Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Do I need to go from Snow Leopard to ML?

1934hotrod

1934hotrod

macrumors regular
Jan 27, 2013
121
0
Woodstock
tkimages said:
I've been very happy with my 2 yr old 27" i7 imac running Snow Leopard, it runs smoothly and all my ancillaries work with it. However I've just read that Apple have stopped their 'support' for SL in as much as they are not updating it with security patches.

Is this correct? Will I now have to move over to ML?

I already know that at least one my ancillaries will not work with ML!!

Cheers,
Click to expand...


First red flag: "I already know that at least one my ancillaries will not work with ML!!"

Not an expert.... But I know ML is not backward compatible to a load of applications. SL will run anything 10X and some OS9. ML chokes with the older applications. If your Mac usage is entertainment driven, music and movies kind of thing, then ML could work for you. Personally I am sticking with SL until the computer takes a dirt nap. I think and I do not know this for certain, but Apple seems to me to be driving the hardware into gossip gadgets. This ML works wonders in concert with the i-goofy hand held with the cutesy cartoon apps that follow people around like a shadow. I just want a smooth reliable running machine and the SL does that for me, my $0.02.

Cheers indeed,

Greg
 
Michael Goff

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,421
redfirebird08 said:
Did you really just compare Snow Leopard to Windows XP and Mountain Lion to Windows 7? Mountain Lion is not a big enough departure from Snow Leopard to make that comparison.
Click to expand...

Security wise?

Yes.

Security-wise, the difference between SL and ML are enough to make that comparison/
 
redfirebird08

redfirebird08

macrumors 6502
Feb 15, 2007
476
168
Michael Goff said:
Security wise?

Yes.

Security-wise, the difference between SL and ML are enough to make that comparison/
Click to expand...


Not really since Snow Leopard is miles ahead of any Windows machine in terms of security. Just by simply not being a Windows operating system it is instantly safer since the hackers spend 99% of their time attacking Windows.
 
Michael Goff

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,421
redfirebird08 said:
Not really since Snow Leopard is miles ahead of any Windows machine in terms of security. Just by simply not being a Windows operating system it is instantly safer since the hackers spend 99% of their time attacking Windows.
Click to expand...

...

My point, it's up there. I'm afraid you missed it.

7 is to XP as ML is to SL.

Now do you get it?

Also, remember that the hackers go where the money is. OS X is better, potentially, than Windows. It's built on Unix, etc etc. But Apple hasn't used the good cards they've been dealt.

They're getting better recently, but still.
 
maflynn

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,448
43,370
[MOD NOTE]
Stay on topic, and stop the bickering.
 
Last edited:
K

koban4max

macrumors 68000
Aug 23, 2011
1,582
0
tkimages said:
I've been very happy with my 2 yr old 27" i7 imac running Snow Leopard, it runs smoothly and all my ancillaries work with it. However I've just read that Apple have stopped their 'support' for SL in as much as they are not updating it with security patches.

Is this correct? Will I now have to move over to ML?

I already know that at least one my ancillaries will not work with ML!!

Cheers,
Click to expand...

I moved back from ML...stay till 10.8.3. exist.
 
thekev

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
7,005
3,343
Michael Goff said:
When OS X 10.9 comes out, likely later this year, I'd say that they're likely to stop patching SL. Hell, it's lucky it's getting patches as is.

Then again, it hasn't gotten a sizable patch in what? 18 months?

Let's not ignore that SL lacks ASLR, which makes it a tasty security hazard.

Oh, and then there's the fact that SL isn't getting the most recent Safari.

I'm not saying the world is ending if she doesn't, but don't act like there's no reason beyond features. Each version gets more secure.
Click to expand...

Lion was a piece of garbage and Mountain Lion cut off a lot of older hardware. Of course they continue to issue security updates for a while. The direction of OSX is depressing in some ways. It has become somewhat problematic when it comes to freeing up memory, so I end up with insane amounts of pageouts when they shouldn't happen. Even with an ssd I definitely notice the performance hit. Some bugs have held out forever. Spotlight still likes to index hidden files. I still cannot live without disk warrior due to the file system that I had hoped they'd fix long ago. Finder windows still bug out at times and randomly fail to display items. Windows has some of its own annoyances. If Linux had system wide color management and good gpu drivers, I would switch and never look at OSX again.
 
