuse to proceed because your system doesn't meet
the requirements.

Someone in this situation is better warned to not install iOS 9 or
subsequent iOS versions on their iPhones or iPads, and to stop buying
new iOS devices from about September 2015, because they won't be
supported by iTunes on a Mac which is still running Snow Leopard,
therefore that Mac will be unable to sync with or otherwise manage the
iOS device in iTunes.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Erilar]

In other words, I've reached a point where I have to avoid most updates
lest I lose functionality. I'm at the edge of losing better than 80% of my
non-jpg content along with most of my software now.

[David Empson]

You are also going to lose functionality if you don't install updates.

If you refuse to install app updates, you will eventually get to a point
where some of your apps stop working or are limited in functionality,
because they interact with online services which eventually require a
newer version of the app.

If you refuse to install OS updates, you will find an increasing number
of new and updated apps won't run on your older OS.

On a Mac running Snow Leopard, web access will get harder as the
remaining mainstream web browsers and plugins drop support for Snow
Leopard, and an increasing number of web sites reject older web browsers
and plugins for security reasons.

> I'm at the edge of losing better than 80% of my non-jpg content along with
> most of my software now.

If you are in this sort of situation, where the expense and complexity
of replacing or upgrading your software and/or converting old document
formats to new ones is too great, a better option is to keep the old
computer to run your old software, and get another computer running an
up-to-date operating system for everything else. Or do the same thing
virtually, by running an old operating system and applications inside a
virtual machine on a newer operating system.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Erilar]

This is actually the only solution I can see, though the situation isn't
this bad yet. I still have the G4 sitting next to the laptop for access to
really old stuff. I just don't know how I'd find room for a 3rd computer,
though my daughter's new iMac is a lovely piece of work. At my age, I
could die before it reaches that point, however. I'm already past the age
either of my parents made it to 8-)

[sctvguy1]

Why don't you install linux on that laptop. You won't have to worry
about being "outdated" as updates and modern software will run just fine.

[dorayme]

In article <m7koe6$354$2...@dont-email.me>,

Could you not install a later OS on a HD and run it from your Mac?
Will it run Mavericks at least. I just installed M (from a past
downloaded installer version 1.3.44 on an erased-in-Disk-Utility spare
HD and (apart from having to ignore a wacky notice that Stuffit
Expander is open and will be shut or something like that?) it
installed fine and I can start on Mavericks by choosing it as startup
o my 2010 Macbook, its internal HD running Snow leopard.

I notice style idiots have had a hand in designing it, making some
Finder text hard to see: pale grey! What possesses such arty farty
foolishness?

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article <m7krrd$e2f$2...@dont-email.me>,

Don't be silly. You must have no idea about other people.

--
dorayme

[nospam]

In article <m7krrd$e2f$2...@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1
<sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:

> >>> I'm at the edge of losing better than 80% of my non-jpg content along
> >>> with most of my software now.
> >>
> >> If you are in this sort of situation, where the expense and complexity
> >> of replacing or upgrading your software and/or converting old document
> >> formats to new ones is too great, a better option is to keep the old
> >> computer to run your old software, and get another computer running an
> >> up-to-date operating system for everything else. Or do the same thing
> >> virtually, by running an old operating system and applications inside a
> >> virtual machine on a newer operating system.
> >
> > This is actually the only solution I can see, though the situation isn't
> > this bad yet. I still have the G4 sitting next to the laptop for access
> > to really old stuff. I just don't know how I'd find room for a 3rd
> > computer, though my daughter's new iMac is a lovely piece of work. At
> > my age, I could die before it reaches that point, however. I'm already
> > past the age either of my parents made it to 8-)
>
> Why don't you install linux on that laptop. You won't have to worry
> about being "outdated" as updates and modern software will run just fine.

nonsense. linux has the least amount of software choices available and
more importantly, nothing she currently has will work.

[sctvguy1]

When was the last time that you checked distrowatch.com? Or checked the
repos of the major linux distros? Last count, Debian had over 35K of
software choices.

[sctvguy1]

And you do? She needs to do something, perhaps run Virtual Box, or some
other virtual machine. She mentions not wanting to spend any more money
on hardware. That is the reason that I keep my 2002 iMac/10.4.11 running
with its main duty of being an iTunes server. I found out that I cannot
afford to keep updating iMacs, so I went to Linux as a main OS on my
machines.

[nospam]

In article <m7lb2c$kit$1...@dont-email.me>, sctvguy1

<sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:

> >> Why don't you install linux on that laptop. You won't have to worry
> >> about being "outdated" as updates and modern software will run just
> >> fine.
> >
> > nonsense. linux has the least amount of software choices available and
> > more importantly, nothing she currently has will work.
>
> When was the last time that you checked distrowatch.com? Or checked the
> repos of the major linux distros? Last count, Debian had over 35K of
> software choices.

quality versus quantity.

most of that is crap, like the gimp.

[dorayme]

In article <m7lb81$kit$2...@dont-email.me>,

sctvguy1 <sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 13:46:49 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <m7krrd$e2f$2...@dont-email.me>,
> > sctvguy1 <sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >

...

> >> Why don't you install linux on that laptop. You won't have to worry
> >> about being "outdated" as updates and modern software will run just
> >> fine.
> >
> > Don't be silly. You must have no idea about other people.
>
> And you do?

