Why does Apple make more old macs obsolete each system release?

[Bobdude161]

I know there's a marketing ploy behind it all, but lets say we were oblivious to it all. Would the new operating systems really require the dropping of older systems?

[jsw]

I know there's a marketing ploy behind it all, but lets say we were oblivious to it all. Would the new operating systems really require the dropping of older systems?
Yes... because they require faster hardware.

And of course it's also to sell hardware. Apple's a hardware company that also sells software.

[erikistired]

because even old macs can't live forever.

[bousozoku]

Apple has worked harder to keep older hardware working than some other companies. They've also made it more efficient with each release.

I'm sure that hardware sales do have a lot to do with it, though. They're subsidizing the price of Mac OS X with hardware. If people don't buy hardware, they would probably have to raise the price of Mac OS X to something less reasonable for us.

[tipdrill407]

Apple has been pretty nice with supporting old hardware. Even Leapord is reported to support the G3 which is pretty old.

[macgeek77]

Consider this: I bought my iBook G3 years ago. It currently runs Tiger. Sure it has slowed down from its days of running 10.1. However, its by no means obsolete. I mean thats the third OS upgrade its gone through and it still works. I agree there is sacrafice, but Apple doesn't eliminate past hardware with every new OS.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Doesn't this same phenomenon also occur over in the Windows world? Hardware evolves, software also evolves. Expecting to run Leopard on a Performa is rather like expecting to run an iPod through an 8-track.

[erikistired]

yeah but in the windows world people insist on running new operating systems on obnoxiously old hardware that should have become a boat anchor years ago.

[clevin]

count years, not "how many generation of systems", apple isn't doing better than MS, who update their system almost every 5 years.

[dmw007]

I know there's a marketing ploy behind it all, but lets say we were oblivious to it all. Would the new operating systems really require the dropping of older systems?


Good question, I don't understand why my 100MHz PowerBook 5300cs can't run Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. ;) :D :)

[clevin]

its like MS spends 5 years put all the stuff together and release one update,
apple splits stuff into 5 batches, and releases one part every year. and gives u 5 version of systems through 5 years. obviously more expensive.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

count years, not "how many generation of systems", apple isn't doing better than MS, who update their system almost every 5 years.

Except that Windows XP ran painfully slow on my 2003 PC - and still runs pretty slow on some of my friends newer PCs.

Couple that with XP's inability to handle the 20+ open apps that my iBook G4 could handle, and I'd say Apple does a decent job supporting and reasonably running new OSes on older hardware.

[unfaded]

Have you read Vista's system requirements? I mean, really. Have you? This thread should not exist.

[dmw007]

Except that Windows XP ran painfully slow on my 2003 PC - and still runs pretty slow on some of my friends newer PCs.

Couple that with XP's inability to handle the 20+ open apps that my iBook G4 could handle, and I'd say Apple does a decent job supporting and reasonably running new OSes on older hardware.


Well put AvSRoCkCO1067. :)

[Kingsly]

I know there's a marketing ploy behind it all, but lets say we were oblivious to it all. Would the new operating systems really require the dropping of older systems?
Like MicroLate™ doesn't? Just look at the Vista requirements!

EDIT: Post#13... I really ned to read the whole thread before replying...

[slooksterPSV]

Ok think about this; we don't need Windows, we don't need OS X, we don't need OS 9, heck we could do everything we do now on OS 8.6, and Windows 95. OS 8.6 runs on the 100MHz Powerbooks I think.
Operating systems do a lot, basically lately you're paying for power and quality for what we do with them. If you tried to make an HD-DVD on a 100MHz Powerbook, good luck, you'll be waiting months and months for it to finish. So you need a faster computer to process more complex data components. But in order to process those faster you should have more bits to process in. Windows 95 is 16-bit with 32-bit compatibility. Making an HD-DVD on Windows 95 is a joke basically.

Operating systems have to have a more focused ideal with them. When you get more processes that run in the background to make things look better quality, it takes up more CPU, which means you need a faster, better cached CPU. Think about about moving a finder window around. How much CPU usage does that take? About 20-30% CPU speed on my iBook G4 1.33MHz, but it moves around like fluid. On my G3 it looked like **** when moving a finder window around, it was slow, and very very not fluid like. So we pay for that quality with a faster CPU, but it may also use the GPU to help process certain antiquities for the CPU. For example: the 9550 supports the splash effect, which looks fluid like, anything below the 9550 ATI, does not support the splash effect, why? Well the ATI 9550 has 2 programmable pipelines? 2 programmable ____ I can't think of the word. Anyways since Apple can use the Core Image foundation and program the GPU to do that we have a fluid like splash effect that looks so good. Other GPU's don't have that programmability.

