Goodbye to PPC for now?

[eyoungren]

Compatibility is always something I wish for- proper compatibility especially, not 3rd party workarounds. Every time I’ve upgraded Macs, I’ve lost something- OS9 native booting, then Rosetta support, then 32-bit app support, and now:

With the exception of 32-bit support, both of these things are not anything I miss. I know you do, but when I could finally put away OS9 at work and home I rejoiced. And with regards to Rosetta, there were no apps I used that required OS9 that I could not update or work around.

At this point, I'm only hanging on to 32-bit support out of habit.

One thing I hate about the M1 Mini is that its OS, Big Sur, dropped AFP file sharing. This was the easiest way to do file sharing to 10.4 PPC (the SMB sharing it offers doesn’t seem to work below Lion/Snow Leopard).
So, my server is still a 2010 Mac Mini Server, IMO a really fantastic machine for that purpose, being one of the low-power Core 2 Duos in the efficient unibody enclosure; but the M1 Mini is just a little more power efficient than that, and would’ve been nice to use as a server.
Why did Apple drop AFP file sharing? Apple just likes to keep its offerings simple and clean- it never supports features that are past their mainstream use. Hence other minor but annoying losses, like that loss of floppy drive support (in 10.15?)

Red and bold my emphasis.

Why?

Because AFP is not the standard and never has been. SMB 1.0 was created by IBM for networking in DOS in 1984. Apple chose it's own protocol. When it became apparent that the Windows/Linux/Unix networking world would not follow, Apple petulantly added SMB to later versions of the OS. But, and this is the critical part, Apple implemented their OWN version of SMB! And that is why you cannot use proper SMB below Lion/Snow Leopard.

With Mavericks, Apple finally deprecated AFP for the same version of SMB that the entire rest of the world has been using since 1984. But of course, they had to get a last dig in and botched SMB3 in that OS.

With Big Sur, Apple finally got around to taking AFP out entirely.

Now, I won't leave you with the bile I have for Apple on this though. Back in the day, there was a company called Thursby Software that rose to the occasion. They created AdmitMac for PC servers and DAVE for Macs. With AdmitMac, it allows for AFP on PC servers and with DAVE, it REPLACES Apple's SMB with proper SMB protocol on Macs.

Go get DAVE for your PowerPC Macs.

 

[eyoungren]

That's odd. I wonder if Apple has revised the SMB protocol through the years because it enabled me to network an iBook G3 running Tiger with a Windows Vista PC and share files from the latter to the former.

I'm just going to speak to this part.

Apple has been using a non-standard form of SMB for years. While it did work out of the box, you got better results when using versions of Windows that were closer in age to the Mac OS you were using. As the SMB standard evolved, Apple chose not to keep up. They were finally forced to abandon AFP because no one outside of Apple uses it.

Supporting it for a handful of Macs in a PC environment is not a best use case of IT resources.

There is a reason DAVE and AdmitMac kept Thursby software in business. They folded once Apple decided to implement the correct form of SMB.

 

[eyoungren]

This is why I'd call the Apple ecosystem a walled garden:

Less support for open standards and more Apple-only services and interfaces and as long as people are buying new devices they will not change a bit.

And this is why I do not keep all my eggs in the same basket and work hard to find/obtain workarounds that are either compatible, cross-platform, or preferably both.

iPhone, iPad, Mac, whatever device Apple sells - I refuse to be owned by them. I'm only here to use their stuff.

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

That's odd. I wonder if Apple has revised the SMB protocol through the years because it enabled me to network an iBook G3 running Tiger with a Windows Vista PC and share files from the latter to the former.



It was El Capitan (10.11) that saw the demise of floppy support. I'm increasingly convinced that Apple are determined to steer consumers towards a particular direction (hardware and software) that limits their choices and increases Apple's control over how their products are used. Honestly, how much space did the code for floppy support really take up within the OS? It had to be inconsequential. Linux still supports floppies despite Torvalds sounding the death knell in 2019 and in December 2022 a bugfix was added for floppy support. Windows 11 retains floppy support - including for 5.25" drives!



