This new iOS should come with a warning

iOS 9 needs a newer version of iTunes than you have. Either update the OS or quickly downgrade the phone to version 8 while they are still signing it.

This is Apple. They expect everyone to be running the newest version or close to it. They don't support too many versions and by the end of the month of September you will be 5 OSX versions behind the newly released 10.11.

10.9 Mavericks might be a good choice because it doesn't have the transparency of the later versions. Good luck.

 

One possibility (which is true for one of my machines) is that OP has a 32-bit Mac (like an original early 2006 MacBook Pro,) for which 10.6 is the newest OS it can possibly run.

 

That is an artificial obstacle that Apple implemented to force people who purchased expensive computers to buy new ones.

The original 2006 Mac Pro is a 64-BIT computer. And it is capable of running the newer OS X versions. Apple just blocks the installers from running on those machines.

It's all about artificially obsoleting their devices to force new purchased. Often, it just sends people back to Windows.

I can't use iOS 9 on my phone either. Because the latest iTunes I can install on my machine is 12.2. Guess what Apple, I'm not buying another mac. And since iOS 9 requires a newer version of iTunes, they also just lost future phone purchases from me.

Greed can be your own undoing sometimes.

An example of good product support is Microsoft. My 2006 Mac Pro does have Windows 10 64-BIT installed and running natively without any boot camp software involved. I just installed windows 10 on a separate hard drive and booted right up.

Windows 10 is also running on machines as much as 10 years old or older. That is support.

 

Direct answer: Yes. The new iPhones require iTunes 12.3 or higher. iTunes 12.3 requires OS X 10.8.5 or higher (Apple Music requires 10.9.5 or higher). This article lists what Macs can be upgraded: http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/

 

That's is one way to spin it.

I seriously doubt Microsoft tested Windows 10 on a 2006 Mac Pro to ensure that it'll run. If it happens to run, wonderful. If it doesn't, Microsoft made no promises. That's not support, that's luck of the draw.

Microsoft has to produce something that will run on any PC clone (which is no easy job). You want to know if your PC will support various Win 10 features? Read the system requirements pages, and figure out for yourself whether your machine makes the grade. That has nothing to do with "support" from Microsoft, it's a question of whether your hardware will support what Microsoft has produced. The list of deprecated features for Win 10 is pretty long and complex. If you have the tech ability to wade through it, no problem. If you don't, every one of those is a potential gotcha - one or more advertised features that will not work after you've gone to the trouble of installing it.

Meantime, Apple has the luxury of producing an OS for a limited number of models, and knows, feature-by-feature, exactly what models will or will not support them. Although Apple's list of Yosemite's deprecated features isn't all that short, anyone who knows the model(s) they own will see, explicitly, whether their machine supports that feature. That's a different kind of support, but support it certainly is.

Here's a question for the conspiracy theorists out there. Mountain Lion (10.8.x) required an early 2008 Mac Pro (or newer). Mavericks (10.9.x) ran on an Early 2008 Mac Pro (or newer). Yosemite requires an early 2008 Mac Pro (or newer). El Capitan runs on... every machine capable of running Yosemite. So, if Apple was hell-bent on artificial obsolescence, don't you think those early 2008 Mac Pros, mid-2007 iMacs, mid/late 2007 MBPs, late 2008 Aluminum MacBooks and MBAs... would have been dropped from the list by now?

And it's a shame if Apple's nefarious behavior "just sends people back to Windows." Considering that Apple is the only PC-maker that has been regularly increasing market share over the past few years, imagine how much larger Apple's share could be! Instead of selling more than four times as many Macs in 2014 as they had in 2006, it could have been five times, six, seven times as many.

 

I do agree with your point of view but just as an aside you can update to the new Iphone and do the transfer you just need to use Icloud. However, you are still going to have an issue with Music and any Media files.

 

The "infamous hacks" were human engineering - the "hackers" got ahold of people's passwords by guessing them or subterfuge (con artists). They did not get them from Apple. So, be careful about your passwords and don't lose sleep. It's a good idea to not trust other people. iCloud (in terms of what Apple does to secure it) is far, far more trustworthy.

There are people who successfully use their iPhones/iPads/iPod Touches without owning a computer - they backup to and restore from iCloud. I'd recommend you set your iPhone to automatically backup to iCloud (just turn on iCloud backup in Settings > iCloud, plug your iPhone into charger at bedtime while connected to a wifi network). Far too many people forget to sync/backup to iTunes and therefore have no backup at all when bad things happen to their equipment.

"Media Files" really refers only to things that you did not get from iTunes Store and App Store (mostly music and videos you copied from CD or downloaded from sources other than Apple). Anything you got from Apple can be put onto the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad without syncing to iTunes. iTunes remains essential for people with traditional iPods, as they lack Wifi or cellular data connections.

Finally, https://support.apple.com/HT201269 - this Apple document explains the various methods for moving your stuff from an old iPhone to new.

Apple provides free software updates, including the operating system. If you have a 10 year-old computer, no, your equipment won't be compatible with the updates. But if you avoid updates simply because you don't like change or have heard bad things... I've been hearing bad things about each and every operating system update since the early 1980s (which is when I started using computers in ernest). If they were all true, the world's computing devices would simply have ceased to operate about 20 years ago. In my experience, the people who have the biggest problems with updates are those who avoid them for an extended period of time. Eventually, they HAVE to update, or quit using computers, and the number of changes they encounter when they finally do update can be daunting to assimilate. Do it regularly and more gradually, and that's not nearly so painful a process.