Yes, I'm very good at all that stuff, not a trace of autism in me. I
was just born with tons of anti-autistic tendencies, brimming with
empathy and lurv towards others...

> She needs to do something, perhaps run Virtual Box, or some
> other virtual machine.

She does not need to do anything right now. Eventually there will be a
need to, there are lots of machines, many second hand that would run
Mavericks or Yosemite. Some will run her favourite Snow Leopard, and
Yosemite on a second hard disk, mine at least runs Mavericks from an
external HD and I expect I better let it go to Yosemite. I installed M
on a clean HD without any stuff of mine at all, just to be able to do
some things that cannot be done on SL.

> She mentions not wanting to spend any more money
> on hardware. That is the reason that I keep my 2002 iMac/10.4.11 running
> with its main duty of being an iTunes server. I found out that I cannot
> afford to keep updating iMacs, so I went to Linux as a main OS on my
> machines.

--
dorayme

[Jolly Roger]

On 2014-12-27, sctvguy1 <sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
> When was the last time that you checked distrowatch.com? Or checked the
> repos of the major linux distros? Last count, Debian had over 35K of
> software choices.

*WHOOSH* Macs can run most Linux software, as well as all Windows
software, as well as all Mac software.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[sctvguy1]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 14:37:27 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

> On 2014-12-27, sctvguy1 <sctv...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>> When was the last time that you checked distrowatch.com? Or checked
>> the repos of the major linux distros? Last count, Debian had over 35K
>> of software choices.
>
> *WHOOSH* Macs can run most Linux software, as well as all Windows
> software, as well as all Mac software.

That is exactly the reason that my friend, whose iMac will not run
anything past SL, put linux on them machine. Now, he has all the newest
browsers, etc. Linux runs great on the iMac. I had suggested a Virtual
machine, but he went full boat and wiped the disk clean and installed
linux.
Kubuntu KDE 14.04 runs very fast.

[Erilar]

dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>.
>
> She does not need to do anything right now. Eventually there will be a
> need to, there are lots of machines, many second hand that would run
> Mavericks or Yosemite. Some will run her favourite Snow Leopard, and
> Yosemite on a second hard disk, mine at least runs Mavericks from an
> external HD and I expect I better let it go to Yosemite. I installed M
> on a clean HD without any stuff of mine at all, just to be able to do
> some things that cannot be done on SL.
>

Exactly! I don't know how to do things like that, but it's something
someone might be able to do for me one of these days. I haven't done
anything seriously physical to hardware beyond connecting cable since the
days of vacuum tubes. When I mention age, most of the people in groups like
this one think in different terms than I do 8-)

>
>
>> She mentions not wanting to spend any more money
>> on hardware. That is the reason that I keep my 2002 iMac/10.4.11 running
>> with its main duty of being an iTunes server. I found out that I cannot
>> afford to keep updating iMacs, so I went to Linux as a main OS on my
>> machines.

It's not just hardware; it's also the learning curve with a mess of (also
expensive) new software. I like learning stuff generally, sometimes to the
point of obsession 8-). Re-learning how to do things I've done almost
effortlessly for years or even decades over again from scratch just because
of an OS "up"grade forced on me by a $$$$ -hungry tech company is NOT my
choice of learning. There are always books.

[Erilar]

My immediate reaction. I have inquired and could get a considerably larger
amount of memory installed in my MacBook Pro Intel, which could use more.
Question: could I then partition it or something and install newer stuff
without losing the old?

[nospam]

In article <m7mr5g$95o$2...@dont-email.me>, Erilar

<dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> >> Why don't you install linux on that laptop. You won't have to worry
> >> about being "outdated" as updates and modern software will run just fine.
> >
> > nonsense. linux has the least amount of software choices available and
> > more importantly, nothing she currently has will work.
>
> My immediate reaction. I have inquired and could get a considerably larger
> amount of memory installed in my MacBook Pro Intel, which could use more.
> Question: could I then partition it or something and install newer stuff
> without losing the old?

memory or a hard drive/ssd?

if you get a larger hard drive you could partition it and have your old
system and a separate newer system and boot either one, but that's a
bit of a pain.

if your memory is not maxed out, you should do that.

which mac is it and how much memory and how big is the hard drive?

[dorayme]

In article <m7mr5f$95o$1...@dont-email.me>,

Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >.
> >
> > She does not need to do anything right now. Eventually there will be a
> > need to, there are lots of machines, many second hand that would run
> > Mavericks or Yosemite. Some will run her favourite Snow Leopard, and
> > Yosemite on a second hard disk, mine at least runs Mavericks from an
> > external HD and I expect I better let it go to Yosemite. I installed M
> > on a clean HD without any stuff of mine at all, just to be able to do
> > some things that cannot be done on SL.
> >
> Exactly! I don't know how to do things like that, but it's something
> someone might be able to do for me one of these days. I haven't done
> anything seriously physical to hardware beyond connecting cable since the
> days of vacuum tubes. When I mention age, most of the people in groups like
> this one think in different terms than I do 8-)
> >

...

>
> It's not just hardware; it's also the learning curve with a mess of (also
> expensive) new software. I like learning stuff generally, sometimes to the
> point of obsession 8-). Re-learning how to do things I've done almost
> effortlessly for years or even decades over again from scratch just because
> of an OS "up"grade forced on me by a $$$$ -hungry tech company is NOT my
> choice of learning. There are always books.

