-
Hello MLAers! We've re-enabled auto-approval for accounts. If you are still waiting on account approval, please check this thread for more information.
Apple ends software update for OS X 10.3 and earlier
- Thread starter wardsenatorfe92
- Start date
Right. This removed functionality that was already existing and working, and given the consternation, it appears more people were still using it than expected (and people didn't understand why until that Apple support article was dug up).
There are also some good reasons to be on 10.2 instead of 10.4 -- if you're using mostly Classic apps, the Classic Environment in 10.2 is more compatible (no double buffering in particular), and AppleTalk "just works"; I could still mount an old AppleTalk server in 10.2 using the Chooser in Classic, and Jaguar just used it like any other drive. This got broken in 10.3, and progressively disabled in 10.4. This is unfriendly for those users in particular, though the upgrade mess was not nearly as snarled for 10.2 as it was for 10.3 and particularly 10.4 due to the length of time it was supported.
At least OS 9 just had 9.2.2 and then the machine-specific versions, and QT 6.0.3, so manual updates are feasible.
But, as I said, we'll just have to disagree on what's nice.
There are also some good reasons to be on 10.2 instead of 10.4 -- if you're using mostly Classic apps, the Classic Environment in 10.2 is more compatible (no double buffering in particular), and AppleTalk "just works"; I could still mount an old AppleTalk server in 10.2 using the Chooser in Classic, and Jaguar just used it like any other drive. This got broken in 10.3, and progressively disabled in 10.4. This is unfriendly for those users in particular, though the upgrade mess was not nearly as snarled for 10.2 as it was for 10.3 and particularly 10.4 due to the length of time it was supported.
At least OS 9 just had 9.2.2 and then the machine-specific versions, and QT 6.0.3, so manual updates are feasible.
But, as I said, we'll just have to disagree on what's nice.
I never said it was "nice" of Apple to offline the automatic update server for 10.3 and earlier. What I meant by what I did say was that it probably wasn't something they did specifically with a mean spirit, or out of spite.
My guess is that whatever system was hosting these updates is far from "modern" (it may not even have been new in 2003) and Apple isn't known as the kind of company that wants to keep a bunch of old hardware (and staff that knows how to run it) around. It was probably a fairly big decision for those involved, and there were probably cost-benefit analyses for various options.
As somebody who likes looking at and thinking about systems and infrastructure, and the business impact of those things, I would actually really like seeing information on what was happening. My guess is that it involved very big and high-end hardware from Sun, and a custom-written application that's expensive to port forward from Solaris 7/8. Couple that with the fact that a sufficiently big Sun system takes a veritable boatload of electricity, and the fact that disks for those older systems aren't exactly getting cheaper, and the decision is pretty clear to me.
It would also be interesting to see if they consciously decided to turn off a working system (not unprecedented) or if they came to work, found it dead, and decided at that point to discontinue the service.
My guess is that whatever system was hosting these updates is far from "modern" (it may not even have been new in 2003) and Apple isn't known as the kind of company that wants to keep a bunch of old hardware (and staff that knows how to run it) around. It was probably a fairly big decision for those involved, and there were probably cost-benefit analyses for various options.
As somebody who likes looking at and thinking about systems and infrastructure, and the business impact of those things, I would actually really like seeing information on what was happening. My guess is that it involved very big and high-end hardware from Sun, and a custom-written application that's expensive to port forward from Solaris 7/8. Couple that with the fact that a sufficiently big Sun system takes a veritable boatload of electricity, and the fact that disks for those older systems aren't exactly getting cheaper, and the decision is pretty clear to me.
It would also be interesting to see if they consciously decided to turn off a working system (not unprecedented) or if they came to work, found it dead, and decided at that point to discontinue the service.
Similar threads
