OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP

[Jim_Higgins]

OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb

--
"Your first, last, and only line of defense-a Cohort of Roman Heavy
Infantry"

[Bread]

On 2012-11-05 15:41:17 +0000, Jim_Higgins said:

> OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
> http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb

Why hide the URL behind obfuscation?

http://www.macworld.com/article/2013517/os-x-snow-leopard-shows-signs-of-becoming-apples-xp.html

>
> But there are signs that OS X Snow Leopard, an edition shipped in
> August 2009, may be the Mac's equivalent of Microsoft's Windows XP, an
> OS that stubbornly refuses to go away.

From the article:

25.8% Mountain Lion
26.4% Lion
27% Snow Leopard
almost 10% Leopard

And they say that ML's gains have been at the expense of Lion, not SL.

I'm not convinced that this means much. In my experience, most people,
unless prodded by a specific need or the presence of a household geek,
simply never upgrade their OS, whether it's on a Windows machine or a
Mac.

Moreover, there is a huge base of still active machines which *can't*
be upgraded past Snow Leopard. One of the three machines I use daily
is such a machine. Eventually, I'll retire it and the new machine will
certainly be running ML or whatever is up-to-date at that point. And
I'd upgrade it to ML in a second if it were capable of it.

The other issue that's certainly holding many people back is that Lion
and ML cannot run PowerPC apps. Had Intuit not come out with an
updated Quicken for Lion, I'd keep SL around a hell of a lot longer,
too.

These same issues plague the Windows world, but often in very much
larger scales and ways. Plus the next OS after XP was horrible. Lion
wasn't nearly as bad, though ML does improve things somewhat.

If Apple would support iCloud in Snow Leopard, I suspect that upgrades
from it would be even slower, too. I don't think MS couldn't get away
with the kind of cutting off of services to older machines that Apple
did here.

Some of the comments in response to the article document many of the
good reasons folks have stuck with SL, few of them saying anything
about SL being "better" than ML -- mostly it's about backward
compatibility with software and hardware.

I do hope Apple is paying attention to these numbers, though. It would
really be a shame for them to stop putting out updates, particularly
security-related ones, for an OS which represents 27% of their
installed base and doesn't appear to be dwindling very quickly. It's
likely to reach some sort of almost-plateau and then simply hold on as
long as people's hardware holds out - which could be several more years
easily.

[Patty Winter]

In article <k78pvi$mrv$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Bread <BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:
>On 2012-11-05 15:41:17 +0000, Jim_Higgins said:
>
>> OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
>> http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb
>
>Why hide the URL behind obfuscation?
>
>http://www.macworld.com/article/2013517/os-x-snow-leopard-shows-signs-of-becoming-apples-xp.html

I understand the desire for a short URL in case of wrapping
causing trouble in Usenet postings, but I prefer when people
also give the full URL or at least say what the source is
so I can decide whether it's a site I want to visit.

Anyway...I certainly fall under the first reason they suggest
for loyalty to SL: Rosetta capability. I use it every day for
Eudora and Quicken.


Patty

[MartinC]

Patty Winter wrote:

>>> http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb
>>
>> Why hide the URL behind obfuscation?
>>
>> http://www.macworld.com/article/2013517/os-x-snow-leopard-shows-signs-of-beco
>> ming-apples-xp.html
>
> I understand the desire for a short URL in case of wrapping
> causing trouble in Usenet postings, but I prefer when people
> also give the full URL or at least say what the source is
> so I can decide whether it's a site I want to visit.

<off topic>

In case of tinyURL - it is a well established website/tool, and there are
two features to serve the preview purpose.

1) The author can post this modified URL:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/awhhacb

2) Us users can set this preference for reading on the tinyurl website, so
that all future URLs will preview first. I get lots and lots of tinyurl
links and prefer to see the target URL myself - so I set it once and it
works like a charm.

</off topic>

[Jolly Roger]

In article <k78pvi$mrv$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Bread <BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:

> On 2012-11-05 15:41:17 +0000, Jim_Higgins said:
>
> > OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
> > http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb
>
> Why hide the URL behind obfuscation?
>
> http://www.macworld.com/article/2013517/os-x-snow-leopard-shows-signs-of-becom
> ing-apples-xp.html

That was probably an attempt to make the URL short enough to avoid
wrapping, which can cause some Usenet clients to be unable to parse the
URL properly. This is especially the case with URLs that are not
surrounded by < and > characters, which I note neither of you did.
Surrounding URLs with < and > characters isn't just a stylistic
decision; rather it allows Usenet clients to easily parse the URL even
after it has been wrapped to multiple lines. Without those characters,
some Usenet clients won't be able to parse the URL properly, which means
some readers won't be able to follow your link.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[Howard Brazee]

My wife can't run Snow Leopard on her iMac (the newest one with the
old keyboard). She is not at all happy about it.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Jolly Roger]

In article <m1uf98tghq936louv...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

> My wife can't run Snow Leopard on her iMac (the newest one with the
> old keyboard). She is not at all happy about it.

I'm sure she'll get over it, just like the rest of us have.

[Patty Winter]

In article <m1uf98tghq936louv...@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

>My wife can't run Snow Leopard on her iMac (the newest one with the
>old keyboard). She is not at all happy about it.

Precisely why I bought my iMac in 2011 after the new ones were announced
but before they started shipping.


