Beta
×

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!

Apple Drops Snow Leopard Security Updates, Doesn't Tell Anyone

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the they'll-figure-it-out-soon-enough dept.

OS X 241

Freshly Exhumed writes "As Apple issued an update for Mavericks, Mountain Lion, and Lion yesterday, Snow Leopard users have not seen a security update since September, 2013. This would not be noteworthy if Apple, like a host of other major software vendors, would clearly spell out its OS support policies and warn users of such changes, but they have not. Thus, the approximately 20% of Mac users still running Snow Leopard now find themselves in a very vulnerable state without the latest security updates."

cancel ×

241 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

False (4, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46357581)

This update had one security fix. The fix for the recent SSL bug. This bug did not affect OSX Snow Leopard or earlier, therefore this update is not needed.

It's not at all a sign that Apple no longer supports Snow Leopard.

Re:False (1)

robinsonne (952701) | about 7 months ago | (#46357833)

Sooooo Snow Leopard got the SSL bug fix, which it wasn't vulnerable to and therefore didn't get the fix after all?

Re:False (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46357991)

I can't make sense of that sentence. Could you rephrase?

Re:False (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 7 months ago | (#46358605)

No. Snow Leopard never had the bug because it affected Mavericks. From the security bulletin [apple.com] :

Data Security

Available for: OS X Mavericks 10.9 and 10.9.1

Impact: An attacker with a privileged network position may capture or modify data in sessions protected by SSL/TLS
Description: Secure Transport failed to validate the authenticity of the connection. This issue was addressed by restoring missing validation steps.
CVE-ID
CVE-2014-1266

Inaccurate the Security update fixes a ton of issu (5, Insightful)

sasparillascott (1267058) | about 7 months ago | (#46357847)

This is not accurate. Only Mavericks (v10.9.x) was vulnerable to the SSL issue - the security updates to Mavericks, Mountain Lion (10.8.x) and Lion (10.7.x) contained a ton of security updates in them - at least a good chunk of which would affect Snow Leopard.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT... [apple.com]

Re:Inaccurate the Security update fixes a ton of i (0)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 7 months ago | (#46358197)

This is not accurate. Only Mavericks (v10.9.x) was vulnerable to the SSL issue - the security updates to Mavericks, Mountain Lion (10.8.x) and Lion (10.7.x) contained a ton of security updates in them - at least a good chunk of which would affect Snow Leopard.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT... [apple.com]

Please do not try to fight the reality distortion field.

Re:Inaccurate the Security update fixes a ton of i (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358369)

You're replying to one of the biggest Apple fangirls on the site. Apple said Windows was insecure and Macs don't get viruses.

Re:Inaccurate the Security update fixes a ton of i (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358573)

Well, fortunately there are no virus for Apple products, at least according to the guy at Best Buy who sold me this PowerBook.

:P

Re:Inaccurate the Security update fixes a ton of i (4, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 7 months ago | (#46358761)

The last time Apple sold a Mac that couldn't upgrade to 10.7 was back in 2007, when they discontinued their final 32-bit Mac. Apple is not Microsoft, and if you look back at support life cycles, you'll see that they've already provided support for 10.6 longer than they typically do, even releasing security updates for 10.6-compatible software [apple.com] as recently as last month. It also continues to get updates to XProtect, OS X's built-in anti-malware tool.

If you're still running 10.6 for some reason, your computer is either a low-end one from at least 7 years ago, or you've made an intentional choice to remain on 10.6 for some reason (likely because it was the last release that could run Rosetta, OS X's tool for running PowerPC apps), in which case you knew what you were getting yourself into when you chose not to upgrade.

Sticking w/ 10.6.8 (2)

WillAdams (45638) | about 7 months ago | (#46358871)

::raises hand::

That's me --- I can't move off of Mac OS X 10.6.8 until I find a replacement for Macromedia FreeHand --- I suppose at some point in time I'll just have to resort to running it in a virtual machine (there was a recent post about doing that: http://www.freehandforum.org/f... [freehandforum.org] ), but for now, it's simpler to just stick w/ 10.6.8

Re:False (3, Informative)

ReeceTarbert (893612) | about 7 months ago | (#46358383)

This update had one security fix. The fix for the recent SSL bug. This bug did not affect OSX Snow Leopard or earlier, therefore this update is not needed.

