Classic/Retired Intel Mac Section

[Gamer9430]

Hello. On behalf of several regular users in the PowerPC forums, we would line to request that a Classic/Retired Intel Mac section be added to the forms. The reason being behind this is that users in the Intel Mac section often tell users seeking help that their machines are too old to be useful and should go out and buy a new one, thus not helping to answer that user. Users seeking help often come to the PowerPC forums because they think their older macs are the same as the PowerPC macs, and they think that we can help them (which most of the time we are able to). We in the PowerPC section often create threads about older Intel macs because being the people that we are, still using PowerPC macs in 2015 and refusing to give up on old machines, we are able to help out in solving problems that a certain user has.

With having a Classic/Retired Intel section, users who have older Intel macs can come to that section to request help and not be told to get a new one, and we can keep the PowerPC section strictly PowerPC.

Thanks to any admin who is taking the time to read this and we hope that you will consider adding in this subform.

 

[throAU]

Sounds like the problem is people giving crappy advice, not what section of the forum the post is in.

 

[redheeler]

[Serious Question] Should older (Intel) Mac users post in here (PowerPC Mac forum)?

Thanks to any mod who is taking the time to read this and we hope that you will consider adding in this subform.

Only admins can add sub-forums

 

[Gamer9430]

[Serious Question] Should older (Intel) Mac users post in here (PowerPC Mac forum)?


Only admins can add sub-forums

I fixed it

 

[Gamer9430]

Sounds like the problem is people giving crappy advice, not what section of the forum the post is in.

Yeah, but I feel like that crappy advice can be avoided with that subform. The people in there will (hopefully) be other users who use older Intel macs still and can offer some insight to a user's question, as opposed to getting bad advice.

 

[redheeler]

Yeah, but I feel like that crappy advice can be avoided with that subform. The people in there will (hopefully) be other users who use older Intel macs still and can offer some insight to a user's question, as opposed to getting bad advice.

It seems like most PPC users are also users of older Intel Macs, as PPC hardware falls further behind and the prices on early Intels come down.

The earliest Intel I have is my Yosemite-capable late 2008 MacBook Air, but I'd still try to help as much as possible

 

[Gamer9430]

[Serious Question] Should older (Intel) Mac users post in here (PowerPC Mac forum)?


Only admins can add sub-forums

Alright, so I read over that entire thread that you linked me... It seems like there was never a definite yes or no, just a whole lot of talk. Perhaps a refresh on the topic will get things going again. Plenty of people would like to see it, so who knows. I, for one, would love to see it. The inspiration for starting this thread out of the blue is the fact that I'm in the process of getting an 08 MacBook, and I really don't feel like hearing about how old and useless it is if I were to post some questions about the machine in the Intel forms. Although, if BunnSpecial's point still stands, the people in the MacBook form may be a little less nasty about it.

 

[Gamer9430]

It seems like most PPC users are also users of older Intel Macs, as PPC hardware falls further behind and the prices on early Intels come down.

The earliest Intel I have is my Yosemite-capable late 2008 MacBook Air, but I'd still try to help as much as possible

I know for a fact that Bunn, Erik, Keaton, Altemose, LightBulbFun, iModFrenzy, and several others, including you and me, have older Intel macs as well as PowerPC macs. I think the form should be for Core2Duo and below machines (or any machine that maxes out at 10.6/10.7), regardless of Yosemite/El Cap capabilities.

 

[redheeler]

Alright, so I read over that entire thread that you linked me... It seems like there was never a definite yes or no, just a whole lot of talk. Perhaps a refresh on the topic will get things going again. Plenty of people would like to see it, so who knows. I, for one, would love to see it. The inspiration for starting this thread out of the blue is the fact that I'm in the process of getting an 08 MacBook, and I really don't feel like hearing about how old and useless it is if I were to post some questions about the machine in the Intel forms. Although, if BunnSpecial's point still stands, the people in the MacBook form may be a little less nasty about it.

Try to go with an early '09 or later, if you can. Stick an SSD in there, maybe 4 GB RAM, and you'll have a nice Mac running the latest version of OS X for at least another year.

I agree that users of plastic MacBooks lost their cozy little sub-forum as soon as the rMB was announced. However, there are still people there willing to help users of older MacBooks, even though such threads can be hard to spot among the rMB discussion and now feel quite out of place.

 

[grahamperrin]

Related:

• Hierarchy of sub-forums, and some related permissions

– and I’ll cast my vote here after reviewing (and linking to) other related topics.

 

[maflynn]

I see no need for such a set up and I can only envision this will cause confusion to some members. That is they'll continue to post in the regular Mac forum. Plus who makes the decision that a given Mac is "retired" I mean would my 2012 rMBP be considered such even though its going on 3 years old?

Believe it or not, if people asked for help in a retired forum, they'd receive advise telling them to get a new one.

I don't see this adding to the user experience to MacRumors but rather detracting imo.

 

[S.B.G]

Plus who makes the decision that a given Mac is "retired" I mean would my 2012 rMBP be considered such even though its going on 3 years old?

I agree, I see no need to split it up into new forums. Plus, would my 2010 iMac be considered "retired"? It's a 2.93 GHz I7, quad core and as far as I see, despite being 5 years old, it's still very powerful and relevant.

