Tiger support by apple?

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by Vapor matt, Jan 1, 2012.

  1. Vapor matt macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    Yesterday a friend of mine came round with his daughters laptop, an IBM lenovo laptop. and she had so much junk she wanted a complete re install and a way of keeping her win XP clean as she could.

    while I was sorting out her laptop she was having a go on my iMac G4 1.25ghz 2 gig ram ect. then she said your internet is a bit slow here and you tube won't play full screen and this and that. i thought mmm she's not impressed by tiger then.

    Then i thought here i am installing what is basically a 10 year old OS win XP pro on a fairly old IBM thinkpad with 2 gig of ram. and low and behold XP is still able to update, play flash with all the trimmings and full screen, latest updates for browser plugings and by the end of the reinstallation this little thinkpad was a nice little machine for purpose and still supported by microsoft.

    yet here we are with some expensive apple machines and an os which is 6 years old and yet we are the forgotten followers of apple before iPad, iPhone, and intel.

    Iam sitting here feeling quite peeved, that my expensive apple PPC, and the acclaimed OS tiger is just going to end up a nice looking object that people will pass comment on saying cool, does it work?

    For all that has been said about microsoft and bill, at least they still offer support for a 12 year old OS and yes we may well have the bias of being sworn apple users that supported apple in the early days before iPhone, iPad, and the rest but you can't help but feel miffed at being dropped by apple when tiger is only 6 years old.

    as for the old IBM thinkpad its now running XP pro and is also a very useable little machine.

    first rant of the new year i guess but a round of applause to microsoft for still supporting a 12 year old OS:)
     
  2. Jethryn Freyman macrumors 68020

    Jethryn Freyman

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #2
    uh, it's Adobe's fault for writing crappy OS X flash code
     
  3. Vapor matt thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    mmm adobe, but its not just adobe its apple aswell, your loyal followers of yesteryear that supported you through times of trouble are left with a 6 year old os and expensive kit with no support.

    I know nothing lasts forever, but some return loyalty from apple and adobe to the very people and machines that barked the cause in a graphic design based computer industry that held onto apple when at times apple looked lost and on the verge.

    point being if Microsoft can do it so can you!
     
  4. AdrianK macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    #4
    You only mentioned performance, then concluded that it's an issue with the OS, not the hardware itself :confused:

    XP is only supported for security updates.

    Same third party software running on two different architectures, and you haven't mentioned the specs of the two machines (other than RAM). This has nothing to do with the OS.

    Third party devs choosing to support XP has nothing to do with Microsoft.
     
  5. chrismacguy macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #5
    Do explain how you would like Apple to force third party developers (which is all you've really pointed too so far. Its not Apples job to force every developer to develop everything so your 3-iterations old OS runs wonderfully) to create applications for an OS that is actually used by very few people. Especially when lots of developers are using significant features in their applications that don't exist under Tiger (Leopard and Snow Leopard represent big leaps in the technology and frameworks underneath OS X).

    The reason Windows XP still gets security updates and still has applications created for it on a large scale is that it was still sold until 2010 and still has a large user base, whereas Tiger was last sold in 2007 and nearly all Mac users have migrated to 10.5 or newer, so the number of people who still use it is very small, meaning its not worth it from a developers perspective.
     
  6. Vapor matt thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #6

    well a 1gz amd athlon runs XP fine and with the updates being security only now is also ok, fact is a 12 year old OS which is still on 50% of the worlds computers!

    meaning third party devs like adobe should still support tiger or PPC's and both machines have DDR ram and both have 2 gig and my G4 iMac has a faster processor!



    This maybe true but didn't adobe cut its teeth on Mac os, so again with some help from apple and the main dev,s who want there products to shine on the new apple tech so much could also be asked to support the older apple os aswell.

    and yes maybe after 12 years XP only gets security updates but it still is offered updates by dev's and hardware manufacture's. Xp is still used on over 50% of the worlds computers and has to go down in the history of computing as one of the most successful operating systems of all time.

    My whole point is my G4 iMac is a much nicer machine than the old IBM laptop, but what lets it down is the non support of apple and dev's after 6 years! let alone the 12 years of XP who it competed against with the apple is better attitude.

