Hi!

Something like http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselect and 
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifecycle ... I cannot seem to find it. 
I was told that Mac OS X 10.5.8 is no longer going to be updated?

Thank you in advance. :(
-- 
"We're all ants. I'm a glittery little ant." --Alanis Morissette
    /\___/\               Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

In comp.sys.mac.system Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
> Something like http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselect and 
> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifecycle ... I cannot seem to find it. 
> I was told that Mac OS X 10.5.8 is no longer going to be updated?

Apple has never announced when they stop issuing updates for older 
versions of OS X. But since the beginning, they support the current 
and version. 10.2 support was dropped when 10.4 was released; 10.4 
support was dropped when 10.6 was released, and there haven't been any 
10.5 updates since 10.7 was released.


-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

In comp.sys.mac.system Kir�ly <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
> versions of OS X. But since the beginning, they support the current 
> and version. 

Typo. I meant to say "current and previous version."

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

On 11-10-02 3:31 PM, Kir�ly wrote:

> Apple has never announced when they stop issuing updates for older 
> versions of OS X. But since the beginning, they support the current 
> and version. 10.2 support was dropped when 10.4 was released; 10.4 
> support was dropped when 10.6 was released, and there haven't been any 
> 10.5 updates since 10.7 was released.

Exactly.

The DigiNotar related security update was for 10.6 and 10.7 only. This
was the first update that excluded 10.5.

Cheers,

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

On 10/2/2011 4:11 PM PT, Jeffrey Goldberg typed:

>> Apple has never announced when they stop issuing updates for older
>> versions of OS X. But since the beginning, they support the current
>> and version. 10.2 support was dropped when 10.4 was released; 10.4
>> support was dropped when 10.6 was released, and there haven't been any
>> 10.5 updates since 10.7 was released.
>
> Exactly.
>
> The DigiNotar related security update was for 10.6 and 10.7 only. This
> was the first update that excluded 10.5.

Thanks! Oh well, over three years and this Mac OS X is already obsolete. 
Even its AppleCare expired for this over three years old MacBook Pro. 
That was fast. :(
-- 
"I think the ants are waking up -- they need to start farming so..." 
--Erin from The Office (U.S.) S7E18 (Todd Packer).
    /\___/\               Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

On 11-10-02 6:14 PM, Ant wrote:
> On 10/2/2011 4:11 PM PT, Jeffrey Goldberg typed:
\
>> The DigiNotar related security update was for 10.6 and 10.7 only. This
>> was the first update that excluded 10.5.
> 
> Thanks! Oh well, over three years and this Mac OS X is already obsolete.
> Even its AppleCare expired for this over three years old MacBook Pro.

I'm sure that a great deal of the software that you first put on the the
MBP three years ago is EOLed.

> That was fast. :(

It does seem fast, but I haven't checked the dates to see if it is.
Probably because Snow Leopard followed Leopard very quickly. At least
the last two OS X upgrades have been inexpensive.

Cheers,

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

In article <4E88F04C.7070208@zimage.comANT>, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> 
wrote:

> Thanks! Oh well, over three years and this Mac OS X is already obsolete.

No, it's not obsolete; it can do the same things it's always done.  And if 
it's three years old, it can run Lion.  Mine is four years old, but the 
model is five years old, and it's far from obsolete.  In fact, I have a 
such a hard time trying to justify to myself why I should buy a new Mac 
that I can't justify it.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> Something like http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselect and 
> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifecycle ... I cannot seem to find it.
> I was told that Mac OS X 10.5.8 is no longer going to be updated?

Apple doesn't publish timetables, but they've been fairly consistent in
regard to the time periods for hardware and OS support. The pattern
suggests that updates for 10.5 are indeed over and that the the middle
of 2013 will mark the end of those for 10.6. 

The last security update for 10.4 was released in September 2009, 23
months after it was superseded by 10.5. 

<http://support.apple.com/kb/DL931>

OS 10.5 got a security update in June of this year, 22 months after it
was superseded by 10.6. 

<http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1404>

In article <9esa9lFlanU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> Probably because Snow Leopard followed Leopard very quickly. 

