×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Many Mac OS Users Not Getting Security Updates

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the security-updates-aren't-sexy dept.

OS X 380

AmiMoJo writes "According to security company Sophos, around 55% of home users and 18% of enterprise users have updated to Mavericks, the latest version of Mac OS (10.9). Unfortunately Apple appears to have stopped providing security updates for older versions. Indeed, they list Mavericks itself as a security update. This means that the majority of users are no longer getting critical security patches. Sophos recommends taking similar precautions to those recommended for people who cannot upgrade from Windows XP."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

380 comments

Does it matter? (3, Insightful)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 3 months ago | (#45916103)

Since you know, the switch ads told me Macs don't get viruses or other bad stuff

Re:Does it matter? (-1, Troll)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about 3 months ago | (#45916133)

Or useful software but who needs that anyways?

Re:Does it matter? (1)

mozumder (178398) | about 3 months ago | (#45916163)

lol @ windows/linux/android fanboys.

Sucks that you guys don't even have real Unix on your desktops.

You'll have to get a real operating system.

Re:Does it matter? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916327)

By "real" do you mean the bsd hybrid that OS-X is based on?
--
OS X is based upon the Mach kernel. Certain parts from FreeBSD's and NetBSD's implementation of Unix were incorporated in NeXTSTEP, the core of Mac OS X. NeXTSTEP was the graphical, object-oriented, and UNIX-based operating system developed by Steve Jobs' company NeXT after he left Apple in 1985.[16] While Jobs was away from Apple, Apple tried to create a "next-generation" OS through the Taligent, Copland and Gershwin projects, with little success.[17]
--

Oh wait, you are an apple fan and believe "apple invented everything" right?

If you are in fact a long-term apple fan perhaps you can let us know how was that co-operative multitasking and manual memory management working out for you when EVERYONE had moved to preemptive and VM models?

BTW, my "real operating system" (OS-X) runs fine on my hackentosh at a significant discount vs apple, how's yours working out for you?

http://www.macbreaker.com/2012/05/how-much-money-will-hackintosh-save-you.html

Mac Pro - $2,500
CustoMac Pro - $1,100

Never mind the performance difference between the two systems.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916853)

Who said anything about "apple invented everything"?

He said it's a real UNIX, which it is – it's a true blue, SUS03 certified UNIX OS.

Re:Does it matter? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916511)

lol @ windows/linux/android fanboys.

Sucks that you guys don't even have real Unix on your desktops.

You'll have to get a real operating system.

lol @ osx fanboys who think it's real Unix. Posix compatible is not Posix. Shut your pimpled face. Oh you were just sarcastically trolling? Me too.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

Old97 (1341297) | about 3 months ago | (#45916555)

Who cares about Posix? It's a checklist item for government procurement but in practical terms means nothing. It's a subset API. Windows NT was Posix compliant.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916423)

you certainly have no clue about the software availability for os x, yet you had to open your mouth just for the sake of it :)

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916767)

Or floppy drives or mice with more than one button.

Mac users are so easy to troll, they'll probably still fall for the above sentence.

Re:Does it matter? (2)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 3 months ago | (#45916803)

What useful software are you missing?

The Mac has plenty of productivity software. If you want to write a report, code, surf the web, or whatever, you'll have no problems.

It does lack some special case software. That's slowly changing, but I can imagine that if you need to run an electron software designed for Windows XP you're SOL.

But such cases are few and far between. And if you really really wanted, you could purchase Parallels and run the windows software anyways.

Of course, maybe your favorite ____ isn't for a mac and you'll need to find an equivalent. And if you're looking to run the best new multiplayer games, you'll be saddened by the lack of selection.