If your Mac will run Mavericks or Yosemite but you are not ready to do
this seriously yet still want to have a few extra functionalities
using only the free apps that come with Mac OS greater than Snow
Leopard, then try putting the later OS on a portable usb drive,
cheapest being a hard drive.

1. Go to <http://www.apple.com/au/osx/how-to-upgrade/> and check to
see if you can download the installer for a later OS. I did and got
for free 'Install OS Mavericks.app' Version 1.3.44. You might even be
able to get the Yosemite installer, I don't know, but you can move
from Mavericks to Yosemite later if you want to. as I did, it was a
free upgrade for me.

2. Get or buy a portable usb hard drive (they are pretty cheap, neat,
huge in capacity, they are powered through the usb). Look up, for
example, "Seagate Backup Plus 1TB Portable Hard Drive". You probably
can get one for less than $80.

3. Connect the drive by usb to your Mac and open Disk Utility, erase
it and choose Mac OS Extended (Journaled) as the format.

4. Fire up the installer and say install and it will then give you a
choice of which disk to do it on. Choose carefully the portable drive,
give it a name like Mavericks (you do this by clicking on the words
under the icon on the desktop, press enter and the name is
highlighted, type in whatever name you like - I tend to give it a name
to suggest its size like 1TB or you can call it Mavericks, you can
easily change it later)

5. Wait for the installer to do its business. When finished, restart
your Mac but hold down the option key all the time (though you can
just do it till after the bong), you will then be given a choice of
disks to start with, choose the new portable and it will then fire up
with the new OS and you can safely fiddle about checking it all out,
updating it through software update, get latest iTunes.

6. When finished, and ready to go back to your normal Snow Leopard,
restart and option key again and choose the internal hard disk.

This is one way to see what is what with the new system. It would be a
different and more frustrating experience if you tried to migrate all
from Snow to later, think of this for a future possibility or install
any app that you know will work ok.

--
dorayme

[Erilar]

I have to start up the laptop and ask it. I don't have all that in my
head. But I have asked the mac dealer(not an actual Apple Store, but my
closest source and the place I've been dealing with for years) and been
told they can install a MUCH bigger HD and migrate all my stuff. They could
probably help me set up this partition thing if I want to go that route.
I'm down to 3gb available currently, even with a good amount of stuff
archived in part of my TimeCapsule.

[Erilar]

I am going to save this for later, thanks! It sounds like something I can
manage.

[Erilar]

OK, with iPad perched on edge of desk 8-) :

Processor. 2.16 Ghz Intel Core Duo
Memory 2 GB 667 Mhz DDR2 SDRAM
Model identifier MacBookPro1,1
Capacity 99.55. GB
Available 3.46 GB
Mac OS Extended (Journaled)

The service manager at Macman(my reachable place 50 miles from here) says
it's possible to install a 500GB drive for $250 plus tax including data
migration in my laptop, which they are familiar with. I'm sure they could
also help me set up a partition for Mavericks if this computer can handle
it, which I hadn't considered before.

[nospam]

In article <m7pjcc$de6$1...@dont-email.me>, Erilar

<dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> >>
> >> My immediate reaction. I have inquired and could get a considerably larger
> >> amount of memory installed in my MacBook Pro Intel, which could use more.
> >> Question: could I then partition it or something and install newer stuff
> >> without losing the old?
> >
> > memory or a hard drive/ssd?
> >
> > if you get a larger hard drive you could partition it and have your old
> > system and a separate newer system and boot either one, but that's a
> > bit of a pain.
> >
> > if your memory is not maxed out, you should do that.
> >
> > which mac is it and how much memory and how big is the hard drive?
>
> OK, with iPad perched on edge of desk 8-) :
>
> Processor. 2.16 Ghz Intel Core Duo
> Memory 2 GB 667 Mhz DDR2 SDRAM
> Model identifier MacBookPro1,1
> Capacity 99.55. GB
> Available 3.46 GB
> Mac OS Extended (Journaled)

that's the first macbook pro, from 2006. it's eight years old!

the maximum amount of memory is 2 gig (which is not all that much) and
the last system it can run is snow leopard (10.6).

more info here:
<http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/specs/macbook_pro_2.1
6.html>

> The service manager at Macman(my reachable place 50 miles from here) says
> it's possible to install a 500GB drive for $250 plus tax including data
> migration in my laptop, which they are familiar with. I'm sure they could
> also help me set up a partition for Mavericks if this computer can handle
> it, which I hadn't considered before.

online prices are about $50ish for a 500 gig drive and about $70ish for
a 1 tb drive.

they're basically charging you $200 to install it and copy the data.

it's about a half hour of time for someone who has done it before
(possibly less), and then cloning it which is nothing more than putting
the old drive in an enclosure and running an app to do the copy,
something anyone can do.

it's not worth spending $250 for a macbook that old. you can buy a used
macbook with better specs for roughly that much or a little more, or
consider a new/refurb replacement.

[erilar]

In article <281220141411277923%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

Saved this, too. It's not as if I'm in a big rush. So here's a new
question: If I bought a new computer, could they set it up so that I
could access all my 10.6.8 software and data(some it it saved in a data
folder on my TimeCapsule) via some kind of partition setup?

