[carterx]

Ok, so how does everyone feel about not being able to install OS X Tiger on newly order Apple computers if you want to run Tiger for personal or software reasons.

As of today all laptops that are purchased will only run OS X Leopard or newer and will not take a OS X Tiger install .... at least they are not supposed to. I have not tested any methods of tricking a new computer with Tiger yet.

I know there are many out there that love the new Leopard OS which I use myself and like the OS but where I work at a college I'm being put into a very hard spot between the two OS's.

For the college and that being 14 Campus's across the province I'm running into the issue that though I have a custom image created for every model of Desktop, Portable & as well images that are software specific which makes a lot of images, but when I need to fix a computer or have new ones arrive I can easily install an image even on a mass scale, but now we have new faculty that we have had to order new laptops for that I'm not able to put one of our images on of OS X Tiger and in turn have to start new Leopard images but also leaves the faculty with an OS that is different from the students. Also, once iMac's and Mac Pro's are updated, they too will not run Tiger and if we purchase new computers to replace or add to labs, they will only run Leopard where at least for this year all the labs have custom Tiger images. I have no way to even finish the year unless the college were to go the route of buying used computers which realistically is not a great choice.

I know Leopard is a good system, but I should not be forced into using it. We would like to run one more year with Tiger until we have fully tested Leopard as an OS and tested with the great assortment of software the college has across the province.

I hate to compare, but we all know that Vista is not a great system, but because they do not own the hardware they can not really stop people to just use vista and not downgrade to Tiger. Tiger is in no way a bad move like Vista is to XP, but there is no choice in the matter of what OS you want to run or need to run.

Instead, I'm being pushed to come up with a strategy to finish this year and across the province start building images that are hopefully tested in every-way possible as we are give no choice by Apple to have ready for the coming september school year.

my $0.02...... what do you think

[TETENAL]

Did you contact Apple and talked to them about this issue?

If the machines are technically capable to run under Tiger, I would assume they will sort this out for you, if you order a bunch.

[carterx]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Did you contact Apple and talked to them about this issue?

If the machines are technically capable to run under Tiger, I would assume they will sort this out for you, if you order a bunch.

Ya, have been dealing with Apple personally on the phone today and last week about this and there is no choice. Once all computers get flashed which the desktops could be spring/fall but none the less, they will not run OS X Tiger regardless.

I was hoping that Apple would make one version .... a 10.4.11 release that would be able to run on these flashed computers.... but no such luck.

I'm talking with Apple to make a run and just study the hell out of the new Leopard system and just cross fingers that this does not screw us in the end.

Also.... which I did mention, this would mean that across the province we need to buy a campus license for OS X Leopard for the large amount of Mac's that we have in the system.

[ibook_steve]

I'm still confused about your problem. Everybody knew Leopard was coming and Apple history shows that newer machines can't run older versions of the OS. Why weren't you talking to Apple about this last year if it is such a big issue? And why didn't Leopard testing begin when it was released in late October?

Steve

[carterx]

Originally Posted by ibook_steve 

I'm still confused about your problem. Everybody knew Leopard was coming and Apple history shows that newer machines can't run older versions of the OS. Why weren't you talking to Apple about this last year if it is such a big issue? And why didn't Leopard testing begin when it was released in late October?

Steve

I have had it since it's release and ya, this is something that Apple does and we now have to move forward, my question is asking how everyone feels about the whole lockdown of not being able to use Tiger if wanted or for some reason needed?

[Art Vandelay]

Doesn't bother me. I'd rather they only put their resources in supporting new hardware on the currently available OS. Constantly having to back to older releases and updating them to support new hardware isn't worth it IMHO.

[carterx]

In the next year we will have to move to the new OS, and that's pretty much now a given, but the fact that I can not buy a new laptop and have the teachers running the same OS as the lab for just a couple more months... I can not do.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by carterx 

In the next year we will have to move to the new OS, and that's pretty much now a given, but the fact that I can not buy a new laptop and have the teachers running the same OS as the lab for just a couple more months... I can not do.

Well then don't do it. But a last rev Mac with Tiger on it. Simple.

[carterx]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Well then don't do it. But a last rev Mac with Tiger on it. Simple.

They will not take it. They were just ordered and will only take a Leopard Install.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by carterx 

my $0.02...... what do you think

I understand Apple's obsession with control over everything but I feel they should give you more than just a few months to upgrade to a whole new version of the OS on new hardware.

