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

wpociengel wrote:

I also like how the communities no longer support this version.

https://discussions.apple.com/community/mac_os/mac_os_x_v10.5_leopard

Some of us may completely agree with you, but you aren't accomplishing a thing by posting this here. You are only reaching other Mac users and even in the extremely unlikely event someone from Apple were reading this, it would have zero effect.

If you really wanted to waste any more time with this, you could write something to Apple in Feedback.

http://www.apple.com/support/feedback/

wpociengel wrote:

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

Yes.

It requires additional time and resources. Time and resources cost money.

Perhaps it is an older version of Java, and maybe Oracle did not provide a fix for that version, and maybe porting the newer version to Leopard and earlier is a lot of work.

Or maybe it is just Apple's long standing policy to support the current and previous OS versions, and has been that way for the life of Mac OS X.

But we can only guess.

If enough Leopard users communicate with Apple via Feedback or Bugs, they might get Apple to consider the work needed to patch Leopard.

Or just disable Java in your web browser until you can upgrade to a supported version of Mac OS X. Or if you are using a PowerPC based Mac, just keep on trucking, as the flashback Trojan does not affect PowerPCs

Apple has onle ever provided support and updates for the current and immediate previous OS X version. Once it gets to be two versions old, support and updates are dropped. This is how it has always been.

This may irritate some people, but this is indeed the pattern, and people who are running 10.5 and earlier should be expecting it.

I agree with you that Apple should be supporting any OS X version in major circulation.

10.8 is being released this summer, so I guess that means 64% of Mac users will be vulnerable soon afterwards.

Hello Flashback III, the Apple store will be mobbed with all the people thinking they need a new machine.

wpociengel wrote:

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

Yes actually, there is. OS X 10.5 uses Java J2SE 5.0 which is not been supported by Oracle/Sun for possibly a year, so there is no way they can pass that on to users, even if they wanted to.

Apple has had a long standing policy (though never publicly acknowledged) to support only two software versions, so when Lion came along, Leopard was out. They finished up a couple of security updates and the last Java update from Oracle in June, but there will be nothing more.

I also like how the communities no longer support this version.

How can you say that with all of us here? We are the community.

MadMacs0 wrote:

Yes actually, there is. OS X 10.5 uses Java J2SE 5.0

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.)

wpociengel wrote:

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

In addition to what's already been said, it is worth considering that the older versions of the OS aren't as secure to begin with -- weak to non-existent sandboxing, no provisions for built-in X-Protect A-V protection, etc. Adding these things would require some major revisions to the OS (which is part of the reason Apple releases new OS versions instead of trying to keep adding patches to the older ones).

So even if Apple did release a Java fix for 10.5, it would be somewhat like upgrading the lock on the front door to your home while ignoring the windows.

The sad truth is that the bad guys are "upgrading" their attack methods & users will find it increasingly difficult to keep up with them without upgrading their systems as well.

OK, I'll disregard my own advice and engage in some time wasting. Yes, it costs more in resources and money, but that's what a computer/software business should be doing and not leaving so many in the lurch. Surely Apple can afford it. Whatever it might cost, it's a pittance compared to Apple's enormous reservoir of black ink. It's not as if they're a struggling company any longer.

After EIGHT years, Microsoft recently dropped support for Office 2004. Apple could at least be going back three OS versions. With the impending release of ML this summer and a yearly release schedule announced, that means a ridiculously short time of support for an OS that gets the ax.

As for RC-R's specious argument that it's not worth supporting an OS for a certain vulnerability because the rest of the support for that OS has been left to languish, two things: first, Apple should still be supporting Leopard (and why not Tiger, for that matter?) and, even if not and I think it's outrageous it isn't, just because some windows in a house may need repair doesn't mean you don't fix the lock on the door if it no longer works, when It's the most obvious entry way for someone who wants to do harm.

WZZZ wrote:

Yes, it costs more in resources and money, but that's what a computer/software business should be doing and not leaving so many in the lurch.

Nothing wrong with that -- as long as users are willing to pay for it. It's a business, just like any other.

… just because some windows in a house may need repair doesn't mean you don't fix the lock on the door if it no longer works, when It's the most obvious entry way for someone who wants to do harm.

What makes you think a thief would confine himself to the most obvious way to enter a house?

Didn't I hear recently that Apple was so flooded with cash reserves it was considering a dividend distribution? By how much would enabling and continuing support for older OS versions reduce that distribution? (I'll just throw out a number that seem plausible: two cents per share?) In a responsible company, shouldn't the owners of that company's products be given priority over shareholders? Such a company will not long remain profitable if it neglects its primary mission for short term gain and screws over its long term customers.

What makes you think a thief would confine himself to the most obvious way to enter a house?

That's specious again, since I didn't say that. But, according to your logic, you let a house rot and fall down because you can't afford (and this is obviously not the case with Apple, since Apple can afford to repair the entire house) to do what you can.

Two cents a share is pure speculation but even if accurate it would be significant since the bulk of Apple stock is held by investment funds, not individuals. I'm not going to debate you about economic matters here but if APPL goes down, it would not be good for anybody, including its customers.

As for my logic, if you can't afford to secure your home it isn't a great idea to keep your valuables in it. The only thing thieves care about anybody else's financial problems is if they can capitalize on them.

Didn't I hear recently that Apple was so flooded with cash reserves it was considering a dividend distribution? By how much would enabling and continuing support for older OS versions reduce that distribution? (I'll just throw out a number that seem plausible: two cents per share?)...

You should read the "Mythical Man Month". Throwing money at a software problem does not always make it better. This is more a question of trained Mac OS X software engineers that are not working on something else the company considers important to the company's future, and that are not being hired away by Google, Facebook, etc..., or going out to form their own startup company.

Personally, I think Apple is already spreading itself thin between developing and supporting Mac OS X and iOS platforms. Hiring and training up new software developers takes years.

Well, obviously, given that Apple's enormous profitability, at least right now, is coming from its iOS sales, or, less so, from iOS-like OSs and computers, any investment in continuing software development for older OS versions, for whatever reasons, isn't going to happen any time soon. "Any time soon" meaning until "(insert a word here that will be redacted by the hyper-puritanical forum software) freezes over."

I'm finished. I'm not one to tilt at windmills for long.