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article <m7pdc7$keo$2...@dont-email.me>,

Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > In article <m7mr5f$95o$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> > ...
> >>
> >> It's not just hardware; it's also the learning curve with a mess of (also
> >> expensive) new software. I like learning stuff generally, sometimes to the
> >> point of obsession 8-). Re-learning how to do things I've done almost
> >> effortlessly for years or even decades over again from scratch just because
> >> of an OS "up"grade forced on me by a $$$$ -hungry tech company is NOT my
> >> choice of learning. There are always books.
> >
> > If your Mac will run Mavericks or Yosemite but you are not ready to do
> > this seriously yet still want to have a few extra functionalities
> > using only the free apps that come with Mac OS greater than Snow
> > Leopard, then try putting the later OS on a portable usb drive,
> > cheapest being a hard drive.
> >
> > 1. Go to <http://www.apple.com/au/osx/how-to-upgrade/> and check to
> > see if you can download the installer for a later OS. I did and got
> > for free 'Install OS Mavericks.app' Version 1.3.44. You might even be
> > able to get the Yosemite installer, I don't know, but you can move
> > from Mavericks to Yosemite later if you want to. as I did, it was a
> > free upgrade for me.

I went to that URL and there was no mention of Mavericks, just Yosemite,
but even if it were possible to leapfrog that far, I don't have enough
free memory to play around with. Whatever I eventually do, more memory
or something new is going to have to be a prerequisite.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[dorayme]

In article <drache-45B720....@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,

OK, I was unsure of your model at the time I wrote all that stuff.
Honestly, Erilar, don't even think of spending lots of money on yours,
time to maybe keep it going as is but throw off all the stuff you are
not needing to an external portable to free up space and consider
getting a later model mac, secondhand or Apple refurbished.

--
dorayme

[David Empson]

Yes, but the details vary depending on which model you get.

Macs introduced from mid 2011 onwards (including all current/new models
and all refurbished models Apple is offering from their online store)
require Lion (OS X 10.7) or later, so it wouldn't be possible to run
Snow Leopard in a partition (or an external drive). These models can run
Snow Leopard (Server, but once set up you can ignore the server aspects)
in a "virtual machine", e.g. I have this arrangement on my Late 2013
MacBook Pro.

In brief: the computer always boots into the "new" operating system, and
if you need to run the older operating system and applications, you do
so via an application which behaves like starting up a separate
computer, running inside a window on the newer operating system (it can
also run in full screen mode). You can then run new and old software at
the same time.

Setting up a virtual machine will be more complicated than the other
option:

If you got a Mid 2007 to Early 2011 MacBook Pro (which would have to be
second hand at this point), it would be able to run Snow Leopard and
Yosemite, installed in separate partitions, and boot directly into
either operating system. It would be necessary to restart the computer
each time you wanted to switch operating systems, e.g. restart to run
old software, then restart again to to run modern software.

If you went with a MacBook or MacBook Air instead of a MacBook Pro, the
range of models which can run Snow Leopard and Yosemite is more limited:
any 2009 to Early 2011 model, Late 2008 Aluminium MacBook, Late 2008
MacBook Air.

It would be better to get a later model (e.g. Early 2011 in preference
to Mid 2007) so that it is faster, can have more memory installed, and
is more likely to be supported by future operating system upgrades.

A MacBook Pro is a better choice than a MacBook or MacBook Air, for the
same reasons.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[nospam]

In article <drache-47A426....@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,

erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:

> So here's a new
> question: If I bought a new computer, could they set it up so that I
> could access all my 10.6.8 software and data(some it it saved in a data
> folder on my TimeCapsule) via some kind of partition setup?

if you get a new mac, you will need to migrate your old stuff from the
old computer to the new computer because it will not boot 10.6 anymore.
some apps will no longer work (those that are powerpc) and other apps
may need to be updated.

if you want to continue using 10.6, you would need to get a used mac
made in 2011 or earlier, which is when lion came out. you could then
copy everything you have to to it and continue using the exact same
system & apps, but on a newer and faster mac.

[Erilar]

Apparently a new Mac would just create new problems, then? I have no idea
where I'd find what you suggest even if I were able to do so. My tech
skills aren't up to redoing that kind of things. I know enough about
programming to understand limitations, not enough to do it, and the nearest
people who do are 50 miles south of here and not cheap. I've never asked
whether they could do something like this for me, however.

[Erilar]

David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

I have been thinking about the laptop's age, but I MUST have a usable
10.6.8 system somewhere. I'm saving all the advice offered so I can look at
it again later.

[Erilar]

I can't see doing that on line. Unless they have an alternative, I have no
other source I could reach. 8-(

[dorayme]

In article <m7q2f4$729$1...@dont-email.me>,

Keep your mac but offload all the stuff you don't need on a regular
basis to a portable disk to free up space. Keep using it for many of
the things you want to do. Look for a later model Mac, a Macbook is
probably the way to go that either has later OS on it or can be easily
upgraded for free to later. This latter so you can get functionalities
that are going to be more and more difficult on Snow Leopard.

For the moment don't think of migrating anything at all, that makes
you not have to worry at all, for a start. If and when you get a more
modern Macbook, you can find out what apps of yours might work later
or just keep it and cautiously add apps you are sure will work (by
asking and by looking at supported operating systems for the apps).

This way, you don't need to jump into uncharted waters, you just dip
toes and wade in a bit for this and that.