[chabig]

I have no problem with Apple's position. Leopard is the latest and greatest Mac OS, so why not use it? I strongly doubt that you have any real software reasons for sticking with Tiger, so your reasons must be personal. I urge you to reconsider or share your concerns with us so we can assuage your doubt.

[carterx]

As I was saying, ya, we will have to test and I'm sure we can be ready for the next year, but what I'm trying to ask is that is it a great decision on Apple to not allow users to use Tiger if they wish. Ya, I can understand dropping support for Tiger, but why should not us but even small companies have to go out an buy new Leopard OS Installs if they buy new computers and to keep them all the same system.

It's nothing personal, as I said, I use the OS and like it over Tiger, but trying to make the point that why should we be pushed to it.

[Atheist]

chabig... you're thinking small. You need to pause for a second and put yourself in the OP's position. He has to support computers across an entire country (a very large one at that). This isn't a single iMac sitting in his home office. This is many different generations of computers over a large geographic area. They may be using software in their organization that isn't fully compatible with Leopard yet... which is something out of his control. Corporations/Organizations have very different needs/requirements than a single consumer. I sometimes think Apple thinks more about the individual consumer than the corporate/enterprise customers.

[chabig]

You got me! I was thinking small. Now I understand better the original poster's position. But I am unclear on one issue. I know the Tiger installer won't let you install Tiger on new hardware, but will a disk that already has Tiger boot the new machine?

[Art Vandelay]

It won't if there has been hardware changes. The necessary drivers won't be there. Every Mac except for the iMac and Mac mini has had significant changes since the last update to Tiger.

Since Intel is rapidly discontinuing the old Core 2 Duo chips in favor of the new Penryn chips, the iMac and mini should see updates very soon or EOL in the case of the mini.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by carterx 

I have had it since it's release and ya, this is something that Apple does and we now have to move forward, my question is asking how everyone feels about the whole lockdown of not being able to use Tiger if wanted or for some reason needed?

I dunno. I've been living with the fact for TWENTY YEARS that new systems are unable to run older OS versions - to be honest, it's no ****ing big deal since release dates are known well in advance and long-term planning is not a problem.

oh, and MacBooks have been unable to run Tiger since the November revision.

[carterx]

Originally Posted by chabig 

You got me! I was thinking small. Now I understand better the original poster's position. But I am unclear on one issue. I know the Tiger installer won't let you install Tiger on new hardware, but will a disk that already has Tiger boot the new machine?

I've been thinking of that, but I do not think it will work. I'm sure to give this a try but even with the MacBooks that one image would crash on the new ones compared to ones that were purchased only a month before. There was another new image.

Originally Posted by analogika 

I dunno. I've been living with the fact for TWENTY YEARS that new systems are unable to run older OS versions - to be honest, it's no ****ing big deal since release dates are known well in advance and long-term planning is not a problem.

oh, and MacBooks have been unable to run Tiger since the November revision.

Correct, the MacBook's were the first, and as of today the MacBook Pro's finish off the portable line.

[Big Mac]

Apple has never in its history allowed customers to downgrade to a previous milestone of the OS on new hardware. Perhaps that should be made clearer to new customers, but that's just the way it is. Apple is not M$, and even M$ wants to move everyone to its new release as soon as it can - it just can't do so as quickly or as authoritatively as Apple does with its platform.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Apple has never in its history allowed customers to downgrade to a previous milestone of the OS on new hardware. Perhaps that should be made clearer to new customers, but that's just the way it is. Apple is not M$, and even M$ wants to move everyone to its new release as soon as it can - it just can't do so as quickly or as authoritatively as Apple does with its platform.

That's all well and good. But just because that's they way they've always done it doesn't necessarily mean it's right. It doesn't make since for Apple to support old hardware with the newer versions of the OS but to not allow a still viable and current version of the OS (Tiger 10.4.11) to run on brand new hardware is silly. I don't buy the argument that it's some sort of costly support issue.

[carterx]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

That's all well and good. But just because that's they way they've always done it doesn't necessarily mean it's right. It doesn't make since for Apple to support old hardware with the newer versions of the OS but to not allow a still viable and current version of the OS (Tiger 10.4.11) to run on brand new hardware is silly. I don't buy the argument that it's some sort of costly support issue.

Thank you, this is what I'm trying to point out.

I know they have already made the decision for us that users will not be able to downgrade which we all already know, but why. Has nothing to do with support. Just state that they will not support Tiger on new systems or at all. Like "Atheist" stated, OS X Tiger is still a strong and viable system. Though given time, people should not have to be forced into the position of having to upgrade the OS if they area comfortable with the OS that they are using.

