I know there's a marketing ploy behind it all, but lets say we were oblivious to it all. Would the new operating systems really require the dropping of older systems?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why does Apple make more old macs obsolete each system release?
- Thread starter Bobdude161
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes... because they require faster hardware.Bobdude161 said:
And of course it's also to sell hardware. Apple's a hardware company that also sells software.
Apple has worked harder to keep older hardware working than some other companies. They've also made it more efficient with each release.
I'm sure that hardware sales do have a lot to do with it, though. They're subsidizing the price of Mac OS X with hardware. If people don't buy hardware, they would probably have to raise the price of Mac OS X to something less reasonable for us.
I'm sure that hardware sales do have a lot to do with it, though. They're subsidizing the price of Mac OS X with hardware. If people don't buy hardware, they would probably have to raise the price of Mac OS X to something less reasonable for us.
Apple has been pretty nice with supporting old hardware. Even Leapord is reported to support the G3 which is pretty old.
Consider this: I bought my iBook G3 years ago. It currently runs Tiger. Sure it has slowed down from its days of running 10.1. However, its by no means obsolete. I mean thats the third OS upgrade its gone through and it still works. I agree there is sacrafice, but Apple doesn't eliminate past hardware with every new OS.
Doesn't this same phenomenon also occur over in the Windows world? Hardware evolves, software also evolves. Expecting to run Leopard on a Performa is rather like expecting to run an iPod through an 8-track.
yeah but in the windows world people insist on running new operating systems on obnoxiously old hardware that should have become a boat anchor years ago.
Bobdude161 said:
Good question, I don't understand why my 100MHz PowerBook 5300cs can't run Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.
clevin said:
Except that Windows XP ran painfully slow on my 2003 PC - and still runs pretty slow on some of my friends newer PCs.
Couple that with XP's inability to handle the 20+ open apps that my iBook G4 could handle, and I'd say Apple does a decent job supporting and reasonably running new OSes on older hardware.
Have you read Vista's system requirements? I mean, really. Have you? This thread should not exist.
Like MicroLate™ doesn't? Just look at the Vista requirements!Bobdude161 said:
EDIT: Post#13... I really ned to read the whole thread before replying...
Ok think about this; we don't need Windows, we don't need OS X, we don't need OS 9, heck we could do everything we do now on OS 8.6, and Windows 95. OS 8.6 runs on the 100MHz Powerbooks I think.
Operating systems do a lot, basically lately you're paying for power and quality for what we do with them. If you tried to make an HD-DVD on a 100MHz Powerbook, good luck, you'll be waiting months and months for it to finish. So you need a faster computer to process more complex data components. But in order to process those faster you should have more bits to process in. Windows 95 is 16-bit with 32-bit compatibility. Making an HD-DVD on Windows 95 is a joke basically.
Operating systems have to have a more focused ideal with them. When you get more processes that run in the background to make things look better quality, it takes up more CPU, which means you need a faster, better cached CPU. Think about about moving a finder window around. How much CPU usage does that take? About 20-30% CPU speed on my iBook G4 1.33MHz, but it moves around like fluid. On my G3 it looked like **** when moving a finder window around, it was slow, and very very not fluid like. So we pay for that quality with a faster CPU, but it may also use the GPU to help process certain antiquities for the CPU. For example: the 9550 supports the splash effect, which looks fluid like, anything below the 9550 ATI, does not support the splash effect, why? Well the ATI 9550 has 2 programmable pipelines? 2 programmable ____ I can't think of the word. Anyways since Apple can use the Core Image foundation and program the GPU to do that we have a fluid like splash effect that looks so good. Other GPU's don't have that programmability.
Even iTunes and QuickTime require a certain speed to run, they need to render items. The operating system renders tons of things, that's why monitors have Hz ratings. Don't think that the pixels on the screen are steady, they're being redrawn anywhere from 60times to 200times a second! Yes a second. The CPU and GPU all have to process that, but the more complex the items it has the render, the faster and better CPU & GPU the computer will need.
So why does apple push out older systems? Cause they don't have a certain compatibility to support all the items with a newer OS. Most systems in the PC world, after 6 months, that computer is obsolete. Why do you want the most up-to-date OS? Cause it will support everything you want to do and may want to do in the future, but will the hardware handle it?
EDIT: CPU's have MMX, SSE, SSE2, etc. These are components of the CPU that make the Operating System that takes advantage of these technoloties run faster. So if an OS requires that SSE3 and your processor doesn't have it, sorry you can't use that OS.
