[mikerally]

As a lot of us on here already know, Tiger requires a Mac with Built-in Firewire.

But it's not the Built-in Firewire that is what Tiger actually requires - it's just a uniquely identifiable feature for a certain generation of Macs, all of which have something Tiger needs.

So what is it that this generation of Macs (and newer) have that the previous don't (apart from Built-in Firewire)? A new version of firmware? - I think not.

Here's my theory:

The graphics subsystem in Tiger has been overhauled. The API has been flipped on it's side (to quote a presentation from the WWDC last year). This is to support new things like CoreImage, CoreVideo and generally accelerate the drawing of applications throughout the system.

Surely not, that such a overhaul would require a new minimum amount of VRAM, and that maybe all the graphics card drivers for all supported cards would also need some overhauling (or revising at least).

Let's have a look at the Macs that have been dropped and their video cards for a start:-

iMac Rev/A (August 1998), powered by an ATi Rage IIc with 2MB of VRAM
iMac Rev/B (October 1998), powered by an ATi Rage Pro with 6MB of VRAM
IMac Rev/C/D (January and April 1999 respectively), powered by an ATi Rage Pro with 6MB of VRAM

iBook Rev/A/B (July 1999, February 2000 respectively), powered by an ATi Rage Mobility with 4MB of VRAM (we are counting the RAM going up from 32MB to 64MB soldered on the motherboard as different Revs)

Powerbook G3 with USB only, aka the Lombard (released May 1999), powered by a Rage LT Pro with 8MB of VRAM

No PowerMac G3 models have been dropped (of course the Beige PowerMac G3s remain excluded as with Panther, as they are based on Oldworld ROMs as were the earlier Powerbooks that were excluded at that time).

The video card lineup for these machines were not all that great (even for that time).



Let us now compare that with the new entry level machines required to run Tiger:-
(note that a DVD-ROM drive does not count as a requirement as the Install DVD can be exchanged for CDs)

Any slot loading iMac G3* (October 1999 and later models), all powered at least by an ATi Rage Pro 128 with 8MB of VRAM (later models powered by an ATi Rage Pro Ultra with 16MB of VRAM).

*Note that Firewire isn't a necessary requirement on this model, as some shipped with USB only, but I've read reports of Tiger running fine on it (reinforcing my assumption here or conincidence?). Disagree with me? Check Apple's Tiger requirements page, it lists slot loading Macs as supported.

iBook G3 with Firewire (September 2000 and later models), initial models powered by an ATi Rage Pro Mobility 128 with 8MB of VRAM, later Snow models eventually powered by the Radeon Mobility and etc.

Powerbook G3 with Firewire (aka Pismo, February 2000), powered by an ATi Rage Pro Mobility 128 with 8MB of VRAM (just like the first Firewire iBooks).

PowerMac G3 Blue and White (January 1999), all powered by at least an ATi Rage 128 card with 16MB of VRAM


All the entry level machines have two things in common, they all have a minimum of 8MB of VRAM, and they all are based on at minumum, the ATi Rage 128 chipset.

I believe the overhaul of the graphics subsystem required the minimum video card to be raised.

Also I seem to recall that video cards older than this were never properly supported by Mac OS X versions 10.0 and 10.1 - and there was a lawsuit brought against Apple about it. Quicktime performance on these cards were said to be abysmal undert those versions of Mac OS X in combination with those video cards.

I'm absolutely sure those older graphics card would not have been able to cope with Quicktime 7, let alone the new graphics systems that it depends on.

Thats why I' believe those machines have been dropped.

[tigas]

Makes sense. Up until now, I just thought that Apple was trying to make older, but perfectly functional machine obsolete, and that the next drop-off, two years from now in 10.5, will be a G4-minimum requirement.

[OreoCookie]

1. They use the `Firewire requirement' to make sure you have a Mac of a certain generation (it doesn't have anything to do with Firewire as such, but rather the logic board controller).

2. Graphics card issue? I don't think so. Older graphics cards just work with unaccelerated Quartz which is pretty slow and my guesstimate is that it is phased out for that exact reason.

3. Machines fast enough? Also note that all the machines that are not supported anymore are old, too old to give you a good user experience.


Current OS have a lot of stuff going on in the background which are useful, but which eat up CPU cycles. For instance saturating a 100 MBit link on a P3 450 takes roughly 30 % of the CPU power (on Linux)! Imagine copying something via network -- you would be able to `feel' that the machine is slower. With Spotlight and all other processes running in the background, and having to draw everything in software as well, your system would be slow.

Whereas I have sympathy for people with old machines that `do what they want just fine', I can understand why Apple slowly raises the bar.

[Catfish_Man]

OreoCookie: They rewrote huge swaths of Quartz. I don't think you can make statement 2 unless you have a lot more info than I think you do. mikerally's point about the quicktime performance lawsuit indicates that even on older systems the GPU is used for some things. That said, I would imagine that XPostFacto will allow Tiger to run on these machines, much like it allows 10.3 to run on beige G3s and older.

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

3. Machines fast enough? Also note that all the machines that are not supported anymore are old, too old to give you a good user experience.

We have a rev D imac (DVSE 400) and our user experience is very good for what we use it for. (Also have iMac G5). Maybe it wouldn't be a good user experience for you, but for us, very good.