Patty

[Your Name]

In article <jollyroger-45BE4...@news.individual.net>, Jolly

Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <k78pvi$mrv$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Bread <BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:
> > On 2012-11-05 15:41:17 +0000, Jim_Higgins said:
> >
> > > OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
> > > http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb
> >
> > Why hide the URL behind obfuscation?
> >
> > http://www.macworld.com/article/2013517/os-x-snow-leopard-shows-signs-of
> > -becoming-apples-xp.html
>
> That was probably an attempt to make the URL short enough to avoid
> wrapping, which can cause some Usenet clients to be unable to parse the
> URL properly. This is especially the case with URLs that are not
> surrounded by < and > characters, which I note neither of you did.
> Surrounding URLs with < and > characters isn't just a stylistic
> decision; rather it allows Usenet clients to easily parse the URL even
> after it has been wrapped to multiple lines. Without those characters,
> some Usenet clients won't be able to parse the URL properly, which means
> some readers won't be able to follow your link.

Even with the < and > bookends, some newsreaders still wrap / split the address.

[Your Name]

In article <k78pvi$mrv$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
<BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:

> On 2012-11-05 15:41:17 +0000, Jim_Higgins said:
> >
> > OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
> > http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb
>
> Why hide the URL behind obfuscation?
>
> http://www.macworld.com/article/2013517/os-x-snow-leopard-shows-signs-of-
> becoming-apples-xp.html
>
> >
> > But there are signs that OS X Snow Leopard, an edition shipped in
> > August 2009, may be the Mac's equivalent of Microsoft's Windows XP, an
> > OS that stubbornly refuses to go away.
>
> From the article:
>
> 25.8% Mountain Lion
> 26.4% Lion
> 27% Snow Leopard
> almost 10% Leopard

That still leaves 10.8% running an even older version ... like me. :-)

> And they say that ML's gains have been at the expense of Lion, not SL.
>
> I'm not convinced that this means much. In my experience, most people,
> unless prodded by a specific need or the presence of a household geek,
> simply never upgrade their OS, whether it's on a Windows machine or a
> Mac.

You're right. From memmory, NONE of the individuals or businesses I deal
with are using Lion and most aren't even using Snow Leopard. Leopard is
actually the most widely used with a few people still using older versions
(one person is still using Mac OS 8.5 on an old CRT iMac).

In most home user cases people simply don't know there is a new version or
don't care - their computer works for what they need. "If it ain't broke,
why fix it". If there's no actual need to upgrade, then there's little
point wasting the time and money, especially since OS upgrades can and do
break the usability of other software or hardware.

The people who upgrade are usually the geeks who want to boast they have
the very latest of everything, or (more rarely) someone who actually needs
a piece of software that only runs onthe newer OS.

> If Apple would support iCloud in Snow Leopard, I suspect that upgrades
> from it would be even slower, too. I don't think MS couldn't get away
> with the kind of cutting off of services to older machines that Apple
> did here.

Not sure about that. For most normal home users, if they even know about
it, cloud computing is simply a waste of time - they only have the one
computer, they don't need nor want stuff stored elsewhere. Many business
users don't want their stuff stored elsewhere either. Then you've got the
added issues of broadband connections being slow, data capped, etc.

Again it's largely the geek-brigade wanting to boast that they can "change
it here and it appears here".

[Jim_Higgins]

I'll try it this way next time:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/awhhacb

FWIW my reasons for staying with SL are:

MS Office for Mac 2004
Quicken 2007 for Mac
and a few other programs

I discovered that Office 2011 had no chart wizard (that went away with
Office 2007) and that Quicken Essentials for Mac was clumsy (to me) so I
sent them back and contented myself with SL. The new programs have
numerous bling that I will never, ever use. Sort of like they started
out with copper, silver plated the copper, gold plated the silver,
platinum plated the gold and then scattered diamonds over the platinum
plate. I don't need to do nuclear physics with Office 2010/2011 just
simple stuff.

Does Apple Numbers have a chart wizard?

[David Empson]

Bread <BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:

> On 2012-11-05 15:41:17 +0000, Jim_Higgins said:
>
> > OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
> > http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb
>
> Why hide the URL behind obfuscation?
>
> http://www.macworld.com/article/2013517/os-x-snow-leopard-shows-signs-of-b
> ecoming-apples-xp.html
>
> >
> > But there are signs that OS X Snow Leopard, an edition shipped in
> > August 2009, may be the Mac's equivalent of Microsoft's Windows XP, an
> > OS that stubbornly refuses to go away.
>
> From the article:
>
> 25.8% Mountain Lion
> 26.4% Lion
> 27% Snow Leopard
> almost 10% Leopard

You've misread the article. The first three figures are the shares for
Mountain Lion, Lion and Snow Leopard at the point each of them were
three months old.

Current figures from Net Applications (on which the MacWorld article is
based):

25.8% Mountain Lion
31.3% Lion
31.5% Snow Leopard
9.0% Leopard
2.1% Tiger
0.3% Other

> And they say that ML's gains have been at the expense of Lion, not SL.

SL's decline has been steady. It did drop a little faster during the
initial surge of Mountain Lion, but most of the initial upgrades to
Mountain Lion clearly came from Lion users.

For the last two months, Lion and SL have been neck and neck in the
usage stats. Mountain Lion is still gaining rapidly, but has slowed down
from the big surge in the first month and a bit. (See the graph.)

Mountain Lion's rise is due to two factors:

- New Macs which all come with Mountain Lion
- Upgrades to ML from older OS versions.

Lion and SL's drops are also due to two factors:

- New Mac sales running a later OS, reducing the proportion of Macs
running older OS versions.
- Upgrading existing Macs to later OS versions.

> I'm not convinced that this means much. In my experience, most people,
> unless prodded by a specific need or the presence of a household geek,
> simply never upgrade their OS, whether it's on a Windows machine or a
> Mac.

There were more Macs sold during the time Snow Leopard was current than
while Lion was current (even though quarterly sales were higher in the
Lion era, the Snow Leopard era was twice as long), therefore Snow
Leopard had a larger installed base from which to start.