They care enough to pull support from legacy media formats in order to try and hinder our ability to exchange files/install software onto those old machines using our newer ones.



They've become everything that I loathed about Microsoft and exactly what the railed against in 1984. Yes, you're right - continued sales = validation for their misguided path.

This brings up a interesting question (to me anyways). As Apple went public in 1980 (profit motive), when/where do folks consider the profit motive became unhealthy and unbalanced? Where did a healthy profit motive become an unhealthy one?

*Edited for spelling.

 

[Doq]

This brings up a interesting question (to me anyways). As Apple went public[*?] in 1980 (profit motive), when/where do folks consider the profit motive became unhealthy and unbalance d? Where did a healthy profit motive become an unhealthy one?

Right after the success of the iPod and the iTunes Store.

That was the moment that Apple realised that they could pull off such a stunt and be successful doing it. The iPod was the first product that Apple sold that pretty much made a de facto monopoly on that product segment (portable music players in this case). De facto in that there was indeed competition, but other than a few odd outliers, completely stunk when put up against the iPod. The distant second in this market was the Zune. The Zune! There's a reason why most people are hard-pressed to think of any PMP of that era that wasn't an iPod.

This would continue through to the iPhone, and the rest writes itself. I don't think Apple would have this level of unprecedented success if the iPod wasn't the smash hit that it was.

 

[Amethyst1]

The iPod was the first product that Apple sold that pretty much made a de facto monopoly on that product segment (portable music players in this case).

What if a “Windows” (or USB-compatible) version of the iPod had never been released? Someone would have figured out how to make it work with PCs of course, but what would this have meant for Apple?

 

[B S Magnet]

This is why I'd call the Apple ecosystem a walled garden:

Less support for open standards and more Apple-only services and interfaces and as long as people are buying new devices they will not change a bit.

With coiled barbed wire atop the walls, but completely covered from view by all the pretty ivy vines! 🥲

 

[B S Magnet]

I'm increasingly convinced that Apple are determined to steer consumers towards a particular direction (hardware and software) that limits their choices and increases Apple's control over how their products are used. Honestly, how much space did the code for floppy support really take up within the OS? It had to be inconsequential.

Apple: “Having choices is expensive!”
Also Apple: “We pare back ways to have choices within our products, but we never forget to make them expensive!”

 

[B S Magnet]

With the exception of 32-bit support, both of these things are not anything I miss. I know you do, but when I could finally put away OS9 at work and home I rejoiced. And with regards to Rosetta, there were no apps I used that required OS9 that I could not update or work around.

At this point, I'm only hanging on to 32-bit support out of habit.


Red and bold my emphasis.

Why?

Because AFP is not the standard and never has been.

AFP is a standard (if now abandoned by Apple), even if it’s not and was not the most common standard. NFS, created by Sun (also in 1984, much as CIFS/SMB by IBM), is also a standard and is something Apple systems can handle, but it is not a common one people like to use. AFP, meanwhile, got its start in 1988 as AppleTalk in System 6.

Why go through the trouble of bringing this up? Because all of these file sharing/file protocol standards share similar temporal origins by a trio of major companies, and all can do the job of connecting volumes from network shares. Having that choice, for whatever reason, is still beneficial for the end user and for administrators.

In circumstances where the only option available is SMB/CIFS, then sure, use it. But there have been and will remain circumstances where that is not the case, nor is it assured that it will always be the case. This isn’t Highlander.

(Incidentally, Apple may have dropped support entirely for AFP after Catalina, but NFS support continues on through Ventura.)

SMB 1.0 was created by IBM for networking in DOS in 1984. Apple chose it's own protocol. When it became apparent that the Windows/Linux/Unix networking world would not follow, Apple petulantly added SMB to later versions of the OS. But, and this is the critical part, Apple implemented their OWN version of SMB! And that is why you cannot use proper SMB below Lion/Snow Leopard.

You can, however, connect as CIFS:// (for SMB1 and SMB2) rather than SMB:// (for SMB3), correct?

With Big Sur, Apple finally got around to taking AFP out entirely.