Huh; Snow Leopard came out 22 months days after leopard.  Thats compared to 
23 months from SL to Lion, 
30 months from Tiger to Leopard, 
18 months from Panther to Tiger, 
12 months from Jaguar to Panther, 
11 months from 10.1 to Jaguar, and 
 6 months from 10.0 to 10.1.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

Kir�ly <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:

> In comp.sys.mac.system Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
> > Something like http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselect and 
> > http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifecycle ... I cannot seem to find it.
> > I was told that Mac OS X 10.5.8 is no longer going to be updated?
> 
> Apple has never announced when they stop issuing updates for older 
> versions of OS X. But since the beginning, they support the current 
> and [previous] version. 10.2 support was dropped when 10.4 was released;
> 10.4 support was dropped when 10.6 was released, and there haven't been any
> 10.5 updates since 10.7 was released.

It isn't quite as clean cut as that, but pretty close.

After 10.5 was released, 10.3.9 had one final security update,
coinciding with 10.5.1. 10.3 also had QuickTime and iTunes updates until
roughly 9 months after 10.5 was released.

After 10.6 was released, 10.4.11 had one final security update,
coinciding with 10.6.1. 10.4 also had a QuickTime update about the same
time, a Migration DVD/CD sharing update, iTunes updates for almost a
year, and Safari updates for more than a year. Some of the Safari
updates included security fixes which were included in general security
updates for 10.6.x. These iTunes and Safari updates were missing many
new features on 10.4 (e.g. iPad support required 10.5).

Since 10.7 was released, 10.5.8 has not yet had a final security update,
so it might get one more. The 10.7.1 update didn't fix any security
issues, so there was no corresponding security update for 10.6 either.
There has been one small security update for 10.6 and 10.7 since the
release of 10.7.1, to address the Diginotar root certificate issue.
There was no corresponding 10.5 security update.

There has been a 10.5 Migration Assistant update since 10.7 was
released, to address issues in upgrading to Lion over a network
connection. (There was no corresponding update for 10.4.11's Migration
Assistant, even though it has the same problem.)

I expect that 10.7.2 will include security fixes, there will be a
general security update for 10.6.8 at the same time, and there MAY be a
final general security update for 10.5.8 at the same time. 10.5 should
continue to be supported by iTunes and get Safari updates for about
another year, but some features will require 10.6 (and some may require
10.7).

Based on past patterns, this week's new iPhone and iPad models should be
supported by iTunes on Leopard, but iCloud will not be supported. Next
year's iPad (around March 2012) might not be supported, and I expect
iTunes will drop all Leopard support coinciding with next year's iPhone
release (around October 2012).

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

On 10/2/2011 4:29 PM PT, Michelle Steiner typed:

> In article<4E88F04C.7070208@zimage.comANT>, Ant<ant@zimage.comANT>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks! Oh well, over three years and this Mac OS X is already obsolete.
>
> No, it's not obsolete; it can do the same things it's always done.  And if
> it's three years old, it can run Lion.  Mine is four years old, but the
> model is five years old, and it's far from obsolete.  In fact, I have a
> such a hard time trying to justify to myself why I should buy a new Mac
> that I can't justify it.

For the softwares that won't get updates and support anymore? :(
-- 
"To the gods I am an ant, but to the ants, I am a god." --unknown
    /\___/\               Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

An older version not getting a security update may not correlate with
newer ones getting it.

Consider that some security problems may have been introduced with the
newer releases and thus not present in the older one, so the older one
doesn't need a security update.

However, say Safari's latest version does run on an older version of
OS-X, and it has a security hole, than I would expect that older version
to get a security fix to update Safari.

Is it possible that Safari security fixes are sent as Safari updates
instead of a "security update" (aka: update of the application instead
of an update of the opetating system). If so, it would mean that older
versions might not get OS updates but would still get application updates.

In article <4e8907b4$0$32744$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Is it possible that Safari security fixes are sent as Safari updates
> instead of a "security update" (aka: update of the application instead
> of an update of the opetating system). If so, it would mean that older
> versions might not get OS updates but would still get application updates.