Approximate numbers based on complete quarters nearest to the
introduction date of the new OS version:

35.9 million Macs sold with Snow Leopard preinstalled from the start of
October 2009 to the end of June 2011.

18.1 million Macs sold with Lion preinstalled from the start of July
2011 to the end of June 2012.

For comparison: roughly 20.1 million Macs during the Leopard era (start
of October 2007 to end of September 2009); 14.8 million during the Tiger
era (start of April 2005 to end of September 2007); 5.4 million during
the Panther era (start of October 2003 to end of March 2005).

Intel Mac sales up to the end of of September 2009 were about 30.3
million (allowing resaonble guesstimates for PowerPC vs Intel Mac sales
in 2006). All of those Macs were able to upgrade to Snow Leopard, about
90% were able to upgrade to Lion, and probably close to half of them
were able to upgrade to Mountain Lion (harder to judge without figures
for sales by model).

Given that Snow Leopard and Lion are showing roughly the same numbers
now, that suggests OS X upgrades are quite popular. If the vast majority
of Mac users didn't upgrade their OS, then Snow Leopard would be
outnumbering Lion by almost 2:1.

I don't have stats dating back to the introduction of Leopard, but I
expect that the price drop as of Snow Leopard changed the pattern and
significantly increased the number of old Macs which got upgraded to a
later OS. Those running Tiger or earlier are more likely to be sticking
to their original OS for financial reasons. (Tiger users on Intel Macs
can upgrade straight to Snow Leopard for the same price as Leopard
users, despite the wording on Apple's web site implying they were
supposed to get the much more expensive Mac Box Set.)

The usage pattern for each OS X release starting with 10.6 shows an
initial surge, implying rapid upgrades from some users, then a steady
climb, suggesting a combination of new Mac sales and steady upgrades.

There is the potential issue of older Macs which are no longer being
used, but I can't believe that half of the Macs sold with Snow Leopard
have been destroyed or are no longer accessing the Internet.

Macs not accessing the Internet would also make up some of the sales,
but I expect those would be similar proportions within each era when the
computers were new. As they get older, this would tend to increase with
Macs still running older OS versions, due to browsers and plugins
dropping support for older OS versions, and increased security risks.
This will negatively skew the stats for older OS X versions.

> Moreover, there is a huge base of still active machines which *can't*
> be upgraded past Snow Leopard.

Not as many as you might think, because of the accelerating Mac sales.

Intel Mac sales until the end of September 2006 are about 4.7 million
Macs (again including my guesstimates for Intel vs PowerPC).
Lion-compatible models were introduced over the next quarter (apart from
the Mac Mini), so let's be generous and include that quarter, making the
total 6.2 million.

Out of about 78.8 million Intel Macs sold to the end of September 2012,
about 8% of the total cannot upgrade beyond Snow Leopard (or might still
be running Tiger or Leopard).

> One of the three machines I use daily is such a machine. Eventually, I'll
> retire it and the new machine will certainly be running ML or whatever is
> up-to-date at that point. And I'd upgrade it to ML in a second if it were
> capable of it.
>
> The other issue that's certainly holding many people back is that Lion
> and ML cannot run PowerPC apps. Had Intuit not come out with an
> updated Quicken for Lion, I'd keep SL around a hell of a lot longer,
> too.

This is likely to be a bigger factor than "old model unable to upgrade
further", but the vast majority of people it affects are those who were
using Macs prior to the Intel era (or before about 2008 in the case of
software like Microsoft Office). Accelerating Mac sales and about 50% of
Mac sales to new Mac users means that this group (including you and me)
is becoming a smaller proportion of the total installed base.

Those who started with an Intel Mac are likely to have fewer hinderances
to upgrading to a later OS.

> These same issues plague the Windows world, but often in very much
> larger scales and ways. Plus the next OS after XP was horrible. Lion
> wasn't nearly as bad, though ML does improve things somewhat.

Agreed.

> If Apple would support iCloud in Snow Leopard, I suspect that upgrades
> from it would be even slower, too. I don't think MS couldn't get away
> with the kind of cutting off of services to older machines that Apple
> did here.

The looming demise of MobileMe is what finally pushed me to upgrading to
Lion, and in the process moving away from Eudora.

> Some of the comments in response to the article document many of the
> good reasons folks have stuck with SL, few of them saying anything
> about SL being "better" than ML -- mostly it's about backward
> compatibility with software and hardware.
>
> I do hope Apple is paying attention to these numbers, though. It would
> really be a shame for them to stop putting out updates, particularly
> security-related ones, for an OS which represents 27% of their
> installed base and doesn't appear to be dwindling very quickly.

31%, to use the correct figure.

For comparison, Apple stopped issuing regular security updates for
Leopard when it got down to about 22% in the Net Applications figures,
and Tiger was just under 20%.

Snow Leopard is declining at about 1.5% per month, so if it maintains
that rate it will take six months before it gets to the ballpark of 22%.

If Apple is sensible they will issue another Security Update for Snow
Leopard in the next batch (probably when 10.8.3 is released, which
should be by January if not in December), and it might get one more
after that, but I wouldn't expect any more updates after mid 2013
(around the time 10.9 is released).

> It's likely to reach some sort of almost-plateau and then simply hold on
> as long as people's hardware holds out - which could be several more years
> easily.

The numbers for Leopard include PowerPC Macs unable to upgrade further.
Leopard's total has been dropping about 0.5% on average per month
recently, probably due to new sales increasing the total pool. There
will be some Intel Macs in that total which are not getting upgraded
(due to disinterest or for whatever other reason).