Operating systems do a lot, basically lately you're paying for power and quality for what we do with them. If you tried to make an HD-DVD on a 100MHz Powerbook, good luck, you'll be waiting months and months for it to finish. So you need a faster computer to process more complex data components. But in order to process those faster you should have more bits to process in. Windows 95 is 16-bit with 32-bit compatibility. Making an HD-DVD on Windows 95 is a joke basically.
Operating systems have to have a more focused ideal with them. When you get more processes that run in the background to make things look better quality, it takes up more CPU, which means you need a faster, better cached CPU. Think about about moving a finder window around. How much CPU usage does that take? About 20-30% CPU speed on my iBook G4 1.33MHz, but it moves around like fluid. On my G3 it looked like **** when moving a finder window around, it was slow, and very very not fluid like. So we pay for that quality with a faster CPU, but it may also use the GPU to help process certain antiquities for the CPU. For example: the 9550 supports the splash effect, which looks fluid like, anything below the 9550 ATI, does not support the splash effect, why? Well the ATI 9550 has 2 programmable pipelines? 2 programmable ____ I can't think of the word. Anyways since Apple can use the Core Image foundation and program the GPU to do that we have a fluid like splash effect that looks so good. Other GPU's don't have that programmability.
Even iTunes and QuickTime require a certain speed to run, they need to render items. The operating system renders tons of things, that's why monitors have Hz ratings. Don't think that the pixels on the screen are steady, they're being redrawn anywhere from 60times to 200times a second! Yes a second. The CPU and GPU all have to process that, but the more complex the items it has the render, the faster and better CPU & GPU the computer will need.
So why does apple push out older systems? Cause they don't have a certain compatibility to support all the items with a newer OS. Most systems in the PC world, after 6 months, that computer is obsolete. Why do you want the most up-to-date OS? Cause it will support everything you want to do and may want to do in the future, but will the hardware handle it?
EDIT: CPU's have MMX, SSE, SSE2, etc. These are components of the CPU that make the Operating System that takes advantage of these technoloties run faster. So if an OS requires that SSE3 and your processor doesn't have it, sorry you can't use that OS.
The phenomenon occurs in the windows world, its just harder to notice, because their OS hasn't been updated in 6 years
Puma, Cheeta, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard... I'd like Cougar next, but here's what we don't have - some I removed cause they're already an OS name.Mr. Dee said:
* African golden cat (Profelis aurata)
* Andean mountain cat (Oreailurus jacobita)
* Asian golden cat (Catopuma temminckii)
* Black-footed cat (Felis nigripes)
* Bobcat (Lynx rufus)
* Bornean bay cat (Catopuma badia)
* Canadian lynx (Lynx canadensis)
* Caracal (Caracal caracal)
* Chinese mountain cat (Felis bieti)
* Cougar (Puma concolor) -- not going to remove
* Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx)
* Fishing Cat (Prionailurus viverrinus)
* Flat-headed cat (Prionailurus planiceps)
* Geoffroys cat (Oncifelis geoffroyi)
* Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus)
* Jaguarundi (Herpailurus yagouarundi)
* Jungle cat (Felis chaus)
* Kodkod (Oncifelis guigna)
* Marbled cat (Pardofelis marmorata)
* Margay (Leopardus wiedii)
* Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)
* Oncilla (Leopardus tigrinus)
* Pampas cat (Oncifelis colocolo)
* Pallas cat (Otocolobus manul)
* Rusty-spotted cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus)
* Sand cat (Felis margarita)
* Serval (Leptailurus serval)
* Snow leopard (Uncia uncia)
* Wildcat (Felis silvestris)
I was more productive in OS9 and slower pre-gigahertz speed Macs for some reason. I'm less productive now, probably because I'm distracted by all the pretty aqua colours of OSX.
I say, don't upgrade software! Keep what you're using, because it works and works well.
I say, don't upgrade software! Keep what you're using, because it works and works well.
Well, take into account that there won't necessarily be a 10.7, they could use Lynx as the link to the next generation of Mac OS operating systems starting with 11.0.josh.thomas said:
10.0 - Puma
10.1 - Cheetah
10.2 - Jaguar
10.3 - Panther
10.4 - Tiger
10.5 - Leopard
10.6 - Cougar
11.0 - Lynx (link to the past, link to the future)