Frankly, I still prefer to work with AFP when I can, because I tend to run into less trouble on network share connections with dropped attributes (like custom icons, labels, and other metadata [probably still tucked away in the resource fork]).

But again, there are (and should remain) different tools to get a desired job done. For some folks, SMB is the principal, if not only go-to. For others, this might not be optimal. I know it isn’t optimal for me.

 

[eyoungren]

AFP is a standard (if now abandoned by Apple), even if it’s not and was not the most common standard. NFS, created by Sun (also in 1984, much as CIFS/SMB by IBM), is also a standard and is something Apple systems can handle, but it is not a common one people like to use. AFP, meanwhile, got its start in 1988 as AppleTalk in System 6.

Why go through the trouble of bringing this up? Because all of these file sharing/file protocol standards share similar temporal origins by a trio of major companies, and all can do the job of connecting volumes from network shares. Having that choice, for whatever reason, is still beneficial for the end user and for administrators.

In circumstances where the only option available is SMB/CIFS, then sure, use it. But there have been and will remain circumstances where that is not the case, nor is it assured that it will always be the case. This isn’t Highlander.

(Incidentally, Apple may have dropped support entirely for AFP after Catalina, but NFS support continues on through Ventura.)



You can, however, connect as CIFS:// (for SMB1 and SMB2) rather than SMB:// (for SMB3), correct?




Frankly, I still prefer to work with AFP when I can, because I tend to run into less trouble on network share connections with dropped attributes (like custom icons, labels, and other metadata [probably still tucked away in the resource fork]).

But again, there are (and should remain) different tools to get a desired job done. For some folks, SMB is the principal, if not only go-to. For others, this might not be optimal. I know it isn’t optimal for me.

While I'm cool with AFP for personal use, particularly with my PowerPC Macs, as a System Admin in another job, having to integrate Macs (Tiger/Leopard) with a Windows SBS 2003 server and later a Windows 8 Serve, itr was a frustrating task.

In the end I just resorted to DAVE.

I'm fortunate that my current job allows both AFP and SMB connections because we're using a NAS and not a server. Unfortunately, if anyone enters a space at the end of filenames/folders when connected via AFP, those connected via SMB (usually me) do not SEE that folder or file.

I can also see your viewpoint that having more than one protocol is beneficial, however, I just see this as yet another example of Apple going their own way. That's great to a certain extent (they would not be Apple if they just followed everyone else), but to me it's a lot like ADC. Apple eventually gave up and switched to DVI.

There are just some standards I think should be accepted. Likewise, I think it's BS for printers to have ignored Appletalk. But few companies wanted to license Appletalk so here we are with multiple print engines.

As for SMB1, yes. If you use 'Connect to Server…' you can force SMB1 by using CIFS:// instead of SMB://

 

[B S Magnet]

This brings up a interesting question (to me anyways). As Apple went public in 1980 (profit motive), when/where do folks consider the profit motive became unhealthy and unbalanced? Where did a healthy profit motive become an unhealthy one?

I hope you’re asking this in good faith. CoE.

It’s loaded to say “healthy” because a corporation is not a flesh-and-blood body. It has no conscience and no soul. It cannot feel, breathe, or love.

That out of the way:

“Profit” is a privilege, not a fundamental or inalienable right.

Profit, at the expense of other entities (which often do have fleshy and/or organic foundations, even consciences!), is harmful/unhealthy when:

1. elements to amplify profit accelerates a one-way cycle of consumption (from finite raw material to finite landfill, with a calculation for carbon consumed in the several conveyances between these ends);
2. when that acceleration speeds up extraction of raw materials (wrecking the ecosystem where extraction happens, usually not in your own backyard);
3. offshoring labour (including labour exploitation to sidestep labour regulations at home);
4. hiring a fleet of attorneys to work overtime to find ways to avoid paying corporate taxes where the company is functionally situated, depriving local accounts receivable to improve the baseline of infrastructure and welfare standards at home; and,
5. frankly, depriving end users/consumers of choice, means, and options to maintain and update/upgrade, in situ, what they already use and have on hand.