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

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Jim_Higgins <gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
> http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb

I know I feel zero need or inclination to upgrade. Snow Leopard runs my
older PPC apps, and is without iOS style and touch features that are not
useful for a mouse and KB user, such as myself.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - System 6 was the high point
in intuitive, clean and easy to use GUI design, and Snow Leopard while a
long way from System 6's high water mark, is the best modern OS able to
run today's apps.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[tom koehler]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 9:41:17 -0600, Jim_Higgins wrote
(in message <k78mn2$mic$2...@dont-email.me>):

> OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
> http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb
>
>

second attempt to reply - local service provider issues...

I am one of those who feels no need to upgrade from 10.6.8. I am able to do
whatever I want with this OS and have a suite of software and hardware which
pleases me. The only issue I can think of is being unable to use the internet
with my current setup.

My Big Question then is, how long will it be before Snow Leopard is no
longer able to service my internet needs?

I did enter the 21st century, but slowly. I'd likely be comfortable in the
19th century if the dentistry were better.

tom koehler

--
I will find a way or make one.

[Bread]

On 2012-11-05 23:35:38 +0000, David Empson said:

> Bread <BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:
>> http://www.macworld.com/article/2013517/os-x-snow-leopard-shows-signs-of-b
>> ecoming-apples-xp.html

>
> You've misread the article. The first three figures are the shares for
> Mountain Lion, Lion and Snow Leopard at the point each of them were
> three months old.
>
> Current figures from Net Applications (on which the MacWorld article is
> based):
>
> 25.8% Mountain Lion
> 31.3% Lion
> 31.5% Snow Leopard
> 9.0% Leopard
> 2.1% Tiger
> 0.3% Other

Thanks for spotting that and fix it. Doesn't much change the points,
but nice to have the right numbers. And, of course, your very keen
observations

> The looming demise of MobileMe is what finally pushed me to upgrading to
> Lion, and in the process moving away from Eudora.

That's the biggest reason I want to replace my old iMac which can't run
ML. Without MobileMe, I can no longer use "back to my mac" to reach it
across the internet, it's lost all the contact/calendar syncing. But
otherwise, it's actually still quite a solid machine. Runs 24/7, acts
as a file server, runs cron jobs for me, hosts a Crashplan repository,
etc. I'd do all that with a new(er) mini if I could find one, say one
generation old, for a great price. I'm keeping my eyes out for one.

I take that back. I just found that Apple's got refurbs of the 2011
iMacs online again for under $1000. Just ordered one for local pickup.
They'd been out of them for about a week. I suspect that a lot of
folks who are not thrilled with the new 2012 iMacs, like myself, are
snagging them as fast as Apple's making them available. We already
have one 2011 iMac in the office and it's just an absolute pleasure to
use, so I'm very excited about this. I should have pulled the trigger
on the refurb 6 months ago, but I was hoping for either a really great
and exciting 2012 one -- or a bigger price drop on the 2011s when the
2012s came out. Neither happened, but there was no way to really
predict.

Looks like I'm retiring SL completely in a few days. Probably going to
have to re-align how and where I manage certain files, though, since my
ancient iMac has a 1TB drive while the new machine comes stock with
only a 500GB and I'm not inclined to swap that out, at least not for a
good while. However, my iPhoto libary won't fit now, so it'll have to
be moved - likely to the Drobo which will be FW800 rather than the
current FW400 by which it's connected. And then I'll have to realign
my backup strategy some, too, since now the externals are either simply
back up drives or "expendable" or temporary stuff - if iPhoto's library
is on it, I have to include externals in the automated backup
strategies.

[Patty Winter]

In article <0001HW.CCBEB026...@news.frontiernet.net>,

tom koehler <tvnospa...@nospamfrontiernet.netinvalid> wrote:
>
>I am one of those who feels no need to upgrade from 10.6.8. I am able to do
>whatever I want with this OS and have a suite of software and hardware which
>pleases me. The only issue I can think of is being unable to use the internet
>with my current setup.

Uh, wha? Why can't you use the Internet? And how did you post this
message if you can't?


Patty

[Bread]

On 2012-11-06 18:16:38 +0000, tom koehler said:

> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 9:41:17 -0600, Jim_Higgins wrote
> (in message <k78mn2$mic$2...@dont-email.me>):
>
>> OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
>> http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb
>>
>>
>
> second attempt to reply - local service provider issues...
>
> I am one of those who feels no need to upgrade from 10.6.8. I am able to do
> whatever I want with this OS and have a suite of software and hardware which
> pleases me. The only issue I can think of is being unable to use the internet
> with my current setup.
>
> My Big Question then is, how long will it be before Snow Leopard is no
> longer able to service my internet needs?

It's not so much that it's likely to stop working for accessing the
'net as that it becomes less and less secure over time once security
updates cease coming (and other software stops getting updated for it).

It'll still work, very likely for many years.

[Your Name]

In article <0001HW.CCBEB026...@news.frontiernet.net>, tom
koehler <tvnospa...@nospamfrontiernet.netinvalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 9:41:17 -0600, Jim_Higgins wrote
> (in message <k78mn2$mic$2...@dont-email.me>):
> >
> > OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
> > http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb
>
> second attempt to reply - local service provider issues...

I think the first one came through.

> I am one of those who feels no need to upgrade from 10.6.8. I am able to do
> whatever I want with this OS and have a suite of software and hardware which
> pleases me. The only issue I can think of is being unable to use the internet
> with my current setup.
>
> My Big Question then is, how long will it be before Snow Leopard is no
> longer able to service my internet needs?
>
> I did enter the 21st century, but slowly. I'd likely be comfortable in the
> 19th century if the dentistry were better.