[Art Vandelay]

They have to update Tiger to run on new hardware. They aren't setting some firmware variable to block access to Tiger. Tiger or any version of the Mac OS can not run on hardware it doesn't have drivers for, i.e. anything that has come out after 10.4.11.

Apple chooses not to spend resources on previous OS versions except for security updates. It sounds like you're implying that Apple is artificially blocking previous OSes that would run normally otherwise. If that's not the case, then sorry for the understanding.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

They have to update Tiger to run on new hardware. They aren't setting some firmware variable to block access to Tiger. Tiger or any version of the Mac OS can not run on hardware it doesn't have drivers for, i.e. anything that has come out after 10.4.11.

Apple chooses not to spend resources on previous OS versions except for security updates. It sounds like you're implying that Apple is artificially blocking previous OSes that would run normally otherwise. If that's not the case, then sorry for the understanding.

And my argument is that this decision on Apple's part is a disservice to it's most loyal customers. Let's take the latest MacBook's and MacBook Pro's. There is nothing new about those that should prohibit Tiger from running. Maybe a new video driver to support the 512MB card. And yes, I am implying that Apple is artificially blocking Tiger from running.

[rjenkinson]

You don't have to buy a new machine, nor do you have to upgrade your current machines. If you decide you're in the market for something new, you are necessarily limited to what's available to you. Complaining about that fact isn't going to change anything. It's not Apple's responsibility to continue to develop old software to support new hardware. If their business model worked that way, their products would be trounced by other companies producing new software.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

And my argument is that this decision on Apple's part is a disservice to it's most loyal customers. Let's take the latest MacBook's and MacBook Pro's. There is nothing new about those that should prohibit Tiger from running. Maybe a new video driver to support the 512MB card. And yes, I am implying that Apple is artificially blocking Tiger from running.

There is generally more than that. The logic boards are updated, video chips are updated, network chips are updated, trackpads are updated, etc. Apple typically modifies more than what they advertise when they change chips in an update.

But let's go with your theory that it's just a video driver. They still need to provide a new build of Tiger that includes that driver for the Install DVD. They then need to release a new version of Tiger through Software Update so administrators like me and carterx can update our images to support the latest hardware. This all adds up. So, with the MacBook updates in November, Mac Pros and MacBook Airs in January, and today's updates, we'd be up to 10.4.14 just for hardware compatibility updates.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Apple has never in its history allowed customers to downgrade to a previous milestone of the OS on new hardware.

That's not true - my parents' LC II came with System 7.0.1, which both MacTracker and everymac.com claim is the original OS version for that machine, but it also allowed you to boot into System 6.0.8. I know, because I used to keep a 6.0.8 boot floppy around for a bunch of stuff that wouldn't run in System 7.

[turtle777]

It's bad business on Apple's part.

If they were serious about the edu market, they would keep options around or the big edu customers and corporate markets. But we have seen on more than one occasion that Apple's attempts to gain market share in that segment is half-a$$ed.

At least, they should offer ONE type of MacBook, iMac and mini that runs the previous system.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

That's not true - my parents' LC II came with System 7.0.1, which both MacTracker and everymac.com claim is the original OS version for that machine, but it also allowed you to boot into System 6.0.8. I know, because I used to keep a 6.0.8 boot floppy around for a bunch of stuff that wouldn't run in System 7.

I didn't mean the technical capability never exists for newer hardware to run older OSs, just that Apple seldom willingly gives people the option to downgrade.

[tridentinecanon]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

Doesn't bother me. I'd rather they only put their resources in supporting new hardware on the currently available OS. Constantly having to back to older releases and updating them to support new hardware isn't worth it IMHO.

Well said. I always laugh when my MS friends talk about their struggles in downgrading this or that. For Mac users, the focus has always seem to be on upgrading.

[eggman]

I'm sorry to say that having been a software developer for more than 20 years, I think Apple's position makes sense. The cost of maintaining backward compatibility on old OS releases with new hardware would be very significant. That cost would have to be paid for somehow, either in increased license fees for OS X (I know how popular that would be), or increased prices for Apple hardware (ditto), or slower innovation (ditto).

Apple does try - to the extent practical - to support older hardware on newer OS versions. There are limits there, too, of course, because new hardware permits new features that are desirable, esp. when it comes to Core Graphics and Animation... but still, many if not most of the systems released in recent years run Leopard quite well.