To give you an example that forced me to obtain an OS greater than
Snow, I was given a car sat nav map device for xmas and it could not
be updated, neither firmware nor software, on Snow. Since I had the
installer for Mavericks (downloaded a few months back for free when it
was discussed here) I installed it on a spare portablen as I have
described. I was able to load the sat nav app fine on it when I
started from the portable.

Apparently you can't start from a portable with greater than Snow,and
while my Macbook is 2010 and can, it's 4GB ram would surely be painful
for serious use, so I too will have to buy a later Mac at some stage
in the near future, but at least I can do a few things like in the
example with the portable. In your case, a secondhand or Apple
refurbished with good Ram will give you some more facilities like more
secure Safari (for now, on Snow, Firefox at least, is good for banking
and other things).

--
dorayme

[Erilar]

I've been archiving folders as "data" on my Time Capsule, but i suspect
only .jpeg files would be accessible without Snow Leopard???

>
> For the moment don't think of migrating anything at all, that makes
> you not have to worry at all, for a start. If and when you get a more
> modern Macbook, you can find out what apps of yours might work later
> or just keep it and cautiously add apps you are sure will work (by
> asking and by looking at supported operating systems for the apps).

I keep hoping a couple favorites will come up with new versions, but it
hasn't happened yet. Others DO have updated versions, though.

>
> This way, you don't need to jump into uncharted waters, you just dip
> toes and wade in a bit for this and that.
>
> To give you an example that forced me to obtain an OS greater than
> Snow, I was given a car sat nav map device for xmas and it could not
> be updated, neither firmware nor software, on Snow. Since I had the
> installer for Mavericks (downloaded a few months back for free when it
> was discussed here) I installed it on a spare portablen as I have
> described. I was able to load the sat nav app fine on it when I
> started from the portable.
>
> Apparently you can't start from a portable with greater than Snow,and
> while my Macbook is 2010 and can, it's 4GB ram would surely be painful
> for serious use, so I too will have to buy a later Mac at some stage
> in the near future, but at least I can do a few things like in the
> example with the portable. In your case, a secondhand or Apple
> refurbished with good Ram will give you some more facilities like more
> secure Safari (for now, on Snow, Firefox at least, is good for banking
> and other things).

If I can't find a newer but still compatible Macbook, It looks as if I just
have to figure out how to live without OS upgrades while I hope for some in
software I'm pretty dependant on, then eventually buy a newer computer and
build another shelf so it can take turns with the old one. But I seem to
remember someone saying something about iPad backup to another computer
being a problem? Maybe I'll manage to die suddenly first 8-)

[Jolly Roger]

On 2014-12-29, Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>
> I've been archiving folders as "data" on my Time Capsule, but i suspect
> only .jpeg files would be accessible without Snow Leopard???

What gives you that idea?

[John McWilliams]

What I'd do, and did some time ago:

Get the newest and best machine you can, set it up as new. Do not import
applications, but import files that you will want to work on or need to
view. Then find what software you may need to acquire to work on said
files. For something intransigent, you'll have the old machine to use
for those not-upgradable files. You may find you can export them on the
old machine to a different format that the new one can see/read/use.

Good luck!

[dorayme]

In article <m7rpbd$ve$2...@dont-email.me>,

Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> If I can't find a newer but still compatible Macbook, It looks as if I just
> have to figure out how to live without OS upgrades while I hope for some in
> software I'm pretty dependant on, then eventually buy a newer computer and
> build another shelf so it can take turns with the old one. But I seem to
> remember someone saying something about iPad backup to another computer
> being a problem? Maybe I'll manage to die suddenly first 8-)

If you mean by "compatible", a computer that can run Snow and (either
on a partition or a portable disk) later OS, yes, these are to be
found. Mine is a 2010 Macbook and I have described what I have done,
namely kept the machine business as usual on Snow but put a later OS
on a portable hard disk, which I can and have started from to do
things that Snow won't do. The latter would include syncing with iPads.

Integrating all your apps and everything on a more modern OS is a
higher hurdle task for you and I can understand your hesitation about
all this. I have suggested a middle way that is less burdensome.

Walk every day or swim, eat lots of vegetables and don't die!

--
dorayme

[Erilar]

I have instituted inquiries. An on-line search keeps turning up only
post-2011 models from sources I moght trust.

>
> Walk every day or swim, eat lots of vegetables and don't die!

I do all three and a neighbor with a BIG snowblower wards off the deep snow
heart attack 8-)

[Erilar]

John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
.
>>
> What I'd do, and did some time ago:
>
> Get the newest and best machine you can, set it up as new. Do not import
> applications, but import files that you will want to work on or need to
> view. Then find what software you may need to acquire to work on said
> files. For something intransigent, you'll have the old machine to use for
> those not-upgradable files. You may find you can export them on the old
> machine to a different format that the new one can see/read/use.
>
> Good luck!

Actually, that's been in the back of my mind for some time. I'd have to add
a shelf for new toys, though 8-)

[Erilar]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2014-12-29, Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>
>> I've been archiving folders as "data" on my Time Capsule, but i suspect
>> only .jpeg files would be accessible without Snow Leopard???
>
> What gives you that idea?
>

What later OS could open the others?

