“A program can’t ever really die, but it can get old. Very old. This is a paradox millions of computer users are living with. Almost four years after the release of Windows XP and Mac OS X, they boot their machines into more senior versions of Windows or the Mac OS,” Rob Pegoraro writes for The Washington Post.
“Those operating systems still fire up in the morning as they always did. But they show their age in other ways — newer programs and gadgets can’t or won’t coexist with them,” Pegoraro writes. “The research firm IDC estimates that of the roughly 514 million paid-for copies of Windows on desktops and laptops worldwide at the end of 2004, almost 21 percent were the aging Win 95, 98 and Millennium Edition releases. Among the 19 million Mac OS desktop and laptop installations IDC surveyed, just about half were running releases predating Mac OS X.”
Pegoraro writes, “On the Mac side, there have been far more system updates in recent years — the downside of that being a quick sunset for older releases. This has continued past the onset of Mac OS X — the 3 1/2-year-old Mac OS X 10.1 is now as far behind the times as Win 98 SE.”
• Mac OS 8 and 8.5: These 1997 and 1998 releases are as dead as Windows 95, thanks to their own lack of USB support — as well as an even more complete abandonment by software developers.
• Mac OS 8.6-9.2: These releases are slightly better in terms of software support — there still aren’t any good browsers, but you can run an old version of iTunes (which doesn’t connect to the iTunes Music Store or recent iPod models). And you can plug in USB devices.
• Mac OS X 10.0 and 10.1: The first two releases of Mac OS X have been so badly outclassed by succeeding releases that there is no good reason to run them.
• Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar: This operating system, a mere 2 1/2 years old, is already being prepped for retirement. This is not the fault of third-party software developers or hardware manufacturers; most of whose wares function just fine in Jaguar. Instead, look to Apple, which is giving Jaguar the Windows 2000 treatment — the current versions of its Safari Web browser and iPhoto and iLife packages require OS X 10.3 Panther.
Pegoraro writes, “You either have to accept the limits of your old machine or ante up for a new one. The alternative is endless fussing with your computer, the kind of drudgery that will make you feel old.”
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple to slow pace of new Mac OS X versions ‘a little bit’ – May 18, 2004
If you aren’t running Mac OS X by now you really are one of the ‘crazy ones’ – September 27, 2002
I’ll happily “fuss” with my dual 1GHz Quicksilver G4 . . . as long as it means I can run the beautiful OS X 10.3 . . . and next, 10.4 . . . and then . . . 10.5 . . . and on and on and on . . . . . .
Oh, yah . . . ‘First Post’!
Hmmm . . . that’s actually kind of a letdown once you actually have it happen to you.
I live for updates.
What’s the problem? The machines that sold with MacOS 8.6, namely the G3 b/w and Lombard-Powerbooks, run just fine with Panther. And the beige G3 and Wallstreets do just fine with Jaguar. And with over 6 years, they are clearly ending their useful lifespan anyway.
In Apple’s case this is necessary. The jump from OS 9 to OS X is as almost as big a change as going from Mac to Windows. 9 and X are two completely different operating systems (Classic notwithstanding)). It would be expensive and difficult for developers (including Apple) to continue to support OS 9. As for the multiple versions of X, that was necessary too. It wasn’t until Jaguar that it was ready for prime time. That was released in 2002, and, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it the first paid upgrade? I think I remember getting 10.1 for free, but I could be mistaken. Panther was released over a year later, and now Tiger will be out roughly a year and a half after that. Frankly, in my opinion anyway, $129 (or $69 if you qualify for an education discount) isn’t that much to pay ever year and a half (and 10.5 will probably be at least two years as they’ve stated that they will be farther and farther apart from now on). It’s less than $10 a month (cheaper than Crapster!) and I’ve been very pleased with the new features in ever release.
Microsoft can’t really use that as an excuse though, because they haven’t made as many changes under the hood, but continuing to support an old OS is costly no matter how you look at it.
It just becomes annoying when you keep paying so much money for OS upgrades on an old machine. It’s almost worth it to just buy a new low end Mac.
i wonder if my next upgrade will be to the Cell Processor, any doubts of Apple running on which are dispelled in this article on TheMacMind.
MW: until
What is amazing to me is that old programs from the late 80’s/early 90’s will still run in classic on my Modern day OS X with no problem. Can Windows claim anything similiar? I still use some of these old programs too!!
Yeah, well is there a ‘King’s New Clothes’ conspiracy here? Perhaps the 50% of Mac users who haven’t switched to OS X have all they need on OS 9. AND perhaps they agree with me that in terms of its Graphic User Interface OS 9 is a lot easier and – more importantly from a Pro-User point of view – A LOT FASTER to use than OS X.
If I could have the added features of OS X and the straightforward, concise, logical, graphically appropriate, layout of OS 9, I would SWITCH BACK straight away! Using OS X is sometimes like having to cope with a spring-loaded, over-designed, dressed-to-the-nines, ill-fitting, squidgy-handling, super-sexy, Swiss Army Knife when all I want to do is slice bread for 90% of the time.
Is this a solution in search of a problem? My nearly five year old PowerMac G4 runs OS X 10.3.8 beautifully and I have had no software fail to operate under it.
Um, you don’t have to buy a new machine to run OS X 10.3 unless your computer is more than about 5 YEARS old. Even first-generation iMacs can run OS X, and certainly anything running old versions of OS X can run 10.3 better than 10.0, 10.1, or even 10.2.
Think about how unusual and wonderful it is to have OS upgrades that make the same equipment seem FASTER! Remember when an OS upgrade meant everything would be slower? You’ll probably want to add RAM to help with some added memory overhead, but RAM is cheap and well worth what you get.
Better analogy.
The switch from OS 9 to OS X Apple has done once before.
The switch from 68000 to PowerPC chips.
At least Apple can upgrade their hardware to more modern designs every once in a while.
I hope no one tells my G3 iMac Rev A running OS 8.5 with it’s USB keyboard, USB mouse, USB Floppy Drive, USB connected printer that they lack USB support. I would hate for all of that to not work anymore.
Odd, my Rev C Gen 1 iMac came with OS 8.5 and ran USB just fine.Did some
Can’t see how writing this article was of any real value.
Next.
The comparison is really bizarre. Most of the Macs that ran with 8.5 still run fine with OS X. Life span of Mac hardware is far longer than most windows machines… that is, unless you install Linux or BSD…