 

[zhenya]

I would have to agree with this sentiment, as in the new (I presume it's new?) Macbook forum there is a not-insignificant number of posts from people seeking help for their older plastic-generation 'MacBooks' and nobody ever moves them out of the forum even though they don't seem to get much help there. It feels completely out of place there - and a source of confusion for anyone skimming thread titles.

 

[grahamperrin]

...The five year cutoff has the virtue of being both simple and optional. ...

... older ...

With or without rationalistion alongside the PowerPC sub-forum, it should be good to have something more specific than 'old' (or 'older') that is not tied to an age.


Unsupported

A smart category in Mactracker:

… and it should be simple enough to get a more specific category …

 

[chrfr]

Sounds like the problem is people giving crappy advice, not what section of the forum the post is in.

Exactly.
Trying to find a way to divide older Intel powered Macs into separate forums would confuse users and make more work for moderators who have to sort the posts when they're put into the wrong forum.
Does a 2010 Macbook go into the old Mac category? How about a 2008 Mac Pro? The supported/unsupported distinction isn't useful as there are unsupported Macs that share nearly everything with models which are supported. Further, most people are entirely unaware of a computer's support status.
The only logical architectural distinction is 32 vs. 64-bit, but in most cases the 32 and 64 bit models which immediately followed share nearly everything except the CPU.

It would make no logical sense, nor improve the user experience, to split Intel Mac forums further.

 

[grahamperrin]

… would my 2010 iMac be considered "retired"? …

Sorry, I don't know about retired.

Much easier to tell: that iMac is supported.

Please see the first screenshot at https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/21547007 – no 2010 models on that list.

 

[grahamperrin]

Does a 2010 Macbook go into the old Mac category?

It's already established that the word 'old' is contentious.

Less contentious: please see the second screenshot at https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/21547007 – no 2010 models on that list.

… The supported/unsupported distinction isn't useful …

That's opinion; not fact.

A fact: 'unsupported' is amongst the useful, non-contentious things in things such as Mactracker; and in the resources from which developers of Mactracker draw information.

 

[chrfr]

A fact: 'unsupported' is amongst the useful, non-contentious things in things such as Mactracker; and in the resources from which developers of Mactracker draw information.

Mactracker sometimes lags on updates. The canonical reference for support status is here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
There's a lot of unsupported 2009 portables which are virtually identical to still-supported 2010 portables. What is the value of separating computers which are effectively the same in a forum like this?

 

[2984839]

I see no need for such a set up and I can only envision this will cause confusion to some members. That is they'll continue to post in the regular Mac forum. Plus who makes the decision that a given Mac is "retired" I mean would my 2012 rMBP be considered such even though its going on 3 years old?

Believe it or not, if people asked for help in a retired forum, they'd receive advise telling them to get a new one.

I don't see this adding to the user experience to MacRumors but rather detracting imo.

Maybe, but I understand the OP's sentiment. Start a thread in the MBP forum about how you're looking at buying a 2006 version or ask about a problem with one and you'll be shouted down with "lol that's too old, just throw it away and buy a 2013 refurb" or some variation thereof. Nobody in the PPC forum is told to buy a newer machine unless that is actually the best answer to their question. I don't see it happening in an older Intel section.

While it might not require a separate forum, it already detracts from the user experience to be met with a barrage of posts from spec chasers with a totally distorted view of computing needs.

 

[grahamperrin]

… effectively the same …

Honestly, I can't view Intel Macs as the same as PowerPC Macs. I have a variety of Macs, each of which falls into one of those categories. I'd never confuse the two.

For the other part of your post: thanks, a thumbs-up for canonical reference.

 

[chrfr]

Honestly, I can't view Intel Macs as the same as PowerPC Macs. I have a variety of Macs, each of which falls into one of those categories. I'd never confuse the two..

I'm not talking about PowerPC computers. A late 2009 and 2010 Macbook truly differ only in the GPU. One is supported, one is not.

 

[Richdmoore]

Another option is just use apple's obsolete definition, 7 years after discontinuation.

 

[grahamperrin]

I'm not talking about PowerPC computers. …

I have to laugh; not at you, @chrfr. Laughing at the confusions and cross-purposes that are inevitable when people are encouraged to not separate (b) discussion of Intel from (a) discussion of PowerPC …

 

[chrfr]

I have to laugh; not at you, @chrfr. Laughing at the confusions and cross-purposes that are inevitable when people are encouraged to not separate (b) discussion of Intel from (a) discussion of PowerPC …

PowerPC should stay where it is. Intel talk should go in the appropriate, already existing, forums. Issues with bad responses should be handled via moderation.

 

[MagicBoy]

PowerPC should stay where it is. Intel talk should go in the appropriate, already existing, forums. Issues with bad responses should be handled via moderation.

I tend to agree with this. It would benefit the regulars with middle aged Macs, but would be confusing for new members to get bounced around between Intel Mac subforums due to not knowing the Apple definition of vintage or obsolete.

Being an occasional dipper into the PowerPC forum I can understand the points made about that culture of that subforum being of more relaxed and considered but on balance I'm going with the existing structure.