Safaris engine, WebKit, is integral to the OS (other apps use it too), so 
any upgrades to Safari will undoubtedly update a portion of the OS, and 
require a reboot.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <MaqdnR7uVOwEZxXTnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> >> Thanks! Oh well, over three years and this Mac OS X is already obsolete.
> >
> > No, it's not obsolete; it can do the same things it's always done.  And if
> > it's three years old, it can run Lion.  Mine is four years old, but the
> > model is five years old, and it's far from obsolete.  In fact, I have a
> > such a hard time trying to justify to myself why I should buy a new Mac
> > that I can't justify it.
> 
> For the softwares that won't get updates and support anymore? :(

The software still runs on that computer, right?  Just because the computer 
doesn't run the "latest and greatest" doesn't mean that it is obsolete.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

On 11-10-02 6:36 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <9esa9lFlanU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:
> 
>> Probably because Snow Leopard followed Leopard very quickly. 
> 
> Huh; Snow Leopard came out 22 months days after leopard.  Thats compared to 
> 23 months from SL to Lion, 
> 30 months from Tiger to Leopard, 
> 18 months from Panther to Tiger, 
> 12 months from Jaguar to Panther, 
> 11 months from 10.1 to Jaguar, and 
>  6 months from 10.0 to 10.1.

Thanks for checking the numbers. It *seemed* fast to me, but this is why
it is useful to check the facts instead of going with impressions.

Fortunately, I know that if I say anything about this stuff, there's a
team of fact checkers here to correct me.

Again, thanks.

Cheers,

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

In message <j6ahn5$qe4$1@dont-email.me> 
  Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
> In comp.sys.mac.system Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
>> Something like http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselect and 
>> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifecycle ... I cannot seem to find it. 
>> I was told that Mac OS X 10.5.8 is no longer going to be updated?

> Apple has never announced when they stop issuing updates for older 
> versions of OS X. But since the beginning, they support the current 
> and version. 10.2 support was dropped when 10.4 was released; 10.4 
> support was dropped when 10.6 was released, and there haven't been any 
> 10.5 updates since 10.7 was released.

That's not strictly true. There have been a couple of security updates
for OS versions that were, issued after one would have though support
had ended. In fact, There was a security update for 10.5 recently, after
10.7s release.

-- 
"Whose motorcycle is this?" "It's chopper, baby." "Whose chopper is
this?" "It's Zed's." "Who's Zed?" "Zed' dead, baby. Zed's dead."

On 11-10-02 9:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> The software still runs on that computer, right?  Just because the computer 
> doesn't run the "latest and greatest" doesn't mean that it is obsolete.

I think that the fact that Leopard no longer gets security updates means
something, even if "obsolete" isn't really the correct word.

However, as several of us have pointed out, there is no reason to be
running Leopard on a machine purchased three years ago. Just as there is
no reason to run Firefox 2 or other software that has had major upgrades
over the past three years.

If someone doesn't update software they will run into security problems.
This goes with OS versions.  He said it was a MacBook Pro (not Power
Book), so it is extremely likely that it will run the current version of
OS X.

Cheers,

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

> However, as several of us have pointed out, there is no reason to be
> running Leopard on a machine purchased three years ago.


Pardon my failing memory, but when was "Classic" removed ? Between Tiger
and Leopard, or between Leopard and Snow Leopard ?

In the later case, someone who still needs the "classic" environment
would have a reason to stick with the last version that could run it,
just like some still needing Rosetta would be stuck at Snow Leopard.

On 2011-10-02 23:36:52 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:

> Snow Leopard came out 22 months days after leopard.  Thats compared to
> 23 months from SL to Lion,
> 30 months from Tiger to Leopard,
> 18 months from Panther to Tiger,
> 12 months from Jaguar to Panther,
> 11 months from 10.1 to Jaguar, and
>  6 months from 10.0 to 10.1.

I've been a Mac user from the day they first became available back in 
1984. To me a Mac becomes "obsolete" when it cannot run the latest 
version of the operating system. Just a few weeks ago I had to upgrade 
from my MacBook Pro as it was the first Intel version used and I 
couldn't upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion. Instead of replacing the 
MacBook Pro I purchased an iMac and kept the MacBook Pro for when I'm 
on the road. So now I'm running Lion on the iMac and Snow Leopard on my 
"obsolete" MacBook Pro.