Right so far...

It's not at all a sign that Apple no longer supports Snow Leopard.

But very wrong about this one. This table [apple.com] says that OS X Mavericks is indeed a security update for OS X v10.6.8 and later (18th row in the table). Also, the issue has been discussed before [slashdot.org]

RT.

All right, then (1, Flamebait)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46357599)

I won't buy Apple products since February, 2014. Won't tell Apple.

Re:All right, then (5, Funny)

neonKow (1239288) | about 7 months ago | (#46358131)

No no. You've got it backwards. The solution is to always buy the latest Apple product and get rid of your old ones.

Re:All right, then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358481)

You're holding it wrong.

Re:All right, then (0)

jedidiah (1196) | about 7 months ago | (#46358705)

Yeah but what happens to that guy that you sold the overpriced use Mac to?

Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (5, Informative)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 7 months ago | (#46357619)

Are there Macs that can run Snow Leopard but cannot run Lion?

My 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 supports Lion, and it's one of the oldest Intel Macs. I don't think there's many people "stuck" on Snow Leopard; they should be able to upgrade to Lion and get security updates. Apple has historically only supported the current and previous versions of OS X. Basically, Lion users are getting unexpected support right now, and I think it's because of the large installed base that can't run anything newer than Lion.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46357783)

I believe the article said Snow Leopard was the last version to support PPC chips.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (2)

Wild_dog! (98536) | about 7 months ago | (#46357929)

I have Snow Leopard Server on a VM running in Parallels. It runs Rosetta so some of the older games and programs I have will work on it, but not the newer OS's.
It would be nice to have some security updates now and again. I do like to keep legacy stuff operational so I can fire it up now and again for a nostalgia romp. But I do realize that time does move on and Apple does need to focus on security for the machines most folks are using today.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 7 months ago | (#46358217)

It's not (that would be 10.4, Tiger). It's the last version to support apps built for PPC, however, using Rosetta to run them.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

MrYingster (594507) | about 7 months ago | (#46358323)

No, Leopard (10.5) was the last version to support PPC. Snow Leopard was the first to be Intel only.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 7 months ago | (#46358741)

Sorry, you're right, I'm wrong. I was thinking of the ability to run Classic apps (i.e. OS 9 apps), which ended with Tiger. PPC chip support continued with 10.5, as you said, but we were limited to apps built for OS X from that point forward.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

xirtam_work (560625) | about 7 months ago | (#46358637)

Actually I think you mean Leopard (10.5) is the last supported PPC release, not Tiger.

10.4 Tiger - launched as PPC only before Intel announcement

10.4 Tiger - Intel - first Intel Macs came with this

10.5 Leopard - PPC/Intel - Shipped with native support for both architectures (PPC via Rosetta)

10.6 Snow Leopard - Intel Macs only (PPC via Rosetta) (available for free online apparently according to info I've seen around)

10.7 onwards Intel (no PPC support) (still a paid upgrade from Apple)

We're on 10.9 now. So that's 3 fairly major revisions since Snow Leopard: Lion, Mountain Lion, Mavericks (free upgrade from 10.7).

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358755)

I think this entire conversation tree is a searing indictment on what's wrong with Apple.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 7 months ago | (#46358993)

Yup, someone else already corrected me. As I told them, I was thinking of Classic support, which was cut off with 10.4. I still have an old Aluminum PowerBook G4 tucked away for when I get the urge to play some old Classic games, though most of them have since been re-released on GOG [gog.com] .

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (4, Informative)

linguae (763922) | about 7 months ago | (#46357785)

Lion requires a Core 2 Duo or newer processor. Some of the early Intel Macs from 2006 have 32-bit Core Duo processors (like my MacBook), and I believe there was even a 32-bit Core Solo Mac Mini. These Macs can't run Lion.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

Wild_dog! (98536) | about 7 months ago | (#46357939)

My Dell Mini Hackintosh can't run Lion. Stuck on Snow Leopard, but it is a nice OS to be stuck on.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 7 months ago | (#46359041)

Ahh, my mistake then. Still, these are very early machines that were no longer being sold after 2007. I think de-supporting 7 year old machines, especially for good reasons (major architecture changes) isn't something that we need to be so up in arms about. Seven years is an eternity in the tech world.

