Do I need to go from Snow Leopard to ML?

[1934hotrod]

Originally Posted by tkimages

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,

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]

Originally Posted by redfirebird08

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.

Security wise?

Yes.

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

[MisterKeeks]

Originally Posted by 1934hotrod

SL will run anything 10X and some OS9.

How?

[redfirebird08]

Originally Posted by Michael Goff

Security wise?

Yes.

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

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]

Originally Posted by redfirebird08

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.

...

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.

[Nermal]

Originally Posted by MisterKeeks

How?

Usually by double-clicking the app's icon. *ducks*

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.

[MisterKeeks]

Originally Posted by Nermal

I believe that a handful of OS 9 apps (CarbonLib?) run too but I'm not certain about that.

If they have been carbonized I wouldn't really call them OS9 Applications.

[Nermal]

Originally Posted by MisterKeeks

If they have been carbonized I wouldn't really call them OS9 Applications.

I think his point is that they're apps that can run under OS 9.

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
Stay on topic, and stop the bickering.

[koban4max]

Originally Posted by tkimages

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,

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

[thekev]

Originally Posted by Michael Goff

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.

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.

[WSR]

I would say if you like Spaces/Expose and multi-monitor support as it is in SL, stick with SL. I am.

[talmy]

Originally Posted by Michael Goff

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

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]

Originally Posted by Nermal

Usually by double-clicking the app's icon. *ducks*

;-)

Originally Posted by Nermal

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.

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).

----------

Originally Posted by talmy

Never had a virus on any computer or OS.

I had a so called “worm” under Mac OS 8.1. Disinfectant removed this worm, IIRC.

[Drew017]

Originally Posted by Eithanius

A

FYI, I'm running iTunes 11.0.1 on SL...

My mistake though I thought iTunes 11 was only for Lion +

[vistadude]

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.

[RSL]

Originally Posted by vistadude

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.

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]

Originally Posted by RSL

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.

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.

[RSL]

Originally Posted by talmy

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.

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]

Originally Posted by RSL

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.

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.

[RSL]

Originally Posted by talmy

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.

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]

Originally Posted by RSL

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.

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.

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.

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.

[RSL]

Originally Posted by talmy

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.

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).

[Joseph Farrugia]

Snow Leopard is a fine, stable & proven OS; something to think about.

[dontpannic]

Originally Posted by Joseph Farrugia

Snow Leopard is a fine, stable & proven OS; something to think about.

But no access to iCloud, and the host of security fixes and enhancements along the way...