Depends on what your Internet needs are. I still have people using Mac OS
8.5 happily enough to do eamils and simple websites. I'm using Mac OS X
10.1 which works fine with only a few websites trying to do silly,
overly-fancy things that don't work - but then I don't bother with things
like Internet banking

It also depends on your Internet provider - the hopeless idiots at
Vodafone New Zealand refuse to fix an issue with their servers that stop
users of Mac OS 9 and earlier being able to log on via a dial-up
connection. No other ISP in the country that I've tested (which is all the
main ones) has this issue.

[Your Name]

In article <k7bmm0$647$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Bread

The hackers are only interested in the most used operating systems, so
those using older OSes become safer anyway ... not that's there's really
any issue since you are using a Mac (unless you're stupid enough to be
doing things you shouldn't, in which case you get what you deserve).

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

There are still capable web browsers available for OSX 10.4, and older
browsers for 10 - 10.3 and even MacOS Classic that are missing support
for some newer standards and new versions of plugins like Flash, but are
still adequate to the task of viewing the vast majority of web content
not requiring plugins, and/or the very latest advanced javascript. Adobe
will probably drop Flash support for 10.6 in a couple years, but old
versions of Flash typically keep working a couple years past release as
web devs are slow to implement the very latest Flash standards. Other
than that, I don't think you'll have to worry about 10.6 and the web for
a long while.

As for email, Usenet, IRC, etc - they don't change nearly as much as the
web, so what you've got now will almost certainly work for longer than
your current Mac's lifespan. Heck, I know people using POP email and
Usenet apps 20+ years old!

So don't worry, be happy :-)

Regards,
Jamie Kahn Genet

[tom koehler]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 12:59:02 -0600, Patty Winter wrote
(in message <50995df6$0$76954$742e...@news.sonic.net>):

Patty, I can use the internet. The only issue that I can think of (that would
induce me to update my OS) is being unable to use the internet.
HTH, regards, ;-)
tk

[David Empson]

Bread <BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:

> On 2012-11-05 23:35:38 +0000, David Empson said:
>
> > Bread <BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:
> >> http://www.macworld.com/article/2013517/os-x-snow-leopard-shows-signs-of-b
> >> ecoming-apples-xp.html
> >
> > You've misread the article. The first three figures are the shares for
> > Mountain Lion, Lion and Snow Leopard at the point each of them were
> > three months old.
> >
> > Current figures from Net Applications (on which the MacWorld article is
> > based):
> >
> > 25.8% Mountain Lion
> > 31.3% Lion
> > 31.5% Snow Leopard
> > 9.0% Leopard
> > 2.1% Tiger
> > 0.3% Other
>
> Thanks for spotting that and fix it. Doesn't much change the points,

It does make an even stronger point that Snow Leopard usage is still
relatively high.

> but nice to have the right numbers. And, of course, your very keen
> observations

A further point I observed after my previous post: comparing the usage
of Snow Leopard now (15 months after it was superseded by Lion) to the
usage of Leopard at the same relative point, the figures are very
similar: Leopard was 30.8% at that stage.

Therefore Snow Leopard is not significantly worse than Leopard was for
ongoing usage. If Rosetta is an issue holding back upgrades then Leopard
had a similar issue, probably a significant number of PowerPC Macs being
unable to upgrade further.

I don't have old enough data to do a proper comparison with Tiger, and
it is difficult to compare Lion's waning usage from Snow Leopard's,
because they were starting from different points due to the shorter life
cycle of Lion. (Both Snow Leopard and Leoaprd peaked around 70% of the
installed base after almost two years, in the month before they were
superseded. Lion got to 47% in one year, whiich is very similar to Snow
Leoaprd's first year.)

The article's comparison of Snow Leopard with Windows XP is laughable.
Three months after the introduction of Windows 7 (the second subsequent
major version), XP was still being used on 72% of PCs running Windows,
and fifteen months after Vista (which would be April 2008), XP was
around 85% (I don't have monthly data back that far to get a more
precise figure).

Windows 7 finally caught up to Windows XP about two months before the
release of Windows 8 (around 46.5% each).

> > The looming demise of MobileMe is what finally pushed me to upgrading to
> > Lion, and in the process moving away from Eudora.
>
> That's the biggest reason I want to replace my old iMac which can't run
> ML. Without MobileMe, I can no longer use "back to my mac" to reach it
> across the internet, it's lost all the contact/calendar syncing.

I didn't use Back to my Mac, as I have a Mac Mini running OS X Server at
home, with a VPN server. I connect to that if I want to access anything
on my home network (including the server). That server is still running
Snow Leopard, but I'm intending to replace it with a new one running
Mountain Lion at some stage in the next few months. No rush, as Snow
Leopard is still getting security updates.

Calendar sync was the feature I was using most on MobileMe, but since
moving to iCloud I've added contact sync and a few other features. My
light use of iDisk got replaced by DropBox, and shared photo streams
covers the only use I was making of web site hosting on MobileMe.

> But otherwise, it's actually still quite a solid machine. Runs 24/7, acts
> as a file server, runs cron jobs for me, hosts a Crashplan repository,
> etc. I'd do all that with a new(er) mini if I could find one, say one
> generation old, for a great price. I'm keeping my eyes out for one.
>
> I take that back. I just found that Apple's got refurbs of the 2011
> iMacs online again for under $1000. Just ordered one for local pickup.

The NZ store only has the 21.5" models, but good to note.

> They'd been out of them for about a week. I suspect that a lot of
> folks who are not thrilled with the new 2012 iMacs, like myself, are
> snagging them as fast as Apple's making them available.

I know one person and possible two who will want this model (both away
on holiday, so fingers crossed there will be some when they get back).

The 2011 models are still available from retail outlets here but I
expect that is only while stocks last.

> We already have one 2011 iMac in the office and it's just an absolute
> pleasure to use, so I'm very excited about this.

Enjoy.