Supporting ancient hardware for so long is one of the reasons why Microsoft software tends to be so bloated and unreliable. If your seven year old hardware isn't supported, you can likely find 5 year old hardware on the used market for next to nothing and upgrade your stuff. :)

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

slashdot_commentator (444053) | about 7 months ago | (#46359125)

Lion can run on 32bit machines. Its Mountain Lion, OSX 10.8, that can't.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (2)

hammarlund (568027) | about 7 months ago | (#46357797)

Are not the newer versions of OSX 64-bit only? So if you have a 32-bit processor you're out of luck.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 7 months ago | (#46358483)

Apple hasn't sold a 32-bit Mac since they discontinued the last Core Duo model [everymac.com] back in August 2007. Considering we're now in 2014, I think they're justified in leaving anyone still using a 7 year old Mac Mini behind.

Core Duo (2)

katana (122232) | about 7 months ago | (#46357821)

Any Macs with Core Duo processors (e.g. 2006 era iMacs) can run Snow Leopard but not Lion.

Me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46357829)

I have an old pre-unibody MacBook Pro that has the old Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) CPU - it's a 32-bit chip and Lion won't run on it, so I'm stuck with Snow Leopard. Which I don't mind, really - it's still quite snappy after installing an SSD. I think I can get another couple of years out of it.

Re:Me! (1)

Catbeller (118204) | about 7 months ago | (#46357927)

Well done - I've a Mac Mini, same vintage, and I don't really relish the intrusiveness of Lion and newer releases - don't really want Apple to know about what I want to store on my computer. Snow Leopard for a bit longer.

May I ask - any issues in upgrading to an SSD? What brand did you use? Type? I want to upgrade, but don't want to waste time sending back drives that are just too whizbang to work on my 2006 Core Duo.

Re:Me! (1)

Wild_dog! (98536) | about 7 months ago | (#46357971)

They are snappy. I got a 60 gig SSD after my kids dropped my Dell Mini 10V hackintosh and the drive became non-functioning. Ever since the upgrade it runs nicely with Snow Leopard.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | about 7 months ago | (#46357875)

There are reasons not to upgrade. Apple has silently removed features from OSX that my business has come to rely on. New equipment, of course, runs Lion or Mavericks - but we keep a few older machines around to do the tasks that Apple doesn't think we need to do anymore (tasks that require us to spend $2500 on software for Lion or Mavericks but could do in Snow Leopard).

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

tibit (1762298) | about 7 months ago | (#46359025)

Care to elaborate? (seriously)

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 7 months ago | (#46357913)

I think the supported models list is the same for those two. The one real nuisance (dealing with it now, thankfully not as the owner of the affected iMacs myself, or I'd be annoyed) is that Apple's 'eh, it really isn't worth the trouble of bugging people who already bought macs over license keys' policy does not extend to systems that cannot upgrade to Mavericks. Period. Systems that do support that update all fall under the 'sure, here, take it; but we'll bug you about your Apple ID all the time!' support model. Systems that don't, you can persuade one of Apple's dustier corners to quietly sell you some copies of 10.7; but the legacy chain-o-license-keys model remains in effect.

Makes mixed deployments a blast, I must say.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (4, Informative)

DdJ (10790) | about 7 months ago | (#46357941)

Are there Macs that can run Snow Leopard but cannot run Lion?

Yes, and my house has two of them. Snow Leopard was the last version of the OS that supported 32-bit processors.

We've got a MacBook Pro and Mac Mini in our house with 32-bit processors. They're still perfectly adequate machines for light usage, in terms of performance, but they won't run any MacOS newer than Snow Leopard at all.

(What's hilarious to me is, they can run Windows 8.1. I'll probably end up putting either Windows or Ubuntu on them before too much longer.)

Snow Leopard is also the last version of the OS to support executing PowerPC binaries under the Rosetta engine, and some people keep it around for that reason. (Example: it's the last version of MacOS that will still play the MacOS version of Diablo 2, which, while complied for OS X, was never compiled for Intel processors.)

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

rsborg (111459) | about 7 months ago | (#46359033)

Snow Leopard is also the last version of the OS to support executing PowerPC binaries under the Rosetta engine, and some people keep it around for that reason. (Example: it's the last version of MacOS that will still play the MacOS version of Diablo 2, which, while complied for OS X, was never compiled for Intel processors.)