I think the OP's best recourse is to create and maintain installable Leopard disk images for newer hardware, and maintain Tiger disk images for older hardware. Is it more work? Yep, but it seems like a legitimate implication of providing IT services in a world that is subject to Moore's Law, where hardware capabilities are constantly evolving and software evolves to exploit that.

[Atheist]

eggman, while I don't necessarily disagree with you (I'm a software developer myself), I feel that Apple should not use such an aggressive timeline. It's only 4 months since Leopard came out. I just feel that they should give people a little more time. Maybe 12 months. That's all. I don't think the added cost of supporting a few additional pieces of hardware is that great compared to the goodwill it generates toward it's larger customers (which are the ones truly affected by this).

[turtle777]

Whatever Apple's reason is (financial, resources, etc...), they will NEVER make significant inroads into the enterprise and business world w/o offering more backwards compatibility. Plus, it's hurting their not too bad standing in the edu market.

Apple's current strategy works well with consumers and small shops, but NOT with large organizations and user bases.

-t

[Atheist]

turtle777, I agree wholeheartedly. That's one of the big differences between MS and Apple.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by carterx 

Thank you, this is what I'm trying to point out.

I know they have already made the decision for us that users will not be able to downgrade which we all already know, but why. Has nothing to do with support. Just state that they will not support Tiger on new systems or at all.

It has EVERYTHING to do with support.

Tiger would need to be updated for new machines, and Apple would need to test every new revision on all newer machines.

Effectively, they would have to invest the exact same manpower into developing/fixing/updating/testing the old system as for the currently shipping system, rather than just having a skeleton crew incorporate the latest security updates into existing libraries, testing them on a limited number of systems, and then shoving them out over Software Update.

Also, just continuing support and development, in addition to all the cost and work, also DOES NOT CHANGE the problem AT ALL: where do you cut off support?

If they gave you an arbitrary cut-off of five years after release, sysadmins would *still* be bitching.

Backwards compatibility fifty-six ways to 1983 may have ensured Microsoft's market position over the past twenty years, but it is also the precise reason they have become too inflexible to deal with current problems.

They certainly didn't INTEND to be selling XP for literally *years* after the release of their new behemoth!


Tiger has been on the market since almost three years ago. The release date of the next system version was known a year in advance. The major release cycles have already been slowing down - I doubt we'll see the next major version of OS X before 2010. That's a lot of time, even in big organizations.


OTOH, 'twould probably be an ideal solution if Apple (or someone else) could offer a third-party virtualization environment within OS X for older-generation Mac OS X versions... (just musing)

[Hal Itosis]

Originally Posted by carterx 

Has nothing to do with support. Just state that they will not support Tiger on new systems or at all.

Originally Posted by analogika 

It has EVERYTHING to do with support.

Tiger would need to be updated for new machines, and Apple would need to test every new revision on all newer machines.

 

Why would Apple need to update and test anything?
Like the man said, they simply "declare" NO support.

Done.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Hal Itosis 

 

Why would Apple need to update and test anything?
Like the man said, they simply "declare" NO support.

Done.

Wait, isn't that what Apple's done that people are complaining about?

[rem]

This thread reminded me of several times I was given a brand new pc laptop by various employers with an old version of Windows. Some of the new hardware features were not well supported. I could not play DVDs. I disliked getting the old version. Everything I needed to do would have worked fine with the new OS, but IT was not ready to support it. In fact they were always many years behind the latest OS version.

Aside from the reasons already stated above, I'm sorry to tell you that as a user, I would be very, very happy that Apple did not let you put an old OS on a new machine before you passed it along to me! Apple cares about the user experience, which is why I switched in the first place a long time ago and recently even started to bring my own personal macbook to work, as do many employees at my current company.

[Hal Itosis]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Wait, isn't that what Apple's done that people are complaining about?

I sorta thought people were objecting to Apple making it so that old (in this case Tiger) installers
would *refuse* to even install on the new hardware. (I might have misunderstood the basic issue).

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Hal Itosis 

 

Why would Apple need to update and test anything?
Like the man said, they simply "declare" NO support.

Done.

Nothing like an unfixable kernel panic on first boot, or turning on wireless, to instill a sense of trust in the manufacturer.

Oh yeah, "NO support"!

If I were Apple, I'd WANT people in that situation to be using Linux.

[olePigeon]

Our school is in the same boat. Getting an older version of OS X and/or retrograding off new purchases wasn't a problem before. It's only recently that changes were made to Apple's EULA (as of January '08) that they no longer allow you to install an older version of the OS even if you purchase a newer version regardless if the computer meets the requirements.