Re:Does it matter? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916193)

Yeah, it's not like Macs suffer the same design and interface problems that made Windows 8 or Unity. Apple designed their system right the fiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

*head falls to the side, images from the latest WWDC can be seen flickering on eyeballs*

...rrrrrrrrst ugh are you STILL using Mavericks? Pssh, please. Snow Cheetah has been announced for a whole 7.33921 seconds already. Get with the times! Apple fixed all the obvious system design problems Mavericks has, making perfection even more perfecter! That's what happens when you design the system right the first time!

Re:Does it matter? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916253)

Apple fanboys and apple haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.

Re:Does it matter? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916663)

Too true this. Mod this up!!!

Re:Does it matter? (5, Insightful)

alexhs (877055) | about 3 months ago | (#45916747)

Apple fanboys and Apple haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.

Android fanboys and android haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Microsoft fanboys and microsoft haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Vi fanboys and vi haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Emacs fanboys and Emacs haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
Bitcoin fanboys and bitcoin haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.
True scotmen fanboys and true scotmen haters should be banned from slashdot. They have this illusion that they are two separate groups of people. The fact is that they are a single bunch of idiots.

Who's left ? :)

Re:Does it matter? (1)

228e2 (934443) | about 3 months ago | (#45916791)

I was going to post exactly this. With my work now done, its time for an early lunch.

Re:Does it matter? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916209)

Security updates aren't just for viruses.

That being said, I use a mac and I cannot upgrade to 10.9 because my machine isn't supported. It still does everything I need it to do, it's not slow. I don't think Apple doesn't support it because the hardware IS too old (Intel processor and all), I just think it's because Apple THINKS the hardware is too old. I can tell you that this is the last mac I buy. I dislike Microsoft and Windows with a passion, but at least they don't arbitrarily decide that your PC is too old to run their latest operating system. It may not run it fast, but generally it will run it.

Linux only from now on.

Re:Does it matter? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916261)

I dislike Microsoft and Windows with a passion, but at least they don't arbitrarily decide that your PC is too old to run their latest operating system. It may not run it fast, but generally it will run it.

Bullshit. Windows 7 broke a ton of shit when it came out because of a lack driver support. Windows 8 is no different.

Re:Does it matter? (4, Insightful)

tangelogee (1486597) | about 3 months ago | (#45916353)

Driver support is not Micosoft's fault. That's the Vendors. And need we talk about the fact that up until recently, you could only install (basically) Apple sanctioned expansion cards in their machines? Or their new way of doing things, which is "We'll package all of the hardware up in a neat little box, which you can't open, so we can force you to upgrade the hardware in order to upgrade the OS."

Re:Does it matter? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916291)

Linux only from now on.

After being pampered by the reliability of OS X, I expect you to be confronted by a surprise. Linux desktop is very buggy.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916377)

A quick google for "mavericks" and "beach ball" indicates otherwise.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916321)

Apple makes money from selling you hardware. They make less money if you only buy the OS.

Microsoft makes money from selling software only. Thanks to OEM discounts, I'd not be surprised if they made more money from you upgrading the old machine than if you bought a new machine with the new version preinstalled.

Re:Does it matter? (4, Funny)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 3 months ago | (#45916417)

Father Steve only extends his divine blessings to those with the faith to maintain the latest holy hardware. Obviously, you have lost your faith and become a Windows or Linux heretic. Expect no welcome in the Great Apple Store when the end comes!

Re:Does it matter? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916517)

I dislike Microsoft and Windows with a passion, but at least they don't arbitrarily decide that your PC is too old to run their latest operating system.

Really? My 'Aero' & 'Win 7' scores were so low on older hardware that it didn't want to install. And when I worked around it and installed Win 7 the machine ran like shit. Why didn't they do anything to let me know Win 7 wouldn't work on my old hardware?

you mean like Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916635)

"I dislike Microsoft and Windows with a passion, but at least they don't arbitrarily decide that your PC is too old to run their latest operating system."

You mean like Linux dropping support for Pentium class CPUs?