If someone is still using Snow Leopard for software purposes, it's probably best done in a VM now. Lots of new features and performance in Lion and later assuming you have at least a 5 year old machine or later.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (0)

tibit (1762298) | about 7 months ago | (#46359045)

I think that you'll find that Windows 8.1 will perform like shit on those machines... Not only because all of the rendering will be software-based.

not so much machine, but software (3, Informative)

Cmdr-Absurd (780125) | about 7 months ago | (#46357953)

Folks stick to SL for basically 3 reasons:
  1. They prefer the SL interface to the more recent offerings.
  2. They want/need to run 3rd party software that fails to run under later versions (PPC apps in particular -- Rosetta was dropped in LIon)
  3. Apple apps that were dropped -- such as Podcast Producer in the server version.

stupid comment box needs new subject beta sucks (1)

CauseBy (3029989) | about 7 months ago | (#46357961)

Did the summary say anything about being "stuck" with Snow Leopard when you read it? It doesn't say that now as I read it. It just says that a large minority of Mac users use Snow Leopard.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358069)

Yes. Lion requires a Core 2 or better processor. Apple shipped a relatively small number of boxes (I think only Mac Minis and MacBooks) with the original Intel Core processors (referred to as Core Solo and Core Duo). People with those (including my mom) are stuck on Snow Leopard. It's probably not the worst thing in the world because those boxes are also limited to 2GB RAM.

Mountain Lion required a better video card than Lion due to offloading of some of the OS tasks to the GPU through OpenCL. If you can upgrade the video card in your Mac (choose wisely, not every card is supported), you could probably run Mavericks.

Apple is typically far better at providing support for older products that most other companies. For example, the released an update for iOS 6 this week to address the SSL vulnerability. That's basically for iPhone 3GS users (iPhone 4 and later can all run iOS 7). The 3GS will be 4 years old later this year. I don't know of anyone else providing updates for 4-year-old phones.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

Tapewolf (1639955) | about 7 months ago | (#46358089)

I'm not sure you can actually get Lion anymore. I waited too long on Snow Leopard, and once Mountain Lion came out, that was the only upgrade offered, despite the fact it wouldn't run on the 2007 hardware. I bit the bullet and upgraded the hardware. I also considered ditching it at that point, but there are still a couple of pieces of software I need OSX for with no Linux equivalent and the win32 port doesn't run in WINE.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (2)

LordNimon (85072) | about 7 months ago | (#46358141)

I still run Snow Leopard, because I still have a few PowerPC applications that I don't want to update.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

danlip (737336) | about 7 months ago | (#46358173)

I have an old Intel MacBookPro that won't run Lion (it's 32 bits, Lion requires 64).

Who said "stuck"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358195)

Who said anything about not being able to run Lion? Snow Leopard was the last version that wasn't iOS-ified. Starting with Lion some apps broke and many users prefered the Snow Leopard way of things.

I have one computer at home which stays at Snow Leopard despite being able to run Mavericks (and probably beyond). The other one has two start volumes, one with Mavericks and one with Snow Leopard.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358307)

While not "stuck" on Snow Leopard (I am typing this on Mavericks), I have a very unstable system running Mavericks. Fairly frequently, most often when opening or using Expose (or whatever they changed the name to) get a GPU panic, and immediate system reboot. This only happens when I am using the NVidea 330M card, so I try to stick to programs that do not require it (but that's hard, I need MATLAB). I am seriously considering downgrading back to Snow Leopard so I don't have to reboot unexpectedly every half hour.

Again, this does not make me stuck on SL, but nearly so. This is an issue that has been hardly acknowledged by Apple, though it seems like it is happening to other too.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358315)

I am fairly confident that every 64-bit Mac that can run Snow Leopard is capable of running Mavericks, which was a [not-so-impressive] free upgrade.

Personally, I have been pretty disappointed with Mac OS X's updates since Snow Leopard, but it's hard to argue with a free upgrade path to the latest OS unless there is something draconian to keep you away. But already being in Apple's walled garden should be enough of a signal that you should upgrade. Otherwise, it's like sticking on IE9 or IE10 just to stick it to Microsoft, to your own chagrin.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

Imazalil (553163) | about 7 months ago | (#46358635)

Yes. The first gen Intel Mackbook Pro (I think it has a Core Duo).