W

WSR

macrumors regular
Jun 9, 2011
249
2
I would say if you like Spaces/Expose and multi-monitor support as it is in SL, stick with SL. I am.
 
talmy

talmy

macrumors 601
Oct 26, 2009
4,726
332
Oregon
Michael Goff said:
So you would advise that Windows users continue to use XP indefinitely if they don't care about what features 7 and 8 offer?

Should Ubuntu users stick with pre-Unity if they don't like Unity?

Etc Etc
Click to expand...

Rhetorical question?

We use XP at work, and there is even a system running Windows 95. We also use pre-Unity Ubuntu and are considering switching to Xubuntu to avoid Unity. I still use a Windows 2000 virtual machine for some old software packages I need to run. I run Quicken under Windows XP virtual machine.

The Macs here run one of Snow Leopard, Snow Leopard Server, or Mountain Lion.

Never had a virus on any computer or OS.

Run whatever gets the job done and practice "safe computing." None of the old systems run browsers, mail programs, or any questionable software.
 
Mr. Retrofire

Mr. Retrofire

macrumors 603
Mar 2, 2010
5,064
518
www.emiliana.cl/en
Nermal said:
Usually by double-clicking the app's icon. *ducks*
Click to expand...
;-)

Nermal said:
Most OS X apps, Intel or PowerPC, run in SL. I believe that a handful of OS 9 apps (CarbonLib?) run too but I'm not certain about that.
Click to expand...
SpeedSearchX is CFM (Mac OS Code Fragment Manager), CarbonLib-based app, which i use under Snow Leopard. IIRC, i used it also on Mac OS 8.6 and 9.x.x.

I find data types and functions with this tool (in /usr/include/, /System/Library/Frameworks/, and so on).

----------
talmy said:
Never had a virus on any computer or OS.
Click to expand...
I had a so called “worm” under Mac OS 8.1. Disinfectant removed this worm, IIRC.
 
V

vistadude

macrumors 65816
Jan 3, 2010
1,423
1
Do you think we'll have have to jailbreak apple's OS (OS 11, 12, etc) to make it tweakable? Thereby breaking security to make our computers better like we do for iOS devices.
 
R

RSL

macrumors regular
Nov 6, 2012
124
0
vistadude said:
Do you think we'll have have to jailbreak apple's OS (OS 11, 12, etc) to make it tweakable? Thereby breaking security to make our computers better like we do for iOS devices.
Click to expand...

It seems improbable. Yet thanks to the App Store it becomes REALLY HARD to track apps after they've been taken down for whatever reason, or get an older version. Reminds me of iOS, and I'm not liking it at all.
 
talmy

talmy

macrumors 601
Oct 26, 2009
4,726
332
Oregon
RSL said:
It seems improbable. Yet thanks to the App Store it becomes REALLY HARD to track apps after they've been taken down for whatever reason, or get an older version. Reminds me of iOS, and I'm not liking it at all.
Click to expand...

I was burned by iMovie which got upgraded and no longer works with Snow Leopard. I complained to Apple that the app I paid for was no longer downloadable after 6 months (shortly after Lion came out) and they replied that one needs to back up all software!

So I do just that. The .app package contains the entire distribution in App store purchases, so it's easy to archive (you don't need to save an original installer) and install (you just copy it to the Applications folder).

Basically it's hardly different than the "old days" when you had to keep the distribution disks so you could re-install later. Except now you can keep an electronic copy or two which take less space and install faster.

I don't think they will ever lock down OS X, at least as long as Macs are sold as "trucks" they really can't. And they really want people who only need "cars" to buy iPads.

I've been a "truck driver" for over 40 years and the Mac is the best "truck" I've ever owned.
 
R

RSL

macrumors regular
Nov 6, 2012
124
0
talmy said:
I was burned by iMovie which got upgraded and no longer works with Snow Leopard. I complained to Apple that the app I paid for was no longer downloadable after 6 months (shortly after Lion came out) and they replied that one needs to back up all software!