Even iTunes and QuickTime require a certain speed to run, they need to render items. The operating system renders tons of things, that's why monitors have Hz ratings. Don't think that the pixels on the screen are steady, they're being redrawn anywhere from 60times to 200times a second! Yes a second. The CPU and GPU all have to process that, but the more complex the items it has the render, the faster and better CPU & GPU the computer will need.

So why does apple push out older systems? Cause they don't have a certain compatibility to support all the items with a newer OS. Most systems in the PC world, after 6 months, that computer is obsolete. Why do you want the most up-to-date OS? Cause it will support everything you want to do and may want to do in the future, but will the hardware handle it?

EDIT: CPU's have MMX, SSE, SSE2, etc. These are components of the CPU that make the Operating System that takes advantage of these technoloties run faster. So if an OS requires that SSE3 and your processor doesn't have it, sorry you can't use that OS.

[Mr. Dee]

I know there's a marketing ploy behind it all, but lets say we were oblivious to it all. Would the new operating systems really require the dropping of older systems?
All I can say is, you are in for a big incompatible surprise when 10.6 comes out.

[steamboat26]

The phenomenon occurs in the windows world, its just harder to notice, because their OS hasn't been updated in 6 years :D

[LastBreath]

As the abilities of OS's progress as will the demands of hardware requirements it is just a natural progression of technology that happens in every market.

[slooksterPSV]

All I can say is, you are in for a big incompatible surprise when 10.6 comes out.
Puma, Cheeta, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard... I'd like Cougar next, but here's what we don't have - some I removed cause they're already an OS name.
* African golden cat (Profelis aurata)
* Andean mountain cat (Oreailurus jacobita)
* Asian golden cat (Catopuma temminckii)
* Black-footed cat (Felis nigripes)
* Bobcat (Lynx rufus)
* Bornean bay cat (Catopuma badia)
* Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis)
* Caracal (Caracal caracal)
* Chinese mountain cat (Felis bieti)
* Cougar (Puma concolor) -- not going to remove
* Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx)
* Fishing Cat (Prionailurus viverrinus)
* Flat-headed cat (Prionailurus planiceps)
* Geoffroys cat (Oncifelis geoffroyi)
* Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus)
* Jaguarundi (Herpailurus yagouarundi)
* Jungle cat (Felis chaus)
* Kodkod (Oncifelis guigna)
* Marbled cat (Pardofelis marmorata)
* Margay (Leopardus wiedii)
* Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)
* Oncilla (Leopardus tigrinus)
* Pampas cat (Oncifelis colocolo)
* Pallas cat (Otocolobus manul)
* Rusty-spotted cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus)
* Sand cat (Felis margarita)
* Serval (Leptailurus serval)
* Snow leopard (Uncia uncia)
* Wildcat (Felis silvestris)

[spicyapple]

I was more productive in OS9 and slower pre-gigahertz speed Macs for some reason. I'm less productive now, probably because I'm distracted by all the pretty aqua colours of OSX. :)

I say, don't upgrade software! Keep what you're using, because it works and works well.

[Kardashian]

Puma, Cheeta, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard... I'd like Cougar next, but here's what we don't have - some I removed cause they're already an OS name.

I like Lynx and Cougar.

[Mr. Dee]

I like Lynx and Cougar.
Well, take into account that there won't necessarily be a 10.7, they could use Lynx as the link to the next generation of Mac OS operating systems starting with 11.0.

10.0 - Puma
10.1 - Cheetah
10.2 - Jaguar
10.3 - Panther
10.4 - Tiger
10.5 - Leopard

10.6 - Cougar
11.0 - Lynx (link to the past, link to the future)

[Killyp]

How about tabby, or tiddles? They're both names of cats. :p

[lOUDsCREAMEr]

10.6 Kitty!!:p

[iMeowbot]

yeah but in the windows world people insist on running new operating systems on obnoxiously old hardware that should have become a boat anchor years ago.
Yep, but Mac users are guilty of that too (http://eshop.macsales.com/OSXCenter/XPostFacto/).

[count chocula]

i'm pulling for 10.6 Mr. Tinkles

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9c/Cats_and_dogs_002.jpg/425px-Cats_and_dogs_002.jpg

[dmw007]

i'm pulling for 10.6 Mr. Tinkles

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9c/Cats_and_dogs_002.jpg/425px-Cats_and_dogs_002.jpg


What an evil cat. ;) :D

[Bobdude161]

Yes... because they require faster hardware.

And of course it's also to sell hardware. Apple's a hardware company that also sells software.

I'm just scared of Apple dropping my Sawtooth in 10.5, not that I'll be using it but feeling obsolete makes me depressed. That's my deepest concern though. And what really brought up the question is why does Apple need to keep making OS X bulkier? 10.2 was simple, bad but simple. 10.3 is great, and 10.4 is just 10.3 but loaded with "goodies", that just take more CPU. I wasn't too impressed with 10.5 it seemed like 10.4 just with auto backing up and an overrated expose. Apple keep it simple stupid!! For my sake!! :p

[funkychunkz]

11.0 - Lynx (link to the past, link to the future)

[OffTopic]

They would probably go on to 10.11, if it came to that. They're still going on strong on the base '10' notion. OS 11 will probably be a different system all together.

[Pedro D]

Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard as shown in the Apple website:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/

[contoursvt]

Interesting. They must have something not configured right or maybe something could have been lacking on your 2003 PC because I've got XP running on a dual PIII 550Mhz Xeon box from like 1999 (Compaq SP700). I have naturally upgraded RAM over the years but it runs XP like a champ.

Also I installed Vista on a dual PIII 450Mhz with 1GB RAM and an older SCSI controller and 36GB SCSI drive. Granted it was a clean install but it ran quite quick. Have a vid of it too. Motherboard is so old that it has ISA slots.

Lastly, XP and even Windows 2000 has no issues with many applications open. It sounds like you're not really familar with computers and how they work. Quite possibly the problems you've had is just lack of RAM.

I could probably open up MS Word like 100 times and Excel a 100 times plus photoshop with and some 10-20 images from my SLR camera, MP3 player in the background playing music, Outlook for my mail, 5-10 web sites, messenger, google earth and maybe be ripping a DVD at the same time. Could whole pile of other stuff. All this on my Dual PIII 550Mhz Xeon box.

Point I'm getting across is that you're trying to blame something based only on your own experience and making it seem like fact when it is not.

Also there are a TON of older systems on both mac an PC platform that are useful for far longer than what people give them credit for. All they need sometimes is a little bit more RAM and a faster drive. CPU speed is actually one of the least important things for day to day usage...

Except that Windows XP ran painfully slow on my 2003 PC - and still runs pretty slow on some of my friends newer PCs.

Couple that with XP's inability to handle the 20+ open apps that my iBook G4 could handle, and I'd say Apple does a decent job supporting and reasonably running new OSes on older hardware.

[contoursvt]

My favorite OSX versions are 10.3 and 10.4. I cant stand 10.5. It seems buggy to me. On my G4 733 with 1.5GB RAM, I'll just stick with 10.4 even if I could have 10.5 for free.... IMO 10.4 was as solid as a rock.

I'm just scared of Apple dropping my Sawtooth in 10.5, not that I'll be using it but feeling obsolete makes me depressed. That's my deepest concern though. And what really brought up the question is why does Apple need to keep making OS X bulkier? 10.2 was simple, bad but simple. 10.3 is great, and 10.4 is just 10.3 but loaded with "goodies", that just take more CPU. I wasn't too impressed with 10.5 it seemed like 10.4 just with auto backing up and an overrated expose. Apple keep it simple stupid!! For my sake!! :p

[wankey]

Except that Windows XP ran painfully slow on my 2003 PC - and still runs pretty slow on some of my friends newer PCs.

Couple that with XP's inability to handle the 20+ open apps that my iBook G4 could handle, and I'd say Apple does a decent job supporting and reasonably running new OSes on older hardware.

Are you kidding me? Windows XP ran fine on my 2003 PC. It runs blazingly fast on my gaming PC right now.

I easily have well over 20+ apps running at work. In fact my monitor at work is a 27inch graphics design monitor (some NEC PVA monitor) and I have my taskbar on the side... It usually fills up with programs running, not including the minimized tasktray programs. That's vertical space, so I have at least 100-150 processes running at the same time. The default programs open all the time include Flash, Dreamweaver, Eclipse, Photoshop, Illustrator, Firefox, iTunes, Word, interoffice communicator, Skype, and a plethora of office related software.

I have used an iBook G4 and yeah, it can *walk* 20 programs... are you sure it can run them? I wouldn't even say I'm using a computer on the iBook with more than 10 programs open.

Apple has a hugely bad time supporting older macs. My dad works with Macs at work doing research and he gets frustrated with Macs easily. Newer releases break older software he uses, when he tries to upgrade the software, it doesn't have the older module he requires... this happens on a yearly basis since Apple seems to like to update like that. Furthermore, some software don't even constrain themselves to point releases, they keep to the point patches... Lets just say the 2 PowerMacs they bought for 10,000 dollars a piece are now sitting around doing mundane tasks whilst the entire department has now moved on to PCs for the heavier work (they still buy macs though for the new researchers).

What apple needs to do to solidify its OS is to stop releasing half baked ideas and buggy OSes. Leopard was a huge example of that, and only started being a solid OS around 10.5.3. They always reach a very solid ground state for each OS release, then release a very buggy OS afterwards. Look at Panther and then Tiger, both were very very solid OSes when they were hitting their 10.x.10th patch, then came 10.x+1.0 and hell breaks loose again.

I hope they really push Snow leopard on optimization and then stop for a few years to really focus on 10.7