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358683)

As someone who recently updated, Snow Leopard beats Mavericks hands down. Mavericks has crashed several times on me, has a bunch of stupid bullshit (some of which I can turn off) ported over from iOS, and is altogether a slower, worse experience than 10.6 was.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 7 months ago | (#46358709)

Are there Macs that can run Snow Leopard but cannot run Lion?

My 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 supports Lion, and it's one of the oldest Intel Macs. I don't think there's many people "stuck" on Snow Leopard;

My MacMini will not run any version of OS-X later than Snow Leopard.

I do not plan to upgrade to a newer Mac, I plan to investigate other, non-Apple, options.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358791)

The fact that this kind of nonsense got modded up is why this site is crap. It wasn't Dice that destroyed Slashdot, it was its ignorant users.

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358803)

My Macbook Core Duo (2006) doesn't support Lion. I used to appreciate how long I could run my Apple hardware, but it seems that now they just want me to trade up. I had to replace our iMac because of a "sensor failure" on the motherboard or it wouldn't've supported Lion either. That's why my new laptop is a Lenovo running Linux. I don't know what I'll do for the family desktop when it croaks again (probably soon-it's been in the shop THREE TIMES in the first year of service).

Re:Is anyone actually stuck on Snow Leopard? (1)

sribe (304414) | about 7 months ago | (#46359133)

Are there Macs that can run Snow Leopard but cannot run Lion?

Yes. Not many, but there are some.

And there are some that can run Lion but not Mountain Lion.

There are none that can run Mountain Lion but cannot run Mavericks.

OSS to the rescue! (4, Interesting)

EzInKy (115248) | about 7 months ago | (#46357629)

Surely someone has written open source equivelents to Snow Leopard's software by now. Even if no one did, there is no logical reason for software to become EOL'd. You either fix problems for the life of the hardware, or you provide the information for your customers to fix those problems themselves. That should be law, btw.

Re:OSS to the rescue! (1)

The123king (2395060) | about 7 months ago | (#46357853)

And someone should have written an open source equivalent of Windows XP [reactos.org] too. Just because something seems logical doesn't mean it's easy.

Re:OSS to the rescue! (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46359009)

Just because something seems logical doesn't mean it's easy.

In the case of OS X it does not have to be easy. They have hired a massive team of smart engineers which are paid exactly to solve tough problems. I'm sure that arranging just a predictable support schedule wouldn't be a too big challenge for them.

Re:OSS to the rescue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46357891)

Surely someone has written open source equivelents to Snow Leopard's software by now. .

There has been OSS equiv to Snow Leopard, even since back in the Power-PC days. They called it "Yellow Dog". On the newer Intel architecture, I would bet there are even more choices and selections available.

Re:OSS to the rescue! (0)

Wild_dog! (98536) | about 7 months ago | (#46358009)

Should be the law?
We are dealing with free enterprise and commerce.
If you don't like that a company will support their hardware for life then I suppose you are out of luck.
My Atari 800 has been sorely lacking in support for a couple decades now.

Re:OSS to the rescue! (1, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about 7 months ago | (#46358213)

OSS to the rescue? So where are my security updates for Ubuntu LTS 10.4 desktop which was released 8 months after Snow Leopard? Oh right, Canonical stopped supporting that back in May of last year which is 3 months sooner than Apple did with Snow Leopard.

Re:OSS to the rescue! (0)

brainstem (519778) | about 7 months ago | (#46358677)

Except that you are free to update to the newest version of Ubuntu if you wish. 12.04 LTS runs just fine on any machine that I've run 10.04 on.

Snow Leapard: Rosetta (5, Insightful)

crow (16139) | about 7 months ago | (#46357641)

Snow Leopard is particularly important for many users because it was the last release to support Rosetta. Anyone who still needs PowerPC apps can't upgrade.

My wife still uses Apple Works, so upgrading won't work for her.

Also, Apple has been known to push upgrades that break things without warning, so upgrading is often a last resort. For example, we were running 10.5, and iTunes asked if we wanted to update our iPad to the lastest release. After doing so, it said we had to upgrade iTunes. But we couldn't upgrade iTunes because that required 10.6. There went our ability to sync the iPad.