As most of this doesn’t matter to many folks (well, except for #5), prioritizing shareholders over consumers is a sign that the fixation on unsustainable profit (unsustainable, because there are only a finite number of consumers with a finite amount of means to consume; a finite amount of resources/planetary commonwealth; and a finite amount of time) is a bit out of whack. It suggests a 21st century gilded age mentality.

You and I don’t see eye-to-eye on this, we won’t see eye-to-eye on this, and that’s fine. For other folks, the above are some of the several points to reflect upon when taking up the mantle of being a consumer (something called upon everyone virtually all the time).

 

[m1maverick]

I can also see your viewpoint that having more than one protocol is beneficial, however, I just see this as yet another example of Apple going their own way. That's great to a certain extent (they would not be Apple if they just followed everyone else), but to me it's a lot like ADC. Apple eventually gave up and switched to DVI.

It's been my impression Apple goes their own way in order to improve the user experience. For example wasn't ADC a variant of DVI which added some capability DVI lacked (essentially convenience by integrating several technologies into a single connector)?

 

[B S Magnet]

It's been my impression Apple goes their own way in order to improve the user experience. For example wasn't ADC a variant of DVI which added some capability DVI lacked (essentially convenience by integrating several technologies into a single connector)?

ADC included the means to transmit USB data, inline power, and both digital and analogue video. The trouble was Apple didn’t really share this connector to the industry. In addition, the 100-watt cap on the ADB in-line power bus was not enough for the aluminium cinema displays (especially the 30-inch model), which is why Apple ditched it mid-stream during the Power Mac G5’s run.

 

[chaosbunny]

And this is why I do not keep all my eggs in the same basket and work hard to find/obtain workarounds that are either compatible, cross-platform, or preferably both.

iPhone, iPad, Mac, whatever device Apple sells - I refuse to be owned by them. I'm only here to use their stuff.

Very smart. That's pretty much my approach too. I have been using Apple computers for more than 20 years because I like and know the OS, an iPhone just makes sense to go along. But I hardly use the App Store, use Firefox instead of Safari, sometimes Thunderbird instead of Mail. I don't use Photos and iCloud only for syncing Contacts, Notes and Calender between my Mac and my iPhone. I keep a Windows installation around for gaming and for staying in touch with the OS. If need be I could switch without many problems.

On topic of saying goodbye to PowerPC ... ever since my 1,67 ghz PowerBook G4 died about a year ago I have been keeping myself from getting a replacement. My fastest PowerPC is a 867 mhz G4 now. I actually wanted to keep one of the fastest PowerPCs around for legacy software/gaming but in reality that 1,67 ghz PowerBook didn't get booted very often. A replacement would take space and would need to be maintained, while surely fun there are things even more fun to do with my limited time. I have two other PowerPCs left, a G3 iMac and G3 iBook. I've decided to keep them but not get any new ones or replace them in case they break.

 

[Amethyst1]

For example wasn't ADC a variant of DVI which added some capability DVI lacked (essentially convenience by integrating several technologies into a single connector)?

ADC included the means to transmit USB data, inline power, and both digital and analogue video. The trouble was Apple didn’t really share this connector to the industry. In addition, the 100-watt cap on the ADB in-line power bus was not enough for the aluminium cinema displays (especially the 30-inch model), which is why Apple ditched it mid-stream during the Power Mac G5’s run.

The aluminium 20" and 23" Cinema Displays would have been able to run off ADC. Their power draw is rated higher than the acrylic variants but still below 100W. The ADC CRT Studio Display is rated at 113W. The 30" is a different matter both due to higher power draw and requirement of two TMDS links (dual-link DVI) to run at native resolution while ADC only provides one TMDS link (single-link DVI).

I don't see Apple not sharing ADC with anyone as a problem at all. Quite the opposite, to be honest. ADC requires modifications to graphics cards, mainboards and PSUs to provide 24.5V≈28V power to the display and puts additional load on the PSU (which is problematic if your system has a weak one). This is fine for Apple's own systems, but adoption rate among manufacturers of PC peripherals would likely have been extremely low. Case in point: in 1998, there were several competing interfaces for interfacing LCDs to graphics cards digitally (DFP, OpenLDI, P&D) with no clear winner in sight which resulted in only a few (and, with one exception, slow) graphics cards and LCDs shipping with digital interfaces and the vast majority sticking to the "safe" VGA interface which sucks to hell and back for LCDs. In April 1999 DVI was standardised. The possibility to use a second TMDS link made it future-proof and superior to the earlier interfaces, which finally made manufacturers of powerful graphics cards and LCD monitors pull the trigger beginning in late 1999.

