Is there any logical reason Apple can't provide the same update for 10.5 users?

Those of us that frequent the forums are powerless to effect change at Apple, so enthusiastic discussion here is like "tilting at windmills".

What you should really be doing is telling Apple.

BugReporter

<http://bugreporter.apple.com>

Free ADC (Apple Developer Connection) account needed for BugReporter.

Anyone can get a free account at:

<http://developer.apple.com/programs/register/>

And/Or

Mac OS X Feedback

<http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html>

I know all that. If you read back to near the beginning of this thread, that's what I replied to the OP and that's why I prefaced what I wrote later with, "OK, I'll disregard my own advice and engage in some time wasting." Nothing like a discussion of a futile, dead end topic to start off the week. Speaking of dead end topics, an excuse not to get right to work and finish my taxes.

The problem with Apple not supporting OS X versions in major circulation is all the "new to computer" using types that perhaps at best run Software Update and EXPECT Apple to be taking care of them and have no capability to upgrade the OS and the risks involved in that action.

Nearly 90% of all computer users, and nearly all coming from Windows, expect the operating system to work as long as the hardware does, with only minor patches etc.

They don't expect Apple to suddenly drop them for necessary security patches.

If third party software like Java doesn't issue a 10.5 update, then Apple should disable it and notify the user it's no longer supported.

The real reason is because Apple doesn't support older OS X versions and thus third party software, who needs the cooperation of Apple to fix THEIR issues in OS X, don't bother.

So it's Apple to blame.

Microsoft supports their OS versions for 10 years, Vista, 5 years old, just got another 5 years of security and stability support.

With most Mac's only being able to handle 1 or 2 OS X upgrades at best, and Apple releasing a new OS version every year now, means a new Mac is going to be obsolete after 2 years, even though the hardware can last considerably longer.

It's wrong of Apple to think of all their users as competent or knowledgeable to upgrade their OS (and brick their third party software and hardware drivers) when they are not.

People are drawn to the Mac because it's supposed to "just work" and it only does so for a short time.

ds store wrote:

Nearly 90% of all computer users, and nearly all coming from Windows, expect the operating system to work as long as the hardware does, with only minor patches etc.

Nearly 90% of all speculative statistics like this are made up. 😉

I'm curious R, why did you pick Mr. Potato Head for a avatar. 😁

It isn't Mr. Potato Head -- I really look a little like that! 😀

RC-R wrote: Nearly 90% of all speculative statistics like this are made up. 😉

By definition, all speculative statistics are made up. If this is truly a speculative statistic, not nearly 90%, the figure is at least 100% and up.

I was pointing out the unreliability of ds store's comment by starting my comment with the same phrase he used, thus the wink.

And for yours, I'll point out that the chances of the figure being greater than 100% are zero. 😁

And for yours, I'll point out that the chances of the figure being greater than 100% are zero. 😁

There are more things in heaven and earth, RC-R,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

WZZZ wrote:

OK, I'll disregard my own advice and engage in some time wasting.

…because no amount of arguing will change anything (even our own opinions)…

After EIGHT years, Microsoft recently dropped support for Office 2004

Apple and Microsoft peddle different wares to different crowds. Apple sells fashion, innovation, the 'cool factor'. MS sells predictability, dependability, compatibility. That's why MS does only once in 20 years what Apple does every 6 years or so.

that's what a computer/software business should be doing

Our disagreement is fundamental and philosophical in nature. You believe that a corporation—at least, if it can afford it—'should be doing' something in accord with your culturally-determined sense of right and wrong. I believe that anything like that is akin to expecting the leopard not to eat a cute rabbit because there's plenty of bamboo to go around. IOW, that it is contrary to the nature of the beast. Corporations exist to maximise profit and power; that is their nature. There are only two ways to make them behave as we wish, and they both amount to the same thing—hit them where it hurts. Either use financial incentives (eg, don't buy what they peddle); or, institute regulations and create institutions with the power, the will, and the ability to enforce them. Anything else means setting ourselves up for another Enron or 2008.

fane_j wrote:

Actually, for 64-bit Intel Macs, it also uses v1.6 (Java SE 6). See

<http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4592>

(J2SE 5 is Java 2 Standard Edition v1.5.x. After v1.5, the "2" was dropped, so the next version was Java SE 6, ie, Java Standard Edition v.1.6.x.)

Thanks for the reminder. If I knew that before I had forgotten.

I don't think we have a fundamental disagreement. You were makng the realistic point that it's in the nature of the leopard (who won't change his stripes) to eat rabbits, even if some of us may find them cute. (Actually -- breaking from the metaphor for a moment -- I've never really found rabbits cute, but I've never been interested in eating them either.) I was pointing out that the rabbit needs some fans, since more often than not I find myself in the position of one, or see others in that positon, and can clearly identify with his predicament. Neither of us is wrong.

That said, it doesn't appear that predatory captialism, along with a hyper-emphasis on shareholder value, is exactly on the wane these days. I could go on about Foxconn workers, but I won't, not here.

And to really confuse metaphors, this rabbit doesn't see much point in tilting at windmills.

Oh, and it should be pointed out that the leopard, unlike the modern corporation, won't be the least interested in the rabbit once it's had its full. It doesn't know greed.

Priced fully capable versions of Windows recently?

R C-R wrote:

Priced fully capable versions of Windows recently?

More sophistry and your customary knee-jerk defense of Apple: Different business models. Oranges to apples. One software based, the other hardware based -- which, overall, is where the money is for Apple -- now pushing out seductive, inexpensive OS upgrades. To get continued support (or to get those shiny new OSs) users are forced to upgrade still viable hardware (or completely viable OS versions and lose valuable PPC applications in the process.) Apple could charge more for a new OS and keep supporting the older ones, but it's obviously not going to happen.