 

I'll give the same answer I gave when people were complaining about XP support ending.

The developer needs to decide at some point that continuing to provide support or application updates for aging operating systems is no longer feasible financially. To code iTunes, Safari, etc updates to work with an older OS requires dedicating a resource to test that the changes that were made to the application won't negatively impact its use on the older OS. By requiring support for an older OS also means that innovation stalls as new features can't be supported in the old OS and tweaks that work on more recent versions may not work on older versions of the OS. SL was originally released SIX years ago. While the last point release may have been only 4 years ago, that was the end of official support for that OS and after that point, any application updates are icing on the cake.

 

While that is true for some of the 64-bit computers (being seemingly artificially limited,) the 32-bit computers are firmly stuck at 10.6. There is no workaround, no hack, etc, like there is for early 64-bit systems. (For example, there are workarounds to get Yosemite running on the original Mac Pro, the first 64-bit iMacs, and even the original Intel iMacs and Mac Minis if they have been upgraded with 64-bit processors. There has yet to be such a hack found for the soldered-down 32-bit machines like the original MacBook Pro.)

 

People running an OS that has had no support for 4 years should have no expectation that new versions of even core applications will support that aged OS. As I said, at some point OS and app developers need to decide when its in their best interest to no longer dedicate resources to providing support for old stuff. Apple has apparently decided that time is now.

 

And this is why Apple will be limited to consumers only and not penetrate the business world in any meaningful way (one person doing app development or web design isn't a business).

 

That has been I think the main difference between Apple and Microsoft philosophy. Apple is about bleeding edge. They will even tell big devs (like Adobe that Carbon is done for you must switch to Cocoa, for example). MS is about supporting their "legacy" partners. I read an article that stated with Windows, I want to say 95 came, some MS guy went to the local software store and bought a copy of everything they had in there and made sure everyone one of the programs worked. The fact Windows even works on the most generic obsolete hardware to the latest bleeding edge and all in between is pretty remarkable feat. Apple controls hardware and software so they make sure it only works on their stuff and no more. Apple is an evolving company and the one time buyers they don't see as customers. Apple likes loyal customers with big wallets. And the fact they don't respect the one time buyers, who are still customers or at the very least tell their friends about it, but these artificial barriers is messed up nevertheless.

However, what you state is also true. And if it wasn't for my boss selling me his old MBA for dirt cheap, my dad would still be using an iBook. For what he does, that was fine but his insistent complaints how slow it gets, despite a recent reinstall ... but i digress.

 

I do support for a large company that historically was slow to adopt new computer technologies (they ran Office 2000 until Microsoft stopped supporting it 5 years ago). They have been VERY active in testing and deploying new versions of OS X as they get released, only waiting for security software to be updated prior to releasing the update.

 

Yep. They should make a point of emphasizing that the iOS 9 update will require an updated OS X and / or newer computer to keep syncing and backups with your computer.

Finding out after the update is not a good way to keep your customers happy. And if they think it will force us to buy new macs, they should remember how well that worked when they killed the Apple II series to force us to stop buying Apple II computers and thought we'd buy the Macs. It took them years to stabilize and they've never regained the computer dominance that they lost to PC's. Especially in educational markets.

It can happen again. The marketplace is a fickle place.

They've burned me enough times in recent years that my Apple equipment is dwindling as my Windows and Android list is climbing. I've come full circle again. Back to PC's just like I moved after the Apple II / Macintosh fiasco.

Now, I admit the Mac was a better computer. But pulling the plug on the Apple II to try and force us to move over was a deadly move. Especially at the price points.

Apple will learn eventually. The most profitable companies tend to learn the hard way. Sadly, Apple doesn't appear to be a company that learns from its past. It will catch up with them again eventually.

Tying phones into pushing computer sales is not a smart move. It looks great on paper. But most people forced to replace a computer start looking at other options. People who decide to upgrade without being pushed, will likely buy from the same company again.

Apple has cost themselves about $20,000 in hardware sales to me alone in this current year. It would have all gone to them if I hadn't observed the trends I have over the past several years. I'll keep using my Apple hardware until it dies. But the purchases I've been making are forward looking purchases, where I'm looking at a longer useful lifespan.

Computer technology and performance is not evolving fast enough to abandon machines based on age anymore. If Microsoft can support 10 years worth of PC's made by hundreds or thousands of manufacturers and system builders, then surely Apple could support a few dozen computers which are still very relevant considering their specifications.

I like the iPhone and OS X. But not enough to purchase new computers to replace computers which are still quite comparable to the current market.

My 2006 Mac Pro still pulls in performance numbers relevant / close to other newer computers while running Windows 10. Not amazing scores, but close enough to the average.

I'll be fully migrated to Windows probably within a year or so. Then my old Mac Pro can live the rest of its life in the Windows world, and enjoy real support again. It's a good computer. Too bad only Microsoft is willing to offer support for it. And in full 64-BIT mode too.

 

I agree with the original poster. People need to be reminded they are buying computers as much as they are buying phones with these devices and that they need to check compatibility issues.

 

The SO's company has been having all sorts of problems with Windows 10 and that's with new computers. Maybe its not dreamy and awesome for everyone.

I have a 2006 macbook that can't be updated past 10.6 I think. Adobe had issues with updates even when it wasn't that old. Do you think as part of the nefarious plot by Apple to force people to update, they muscled Adobe into faking issues with some models? If a person openly condemns good people for things that aren't true, what is your judgement of that person?

I've been using a google product for computing and the best I can say about it is that its decidedly mediocre. That's being generous.