    I love my mac's, i just wish they could maintain support for longer from apple and dev's as i expect many do who still use these perfectly workable machines.
     
  7. roadbloc macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Yes it is. If Microsoft had stopped support for XP when Windows Vista or 7 was released, I can guarantee that hardly any new programs would run on XP.
     
  8. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #8
    I have an even slower G4 iMac that I kept around for legacy programs (which it runs as fast as the day it was new). However, I know better than to surf the Internet on it. The above posters are right about browser plugins. The internet is now bloated with Flash content that because of Adobe's p*** poor support of Apple, brings many Macs to their knees. When I don't have the Flash blocker activated on my Mac Pro, I love to watch the processor power spike with Flash content running.

    Also as above, most Apple customers upgraded OS. Microsoft offered Vista...which is probably why a 12 year old OS is still on "50% of the worlds computers". XP was stable and most continued to use it. Their machines now won't run 7. So there will be third party support for very old software.
     
  9. AdrianK macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    #9
    They've dropped all but security updates for XP since mid-'08, and plenty of new software is available for XP (including office 2010). I can't see why MS dropping security updates would convince third-party developers to drop XP support.
     
  10. chrismacguy, Jan 1, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2012

    chrismacguy macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #10
    You could always negate the issue by installing Leopard on your G4. :rolleyes: - If your not using the most up to date version of Mac OS X your machine allows compatibility is really your fault. It would be like installing Windows 2000 on that Athlon and hoping youd still have up to date software (hint: you wouldn't).

    Also, comparing to Windows is in many ways silly, because Windows has never gone through the same transition that Apple did. As soon as Apple switched to Intel PowerPC support was in effect, doomed. Given Apples Meteoric rise since 2005 and the switch its not really a shock they're abandoning PowerPC support. I expect we will see a similar effect from Windows 8 for ARM when Windows Users start feeling the pain of software not always working on their older versions of the OS (Windows for ARM software will only run on ARM, and Windows for x86 software will only run on x86).
     
  11. Vapor matt thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #11

    Iam real pleased your still useing your G4 iMac, for an icon in mac history its nice to know they are still used. but your point of **** poor support from adobe regarding flash is a fine example of where apple could help and actually ask adobe to perhaps at least update flash so that PPC machines could at least surf the internet like older PC based machines still do with Dev support.

    Even if apple being one of the worlds richest companies offers some finance for support to update flash so there users of older hardware that can't support the modern newer OSX versions can at least do basic functions like surf the internet. I wonder if its just devs being lazy these days knowing that new tech is so powerful that it dosnt matter if its poorly coded.

    anyway i still love my G4 iMac even though in years to come i can see it being an object people look at then use.

    ----------


    Ive tried leopard and although its an upgrade to the last PPC OS as such its no where near as nippy on the G4 as tiger is.

    all we really need is the devs to show some support to apples longest running OS which is tiger.
     
  12. roadbloc macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Let me put it this way. Apple ditch support for an OS pretty much as soon as they release a new one. Developers only tend to make a new App work on the version before the newest OS X release. Microsoft on the other hand support their OSs a hell of a lot longer than Apple do and developers d the same with their Apps.

    The way I see it, period of time on how long to support an OS is determined by the OS developer. I understand this is not set in stone and exceptions happen, however, it does appear to be the trend. Its interesting how a 10 year old computer running XP can run the latest version of iTunes and yet a 6 year old Tiger machine can't.
     
  13. chrismacguy macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #13
    All of that is rubbish. I use Leopard on my PowerBook G4 1.67, and its easily just as fast as Tiger on this machine. In fact if anything I find tiger slower on my PowerBook. The same thing applies to my PowerMac G4 MDD with Dual 867Mhz G4s.

    Also devs are not going to show support for Tiger. Its not as easy as Apple asking them to do so. There just isnt enough demand for them to invest the effort. There arent enough people running Tiger.