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

In article <9esompFnobU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> > The software still runs on that computer, right?  Just because the 
> > computer doesn't run the "latest and greatest" doesn't mean that it is 
> > obsolete.
> 
> I think that the fact that Leopard no longer gets security updates means 
> something, even if "obsolete" isn't really the correct word.

But we're talking about whether his computer is obsolete.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <9esobdFkajU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

> Thanks for checking the numbers.

De nada.

-- Michelle

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> An older version not getting a security update may not correlate with
> newer ones getting it.

Not in all cases, agreed.

> Consider that some security problems may have been introduced with the
> newer releases and thus not present in the older one, so the older one
> doesn't need a security update.

Apple's security updates tend to fall into two categories:

- Quickly released "limited" updates to fix one issue or a small number
of issues that need to be addressed urgently.

- Semi-regular "general" updates to fix a wide ranging collection of
known security issues that have been accumulated and fixed over the
preceding month or two. (For the current major version of Mac OS X,
these are either released as part of a minor system version update, or
as an intervening security update.)

The release notes for each security update lists all of the security
fixes and the affected system versions. If that security update is
supplied for a major system system, each item fixed mentions whether the
issue affected that version.

In the case of the Diginotar certificates, all versions of Mac OS X are
affected, but Apple only released security updates to nobble the
Diginotar certificates for Snow Leopard and Lion, as a "limited"
security update. This should have been an easy update to apply to
Leopard, so either Apple has already stopped supplying security updates
for Leopard, or they may include that security fix in a unified final
security update for Leopard when 10.7.2 is released.

In the case of the "Xprotect" auto-update mechanism to provide daily
updates against new malware variants, all versions of Mac OS X are
potentially vulnerable to the malware, but the underlying Xprotect
mechanism on which this depends only existed in Snow Leopard and later,
so Leopard didn't get this feature in a security update.

> However, say Safari's latest version does run on an older version of
> OS-X, and it has a security hole, than I would expect that older version
> to get a security fix to update Safari.

Only as long as Apple is still supporting Safari on that system. There
haven't been any Safari updates for Tiger since November 2010 (Safari
4.1.3), but there have been lots of security issues fixed in Safari
and/or Webkit for Leopard and later systems since then. Most of these
issues are bound to affect Safari/WebKit in Tiger as well.

> Is it possible that Safari security fixes are sent as Safari updates
> instead of a "security update" (aka: update of the application instead
> of an update of the opetating system). If so, it would mean that older
> versions might not get OS updates but would still get application updates.

Safari updates for Mac OS X are updates of the operating system to some
extent, because they update the WebKit framework and a few other
frameworks used by Safari and other applications.

Some Safari updates have included OS fixes outside of WebKit: notably
Safari 4.0.4 for Tiger, which included some of the fixes that Leopard
got in Security Update 2009-006 and Snow Leopard got in Mac OS X 10.6.2.

See <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3949> and find "libxml". This was the
first Safari update after Tiger's last nominal "Security Update".

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

On 11-10-02 11:00 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <9esompFnobU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jeffrey Goldberg <nobody@goldmark.org> wrote:

>> I think that the fact that Leopard no longer gets security updates means 
>> something, even if "obsolete" isn't really the correct word.
> 
> But we're talking about whether his computer is obsolete.

Then we are talking about different things. His computer certainly is
not obsolete. I thought he was talking about his operating system. But I
see that there is room for different views. He said:

> over three years and this Mac OS X is already obsolete. Even its
AppleCare expired for this over three years old MacBook Pro.

The "this Mac OS X" led me to believe he was talking about Leopard. But
the reference to AppleCare and his MBP suggest that he could have been
talking about the computer.

So I fully concur with respect to the machine. With the OS, it's trickier.

Cheers,

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

On 11-10-02 10:45 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> 
>> However, as several of us have pointed out, there is no reason to be
>> running Leopard on a machine purchased three years ago.
> 
> 
> Pardon my failing memory, but when was "Classic" removed ? Between Tiger
> and Leopard, or between Leopard and Snow Leopard ?

My "no reason" was an overstatement. There will always be people who
have a reason to stick with legacy systems.

Cheers,

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> 
> > However, as several of us have pointed out, there is no reason to be
> > running Leopard on a machine purchased three years ago.
> 
> Pardon my failing memory, but when was "Classic" removed ? Between Tiger
> and Leopard, or between Leopard and Snow Leopard ?

Classic was included in Tiger (10.4) and earlier. Leopard (10.5)
eliminated Classic.

Classic is only for PowerPC machines, of course. Early Intel Macs came
with Tiger but cannot use Classic.

If the computer in question is a MacBook Pro, the point is moot - it
could never run Classic anyway.

If this was a new Mac purchased with Leopard preinstalled, it must be an
Intel Mac by definition. There are few compatibility issues to prevent
upgrading an Intel Mac from Leopard to Snow Leopard. (Some specific
applications may have compatiblity problems.)

Upgrading from Leopard to Lion may be a much bigger problem due to
Rosetta being eliminated, taking all older PowerPC-only applications
with it.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <j6ahn5$qe4$1@dont-email.me> 
>   Kir�ly <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
> > In comp.sys.mac.system Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
> >> Something like http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselect and 
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifecycle ... I cannot seem to find it.
> >> I was told that Mac OS X 10.5.8 is no longer going to be updated?
> 
> > Apple has never announced when they stop issuing updates for older 
> > versions of OS X. But since the beginning, they support the current
> > and version. 10.2 support was dropped when 10.4 was released; 10.4 
> > support was dropped when 10.6 was released, and there haven't been any
> > 10.5 updates since 10.7 was released.
> 
> That's not strictly true. There have been a couple of security updates
> for OS versions that were, issued after one would have though support
> had ended. In fact, There was a security update for 10.5 recently, after
> 10.7s release.

The most recent Security Update for 10.5 was 2011-004 in June. Lion was
released in July.

There was a QuickTime update for 10.5 in August, which fixed some
security issues that had also been fixed as part of 10.6.7 or 10.6.8.
(It also fixed some issues in 10.5.8 that may not have been fixed for
10.6.8 yet - the notice only mentions the fix in 10.5 and that 10.7 is
not affected.)

There was also a Migration Assistant update for 10.5 in August. It
specifically addressed issues doing a network migration from Leopard to
Lion. It didn't fix any security issues.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

In article <9espiiFtacU1@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
<taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On 2011-10-02 23:36:52 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:
> 
> > Snow Leopard came out 22 months days after leopard.  Thats compared to
> > 23 months from SL to Lion,
> > 30 months from Tiger to Leopard,
> > 18 months from Panther to Tiger,
> > 12 months from Jaguar to Panther,
> > 11 months from 10.1 to Jaguar, and
> >  6 months from 10.0 to 10.1.
> 
> I've been a Mac user from the day they first became available back in 
> 1984. To me a Mac becomes "obsolete" when it cannot run the latest 
> version of the operating system. Just a few weeks ago I had to upgrade 
> from my MacBook Pro as it was the first Intel version used and I 
> couldn't upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion. Instead of replacing the 
> MacBook Pro I purchased an iMac and kept the MacBook Pro for when I'm 
> on the road. So now I'm running Lion on the iMac and Snow Leopard on my 
> "obsolete" MacBook Pro.


Great! Now we can argue about the meaning of the word "obsolete".

I am with Michelle: obsolete is when it no longer works or does what
you bought it for.

From the Mac Dictionary:

obsolete

adjective

1. no longer produced or used; out of date : "the disposal of old and
obsolete machinery" | "the phrase was obsolete after 1625."

(That definition is firmly in both camps!)

-- 
Jim Gibson

On 10-03-2011 18:29, Jim Gibson wrote:
> <taliesinsoft@me.com>  wrote:
>> I've been a Mac user from the day they first became available back in
>> 1984. To me a Mac becomes "obsolete" when it cannot run the latest
>> version of the operating system. Just a few weeks ago I had to upgrade
>
> Great! Now we can argue about the meaning of the word "obsolete".
>
> I am with Michelle: obsolete is when it no longer works or does what
> you bought it for.

Well, if what he bought it for was "to run the latest version of the 
operating system" .....