Re:Snow Leapard: Rosetta (5, Informative)

ssam (2723487) | about 7 months ago | (#46357739)

Libreoffice supports Appleworks documents. Maybe she could migrate.

Re:Snow Leapard: Rosetta (5, Informative)

DdJ (10790) | about 7 months ago | (#46357963)

Libreoffice supports Appleworks documents. Maybe she could migrate.

To my surprise, so does iWork. I was able to open up a bunch of my old AppleWorks documents and spreadsheets in Pages and Numbers.

Re: Snow Leapard: Rosetta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358403)

Also, Apple has been known to push upgrades that break things without warning, so upgrading is often a last resort. For example, we were running 10.5, and iTunes asked if we wanted to update our iPad to the lastest release.

Does that mean asked without warning? Bastards.

Re: Snow Leapard: Rosetta (1)

crow (16139) | about 7 months ago | (#46359001)

The point is that it should have noticed that upgrading the software on the iPad would require an updated iTunes, which was incompatible with the system. The problem would have been avoided if iTunes had insisted on upgrading iTunes before upgrading the iPad.

Is Snow Leopard vulnerable? (4, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | about 7 months ago | (#46357643)

IIRC, the bug was introduced (fairly) recently. iOS 5 doesn't have it, either.

Re:Is Snow Leopard vulnerable? (1, Informative)

carlhaagen (1021273) | about 7 months ago | (#46357959)

Correct, it's "only" in OS X 10.9 and the latest iOS - OS X 10.8.5 and earlier are unaffected.

Re:Is Snow Leopard vulnerable? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358285)

Incorrect. The bug affects OS X 10.7 and later and iOS 6 and later.

Re:Is Snow Leopard vulnerable? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 7 months ago | (#46358887)

Not true, at least as far as OS X goes. There were other bugs addressed by this security update that affected 10.7, but the SSL bug was introduced in and specific to 10.9 Mavericks. You are correct that iOS 6 was affected as well, however.

There's no need for a SL update... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46357665)

Snow Leopard isn't vulnerable.

one obvious update is available.. (1)

AlreadyStarted (523251) | about 7 months ago | (#46357675)

Mavericks is a free update from SL. My mac came with Leopard originally, and runs Mavericks fine.

Re:one obvious update is available.. (1, Insightful)

xombo (628858) | about 7 months ago | (#46357803)

Mavericks is the worst version of Mac OS since 9.1.

Re:one obvious update is available.. (-1, Troll)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46358325)

Bullshit. App Nap, Timer coalescing and compressed app memory would have been worth a paid upgrade on their own. Between them there is both more responsiveness, and a significantly improved battery life.

As it was a free upgrade, it was a no brainer.

Re:one obvious update is available.. (4, Insightful)

_xeno_ (155264) | about 7 months ago | (#46358727)

Bullshit. App Nap, Timer coalescing and compressed app memory would have been worth a paid upgrade on their own. Between them there is both more responsiveness, and a significantly improved battery life.

Yeah, and Windows 8 has a ton of great tech improvements under the hood too. Yet I really can't blame anyone who'd rather stick with Windows 7 and miss out on the enhancements they'll never notice to avoid the UI changes they most certainly will.

Re:one obvious update is available.. (0, Troll)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 7 months ago | (#46358885)

Yet Mavericks hasn't had any Metro like interface reboot...

And the Mavericks improvements I describe are most certainly noticeable. Most people use laptops these days and more than an hour extra battery life really makes a difference.

Re:one obvious update is available.. (4, Insightful)

_xeno_ (155264) | about 7 months ago | (#46359037)

Yet Mavericks hasn't had any Metro like interface reboot...

Really? The slow iOS-ification of the OS doesn't count? Mavericks drops another set of iOS apps onto OS X that don't need to be there, and OS X has slowly been becoming more and more like iOS since Snow Leopard. I don't remember when they added their version of the Start Screen (Launchpad), but it's there, and you can't get rid of it. I'd say that counts.

And the Mavericks improvements I describe are most certainly noticeable. Most people use laptops these days and more than an hour extra battery life really makes a difference.

IT forced all the Macs where I work to Mavericks. (One of the most painful upgrade processes I've ever had to go through, but I'm pretty sure that was on IT. I hope it was.) There's been no battery life improvement.

I do notice that trying to open the battery menu causes some system process to crash with 100% CPU usage, so that's a new - uh, thing. Not sure it was worth the upgrade, though...