Re:Does it matter? (2, Insightful)

garyoa1 (2067072) | about 3 months ago | (#45916817)

The problem I "had" with Mac was, if I wanted to update some programs... sorry. OS is too old. Update the OS and another prog says.... sorry, OS is too new.

And I look over at the win8 machine that can still run dos based progs 20- 25 years old and say... why?

Re:Does it matter? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 3 months ago | (#45916457)

I'm fairly certain he's being sarcastic but at the same time clueless since they do catch viruses constantly from 3rd party plugin-based attacks.

POT (Personal Open Terminal) new clear options (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916143)

we're all on the same page now? be kind unwind do onto......

Many AC Users Not Getting First Posts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916161)

BloJo writes:

"According to security company Goatse, around 55% of home losers and 18% of Slashdot users have updated to Firefox, the latest version of the Open Sores Bloatware Browser project. Unfortunately Mozilla appears to have stopped providing security updates for older versions. Indeed, they list Firefucks itself as a security update. This means that the majority of users are no longer getting critical security patches. Goatse recommends just bending over and taking it up the ass."

I Don't Want Every Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916181)

I don't want every update they send out. I wait to see if the updates make things worse (and there are updates for all sorts of software on every platform that can make things worse instead of fixing an issue).

Re:I Don't Want Every Update (1)

neoritter (3021561) | about 3 months ago | (#45916711)

It's a security update, if you don't want to be hacked, it's generally good practice to update.

It's bad for all OS's (4, Interesting)

zerosomething (1353609) | about 3 months ago | (#45916205)

I'm woking in a large university where you find a larger percentage of Mac and Linux systems. It's hell keeping all operating systems updated properly. Researchers get grants to do something then spend $2million on the custom systems build on a particular version of an OS. Now it's 5 years later are still using the old OS because it would cost another $1million to upgrade the custom code and get new equipment that doesn't use parallel ports for data transfers.

Re:It's bad for all OS's (3, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 3 months ago | (#45916259)

...Now it's 5 years later are still using the old OS because it would cost another $1million to upgrade the custom code and get new equipment that doesn't use parallel ports for data transfers.

In general, changing the OS breaks some stuff that used to work. It's always best to wait until the people willing to be drive the software first have found workarounds to the problems.

Or you can call support, which will tell you "Oh, that doesn't work with the new operating system."

Re:It's bad for all OS's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916433)

When did you last -- ever -- see a Mac with a Parallel port? ADB? iMacs were pretty much USB / FW from launch!

Re:It's bad for all OS's (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about 3 months ago | (#45916903)

Macs never came standard with a parallel port. Printers used serial (din-8 port) for communication before USB came about.

Re:It's bad for all OS's (4, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about 3 months ago | (#45916489)

Indeed. We have a microscope that's hooked up to a G4 powermac running 10.2. The company that made the camera doesn't exist anymore, and the most recent software available for it is for XP. The solution? Firewall the microscope computer except for communication with the department file server.

Re:It's bad for all OS's (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | about 3 months ago | (#45916873)

The solution? Firewall the microscope computer except for communication with the department file server.

But those type of situations are fine; you've got a dedicated device doing a dedicated thing. Usually in those situations having a full OS is over kill and the system should have been built with an embedded OS in the first place. The type of scenarios which are worrying are ones where the computers are peoples internet personal files machines.

Just no (5, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#45916227)

Far be it for me to say that a security company was using dodgy numbers to hype its product, but their MacOS adoption numbers are soley from Sophos-for-MacOS users, which I'd have to imagine is a really spectacularly unrepresentative sample. And their assertions that Mavericks was the only way to get security updates for MacOS going forwards seems to be contradicted by the fact that the previous version of MacOS was security patched when Mavericks was launched.

Re:Just no (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916315)

Dodgy or just plain wrong? The linked page for "stopped providing updates" lists several things, like Safari and Java that go back two previous versions-- three in the case of Java.