    If anything the developers have been showing Tiger some support until very recently, which for Mac OS X is a long time. Think about it, Tiger is now 3 releases out of date, which makes it equivalent to Windows 2000 in the Windows world (Weve had Leopard, Snow Leopard and Lion. They've had XP, Vista and 7). Its just unlucky that XP was stuck as Microsofts primary OS for so long. if Longhorn (aka Vista) had actually shipped, when it was supposed too, in 2005 then XP wouldnt still be being developed for. If Apple had kept Tiger on sale until 2010 for some machines new then you can bet it would still have current versions of iTunes etc.
     
  14. Nameci macrumors 68000

    Nameci

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Location:
    The Philippines...
    #14
    This is where the similarities between MS and Apple ends. Microsoft is a software company and software is their bread and butter, that is why they still release security for an antiquated OS like XP. Apple is a hardware company and the OS is tailor made for the specific hardware. I avoid flash if I can and even a lower power powerpc mac is still fast just the same as the time it came out of the box.

    Steve is correct about Adobe's Flash and their support for OSX. It is a resource hog and should be avoided if you can.

    And one more thing, why XP was still widely used even if it is too old? Because it is the most stable release of Windows. They cannot release a more stable OS than XP.

    Just wait until all security updates for XP are installed, and it will slow down as a snail again.
     
  15. Vapor matt thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    Hey chris don't say something is rubbish when you compare a G4 1.67 or dual 867mhz 1.73mhz to a 1.25 single core. I know the difference as i have tried both OS on the same machine and leopard is not as nippy as tiger period!


    As for demand is leopard upto date then? does flash run ok with leopard? is iTunes the latest version? or is that also to much to ask for from apple and dev's. Iam sure people who invested a lot of money in a G5 2.7gz quad who can't run snow leopard would also like some support not just from apple but devs to who they invested in for software when purchased new.


    Fact is a 12 year old os from MS still gets support as a 5 year old OS from apple dosnt. now from apples point of view that looks poor. whats that slogan again, oh yes apple does it better.
     
  16. srf4real, Jan 1, 2012
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2012

    srf4real macrumors 68030

    srf4real

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Location:
    paradise beach FL
    #16
    They don't even print the discs for Leopard anymore.. but I skipped Tiger anyways so I guess I never knew what I've been missing.

    But to expect leaps and bounds in hardware performance to remain confined in an OS ten years old, well that's why we are using Macs fella, because Windows XP sucks ass especially on modern equipment that has potential to perform. Windows 7 is far superior, and running four + cores at 64 bit is what it was designed to do. Your real problem is that Apple computers are built so well that they outlive their technological usefulness. Lol!

    Don't get me wrong, I have a 1998 Bondi iMac running Mac OS 10.2.8 Jaguar out in the garage as a music player.. but let's face it even my iPod nano can do a better job of it in this day and age.;)

    I would hope that Apple and their A Team of developers are focused on software for the future, not supporting stuff that's ancient in tech terms and not even in the same league..
     
  17. skinniezinho macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    Portugal
    #17
    Well, there is a thing that I think you haven't noticed.
    Windows XP is still used by Zillions of Pcs on enterprises.Tiger don't.
    That's it...if Apple had lot's of enterprises saying (your next os suck, or We have zillions of macs that can't run more than tiger!) for sure they will release updates for tiger.If they don't those companies would move away from apple..
    The only thing that I think apple is doing very bad for tiger is don't giving it newer itunes version, or at least making new iDevices compatible with old ones..
    If I buy a 50eur iPod Shuffle I must have a Mac Capable of Runing at least 10.5.Even the leopard cd would be more expensive than the iPod itself!
    Any 500-800MHz can run XP and have the newer itunes versions...
     
  18. Nameci macrumors 68000

    Nameci

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Location:
    The Philippines...
    #18
    I have leopard on my Leopard capable machine, otherwise it is Tiger, and yes flash sucks big time. Answering for iTunes, yes it is the latest iTunes, except for Safari that is stucked at 5.0.6. Camino runs very well on my lower spec'd machines.
     
  19. srf4real macrumors 68030

    srf4real

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Location:
    paradise beach FL
    #19
    Now that's quoted for truth! You make a lot of good points too about the enterprise customer.
     