[dorayme]

In article <m7ugkn$ie1$4...@dont-email.me>,

Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > In article <m7rpbd$ve$2...@dont-email.me>,
> > Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> >
> >> If I can't find a newer but still compatible Macbook, It looks as if I just
> >> have to figure out how to live without OS upgrades while I hope for some in
> >> software I'm pretty dependant on, then eventually buy a newer computer and
> >> build another shelf so it can take turns with the old one. But I seem to
> >> remember someone saying something about iPad backup to another computer
> >> being a problem? Maybe I'll manage to die suddenly first 8-)
> >
> > If you mean by "compatible", a computer that can run Snow and (either
> > on a partition or a portable disk) later OS, yes, these are to be
> > found. Mine is a 2010 Macbook and I have described what I have done,
> > namely kept the machine business as usual on Snow but put a later OS
> > on a portable hard disk, which I can and have started from to do
> > things that Snow won't do. The latter would include syncing with iPads.
> >
> > Integrating all your apps and everything on a more modern OS is a
> > higher hurdle task for you and I can understand your hesitation about
> > all this. I have suggested a middle way that is less burdensome.
>
> I have instituted inquiries. An on-line search keeps turning up only
> post-2011 models from sources I moght trust.
> >

<http://support.apple.com/en-au/HT201475>

mentions nothing past 2009 to install and run Yosemite. But some
features I have never heard of (Handoff and Instant Hotspot
?) require later models.

--
dorayme

[Jolly Roger]

On 2014-12-30, Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-12-29, Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been archiving folders as "data" on my Time Capsule, but i suspect
>>> only .jpeg files would be accessible without Snow Leopard???
>>
>> What gives you that idea?
>>
> What later OS could open the others?

Which "others"? There are many, many formats other than JPEG that any
version of Mac OS can open.

[David Empson]

That wasn't worded very well. Yosemite is supported by all Mac models
introduced in 2009 or later.

Yosemite also works on some models introduced in 2007 and 2008:

iMacs and MacBook Pros from Mid 2007.
Mac Pros from Early 2008.
MacBook Airs and Aluminium MacBooks from Late 2008.

I think Erilar's issue is that the only _new_ models (or remaining stock
of unsold/refurbished models) she can find are 2012 or later, none of
which can boot Snow Leopard.

> But some features I have never heard of (Handoff and Instant Hotspot ?)
> require later models.

Handoff and Instant Hotspot are new features of iOS 8 and Yosemite. They
are part of the "Continuity" set of features which Apple is touting as
new in these OS versions. A related one is AirDrop between Macs and iOS
devices, which require a Mac running Yosemite, and an iOS device running
iOS 7 or later. To use these three features, both devices must be new
enough models, and be running new enough OS versions.

Handoff: lets you quickly transfer a document you are working on to the
corresponding app on another nearby device of yours. e.g. start
composing a message or email on an iPhone or iPad, and pick it up on the
Mac where it is easier to type, or start writing a document in Pages on
the Mac, and take it away with you on the iPad to keep working on it.

Instant Hotspot: lets you enable and connect to the Personal Hotspot
feature (sharing its cellular data connection via Wi-Fi) on your iPhone
or cellular iPad from another of your devices, without having to touch
the device which is supplying the hotspot.

AirDrop: lets you copy documents directly between devices with no
established network connection. (There is also an older Mac-only
implementation of AirDrop, which works on most models that can run
Yosemite, and only involves Wi-Fi.)

These three features require Bluetooth 4.0 support, and Apple has chosen
an arbitrary cutoff of iOS and Mac models introduced in Mid 2012 or
later to enable these features, even though the preceding model in some
families has the necessary Bluetooth 4.0. (The Mid 2012 Mac Pro doesn't
support these features, because it doesn't have Bluetooth 4.0.)

The specific models which support Handoff, Instant Hotspot and
iOS-compatible AirDrop are:

iPhone 5 and later
iPad (4th generation) and later
iPad mini - all models
iPod Touch (5th generation)
MacBook Air (Mid 2012) and later
MacBook Pro (Mid 2012) and later
Mac Mini (Late 2012) and later
iMac (Late 2012) and later
Mac Pro (Late 2013)

The "Continuity" feature set also includes phone calls and text messages
being transferred between your iPhone and your iPod Touch, iPad or Mac;
these two features do not involve Bluetooth and work with all Macs
running Yosemite, and iOS devices running iOS 8. (An iPhone is required,
and the phone calls and text messages go via the iPhone.)

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[dorayme]

In article <1lxisqn.1ojcxejbyda9pN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,

dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> Yosemite is supported by all Mac models
> introduced in 2009 or later.
>
> Yosemite also works on some models introduced in 2007 and 2008:
>
> iMacs and MacBook Pros from Mid 2007.
> Mac Pros from Early 2008.
> MacBook Airs and Aluminium MacBooks from Late 2008.
>
> I think Erilar's issue is that the only _new_ models (or remaining stock
> of unsold/refurbished models) she can find are 2012 or later, none of
> which can boot Snow Leopard.
>

There many ways to go for people in similar situations. If the
situation includes a long established practice with Snow and earlier
and one is of an age and energy that does not envisage a big new
future on computers, if money is not plentiful, then a cheap
secondhand Macbook that will run both Snow and later may be
attractive. The later can be run in a partition or simply on a
portable disk. The later might be needed only for a very few things
for quite some time.

If the situation is a bit different and the future is regarded more
optimistically - I hope I am not sounding too depressing! - then a
newish Macbook sounds a good idea but I think she could hold off from
going in hard migrating, rather being content to playing with the new
one as it comes and seeing how it all goes and what apps that come
along wit a new Mac or what are very cheap to buy or obtain that are
known to be very compatible with the latest can open her documents and
photos etc, and keeping her old Mac as is for as long as she can.