Re:one obvious update is available.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358397)

It's leagues better than Mountain Lion, which is also much better than Lion.

Re:one obvious update is available.. (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 7 months ago | (#46358523)

Mavericks is the worst version of Mac OS since 9.1.

You not liking an OS is not really a compelling argument for a company to keep supporting older versions ad infinitum. A lot of people hate Windows 8... but Microsoft is still justified in terminating support for XP in a couple months.

Re:one obvious update is available.. (1)

Wild_dog! (98536) | about 7 months ago | (#46358045)

You have to have a Mac that will run Mavericks.
That doesn't include a couple of Machines I have. One, a ppc will only go to leopard. The other a atom based hackintosh is 32-bit and will only install snow leopard.

Yes Apple is so much better my butt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46357723)

Apple just like Microsoft is out to make a profit. Hate Microsoft all you like but they had a clear road map for expiration of support.

Some clarification (2)

st6787 (938114) | about 7 months ago | (#46357731)

There are some older Intel based Macs that will not run anything later than Snow Leopard. Also, Snow Leopard will NOT run on PowerPC based Macs. The latest OS that will run is Leopard.

Cat got your tongue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46357801)

They do not need to clearly spell out support policies and warn user of anything because it just work. This is obviously a case of user error, simply replace the user and continue.

Free upgrade (0)

advantis (622471) | about 7 months ago | (#46357817)

Given that it costs you nothing to upgrade to the latest OS X now, why are people still running the old version?

I have a MacBook Pro made in 2007 that I bought from a friend last year because I needed a Mac, not because I wanted the bragging rights that come with the latest shiny. It came with 10.6 (Snow Leopard) - because he was lazy, and I gave Apple the vast amount of 13 British Pounds to upgrade to 10.8 (again, because I needed it - Xcode didn't like 10.6, and the guy with the latest OS X DVD was on holiday). I did all this only because I needed the stuff there and then an Apple was taking its time with the latest shiny, so I wasn't planning to upgrade to 10.9 if they wanted more money for it. But since they offered it for free I didn't wait long.

If it costs money to upgrade I understand the reluctance - that's what's keeping XP still alive and kicking (it has an even more incentive to stay around as the upgrade costs a hell of a lot more than Apple used to charge), but it's free people! You don't even have to get a cracked copy off the Pirate Bay!

Waiting for the responses that "company policy", "IT department won't approve", bullshit. Kick the IT department in the nuts. They're the ones that will need to fix your Macs when your VPN login details get pastebinned.

Re:Free upgrade (2)

scotts13 (1371443) | about 7 months ago | (#46357935)

Given that it costs you nothing to upgrade to the latest OS X now, why are people still running the old version?

Because they can't, or don't want to. I have some applications I've used for many years, that don't run without Rosetta. Since versions of the OS later than Snow Leopard have no compelling features I want, and some UI changes I actively dislike (open folder in new window, anyone?) there's no reason to update. plus, of course, the fringe machines that CAN'T be updated, but are still completely usable.

I have lots of Macs, and some are on the current OS - but I prefer to use the ones that aren't. For me, 10.6.8 is the Gold Standard.

Re:Free upgrade (1)

Catbeller (118204) | about 7 months ago | (#46358139)

I've been around for a while, and notice trends and processes a bit more than some. I don't upgrade to Lion because Apple has integrated Total Information Awareness about the files and processes on our computers in that OS. Subsequent OSes are even worse. What I mean is that to perform the automated cloud backups and updates that Lion+ seem to mandate demand that access (at least) to your private files be provided, regardless of your wishes. The OS is designed to spy in the name of our convenience. Encryption is possible, but can you ever really trust the box, considering it can record every keystroke?
I understand that the Goldfish Generation, as I call them with some ruefulness, have never had privacy since their preschools searched their backpacks and high schools made them lay on the floor while dogs sniffed them. That's a mean way of saying it, but I do understand that most people under 35 have never experienced a life unexamined or files unsearched. I know it's not their fault, as it was done to them in the name of Security, and no way to opt out of the new world order is even possible. But I want at least one computer in my life that is not, default, providing the contents of my life to the corporation that provided it to me and the government that is tapping their incoming fiber lines.

BUT !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46357825)

Someone noticed !! Who says Mac is dead !!