> I should have pulled the trigger on the refurb 6 months ago, but I was
> hoping for either a really great and exciting 2012 one -- or a bigger
> price drop on the 2011s when the 2012s came out. Neither happened, but
> there was no way to really predict.
>
> Looks like I'm retiring SL completely in a few days. Probably going to
> have to re-align how and where I manage certain files, though, since my
> ancient iMac has a 1TB drive while the new machine comes stock with
> only a 500GB and I'm not inclined to swap that out, at least not for a
> good while. However, my iPhoto libary won't fit now, so it'll have to
> be moved - likely to the Drobo which will be FW800 rather than the
> current FW400 by which it's connected. And then I'll have to realign
> my backup strategy some, too, since now the externals are either simply
> back up drives or "expendable" or temporary stuff - if iPhoto's library
> is on it, I have to include externals in the automated backup
> strategies.

I'll have a similar shuffle when I upgrade my Mac Mini Server. I'm
currently booting it from an external Firewire drive, using one of the
internal drives as extra non-critical storage (EyeTV recordings) and the
second internal drive as a backup, plus a Drobo and another external
drive for Time Machine. I'm considering a Fusion drive for the new Mini,
partitioned to keep the EyeTV stuff internally, and swapping the role of
the external Firewire drive to be an occasionally updated clone backup.

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

[David Empson]

Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <k7bmm0$647$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
> <BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:
> > On 2012-11-06 18:16:38 +0000, tom koehler said:
> > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 9:41:17 -0600, Jim_Higgins wrote
> > > (in message <k78mn2$mic$2...@dont-email.me>):
> > >
> > >> OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
> > >> http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb
> > >
> > > second attempt to reply - local service provider issues...
> > >
> > > I am one of those who feels no need to upgrade from 10.6.8. I am able
> > > to do whatever I want with this OS and have a suite of software and
> > > hardware which pleases me. The only issue I can think of is being
> > > unable to use the internet with my current setup.
> > >
> > > My Big Question then is, how long will it be before Snow Leopard is no
> > > longer able to service my internet needs?
> >
> > It's not so much that it's likely to stop working for accessing the
> > 'net as that it becomes less and less secure over time once security
> > updates cease coming (and other software stops getting updated for it).
> >
> > It'll still work, very likely for many years.
>
> The hackers are only interested in the most used operating systems, so
> those using older OSes become safer anyway ...

That isn't true if the malware writers expolit a bug which happens to
cover older operating systems as well as unpatched current ones.

Primary example: the FlashBack exploit earlier this year which targetted
Java caught many people running Snow Leoopard or later (because Apple
was lax at releasing a Java update which Oracle had done two months
earlier).

It also affected those on an Intel Mac still running Leopard. Stats
gathered by one of the anti-malware firms showed a fair proportion of
the infected Macs were running Leopard (some not even updated to
10.5.8).

In addition to full Java updates and anti-Flashback updates for Snow
Leopard and later, Apple did one-off updates for Leopard to specifically
target FlashBack and disable the Java plugin. Those updates were only
released for Intel Macs (because the exploit only worked on Intel Macs),
and required 10.5.8, so those who never run Software Update would still
be vulnerable.

It appears that Intel Tiger and PowerPC Leopard (or earlier) systems
were not affected by that particular exploit, probably because the
exploit required Java 1.6 and the native code component was Intel-only.

That doesn't mean PowerPC Macs running Leopard are immune: it only needs
someone who wants the kudos from the malware community for having
infected older Macs, by going to the trouble of building a universal
version of the "downloader" component of FlashBack (which would not be
hard - it just requires running an older version of the developer
tools).

Tiger or earlier systems may be safer for the moment because a different
Java exploit would need to be found that exists on earlier Java
versions.

At this point, I doubt Apple would do anything to help Leopard or
earlier systems if a similar issue arose.

> not that's there's really any issue since you are using a Mac (unless
> you're stupid enough to be doing things you shouldn't, in which case you
> get what you deserve).

Get your head out of the sand. FlashBack was a drive-by exploit which
required nothing more than having the Java plugin enabled and visiting a
web site which happened to have been compromised, or which displayed an
ad from a compromised server, or mistakenly clicking a link which took
you to a malicious web page. E-mail phishing attacks tend to catch naive
users rather than experienced ones.

As soon as the page was viewed, the Java applet ran automatically and
the malware was installed, with no visible indication that this had
happened. You didn't need to click anything on the page to get infected.

Someone I know (who is a developer and certainly not clueless) was
infected by FlashBack and he doesn't visit dodgy web sites. He had it
for about a month before spotting it, and had no idea how it got onto
his system.

(He gave me a copy of the "downloader" component before cleaning up the
infection, so I have it in my samples for testing anti-virus software.)

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

[Your Name]

In article <1kt6wea.1awkf8uzc0a5uN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,

dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > In article <k7bmm0$647$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Bread
> > <BreadW...@Fractious.net> wrote:
> > > On 2012-11-06 18:16:38 +0000, tom koehler said:
> > > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 9:41:17 -0600, Jim_Higgins wrote
> > > > (in message <k78mn2$mic$2...@dont-email.me>):
> > > >>
> > > >> OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
> > > >> http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb
> > > >
> > > > second attempt to reply - local service provider issues...
> > > >
> > > > I am one of those who feels no need to upgrade from 10.6.8. I am able
> > > > to do whatever I want with this OS and have a suite of software and
> > > > hardware which pleases me. The only issue I can think of is being
> > > > unable to use the internet with my current setup.
> > > >
> > > > My Big Question then is, how long will it be before Snow Leopard is no
> > > > longer able to service my internet needs?
> > >
> > > It's not so much that it's likely to stop working for accessing the
> > > 'net as that it becomes less and less secure over time once security
> > > updates cease coming (and other software stops getting updated for it).
> > >
> > > It'll still work, very likely for many years.
> >
> > The hackers are only interested in the most used operating systems, so
> > those using older OSes become safer anyway ...
>
> That isn't true if the malware writers expolit a bug which happens to
> cover older operating systems as well as unpatched current ones.
>

<snip a immense load of crap>

>
> (He gave me a copy of the "downloader" component before cleaning up the
> infection, so I have it in my samples for testing anti-virus software.)