Since we can't retrograde our OS purchases, it's lost money. Ideally, we'd like to continue purchasing licenses for Leopard for all of our machines, but install Tiger on the machines that don't meet the requirements. As of January, we can no longer do that. This is a huge problem for K-12 schools.

[carterx]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Our school is in the same boat. Getting an older version of OS X and/or retrograding off new purchases wasn't a problem before. It's only recently that changes were made to Apple's EULA (as of January '08) that they no longer allow you to install an older version of the OS even if you purchase a newer version regardless if the computer meets the requirements.

Apple also used to sell Mac OS X a few versions back. This was exceptionally helpful to places like K-12 schools that can't always buy the latest and greatest technology. At my school we depend on using whatever the latest version of OS X will run on our machines. Since Apple no longer sells any version except the latest version, we have to revert to 3rd party resellers to get older versions of OS X.

We also can't future-proof our purchases, either. Ideally, we'd like to continue purchasing licenses for Leopard for all of our machines, but install Tiger on the machines that don't meet the requirements. As of January, we can no longer do that.

Going with what "olePigeon" said, which just made me think about this.... we still run a number of computers that get used for smaller jobs, but none the less get used by students and some of these do not meet the requirements for Leopard. So it's one of two choices.... 1- go with two versions of OS X, 2- have to money out of somewhere to upgrade computers that do not need a lot of power and waste money by buying computers that could go else where but are needed just to keep the OS X system in the province all the same.


.

[mduell]

Apple's not really enough of an enterprise vendor to offer the stable platform promises that Dell/HP offer, where you are guaranteed the ability to buy a certain box for x years in the future. They in turn are backed by Intel's SIPP (Stable Image Platform Program) where Intel guarantees the availability of certain chips for at least 5 years.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Apple's not really enough of an enterprise vendor to offer the stable platform promises that Dell/HP offer, where you are guaranteed the ability to buy a certain box for x years in the future. They in turn are backed by Intel's SIPP (Stable Image Platform Program) where Intel guarantees the availability of certain chips for at least 5 years.

They could use a Volume License program like Microsoft, then Apple can upgrade their OS and computers all they want, so long as I can still use the older versions while still buying newer licenses.

[ryaxnb]

I agree that this is stupid; Apple really should allow the Mac OS on newer machines then the OS was originally designed for. Microsoft and Linux both allow this as have most other platforms.

[Chuckit]

Comparing Apple to "Microsoft and Linux" is like comparing a soda machine to a bottlecap. Apple's entire premise is controlling "the whole widget," as it's generally put. You don't use a Microsoft computer. You don't use a Linux computer. Similarly, you don't run a Dell OS. Apple's pitch is that their products are designed for each other and thus work well together. Making a product with the explicit guarantee that it won't work well is pretty much diametrically opposite to that. I can understand (well, kind of understand) why you want to do this, but I hope you can see why Apple isn't going to make it pseudo-supported

Anyway, if you want to put a Tiger install on an unsupported machine, it's technically possible — you can pretty much stick any drive in any computer — Apple just won't help you do it and it probably won't work that well. Apple isn't going to track you down and sue you.

[chabig]

we all know how well Vista runs on older hardware.

[tridentinecanon]

Actually, I changed my position in this matter. I'm actually very disappointed that System 3.2 won't run on my MBP! What am I ever to do!?!?! Apple should have incorporated this into the MBP's system hardware!!!!!!!

[0157988944]

I have System 3.2 running on my iMac...

[tridentinecanon]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

I have System 3.2 running on my iMac...

Ok fine. But I bet you don't have System 2.0 running on any iMacs.

[pcryan5]

<>Whatever Apple's reason is (financial, resources, etc...), they will NEVER make significant inroads into the enterprise and business world w/o offering more backwards compatibility. Plus, it's hurting their not <>too bad standing in the edu market.
<>Apple's current strategy works well with consumers and small shops, but NOT with large organizations and user bases.

Sadly I agree - I can't imagine what my job would look like if Microsoft decreed that all new workstations MUST run Vista. We would be dead in the water just on a basic application compatibility level. (13,500+ computers runnings 925+ applications over 550+ sites... ugh)

[carterx]

Originally Posted by pcryan5 

Sadly I agree - I can't imagine what my job would look like if Microsoft decreed that all new workstations MUST run Vista. We would be dead in the water just on a basic application compatibility level. (13,500+ computers runnings 925+ applications over 550+ sites... ugh)

+1

.