It's only Apple. (5, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about 7 months ago | (#46357841)

Who's the other major software vendor? Microsoft? They spell out their support policies quite clearly. Everyone knew well in advance when Microsoft was ending support for XP, an OS that's been supported far, far longer than anything from Apple. My Intel iMac at home is stuck at OSX 10.6.8. It was built several months too soon and lacked some random bit of hardware related to the BIOS which disqualified it from being a proper 64-bit machine. By the time Apple announced it was dropping support for that version I hadn't seen updates in about a year anyway.

Instead of just criticizing Apple for what they do wrong, there seems to be this compulsion to make everything relative so that Apple doesn't look so bad. I'd argue that in this particular case Microsoft is a lot better than Apple. Apple seems content to sweep things under the rug as long as they can get away with it.

Re:It's only Apple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358429)

You, sir, and one twisted mofo. No offense.

Re:It's only Apple. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 7 months ago | (#46358735)

For me, the criticism of MS for XP wasn't so much that they were ending support but that Vista was not a suitable replacement. I consider Windows 7 as the real replacement to XP; however, MS for all their wisdom has tried to push Win 8 which I consider unsuitable to many desktop users.

Instead of just criticizing Apple for what they do wrong, there seems to be this compulsion to make everything relative so that Apple doesn't look so bad. I'd argue that in this particular case Microsoft is a lot better than Apple. Apple seems content to sweep things under the rug as long as they can get away with it.

Mavericks is 3 versions newer than Snow Leopard. 3: Snow Leopard --> Lion --> Mountain Lion --> Mavericks. Apple's policy for the most part has been to support the current version and one previous version unless you've been living under a rock. That's like saying Apple is sweeping it under the rock that their iOS devices don't support Flash.

But... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46357895)

Mavericks *is* the security update. Apple's OS updates are now free. Unlike the Microsoft world, you don't pay to upgrade the OS. So if you want security updates, do the upgrade to the most recent version of the OS and you're golden.

If your hardware isn't up to snuff to run the latest stuff, well, *that* is a problem.

firs0T (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46357911)

Practical purposes, Like I should be briiliant plan

~5 years (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46357933)

However much I dislike reading this, Snow Leopard is today almost 5 years old, which is Apple's publically stated support time for their products.

but lion is not (1)

Cmdr-Absurd (780125) | about 7 months ago | (#46358063)

In my office we have a machine or two that shipped with SL and are still within the 3 year applecare warranty period.

Re:but lion is not (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 7 months ago | (#46358639)

In my office we have a machine or two that shipped with SL and are still within the 3 year applecare warranty period.

Unless you're claiming these machines are incapable of running a newer version of OS X, this isn't really a cogent argument.

At my job we have many still-in-warranty Windows machines that shipped with XP. These have all been updated to 7 or 8.

fri5t ps0t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358807)

more stable That the project Prima donnas to time wholEsome and are the important about 700 0sers GAY NIGGERS from TO KEEP UP AS conversations where

Mavericks upgrade (1)

Zeromous (668365) | about 7 months ago | (#46358833)

I've been trying to upgrade to Mavericks for eons now. Nothing short of a full rebuild of snow leopard will solve my issue apparently. I've tried everything but the App Store always hangs. Why can't I just download it and install it?

F***Apple.

Old News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46358865)

Snow Leopard was dropped in the Sep 2013 updates.

There were stories similar to OP's back in Dec 2013 when more updates came out and people noticed no Snow Leopard.

Very simple to fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46359161)

All Apple customers must do is spend $10,000 on new hardware, another $10,000 on the very latest software, and if they are lucky before their old machine gets eaten by virii, they can spend a few thousand more on software to transfer their old data to their new system. Send Apple a one-time $3500 recycling fee, along with the old hardware shipped (shipping prepaid by user), and you are good to go. I know Apple folk have a "Money is no object" philosophy, and neither does Apple. So $40,000 and this problem is as good as fixed. If Apple wanted to make it even easier for people, they could just write an iPhone app. (available for purchase at any Apple Store(tm)) that automatically deducts the money from users bank accounts (along with a small processing fee), and scours the users private data for address. Two Apple people come to your house (for an additional fee), transfer your data, take your old hardware, leave the new hardware, and you are done. One button, $50,000 and done!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>