Whatever utter rubbish you want to delude yourself with ... I haven't the
time nor the inclination to bother arguing with you. :-\

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <k78mn2$mic$2...@dont-email.me>,

Jim_Higgins <gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
> http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb

I have SL at home and Li at work. SL definitely performs better with
disk and memory intensive work. Snow Leopard is so much faster that the
old hardware it came on often outperforms much newer hardware having
Lion. Poor VM tuning and AutoSave seem to be the core problem.

As for features, the iOS tweaks are a complete pain in the ass and
AutoSave remains my #1 unwanted feature that can't be turned off. To
top it off, there's nothing in 10.7 and 10.8 that I want. I have no use
for Apple's feeble cloud offerings. My little old home server has 600
times more storage than Apple's offering and, unlike iCould, it actually
has accessible files. Facebook and Twitter integration in the OS? How
does Apple not cry when they call that a feature?
--
I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam

[David Empson]

The main point is that _other_ people don't get to read your rubbish and
misleading information without seeing a counterargument.

If you choose not to participate in a sensible discussion and just use
your usual cop-out response, that is your problem, not mine.

(wait for it...)

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

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

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

> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

[snip]

> > Whatever utter rubbish you want to delude yourself with ... I haven't the
> > time nor the inclination to bother arguing with you. :-\
>
> The main point is that _other_ people don't get to read your rubbish and
> misleading information without seeing a counterargument.
>
> If you choose not to participate in a sensible discussion and just use
> your usual cop-out response, that is your problem, not mine.
>
> (wait for it...)

Some people seem to straddle the line between socially well adjusted
enough to tolerate and troll, don't they? *finally plonks 'Your Name'*

Side note: I have to say I'm getting tired of certain people not
providing a name or sensible (even semi-sensible) nick (something that
doesn't sound so daft addressing them with, that I word my responce to
avoid addressing them by 'name' at all) with their posts.

Maybe it's just because I'm a long time IRCer, RPGer and MMOer, but it
feels odd and akward not having a name or nickname-like name/nick to
address someone with. Harry, Llousket, Aged Cheddar, Shona Bilek,
SenileLaserGal, Kufumuhan, Infanmy9K7c, PacBabeNomNomNom - all real
in-use names and nicks I just grabbed from a variety of chats and online
games. Importantly they all roll off the tongue easily, or enough of the
nick does that you have _something_ you're easily able to address them
with, that sounds name/nick-like, and doesn't make you feel like you're
addressing a product or protocol, instead of a person.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it due to my gaming history, where it
was, and in most places thankfully still is considered rude not to give
others some easy name/nick-like way to address you. By putting "Your
Name" in the name field, or worse no name at all (and not even a real
email with a username part one can use as a nick in a pinch, nor a name
signing your post off with) - which I've seen as well... I have to say,
it seems almost like a subtle form of trolling. Certainly it's not very
friendly and social to my way of thinking.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:13:49 -0500, Your Name wrote
(in article <YourName-071...@203-118-187-139.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>):

Actually, son, if given the choice between reading him and reading you, I'll
take him. He's usually considerably better. As he is in this particular case.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 06:02:41 -0500, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote
(in article <1kt7qni.sxgryfw67hmxN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>):

> David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>> Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Whatever utter rubbish you want to delude yourself with ... I haven't the
>>> time nor the inclination to bother arguing with you. :-\
>>
>> The main point is that _other_ people don't get to read your rubbish and
>> misleading information without seeing a counterargument.
>>
>> If you choose not to participate in a sensible discussion and just use
>> your usual cop-out response, that is your problem, not mine.
>>
>> (wait for it...)
>
> Some people seem to straddle the line between socially well adjusted
> enough to tolerate and troll, don't they? *finally plonks 'Your Name'*

Oh, I haven't plonked him yet. I have filtered him so that his posts are
flagged as a warning. If he carries on, and if I actually notice, given that
I've flagged his posts and will probably put a low priority on reading them,
_then_ I'll plonk him.

[David Empson]

Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
> > Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Whatever utter rubbish you want to delude yourself with ... I haven't the
> > > time nor the inclination to bother arguing with you. :-\
> >
> > The main point is that _other_ people don't get to read your rubbish and
> > misleading information without seeing a counterargument.
> >
> > If you choose not to participate in a sensible discussion and just use
> > your usual cop-out response, that is your problem, not mine.
> >
> > (wait for it...)
>
> Some people seem to straddle the line between socially well adjusted
> enough to tolerate and troll, don't they? *finally plonks 'Your Name'*

I did that briefly but changed my mind - I'd rather see posts which
often contain misleading information so I can post corrections.

The only posters permanently in my killfile are those who are
persistently abusive (e.g. the one infesting the iPad group at present),
or who keep posting completely off-topic rubbish and don't post anything
worthwhile.

> Side note: I have to say I'm getting tired of certain people not
> providing a name or sensible (even semi-sensible) nick (something that
> doesn't sound so daft addressing them with

Agreed. (And with your subsequent points.)

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

[erilar]

In article <50995df6$0$76954$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Read that as "possible future issue" as I did and it's perfectly
reasonable. I have an old computer using OS 9.2.2 and I'm keeping that
way to use some of the old software. It sits next to the laptop with
10.6.8 and I don't plan to "up"grade the latter because I already know a
couple really nasty problems that would cause for me.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[Jim Janney]

I have an old G3 iBook running Jaguar that I use when traveling, and
it's becoming increasingly useless for internet use, as more and more
web sites require browser features it doesn't support. I've been
thinking of putting Linux on it: the hardware is still fine.