Re:Just no (3, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#45916615)

If you check the linked page you can see that since Mavericks was released, listed as a security update, all other OS level updates and many of the app updates have required it. They claim not to support older versions.

Re:Just no (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about 3 months ago | (#45916723)

And their assertions that Mavericks was the only way to get security updates for MacOS going forwards seems to be contradicted by the fact that the previous version of MacOS was security patched when Mavericks was launched.

A big part of the reason they can even get away with that claim is because Apple doesn't publish a proper software lifecycle policy. For all I do like about Apple, that's the one big thing I feel they do wrong. Mac OS X and iOS badly need a documented support policy so that it's clear how long they'll receive security updates. Is 10.7 safe? How about 10.6? iOS 6?

Throwing a wrench in all of this of course is Apple's decision to stop charging for new Mac OSes as of Mavericks. Since it's free, is it a new OS or is it just another patch for Mountain Lion? From a pricing standpoint you can get away with calling it the continuation of Mountain Lion since you don't need to pay for it. But from a technical perspective it's definitely not the same OS, and introduces new features and makes changes that can break software. To use Microsoft as an example here, they treat Windows 8.1 as a service pack for Windows 8, which is to say that they'll be ending support for Win8 in just under 2 years. So there's certainly precedent for quickly dropping Mountain Lion.

Re:Just no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916895)

Add to that that Mavericks is a FREE update to their OS, they're basically saying "zomg, if you ignore this update, apple stopped providing updates".

Updates vs Upgrades (4, Insightful)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 3 months ago | (#45916245)

It is unfortunate that Apple didn't think that one through a little further.
If they are adopting the model of "the OS Upgrade IS a security update", then throw it in their normal update mechanism rather than having people seek it out.

Since they didn't, they must realize that there is a chance that their Upgrade could break things for people, so let them upgrade in their own time, and as such should back port the occasional update to the computers that they sold 3 months or so ago.

Re:Updates vs Upgrades (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#45916347)

Don't all OSX updates come through the App Store now? Where they then show you a half-screen banner prompting you to download 10.9 if it's compatible?

Re: Updates vs Upgrades (1)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 3 months ago | (#45916617)

SoftwareUpdate isn't a part of the Mac App Store (different servers, backed, syncing, check mechanism, ...), despite being on a tab presented in the Mac App Store, aside updates that do come from there. And you do understand that there is a difference between "please download this, create an account, type in a couple passwords, have a credit card on your account, ..." And just press "update", right?

Re: Updates vs Upgrades (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#45916837)

Well that's what I was asking, hasn't the App Store replaced the old "software update" mechanism for the delivery of OS-level updates?

Re: Updates vs Upgrades (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916885)

Well that's what I was asking, hasn't the App Store replaced the old "software update" mechanism for the delivery of OS-level updates?

Yes it has. What he was saying is that all the infrastructure in the background, and completely invisible to the user, is different. However that is completely irrelevant to what you said.

OS Maverick upgrade for free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916281)

If your Mac supports it, it seems to be a free upgrade. I got an email from Apple earlier this week offering the upgrade for free. Perhaps that`s their security strategy.

Re:OS Maverick upgrade for free (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 3 months ago | (#45916861)

That doesn't mean that all your software works. If your company has decided to run OS X and their mission critical business app doesn't work with the new OS then they can't upgrade. And add the fact that new machines can't be downgraded to the older OS, so you can't buy new hardware either.

This is the reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916285)

I will not personally use anything but open source software.

Re:This is the reason (1)

kommakazi (610098) | about 3 months ago | (#45916781)

Better log off the internet, by using it you are engaging with all kinds of non-open source software.