So I do just that.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a good idea. But two problems come to mind:

1. You bought the software from the App Store and it installed automatically, therefore destroying the installer. Then a new version gets released, you install, but after a while you want to revert.

2. You hear about some cool software on the App Store. You check there but it's been taken down by the developer because it's not compatible with say 10.8. You're still on 10.7 though, yet you can't get the software although you'd love to pay for it. Sure you can try to contact the developer, etc. But that's my point, it makes the situation unnecessarily complicated.
 
talmy

talmy

macrumors 601
Oct 26, 2009
4,726
332
Oregon
RSL said:
1. You bought the software from the App Store and it installed automatically, therefore destroying the installer. Then a new version gets released, you install, but after a while you want to revert.
Click to expand...

Only the OS X releases (and perhaps still XCode) is the package downloaded from the App Store an installer. But it doesn't install automatically. Everything downloaded from the app store comes down as an application bundle (the .app "file") that you can archive for later access. Depending on the DRM the author choses, it might require entering the Apple ID the first time it is run.

Regarding software being no longer available, that's no different than non-Mac App Store purchases. If the developer removes the software from distribution, you can't obtain it.
 
R

RSL

macrumors regular
Nov 6, 2012
124
0
talmy said:
Only the OS X releases (and perhaps still XCode) is the package downloaded from the App Store an installer. But it doesn't install automatically. Everything downloaded from the app store comes down as an application bundle (the .app "file") that you can archive for later access. Depending on the DRM the author choses, it might require entering the Apple ID the first time it is run.

Regarding software being no longer available, that's no different than non-Mac App Store purchases. If the developer removes the software from distribution, you can't obtain it.
Click to expand...

I know about the app store bundle. But the point is that it is automatically destroyed after installing via the store. So one uses the store to download, but not to install. Sort of complicated. Someone should write an app that automatically backs up app store purchases.

Concerning apps taken down: apps can be taken down for not complying with app store guidelines. This is not always the developer's decision. And what about old versions of apps? Not available on the app store.
 
talmy

talmy

macrumors 601
Oct 26, 2009
4,726
332
Oregon
RSL said:
I know about the app store bundle. But the point is that it is automatically destroyed after installing via the store. So one uses the store to download, but not to install.
Click to expand...

Not the point at all! The App Store installs an app simply by placing it in the Application folder. That's the only action necessary to install an App Store application. In the case of OS X upgrades, the app is really an installer which needs to be archived before running since it is deleted after it is run once (to upgrade the OS). The application bundle itself doesn't get modified so (with the exception of the OS upgrades) you can archive it at any time, even after running it. App Store apps store their data in ~/Library/Application\ Support, and if they don't find it then it is created.

Sort of complicated. Someone should write an app that automatically backs up app store purchases.
Click to expand...

I haven't tried it, but one should be able to set up a folder action to do this.

Concerning apps taken down: apps can be taken down for not complying with app store guidelines. This is not always the developer's decision. And what about old versions of apps? Not available on the app store.
Click to expand...

In general, old versions of applications and applications taken off the market are not available for purchase, App Store or not. There is nothing unusual about the Mac App Store here. As long as you archive App Store purchases you are safe. And you also need to archive any applications bought from any other source.
 
R

RSL

macrumors regular
Nov 6, 2012
124
0
talmy said:
Not the point at all! The App Store installs an app simply by placing it in the Application folder. That's the only action necessary to install an App Store application. In the case of OS X upgrades, the app is really an installer which needs to be archived before running since it is deleted after it is run once (to upgrade the OS). The application bundle itself doesn't get modified so (with the exception of the OS upgrades) you can archive it at any time, even after running it. App Store apps store their data in ~/Library/Application\ Support, and if they don't find it then it is created.



I haven't tried it, but one should be able to set up a folder action to do this.



In general, old versions of applications and applications taken off the market are not available for purchase, App Store or not. There is nothing unusual about the Mac App Store here. As long as you archive App Store purchases you are safe. And you also need to archive any applications bought from any other source.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the first remark, I wasn't aware of that.

But concerning old versions of apps, that's not completely true. It's probably true for most paid apps, but definitely false for the majority of free apps. I download old versions of apps all the time, especially for an app which has gone paid without significant changes (like CCC for example).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom