Why do mac users need 10.6 (4yrs old) while PCs can use winxp (11 yrs old) iTunes 11

Discussion in 'OS X' started by chupacabra31, Dec 5, 2012.

  1. macrumors member

    Aug 6, 2011
    So if you have mac you have gotta have a minimum of OS 10.6 (4 years old) which it clearly states on the box, however if you have PC its A okay to have an 11 year old OS soon to be 12?

    I understand that OX 10.6 is only a $20 upgrade and for me it is no big deal. I hear a lot of outrage though from others such as I just bought this dang iphone 5 or ipad mini and paid a premium for it and now I gotta spend $20 more to use it with my mac?

    Again if your being harsh you could say "Well did you read the box?"

    Just wondering what apples official positioning or your best positioning as to the reason for this would be?
  2. macrumors 6502


    Nov 18, 2012
    Older OS' (10.5 and below) just aren't supported anymore.
  3. macrumors 601

    Aug 27, 2012
    Apple is a hardware company, they throw in the software to sell hardware.

    MS a software company, that's their cash cow.
  4. macrumors 65816


    Jul 29, 2012
    I think it's just Apple trying to be funny.

    iTunes should've been able to support the older operating system as well, or at least Apple should at least try to make them compatible.
  5. macrumors 68020


    Jan 11, 2002
    Bay Area, Ca.
    And of course, no powerpc macs can run iTunes 11. On the contrary, I'm surprised they were still updating iTunes for PowerPC Macs this long. lol

    Seeing as I'm probably going to retire the last powerpc machines I have next year, I don't even care anymore. It was a good run.
  6. macrumors 603


    Aug 4, 2011
    iTunes likely has deeper integration with MacOS due to all coming from Apple.

    In Windows, it's just an application sitting on top of everything else. There is nothing about it that would require 7. Many of Apple's customers, corporation workstations in particular are still on XP. Vista was largely skipped, so they are really only supporting 2 plaforms.
  7. macrumors 603


    Jun 30, 2008
    Funny, I brought this up when the 4 came out and no one seemed to care...
  8. macrumors 6502a


    Mar 4, 2012
    Actually, this probably highlights what a brilliant job Microsoft have done in terms of compatability with older operating systems
  9. macrumors 6502

    Jun 26, 2010
    Have you considered that Apple looked at the market penetration of various operating systems and used this data to decide how much effort (ie $$) they would put in to backwards compatibility?

    According to Wikipedia site statistics, there are twice as many XP systems touching their website as there are of OS X of any variant.
  10. macrumors 65816


    Apr 15, 2009
    Hmmmm...Brilliant and Microsoft in the same sentence? Seems like an oxymoron...like Jumbo Shrimp.
  11. macrumors 65816

    Dec 7, 2010
    Because 10.6 was the first Mac os to run on intel chips, and there's no point in them designing software for PPC anymore.

    There's no be a grand swapover like that in the PC world.
  12. macrumors 68020


    Mar 19, 2012
  13. macrumors regular

    Nov 21, 2012
    Uhm...10.4 and .5 both ran on intel chips. 10.6 was the first os not support ppc.
  14. macrumors 603

    Michael Goff

    Jul 5, 2012
    It's really quite simple.

    XP has a huge amount of people using it, it's about a third of all Windows users.
    10.5? It doesn't have a third of all OS X users. It doesn't have a fifth. It might have a tenth, but even that is iffy.

    OS X users update in larger numbers than Windows users.
  15. macrumors 603


    Oct 29, 2007
    True, but there was a transition to fully 64 bit on 10.6 from 10.5.
  16. macrumors 603


    Jan 10, 2006
    Or... it could be that Windows 7/8 is still based on 11+ year old technology and so its no effort to write an app that works on both. ;)
  17. macrumors 68040


    Dec 22, 2009
    Microsoft's obsession with backwards compatibility is what causes a lot of Windows' problems though. It's a two way street.


    OS X is based on old technology too. BSD to be precise.
  18. macrumors 65816

    Dec 7, 2010
    this is what im getting confused with
  19. thread starter macrumors member

    Aug 6, 2011
    Has Apple themselves come out with any official positioning on this?

    I guess I am just looking at this from the lay persons perspective. Your average joe consumer who just bought an iphone 5, ipad mini, or ipad 4 and happen to use OSX 10.5 and now have to spend $20 more in order to sync with a device that is already quite pricey despite its worth.

    I know a lot of people who are just livid over this. I am fine with it and too me its no big deal, but I apparently am the rarity.
  20. macrumors 6502

    Apr 3, 2009
    This. I wouldn't be surprised if, somewhere under all the graphical layers, it's still DOS that's actually running everything. :p
  21. macrumors 68040

    Feb 13, 2012
    Perth, Western Australia
    Because microsoft's entire business model is built on backwards compatibility (hence, a compromised dual-UI tablet that runs legacy Windows apps - for example).

    People generally tough it out using microsoft solutions because they play with existing software.

    People use apple stuff because they want to, thus apple can afford to make more changes, at a faster rate. Which deprecates old software.


    Nah, the NT kernel (lowest level) is pretty advanced.

    Its the compatibility layers on top which are the problem.

    The entire "Windows" UI is just a personality layer for the NT kernel.
  22. macrumors 603

    Feb 20, 2009
    "So if you have mac you have gotta have a minimum of OS 10.6 (4 years old) which it clearly states on the box, however if you have PC its A okay to have an 11 year old OS soon to be 12?"

    Apple cares not for "backward compatibility", for them, it's "sell new stuff" !!

    If your older version of the OS is outdated, well, "time to buy a new Mac, iPod, iPhone, whatever!"

    BTW, I'm typing this on a PowerMac g4 that is going on nine years old, running OS 10.4.

    You don't really "have to have" 10.6 ...
  23. macrumors 6502a


    Dec 14, 2009
    Helsinki, Finland
    I think this is the real issue. There's a lot of new and updated software titles, which demand Snow Leopard or above, which is just another way of saying: "We did not think the dwindling number of PowerPC users are worth the hassle - so we coded it in Intel only."

    In iTunes' case it just means Apple has fired its PowerPC programmers and the new pieces of iTunes are done non-universal.

    Partially that's true, but IMHO, quite shortsighted. One factor why Apple has been able to command a price premium has been, that Apple hardware usually has had quite a good resale value. Not supporting "old" hardware lessens that value. Considering the way in which both Lion and ML have quite artificially pruned the list of "apple-supported hardware", it overshadows any Apple-owner's right to expect resale value.

    What makes this particularly egregious is that Apple's now systematically giving the finger to PowerPC-owners, those very same people who helped Apple and believed in Apple in the darkest of hours.

    So why should you care? You don't have any PowerPC **** lying around.
    Well guess what: as long as Apple finds new toys to sell to people and finds new schmucks to jump on the bandwagon, they'll keep treating long-time users like ****.

    But hey, the business is good, the stock price's still above 500$, so why bother?

  24. macrumors 68040


    Feb 12, 2010
    I don't find it to be a reasonable expectation for one to believe that they are entitled to the latest and greatest software with a computer that is almost a decade old. Especially considering how fast these technologies evolve. It simply isn't feasible.
  25. macrumors 6502a


    Oct 25, 2007
    Earlier versions of OS X were much less mature than XP. Many of the features in iTunes would be impossible to implement without months and months of work.

Share This Page