Yes, they are. (4, Informative)

tirerim (1108567) | about 3 months ago | (#45916303)

I'm not sure where the author gets the idea that Apple has stopped releasing security updates for older systems. The page linked from the summary lists updates for software for OS X 10.7 and up as recently as 16 December, a Java update for versions 10.6 and up on 15 October, and the most recent actual security update, also for versions 10.6 and up, on 12 September. Apple releases security updates when necessary, not every Tuesday like Microsoft. The fact that they've released an OS update, which includes security patches, for the most recent version of the OS without releasing one for older versions most likely means that the vulnerabilities addressed were not present in older versions; this has been the Apple release strategy for at least a decade.

Re:Yes, they are. (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#45916387)

Their support for that assertion is a link to one of their own articles:

1) From three months ago
2) Before 10.9 launched
3) Right after a major OSX 10.8 software update had been released
4) Which has had its thesis contradicted by the series of subsequent updates you list

I don't think Sophos are in the "critical thinking" business.

Re:Yes, they are. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916495)

I don't think Sophos are in the "critical thinking" business.

Judging how their anti-virus software won't finish a scan if an sophos update is downloaded, they definitely aren't into critical thinking.

Re:Yes, they are. (4, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#45916745)

Here is the list from Apple's own web site, linked to in the summary:

19 Dec 2013 Motion 5.1 (OS X Mavericks v10.9 or later)
16 Dec 2013 OS X Mavericks v10.9.1
16 Dec 2013 Safari 6.1.1 and Safari 7.0.1 (OS X Lion v10.7.5, OS X Mountain Lion v10.8.5, OS X Mavericks v10.9)
22 Oct 2013 Apple Remote Desktop 3.7 (Apple Remote Desktop 3.0 or later)
22 Oct 2013 Apple Remote Desktop 3.5.4 (Apple Remote Desktop 3.0 or later)
22 Oct 2013 OS X Server 3.0 (OS X Mavericks v10.9 or later)
22 Oct 2013 Keynote 6.0 (OS X Mavericks v10.9 or later)
22 Oct 2013 OS X Mavericks v10.9 (Mac OS X v10.6.8 and later)

(Windows and iOS updates omitted)

So after the 22nf of October 2013 when Mavericks was released they don't seem to be back-porting all their patches for either the OS or all apps. Note that the 16th December patch to Mavericks appears to fix bugs that exist in older versions of Mac OS, which did not receive an update. There are all security patches specifically, not just feature updates.

Re:Yes, they are. (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 3 months ago | (#45916851)

Um, "16 Dec 2013 Safari 6.1.1 and Safari 7.0.1 (OS X Lion v10.7.5, OS X Mountain Lion v10.8.5, OS X Mavericks v10.9)"? They haven't released a general security update in 4 months." Java for OS X 2013-005 and Java for Mac OS X v10.6 Update 17 Mac OS X v10.6.8, OS X Lion v10.7 or later, OS X Mountain Lion v10.8 or later 15 Oct 2013" Let me start planning for the apocalypse now.

Re:Yes, they are. (5, Insightful)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 3 months ago | (#45916719)

So.. what about users pre 10.6? Forgotten? Microsoft still supports XP Does Apple still support OS X 10.1? They were released at the same time in 2001. I think nothing illustrates the difference between the companies than that fact. Apple obsoletes their users by force while Microsoft bends over backwards to maintain not only support but backward compatability.

Re:Yes, they are. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916739)

So.. what about users pre 10.6? Forgotten?

Fuck those guys and Fuck anyone still using XP.

Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (1, Insightful)

nonsequitor (893813) | about 3 months ago | (#45916313)

When my iPhone 3G could not be upgraded to iOS4, I switched to andriod for security concerns.
Then my 2 generation intel Macbook Pro was too old to upgrade to Mavericks, so I bought a Lenovo.
I'm seeing a pattern here. I will not buy Apple anymore as a result of their withholding security updates from older and perfectly functional hardware. My response is not to buy a newer model, but to switch away from Apple products.
I initially switched to Apple because I liked their hardware and as a developer I wanted to experience a variety of OS's. Seeing how they abandon products only a few years old has left a sour taste in my mouth, I'm done buying Apple products, I've learned my lesson.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916405)