  20. chrismacguy macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #20
    1) You cant just add the CPUs up. A Dual 867 G4 compares to a Single 1.25 in terms of performance. (You get about 1.4-1.5x the single core speed from a Dual - you dont get twice the performance. Also, Leopard runs very well (faster than Tiger) on my 1.0Ghz 12" PowerBook G4 which I cart with me just about everywhere, which is slower than your iMac)
    2) Flash will never run "well" on PowerPC in its current form and Adobe will never fix that as they are lazy. There is nothing Apple can do about that and its Adobes fault. Flash is too bloated to run nicely on PowerPC without a lot of optimization noone is about to put in to a platform that its creator (Apple) considers dead, and Apple can't force Adobe to do anything anyway.
    3) iTunes 10.5 runs perfectly on my PowerBook, as does Safari 5 (5.1 isnt anything important over 5.0.6 anyway).
    4) It doesnt look poor from Apples perspective as its not a matter of age but a matter of market share. XP = 40ish% of Windows. Tiger = about 2% at most of Mac OS X. - Also XP is only 11 years old, not 12.

    oh and 5) iTunes for Windows will run mind-bogglingly slowly on a 800Mhz Pentium III. I just tried it on my 1.33Ghz Pentium III running XP Tablet PC with 1GB RAM and it barely loaded.
     
  21. Vapor matt thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #21

    I agree that techno progression is here to stay, IBM think pads are also built very well but can still be used with the latest iTunes but why can't iTunes be updated for PPC, how many people buy a $2000 mac just to have the latest iTunes music player. yet i can buy a 10 year old PC to do that and use the latest iTunes.

    Infact PC's were the driving force behind tech improvement, PC's given the hardware license to evolve beyond the apple control over hardware is why and how apple can now use intel tech as PPC tech couldn't keep up. progress born of PC's is now being reaped by apple as PC's are always ahead in the hardware stakes, USB 3 SATA 3 blue ray but we still buy into the apple do it better ideology even though all they have done is taken a PC and put OSX intel based on it. but even now still want hardware control with Efi based GFX cards which cost 3 times the price of PC cards exactly the same.

    the above is the whole reason an old PC can run new iTunes, mac's are now PC's with MAC OS on them. I have windows 7 on an SSD on my mac pro with no need for bootcamp.

    but hey i still love my G4 iMac as its still the coolest looking computer i own. come on apple at least update iTunes lol
     
  22. old-wiz macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Location:
    West Suburban Boston Ma
    #22
    Why should Apple offer money to anyone to help support old machines? Apple is a hardware company; they want to sell new hardware and they want people with old PPC machines to buy new machines.

    Modern web sites are getting rid of flash anyway.
     
  23. zen.state macrumors 68020

    zen.state

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    #23
    Sorry Matt but you lost me when comparing Tiger to XP and all the other many out of sync with reality comments you have made. You seem to expect Apple and the entire tech industry to bend to your personal will.

    You have no proper perspective at all on why things are the way they are.
     
  24. Vapor matt thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #24

    why? maybe to offer people who bought apple hardware a use for it after 6 years of age or perhaps apples green approach is to throw away anything thats 6 years or more old as its now useless. and if apple were just hardware why IOS-5 OSX lion. and why don't apple have the very latest tech out before PC based machines do if hardware is there thing. also its the simplistic OS which sells mac hardware or we would all use PC,s as they are faster and cheaper.

    apple used to be bias towards the pro user, these days its more towards the home user and the mass market. my iMac G4 was the stepping stone to the mass market. perhaps the future will show PC's with what ever OS you want to use on it. I wonder how many PC users would switch to OSX if it supported there hardware.

    ----------

    Zen you are most likely right, perhaps i should retire my old G4 to the loft and put my love affair with it on hold lol and concentrate on what the new mac pro will have to offer!
     
  25. chrf097 macrumors 68040

    chrf097

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    #25
    Just to point it out, Windows XP isn't 12 years old, it's 10, and Microsoft barely supports it. All new Microsoft products don't run on it (IE9, WMP12, etc.). All security updates go away in 2012. If another company chooses to support Windows XP, great! Apple doesn't support it because it's old. Just get a new computer if it's that big a deal. It's probably time you do anyways.
     

Share This Page