> > But some features I have never heard of (Handoff and Instant Hotspot ?)
> > require later models.
>
> Handoff and Instant Hotspot are new features of iOS 8 and Yosemite. They
> are part of the "Continuity" set of features which Apple is touting as

> new in these OS versions. A related on ...

Thanks for the explanation.

--
dorayme

[Erilar]

dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> In article <1lxisqn.1ojcxejbyda9pN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
>> Yosemite is supported by all Mac models
>> introduced in 2009 or later.
>>
>> Yosemite also works on some models introduced in 2007 and 2008:
>>
>> iMacs and MacBook Pros from Mid 2007.
>> Mac Pros from Early 2008.
>> MacBook Airs and Aluminium MacBooks from Late 2008.
>>
>> I think Erilar's issue is that the only _new_ models (or remaining stock
>> of unsold/refurbished models) she can find are 2012 or later, none of
>> which can boot Snow Leopard.

That's it in one.

>
> There many ways to go for people in similar situations. If the
> situation includes a long established practice with Snow and earlier
> and one is of an age and energy that does not envisage a big new
> future on computers, if money is not plentiful, then a cheap
> secondhand Macbook that will run both Snow and later may be
> attractive. The later can be run in a partition or simply on a
> portable disk. The later might be needed only for a very few things
> for quite some time.
>
> If the situation is a bit different and the future is regarded more
> optimistically - I hope I am not sounding too depressing! - then a
> newish Macbook sounds a good idea but I think she could hold off from
> going in hard migrating, rather being content to playing with the new
> one as it comes and seeing how it all goes and what apps that come
> along wit a new Mac or what are very cheap to buy or obtain that are
> known to be very compatible with the latest can open her documents and
> photos etc, and keeping her old Mac as is for as long as she can.
>

6 of one, half a dozen of the other 8-)

My ancient G4 running OS 9.2.2 still works even on the web and is my
connection to old media, though the direct connection to the laptop died
when I upgraded past the local network connection with the latter with the
upgrade I needed to use the first iPad. I can, however, still move more of
its contents to the old Firewire backup sitting on top of it from it and
connect that to the laptop, which can only read it. (I do know how to
connect things physically, even if I don't know why the laptop can no
longer write to that HD. 8-) ). The old one has the same version of
AppleWorks as the one on the laptop, which is--just barely*-- openable by
10.6.8. So I could possibly find a way to deal with a 3rd computer more
easily than some intermediate method if I can find enough things to move
off to the data folder on my TimeCapslue to free up more storage space on
the current laptop for the present. I can live with the occasional crash I
cause when I multi-task too enthusiastically if that's all that happens.
*AW crashes if I try to change fonts but works otherwise.

I may take the laptop down (50 miles south of here) for a full "physical"
once we exchange winter for road construction season(those are the seasons
in the Upper Midwest) before I decide what further step(s) to take. I have
never really liked driving and two hundred-mile round trips in
unpredictable winter weather are not fun.

I really appreciate all the advice I've been receiving, even though it may
not always sound that way 8-)

[dorayme]

In article <m84b8o$98c$1...@dont-email.me>,

Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> I may take the laptop down (50 miles south of here) for a full "physical"
> once we exchange winter for road construction season(those are the seasons
> in the Upper Midwest) before I decide what further step(s) to take. I have
> never really liked driving and two hundred-mile round trips in
> unpredictable winter weather are not fun.

Before you take on this, be a little careful that where you are taking
it to would be all that much more informative than what is on hand at
your end by you.

In case it helps, I suggest a few things like

1. Leave a few GB free on your main working disk, if need be, get
stuff you hardly if ever use off onto a portable disk.

2. Check the disk with Disk Utility for file formatting integrity,
just follow First Aid.

3. Again, in Disk Utility, you can get an idea of impending disk
failure if the disk you use has built in "Self-Monitoring Analysis and
Reporting Technology", many if not most do. Disk Utility will get this
info for you. The S.M.A.R.T. status is indicated.

4. Make sure you have a quite separate portable disk on which you have
a latest backup, not much use backing up to an only internal disk
which fails holus bolus.

5. You can do all sorts of cleanup and "maintenance" in a program
called OnyX, I think the one for Snow is

<http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/11582/onyx>

It's free. It does do useful things and it makes you feel good at the
very least!

--
dorayme

[Erilar]

dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> In article <m84b8o$98c$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>
>> I may take the laptop down (50 miles south of here) for a full "physical"
>> once we exchange winter for road construction season(those are the seasons
>> in the Upper Midwest) before I decide what further step(s) to take. I have
>> never really liked driving and two hundred-mile round trips in
>> unpredictable winter weather are not fun.
>
> Before you take on this, be a little careful that where you are taking
> it to would be all that much more informative than what is on hand at
> your end by you.

They've been doing my Mac stuff for me for years. They're specialists even
if not a trademarked Apple Store 8-)
There may be a regular Apple Store in the Twin Cities somewhere, but I
don't have the steely nerves needed for big city traffic, even if it
weren't further.

>
> In case it helps, I suggest a few things like
>
> 1. Leave a few GB free on your main working disk, if need be, get
> stuff you hardly if ever use off onto a portable disk.

I've been finding more things to stash on my TimeCapsule to get a few more
gb free on the laptop. Doesn't that count?