My Core2 MacBook Pro upgraded to Mavericks without a problem.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916439)

When my iPhone 3G could not be upgraded to iOS4, I switched to andriod for security concerns.
Then my 2 generation intel Macbook Pro was too old to upgrade to Mavericks, so I bought a Lenovo.
I'm seeing a pattern here. I will not buy Apple anymore as a result of their withholding security updates from older and perfectly functional hardware. My response is not to buy a newer model, but to switch away from Apple products.
I initially switched to Apple because I liked their hardware and as a developer I wanted to experience a variety of OS's. Seeing how they abandon products only a few years old has left a sour taste in my mouth, I'm done buying Apple products, I've learned my lesson.

Statement 1 is a lie. The iPhone 3G was upgraded to iOS 4.

And your Late 2006 laptop could be upgraded to Lion which still receives security fixes.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (2, Informative)

nonsequitor (893813) | about 3 months ago | (#45916947)

When was the last time iOS 4 recieved a security update? Additionally, if you actually had an iPhone 3G you would know that upgrading to iOS 4 basically rendered it useless even though it was technically possible.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916487)

I'm not sure if you're being a troll throwing out bait, or if you're just misguided and uninformed, but I'll assume the latter: you're making premature statements and erroneous assumptions. You're assuming this article is legit, while it in fact contains multiple mistakes and errors, as well as deliberate allusion errors. You're jumping on the bandwagon. Also, the iPhone 3G runs iOS4, and the second generation MB Pro runs Maverick (in fact, even the 2007 non-pro MacBooks run Mavericks) - not sure where you got the idea that it doesn't, but I suppose you leapt to those conclusions as well without looking into it.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (4, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#45916503)

When iOS 4 came out, you switched to Android because you wanted more software updates? Summer 2010, at the height of the Android software update panic, when Motorola had to be pressured to even update the Droid to 2.2, and most phones were lucky to see an update outside of the first six months?

Then when you couldn't get a new version of MacOS for a five-year-old laptop, rather than just install Windows 7 on it, you bought a whole new computer?

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (1)

nonsequitor (893813) | about 3 months ago | (#45916909)

I needed to buy a laptop with a German keyboard since I now work in Germany and need practice with the new layout (it's more than just Z & Y reversed if you code for a living). Switching to Windows 7 is what I did with that laptop but that's not what the article is about. It's about updating OS X, not Windows, who's trolling now?

By the time I realized iOS 4 had borked my phone, CyanogenMod was an option for Android.

It's not about more "Software Updates", it's about adequate security for devices I use for online banking.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (2)

carlhaagen (1021273) | about 3 months ago | (#45916529)

Troll detected. But just in case... iOS 4 does actually run on the 3G, and Mavericks runs on as hold hardware as the last normal MB models prior to the Pro notation, which I believe were released in 2007.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (1)

nonsequitor (893813) | about 3 months ago | (#45916737)

Only for a very limited definition of run. I had dropped calls increase to about 1 in 5 and the software made the phone run sluggish. It cannot be upgraded beyond that and upgrading to that point is a mistake if you actually like to use your phone.

You are all calling me a troll, but I don't like being extorted into hardware upgrades due to lack of continued support for older hardware.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916613)

When my iPhone 3G could not be upgraded to iOS4, I switched to andriod for security concerns.
Then my 2 generation intel Macbook Pro was too old to upgrade to Mavericks, so I bought a Lenovo.
I'm seeing a pattern here. I will not buy Apple anymore as a result of their withholding security updates from older and perfectly functional hardware. My response is not to buy a newer model, but to switch away from Apple products.
I initially switched to Apple because I liked their hardware and as a developer I wanted to experience a variety of OS's. Seeing how they abandon products only a few years old has left a sour taste in my mouth, I'm done buying Apple products, I've learned my lesson.