The P&D connector introduced in 1997 was, in fact, somewhat similar to ADC in that it carried analogue video, digital video, FireWire and USB. It was a total failure (I'm only aware of two LCDs that have it. Those were made by… IBM, which pushed P&D) because it was bulky (looks like DVI on steroids), expensive and did things noone needed back then.

My personal problem with ADC, though, is that Apple initially (late 1999 to mid-2000) shipped DVI displays (15" Studio Display Rev. C; 22" Cinema Display), then introduced ADC as the next big thing only to drop it and return to DVI with the release of the aluminium Cinema Displays four years later, making a big selling point out of the fact they were now compatible with PCs too (apart from the not-so-negligible fact they didn't have a built-in scaler...). This whole situation meant that once Macs dropped DVI in favour of ADC, you needed an adapter to hook up DVI LCDs, Apple's or anyone else's. You needed an expensive adapter-and-power-supply combination to hook up ADC LCDs to a DVI output once ADC was dropped.

 

[salamanderjuice]

What if a “Windows” (or USB-compatible) version of the iPod had never been released? Someone would have figured out how to make it work with PCs of course, but what would this have meant for Apple?

It would have went nowhere and there'd be a lot of people nostalgic for Creative Zens then there is now. Apple would be a boutique computer manufacturer and not much else.

 

[salamanderjuice]

The aluminium 20" and 23" Cinema Displays would have been able to run off ADC. Their power draw is rated higher than the acrylic variants but still below 100W. The ADC CRT Studio Display is rated at 113W. The 30" is a different matter both due to higher power draw and requirement of two TMDS links (dual-link DVI) to run at native resolution while ADC only provides one TMDS link (single-link DVI).

I don't see Apple not sharing ADC with anyone as a problem at all. Quite the opposite, to be honest. ADC requires modifications to graphics cards, mainboards and PSUs to provide 24.5V≈28V power to the display and puts additional load on the PSU (which is problematic if your system has a weak one). This is fine for Apple's own systems, but adoption rate among manufacturers of PC peripherals would likely have been extremely low. Case in point: in 1998, there were several competing interfaces for interfacing LCDs to graphics cards digitally (DFP, OpenLDI, P&D) with no clear winner in sight which resulted in only a few (and, with one exception, slow) graphics cards and LCDs shipping with digital interfaces and the vast majority sticking to the "safe" VGA interface which sucks to hell and back for LCDs. In April 1999 DVI was standardised. The possibility to use a second TMDS link made it future-proof and superior to the earlier interfaces, which finally made manufacturers of powerful graphics cards and LCD monitors pull the trigger beginning in late 1999.

The P&D connector introduced in 1997 was, in fact, somewhat similar to ADC in that it carried analogue video, digital video, FireWire and USB. It was a total failure (I'm only aware of two LCDs that have it. Those were made by… IBM, which pushed P&D) because it was bulky (looks like DVI on steroids), expensive and did things noone needed back then.

My personal problem with ADC, though, is that Apple initially (late 1999 to mid-2000) shipped DVI displays (15" Studio Display Rev. C; 22" Cinema Display), then introduced ADC as the next big thing only to drop it and return to DVI with the release of the aluminium Cinema Displays four years later, making a big selling point out of the fact they were now compatible with PCs too (apart from the not-so-negligible fact they didn't have a built-in scaler...). This whole situation meant that once Macs dropped DVI in favour of ADC, you needed an adapter to hook up DVI LCDs, Apple's or anyone else's. You needed an expensive adapter-and-power-supply combination to hook up ADC LCDs to a DVI output once ADC was dropped.