-- 
Wes Groleau

   There are two types of people in the world …
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157

Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 10-03-2011 18:29, Jim Gibson wrote:
>> <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
>>> I've been a Mac user from the day they first became available back in
>>> 1984. To me a Mac becomes "obsolete" when it cannot run the latest
>>> version of the operating system. Just a few weeks ago I had to upgrade
>>
>> Great! Now we can argue about the meaning of the word "obsolete".
>>
>> I am with Michelle: obsolete is when it no longer works or does what
>> you bought it for.
>
> Well, if what he bought it for was "to run the latest version of the
> operating system" .....
>

Usually Mac become obsolete when the either change the Type Processor 
(say from PPC to Intel, and from Motorola 680XX processors to PPC) and 
Operating system makes such a Break from an old technology That it won't 
work on the technology

The sea-change for Mac was after the 61000/7100/8100 series they used 
PowerPC Technology for the first time ever. That killed the OS versions 
that used C++, and Objective C.

And the switch from PPC (G4, G5 processors) To Intel. Which eventually 
lead to demise of OSX versions (UNIX) that that used PowerPC code That 
was system OSX.6.

I've been using Mac personally since 1986

I've only had the following Machine over that period:

SE/30
7100/66 (about Seven years)
PowerPC G4-500 About 6-7 years. Still have and Use but OSX.4.11 is 
maximum system I can use.
PowerBook G4 1.67 about 5 years (till battery died) maximum system is 
OSX.4.11
MacBook Pro 2.8 Ghz Intel Processor. Just purchased this last Feb

so from 1986-2011 I've had 5 machines. Two still active.

As long as there is not a Big break in Technology and System is not 
written to obsolete the Technology they are about as reliable as Mac 
Trucks or the old advertisement for Timex watches "Takes an licking , 
and keeps on ticking."

over the 25 years I've had just two hard drives go Bad. I've upgraded 
drives in the SE/30 before I sold it. and in the 7100 and the G4-500. 
Because applications and files kept getting larger and larger.

On 2011-10-04 00:33:09 +0000, Wes Groleau said:

> On 10-03-2011 18:29, Jim Gibson wrote:
>> <taliesinsoft@me.com>  wrote:
>>> I've been a Mac user from the day they first became available back in
>>> 1984. To me a Mac becomes "obsolete" when it cannot run the latest
>>> version of the operating system. Just a few weeks ago I had to upgrade
>> 
>> Great! Now we can argue about the meaning of the word "obsolete".
>> 
>> I am with Michelle: obsolete is when it no longer works or does what
>> you bought it for.
> 
> Well, if what he bought it for was "to run the latest version of the 
> operating system" .....

Since my first Mac back in 1984 I have always wanted it to run the 
latest version of the operating system and when it could no longer do 
such I upgraded to one that could. So in my mind the Macs I replaced 
had indeed become "obsolete".

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

On 11-10-03 7:33 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:

> Well, if what he bought it for was "to run the latest version of the
> operating system" .....

He said, "MacBook Pro", and "three years ago". If he bought it new (and
not a 2006 model) then it can run the latest version of the operating
system.

Cheers,

-j


-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg          http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

In message <1k8ko6j.1mpuiu17k4mlpN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> 
  David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <j6ahn5$qe4$1@dont-email.me> 
>>   Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote:
>> > In comp.sys.mac.system Ant <ant@zimage.comant> wrote:
>> >> Something like http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselect and 
>> >> http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifecycle ... I cannot seem to find it.
>> >> I was told that Mac OS X 10.5.8 is no longer going to be updated?
>> 
>> > Apple has never announced when they stop issuing updates for older 
>> > versions of OS X. But since the beginning, they support the current
>> > and version. 10.2 support was dropped when 10.4 was released; 10.4 
>> > support was dropped when 10.6 was released, and there haven't been any
>> > 10.5 updates since 10.7 was released.
>> 
>> That's not strictly true. There have been a couple of security updates
>> for OS versions that were, issued after one would have though support
>> had ended. In fact, There was a security update for 10.5 recently, after
>> 10.7s release.

> The most recent Security Update for 10.5 was 2011-004 in June. Lion was
> released in July.

> There was a QuickTime update for 10.5 in August, which fixed some
> security issues that had also been fixed as part of 10.6.7 or 10.6.8.

That would be a security update for 10.5

-- 
If I were you boys, I wouldn't talk or even think about women.  'T'ain't
good for your health.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.