So, that Windows XP-era Core2 laptop you've got lying around I'm certain will have NO problems whatsoever installing and running Windows 8.1, since all Windows software runs with maximum efficiency. 5+ years from now, let us know how your Lenovo runs on the latest and greatest Windows software, since that's exactly the kind of bullshit you're demanding from Apple.

Hardware eventually does need replacing. This is not fucking news at 11. Just because you blew 2 grand on a laptop doesn't mean it's going to last twice as long, but you probably own a BMW for the same reason.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (1)

jeremyp (130771) | about 3 months ago | (#45916685)

The second gen Macbook Pro is supported with Mavericks. In fact, the only Macbook Pros not supported seem to be the original 32 bit only ones.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (4, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 3 months ago | (#45916835)

You switched to Android because you iPhone couldn't get an update? Hope you picked the right model. Android phones have terrible track records for receiving updates. Many of them never receive an update after leaving the factory floor. People say the Nexus line of phones get better support, but I'm not sure if I believe that. The Nexus One is stuck on Gingerbread (2.3) after only being released in 2010. The Nexus S is only at 4.1, Then Galaxy Nexus is at 4.2 or 4.3 depending on the hardware revision. The only ones you can run the latest OS on are the Nexus 4 and 5, the former of which is only from late 2012. Meanwhile, in with Apple, IOS 7 is supported all the way back to the iPhone 4, which was released in early 2011.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (0, Troll)

kommakazi (610098) | about 3 months ago | (#45916845)

Hardware becomes obsolete, or at least too old to run current software. That's a fact of life, always has been. You logic is fatally flawed. Once your android phone is not able to be updated (hell it already may be) are you going to switch to something else? Once you Lenovo laptop is too old to run Windows are you going to switch to some other OS? Do you expect to pull an old 386 out of the basement and install Windows 8 on it? You're fucking stupid.

Re:Exactly why I stopped buying Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916953)

So wait, let me get this straight, you switched from a device that got three major (as it *did* support iOS 4), and several minor OS updates, to a device that will never receive any updates at all, because the manufacturer will never push out the patches to you?

Mac OS vs Windows XP (5, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | about 3 months ago | (#45916325)

That's some real troll-bait comparing Mac OS to Windows XP. There's really little similarity. Microsoft is discontinuing security patches for a 12 year old OS. Apple is discontinuing security updates for an 18 month old OS.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916381)

Microsoft won't stop offering patches for months. Apple is doing it now. Just another example of how Apple is ahead of the curve.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916393)

...and still, Microsoft is evil and Apple is cool...

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP (2)

jeremyp (130771) | about 3 months ago | (#45916583)

There's no evidence that Apple has stopped providing security updates for older versions of OS X.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP (1)

kqs (1038910) | about 3 months ago | (#45916603)

It's even less similar than that, since Apple hasn't actually discontinued security updates. So it's bullshit all the way down.

I'm amused how many people actually believed this article, though. Sometimes I wonder why the quality of journalism is so low, but then I realize that the journalists are giving us exactly what we want. Sigh.

Mavericks really isn't a new OS (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 3 months ago | (#45916621)

Apple is discontinuing security updates for an 18 month old OS.

Calling Mavericks a "new OS" is really something of a stretch. It is at best a modest revision of the previous version. When Apple does something as dramatic as the difference between XP and Vista or Windows 7 and Windows 8, then maybe it might be realistic to call it a new OS.

Re:Mavericks really isn't a new OS (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 3 months ago | (#45916949)

Depends on what you consider "new". If your criteria is that crucial things must break in between versions requiring new drivers, then it is not new like XP -> Vista. For the most part, the last several OS versions have more work done at the core level rather than a lot of new UI.

Re:Mac OS vs Windows XP (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 3 months ago | (#45916911)

Apple isn't discontinuing security updates to Mountain Lion. Even in the link provided, Apple updated Safari just last month and updates to versions as old as Snow Leopard in October. Unlike MS, Apple doesn't have a regular patch Tuesday.