Did Apple allow other manufacturers to make ADC monitors though? I think part of what killed it is there was never really a super affordable option. The cheapest ADC monitor was the 17" CRT at $500 and while really cool looking is pretty similar to 17" CRTs available for considerably less at the time. Even on the LCD side you could have gotten a 15" 1024x768 offering for far less that the $600 Apple was asking. The small amount of benefits offered by ADC (better cable management) was outweighed by the significant premium asked.

 

[Amethyst1]

Did Apple allow other manufacturers to make ADC monitors though?

Yes. The Formac Gallery 1740 and 2010 were available with ADC.

 

[Certificate of Excellence]

I hope you’re asking this in good faith. CoE.

It’s loaded to say “healthy” because a corporation is not a flesh-and-blood body. It has no conscience and no soul. It cannot feel, breathe, or love.

That out of the way:

“Profit” is a privilege, not a fundamental or inalienable right.

Profit, at the expense of other entities (which often do have fleshy and/or organic foundations, even consciences!), is harmful/unhealthy when:

1. elements to amplify profit accelerates a one-way cycle of consumption (from finite raw material to finite landfill, with a calculation for carbon consumed in the several conveyances between these ends);
2. when that acceleration speeds up extraction of raw materials (wrecking the ecosystem where extraction happens, usually not in your own backyard);
3. offshoring labour (including labour exploitation to sidestep labour regulations at home);
4. hiring a fleet of attorneys to work overtime to find ways to avoid paying corporate taxes where the company is functionally situated, depriving local accounts receivable to improve the baseline of infrastructure and welfare standards at home; and,
5. frankly, depriving end users/consumers of choice, means, and options to maintain and update/upgrade, in situ, what they already use and have on hand.

As most of this doesn’t matter to many folks (well, except for #5), prioritizing shareholders over consumers is a sign that the fixation on unsustainable profit (unsustainable, because there are only a finite number of consumers with a finite amount of means to consume; a finite amount of resources/planetary commonwealth; and a finite amount of time) is a bit out of whack. It suggests a 21st century gilded age mentality.

You and I don’t see eye-to-eye on this, we won’t see eye-to-eye on this, and that’s fine. For other folks, the above are some of the several points to reflect upon when taking up the mantle of being a consumer (something called upon everyone virtually all the time).

I’m not trying to trap anyone - honestly curious about how folks see this. I truly appreciate the thoughtful answers thus far.

I completely agree that LLCs or capitalism for that matter are nothing more than an economic systems/machines, devoid of humanity so when I use “life” imbued language, it’s in reference to the humans that operate within them and how we leverage corporations & capitalism to express our morality, if at all.

@B S Magnet is there a point (or series of points) in Apples history where you identify a shift towards unethical culture, practices & policies as a reaction to profit motive & market dominance?

 

[AphoticD]

IMO, Apple's ethical standpoint (toward end-users), has long been sliding fluidly to meet capitalistic demands of the market and shareholders. It would be safe to state;

Never have Apple been geared exclusively toward the best interest of the customer's experience, nor providing any semblance of economic value.

Keeping up to date within the ecosystem requires substantial ongoing investment in hardware (and software to a lesser extent) as the end-user is the backer of the brand, providing funding to the company.

For a little self-reflection among long-time Mac users/advocates...

Could any, or all of the following statements have been made at multiple points in Apple's history, and your time within their branded ecosystem?

1. I am happy with software X and hardware Y and don't intend to upgrade to the latest architecture Z in the near future.
2. Apple lost sight of the customer's needs when they made executive decision A.
3. I have always supported Apple, but now they have introduced executive decision B, and dropped support for hardware Y, I feel like I've had enough and I should leave the brand/platform.

So, as architecture Z rolls in and hardware Y becomes made obsolete by design, I begin to show interest in hardware a number of generations back from that bleeding edge - this appears to be around 8-10 years on the blunt in my experience.

Sometimes purely financial, other times, the latest tech just doesn't interest me -- why will I need 57 blistering hyperthreaded neural cores or whatever to do the same thing I do on decade-old dual or quad core Intel hardware?