--
Jim Janney

[Your Name]

Actually "son", it was pedantic crap because as usual he didn'treally
read what I actually wrote, and decided to chime in to make himself look
clever.

As I said, the hackers target the most operating systems = 100% fact. As
they do, they target new falws / holes / bugs, which makes older operating
system safer and safer and they get older and older = 100% FACT.

Yes, sometimes a piece of malware may well use a flaw that pre-exists in
the older software, but the chances are low and get lower and lower ...
and on a Mac they're basically zero anyway. The supposed recent maleware
wasn't picked up on any Mac I deal with, and I don't think anybody in
these newsgroup found it on their Macs either. As usual it amounted to
little more than scarmongering by a comapny that sells anti-malware
software = 100% FACT.

Believe whatever idiocy you want. I completely and utterly done with the
infestation of dumbasses and pedantic morons around here. :-\

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 19:32:03 -0500, Your Name wrote
(in article <YourName-081...@203-118-187-94.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>):

> Believe whatever idiocy you want. I completely and utterly done with the
> infestation of dumbasses and pedantic morons around here. :-\

Don't let the door hit you on your ass on your way out.

[Stephen Harker]

If you can run Tiger then TenFourFox is an option
<http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/>, if not then for 8.6 to
9.2.2 (and 10.1.5 to 10.3.9) then Classilla may be an option
<http://www.floodgap.com/software/classilla/>. I have used TenFourFox
and it is great. I have not used Classilla.

--
Stephen Harker s.ha...@adfa.edu.au
PEMS http://sjharker.customer.netspace.net.au/
UNSW@ADFA

[AD]

On Nov 5, 6:41 pm, Jim_Higgins <gordian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XPhttp://tinyurl.com/awhhacb
>

would not apple wish that?

while 10.6 is definitely far less screwed up than 10.7 it's a
looooooooooooooooooooooong
way to go towards XP in terms of overall polish.
Apple has the money but I wonder if they have the willpower with all
half decent resources dedicated to
the mobile space.
(I saw xcode briefly baloon to 2.3GB before I killed it yesterday)

and that's the greatest and latest on 10.7 updated to the brim.

I'm sure 10.8 gotta fix all the memory leaks/circular dependencies in
xcode :-]

[Jim Janney]

Stephen Harker <sjha...@netspace.net.au> writes:

> Jim Janney <jja...@shell.xmission.com> writes:
>

>> I have an old G3 iBook running Jaguar that I use when traveling, and
>> it's becoming increasingly useless for internet use, as more and more
>> web sites require browser features it doesn't support. I've been
>> thinking of putting Linux on it: the hardware is still fine.
>
> If you can run Tiger then TenFourFox is an option
> <http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/>, if not then for 8.6 to
> 9.2.2 (and 10.1.5 to 10.3.9) then Classilla may be an option
> <http://www.floodgap.com/software/classilla/>. I have used TenFourFox
> and it is great. I have not used Classilla.

It can run Tiger but that runs $150 a copy or more, which seems like a
lot to spend on a machine this old. I may give Classilla a try, thanks
for the pointer.

--
Jim Janney

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Dirt cheap secondhand here in NZ.

[Mitch Bujard]

On 2012-11-05 16:37:06 +0000, Bread said:

> On 2012-11-05 15:41:17 +0000, Jim_Higgins said:
>
>> OS X Snow Leopard shows signs of becoming Apple's XP
>> http://tinyurl.com/awhhacb
>

> Why hide the URL behind obfuscation?
>
> http://www.macworld.com/article/2013517/os-x-snow-leopard-shows-signs-of-becoming-apples-xp.html
>
>>
>> But there are signs that OS X Snow Leopard, an edition shipped in
>> August 2009, may be the Mac's equivalent of Microsoft's Windows XP, an
>> OS that stubbornly refuses to go away.
>
> From the article:
>
> 25.8% Mountain Lion
> 26.4% Lion
> 27% Snow Leopard
> almost 10% Leopard
>
> And they say that ML's gains have been at the expense of Lion, not SL.
>
> I'm not convinced that this means much. In my experience, most people,
> unless prodded by a specific need or the presence of a household geek,
> simply never upgrade their OS, whether it's on a Windows machine or a
> Mac.

It would seem surprising that obsolescence would not force system renewal.

In the Windows world, XP is predominant mainly because machines come
without system, and XP is the most pirated of all ;^)

--
Mitch Bujard
Fonts for Zaner-Bloser and Dnealian worksheets
http://www.SchoolFonts.com

[Kevin McMurtrie]

In article <51d894f9$0$2550$426a...@news.free.fr>,
Mitch Bujard <DontWantSpam-But_'Reply-to'_is...@schoolfonts.com>
wrote:

There's a hardware problem:
The first series of Mac Pro can only run SL and the current Mac Pro
desktops don't have the performance to make them compelling upgrades for
everyone. It's not clear yet if trashcan Mac Pro will actually win any
professionals, given that it must have external hard drives and it can't
support the highest performance PCI cards.

There's also a software problem:
Lion was a set of changes for problems that didn't exist. Apple's
"cloud" offering is pathetic, nobody wanted a dumbed down phone OS on a
desktop, nobody wanted social software integrated with the OS, and
professionals with money didn't want the OS de-tuned so it could surf
the web better. Mountain Lion tries to make the unwanted features less
buggy but they're still intrusive and cumbersome. It doesn't do much to
address the aging internals of OS X.

I use 10.6.8 at home. I curse 10.8.4 at work.