No evidence to support it (5, Informative)

MrMickS (568778) | about 3 months ago | (#45916359)

Looking at the Apple update release page there hasn't been a Security Update since Mavericks was released so there is no evidence to support the assertion from Sophos.

The last Security Update from Apple was 2013-004 and included updates for Snow Leopard, Lion, and Mountain Lion. Until Apple releases a security update that *only* targets Mavericks this is just Sophos FUD.

Re:No evidence to support it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916681)

Looking at the Apple update release page there hasn't been a Security Update since Mavericks was released so there is no evidence to support the assertion from Sophos.

The last Security Update from Apple was 2013-004 and included updates for Snow Leopard, Lion, and Mountain Lion. Until Apple releases a security update that *only* targets Mavericks this is just Sophos FUD.

Since Apple has listed Mavericks itself as a security update, if you're not installing it, then you are in fact not getting security updates.

Call it Mavericks. Call it Toad Yogurt. Call it Security Update #7175.23. Call it Lucy. Just don't call me ignorant. Install it, or remain vulnerable. Period. This isn't hype or bullshit. It's common fucking sense.

Well no wonder! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916399)

Mac OS was deprecated 12 years ago when OS X stepped in.

As much as I hate to defend Apple... (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | about 3 months ago | (#45916491)

I have a 5.5 year old MBP and it runs Mavericks almost perfectly as well as it ran Leopard. The case for not upgrading to Mavericks if you have a x86 Mac that is the age of mine or newer is based almost entirely on being a curmudgeon who doesn't want someone telling him to just move onto the next version. The vast majority of the refuseniks are likely not savvy users objecting to the "iOSification" of MacOS X or something like that, but ordinary idiots who blink at you with a blank expression when you ask what version of OS X they use. "Huh? Macs haver versions?" Yeah. My wife and I have met a lot of casual Mac users who don't seem to understand that no, really, MacOS X has versions just like Windows and that using the same OS X that came with your Mac three or four years later is like saying "I don't need that service pack shit" on Windows.

Re:As much as I hate to defend Apple... (2)

Malc (1751) | about 3 months ago | (#45916825)

My MBP is just about to turn six (and it's had almost as many batteries, but that's a different story). Mavericks breathes new life in to it because of memory compression. The 6GB RAM I've got in it just ain't enough anymore, but it doesn't hit the swap file as much as it did before.

Arbitrary hardware limitations (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about 3 months ago | (#45916523)

I have an old, first-gen Mac Pro, which I use as a regular desktop. I tend to spend the bulk of my time in Windows, but I use OS X on occasion.

For whatever reason, the firmware on it is for 32-bit systems, something Mountain Lion and now Mavericks does not support. I'm still running Lion because I don't care about their new features and don't want to risk breaking something trying to hack it into working. Getting 64-bit Windows onto the machine was difficult enough.

So yeah, for me at least, it's because Apple doesn't want to give me security updates, not because I don't want to download them.

Standard Apple Crap ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45916589)

We'll keep pushing updates until we deem your platform obsolete and stop supporting it. Then you get nothing.

They did it with the iPad 1 after about two years and abandoned people.

Which is why I have replaced my iPad with a Google Nexus.

This isn't that remarkable for Apple (2)

drcagn (715012) | about 3 months ago | (#45916679)

For quite some time now, it's been Apple's policy to support the current OS release as well as the previous OS release. That means that since the release of Mavericks, they would be supporting Mavericks (current release) and Mountain Lion (previous release). But, this is also the first generation that the new OS 1) supports every machine that the previous release supported 2) is offered for completely free. So, practically speaking, there's very little reason to not just force all Mountain Lion users to upgrade to Mavericks to have support. However, I don't see any evidence on their page that they are even instating this policy? If they did, though, it would be very aggressive, but not really unremarkable for Apple.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...