The primary factor here would be I find interest in low cost 2nd hand hardware which was formerly out of reach... Hence the past couple of decades in "Ol' Faithful" PowerPC [and Early Intel] land

It's a bit of a love/hate thing. Can't stand the driving factors behind (any) big business, but don't mind playing with the treasures one can find in the junkyard.

 

[paardenkapper]

The one thing that really bothers me is the constant green-washing. They're definitely not green nor do they have longevity of their products in mind. The amount of total failures from Apple in the last 10-15 years is astonishing, yet people buy, buy, buy.

Locking devices that have been icloud-locked for years is just a way of making products unusable - not a security feature. With older Macs you could just reinstall and use it but with the dawn of M1/2/3 even Laptops are bound to an apple id.

We do not OWN our stuff anymore, Apple makes the customer his b*tch.

 

[TheShortTimer]

For a little self-reflection among long-time Mac users/advocates...

Could any, or all of the following statements have been made at multiple points in Apple's history, and your time within their branded ecosystem?

1. I am happy with software X and hardware Y and don't intend to upgrade to the latest architecture Z in the near future.
2. Apple lost sight of the customer's needs when they made executive decision A.
3. I have always supported Apple, but now they have introduced executive decision B, and dropped support for hardware Y, I feel like I've had enough and I should leave the brand/platform.

Yes to all three. I'm happy with the hardware and software that I currently use. The Silicon range offer no benefit over what I already have with both my PPC and Intel gear. Apple have lost sight of my needs with their forced obsolescence agenda which has now become so bad that they're outdone by Microsoft in terms of OS longevity and device support.

I've long enjoyed using Macs but soldered RAM and storage drives on their laptop range and now, soldered RAM on even their supposed high-end desktops (which means your Mac is basically irreparable if it suffers a fault once the warranty expires) marks the end of the road for any interest on my part in what Apple have to offer.

Sometimes purely financial, other times, the latest tech just doesn't interest me -- why will I need 57 blistering hyperthreaded neural cores or whatever to do the same thing I do on decade-old dual or quad core Intel hardware?

Same here. Most of my computing activities are well within the reach of my Macs. I don't need an M1/M2 to type a document: that could easily be accomplished on my iBook G3 with MS Office 2004!

 

[AphoticD]

constant green-washing

Big business can't simply chase the all-mighty dollar without proving allegiance, and promote they are keeping up with the ever shifting goal posts of the now trending mass hypnosis agenda

Locking devices that have been icloud-locked for years is just a way of making products unusable - not a security feature. With older Macs you could just reinstall and use it but with the dawn of M1/2/3 even Laptops are bound to an apple id.

Recently, I've seen a series of 2nd hand listings of 2017+ MBP's on the 'bay being proudly marked with "logic board has been destroyed to protect previous user data".

. o ( That is so thoughtful of you! My, what a nice looking paperweight you've got there. )

 

[TheShortTimer]

Recently, I've seen a series of 2nd hand listings of 2017+ MBP's on the 'bay being proudly marked with "logic board has been destroyed to protect previous user data".

. o ( That is so thoughtful of you! My, what a nice looking paperweight you've got there. )

I was going to post this article within the Early Intel forum but it's relevant to everything you've written.

Perfectly Good MacBooks From 2020 Are Being Sold for Scrap Because of Activation Lock

It's almost impossible to resell a perfectly functional M1 MacBook because of Apple's security features.

www.vice.com

Apple has long fought the secondary market and independent repair shops. After years of selling people expensive repair plans and fighting the right to repair, the company has begun to relent. In 2021, it announced it would begin telling people how to fix their own phones and selling them the parts to do so. But the piles of perfectly useable but permanently locked MacBooks at repair stores and recycling centers are a testament to just how far Apple still has to go.

Bolded emphasis mine.

Disgusting, absolutely disgusting on every conceivable level. If I need a brand new computer, it will not be purchased from them.

 

[chaosbunny]

The one thing that really bothers me is the constant green-washing.

I agree 100%! I often get the impression these days "green" goes something like:

A: "Hey, I got a new fridge to save energy."
B: "What did you do with the old one?"
A: "Oh, I just dumped it in the forest."