>
> 2. Check the disk with Disk Utility for file formatting integrity,
> just follow First Aid.
>

Good point; I haven't done that lately

> 3. Again, in Disk Utility, you can get an idea of impending disk
> failure if the disk you use has built in "Self-Monitoring Analysis and
> Reporting Technology", many if not most do. Disk Utility will get this
> info for you. The S.M.A.R.T. status is indicated.
>
> 4. Make sure you have a quite separate portable disk on which you have
> a latest backup, not much use backing up to an only internal disk
> which fails holus bolus.

Is TimeCapsule separate enough? I have a data folder on it.

>
> 5. You can do all sorts of cleanup and "maintenance" in a program
> called OnyX, I think the one for Snow is
>
> <http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/11582/onyx>

I just found that in Applications and wondered what it was. Oops!

>
> It's free. It does do useful things and it makes you feel good at the
> very least!



--

[dorayme]

In article <m86oir$pah$2...@dont-email.me>,

Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:

> dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > In article <m84b8o$98c$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> >

...

> >
> > In case it helps, I suggest a few things like
> >
> > 1. Leave a few GB free on your main working disk, if need be, get
> > stuff you hardly if ever use off onto a portable disk.
>
> I've been finding more things to stash on my TimeCapsule to get a few more
> gb free on the laptop. Doesn't that count?
> >

I guess, as long as you are not just copying; ie. you are then
deleting the stuff on your main working startup disk and then emptying
the trash.

You are a modern thing with this! Me, I just have so many portables
and semi portables that you just plug in with a USB (or Firewire in
the case of an old not much used G4). That capsule thing of yours
sounds good for proper backups - meaning that if your main working
disk goes south, you can start off the backup and restore a new hard
drive with to get going again.

> > 2. Check the disk with Disk Utility for file formatting integrity,
> > just follow First Aid.
> >
> Good point; I haven't done that lately
>
> > 3. Again, in Disk Utility, you can get an idea of impending disk
> > failure if the disk you use has built in "Self-Monitoring Analysis and
> > Reporting Technology", many if not most do. Disk Utility will get this
> > info for you. The S.M.A.R.T. status is indicated.
> >
> > 4. Make sure you have a quite separate portable disk on which you have
> > a latest backup, not much use backing up to an only internal disk
> > which fails holus bolus.
>
> Is TimeCapsule separate enough? I have a data folder on it.
> >

Well, I guess, it's separate enough, not even married by cables. To be
sure, put it as faraway as the wifi will range. The last was a joke.

> > 5. You can do all sorts of cleanup and "maintenance" in a program
> > called OnyX, I think the one for Snow is
> >
> > <http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/11582/onyx>
>
> I just found that in Applications and wondered what it was. Oops!
> >
> > It's free. It does do useful things and it makes you feel good at the
> > very least!

--

dorayme

[Erilar]

dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> In article <m86oir$pah$2...@dont-email.me>,
> Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>
>> dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> In article <m84b8o$98c$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Erilar <dra...@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>
> ...
>>>
>>> In case it helps, I suggest a few things like
>>>
>>> 1. Leave a few GB free on your main working disk, if need be, get
>>> stuff you hardly if ever use off onto a portable disk.
>>
>> I've been finding more things to stash on my TimeCapsule to get a few more
>> gb free on the laptop. Doesn't that count?
>>>
>
>
> I guess, as long as you are not just copying; ie. you are then
> deleting the stuff on your main working startup disk and then emptying
> the trash.

I've doubled the spare storage doing just that, at least, even if it's only
to 5.4 GB. I probably have more things I don't need that often.

>
> You are a modern thing with this! Me, I just have so many portables
> and semi portables that you just plug in with a USB (or Firewire in
> the case of an old not much used G4). That capsule thing of yours
> sounds good for proper backups - meaning that if your main working
> disk goes south, you can start off the backup and restore a new hard
> drive with to get going again.

I m not sure how that's done, but that's why I bought it originally.

>
>>> 2. Check the disk with Disk Utility for file formatting integrity,
>>> just follow First Aid.
>>>
>> Good point; I haven't done that lately
>>
>>> 3. Again, in Disk Utility, you can get an idea of impending disk
>>> failure if the disk you use has built in "Self-Monitoring Analysis and
>>> Reporting Technology", many if not most do. Disk Utility will get this
>>> info for you. The S.M.A.R.T. status is indicated.
>>>
>>> 4. Make sure you have a quite separate portable disk on which you have
>>> a latest backup, not much use backing up to an only internal disk
>>> which fails holus bolus.
>>
>> Is TimeCapsule separate enough? I have a data folder on it.
>>>
>
> Well, I guess, it's separate enough, not even married by cables. To be
> sure, put it as faraway as the wifi will range. The last was a joke.

It's nearby, under a current shelf. You can make nice solid movable
shelves with "legs" from pieces of 2"x12" plank

>
>>> 5. You can do all sorts of cleanup and "maintenance" in a program
>>> called OnyX, I think the one for Snow is
>>>
>>> <http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/11582/onyx>
>>
>> I just found that in Applications and wondered what it was. Oops!
>>>
>>> It's free. It does do useful things and it makes you feel good at the
>>> very least!

I had to download an update; mine was too old. I'm not sure about the
functions it offers besides what DiskUtility does, though. I don't like to
authorise things I'm not clear on.