I would hope Apple wouldn't spend too much energy trying to drag this machine along however. I want to see the OS develop to even higher levels. But a bad user experience? And just because it isn't supported doesn't mean it won't work.

[starman]

Well, not for nothing, but I installed Panher on an original blueberry iBook with 512 MB RAM and it's really not that snappy. No wonder Apple wanted to make those machines "go away".

I think it's nothing more than what machines run Tiger well.

Mike

[Detrius]

...but the Powerbook (FireWire) is not included in the list of supported machines... the last of the G3 powerbooks... (aka Pismo)

[OpenStep]

For sure the Pismo is supported. It's on Apple's Tiger supported/compatible grid. I just finished installing Tiger on a Pismo about two hours ago and I'm suprised at how well it really runs.

[mikerally]

OreoCookie wrote:
1. They use the `Firewire requirement' to make sure you have a Mac of a certain generation (it doesn't have anything to do with Firewire as such, but rather the logic board controller).

Yes, I already mentioned that this was the case in my original post (you did read it, right!?!), Firewire itself is not required the required component. I'm not sure what you mean by "logic board controller", do you mean the Firewire controller on the logic board? I'm pretty sure that the Tiger requirements have nothing to do with that either.

OreoCookie wrote:
2. Graphics card issue? I don't think so. Older graphics cards just work with unaccelerated Quartz which is pretty slow and my guesstimate is that it is phased out for that exact reason.).

I wholeheartedly disagree here. The performance difference of the standard Rage IIc and Rage Pro vs. the newer Rage Pro 128 (which also has at least 8MB VRAM) is very noticeable. I run an iMac 333Mhz alongside an iMac DV400 (both running Panther) with the same amount of RAM, the graphics performance difference is definately noticable.

If you research the issue you can see that the older Rage cards had really bad support in Mac OS X until Jaguar, because they never had any accelerated driver written for them. Even then, something as simple as playing a Quicktime movie on those graphics cards in Mac OS X seemed too much for them to keep up - but clearly ran fine on the iMac DV and older and slower PowerMac G3 Blue and Whites (both have the better Rage Pro 128 video cards).

OreoCookie wrote:
3. Machines fast enough? Also note that all the machines that are not supported anymore are old, too old to give you a good user experience.

Again I disagree here. I don't think it's anything to do with how old the machine is, after all the PowerMac G3 Blue and White at 300Mhz is the minimum model required for the PowerMacs, and that dates back to January 1999. But the iBook *also* started out at 300Mhz (let's overlook the 66Mhz bus here) in July 1999 and shipped with a much less powerful graphics card. Also, the Lombard, shipped with up to a 400Mhz G3 processor on a 100Mhz bus (*the same as an iMac DV*), but still a less powerful graphics card, the Rage LT Pro vs. the Rage Pro 128 in the iMac DV and PowerMac G3 Blue and White.

Detrius wrote :
...but the Powerbook (FireWire) is not included in the list of supported machines... the last of the G3 powerbooks... (aka Pismo)

Really? Go and check the list now (maybe empty your browser cache while you're at it ;-) )

http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html

[Mac Write]

What will the bar be with 10.5? Panther/Tiger was obvious USB/Firewire respectively. Would requiring AGP be the next logical step? That would mean dropped support for the B&W G3, but keep the iMac slot loading around. Or will it be any G4 or G3 500mhz (then of course the original G4 would be supported 8+ years). It's going to be interesting what the bar will be with 10.5

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mikerally

Really? Go and check the list now (maybe empty your browser cache while you're at it ;-) )

http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html

Emptied cache, reloaded three times, and it *still* says "Powerbook G3 (Firewire)".

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mikerally

Yes, I already mentioned that this was the case in my original post (you did read it, right!?!), Firewire itself is not required the required component. I'm not sure what you mean by "logic board controller", do you mean the Firewire controller on the logic board? I'm pretty sure that the Tiger requirements have nothing to do with that either.

I read your post and your confusion what a system controller (in the pc world those are called north and south bridge) tells me, you didn't completely understand the difference. It's the version of the system controller, i. e. the chips that connect the CPU to the memory and all other interfaces such as PCI.

The firewire controller is not the substantial part here.

Originally Posted by mikerally

I wholeheartedly disagree here. The performance difference of the standard Rage IIc and Rage Pro vs. the newer Rage Pro 128 (which also has at least 8MB VRAM) is very noticeable. I run an iMac 333Mhz alongside an iMac DV400 (both running Panther) with the same amount of RAM, the graphics performance difference is definately noticable.

If you research the issue you can see that the older Rage cards had really bad support in Mac OS X until Jaguar, because they never had any accelerated driver written for them. Even then, something as simple as playing a Quicktime movie on those graphics cards in Mac OS X seemed too much for them to keep up - but clearly ran fine on the iMac DV and older and slower PowerMac G3 Blue and Whites (both have the better Rage Pro 128 video cards).

Yes, but all of those cards do not support QE. Obviously, the older, the slower, but even the fastest card you mention is not fast enough to support Apple's latest iCandy(tm).

So in this sense, it's a good thing that older cards are not supported anymore, because the speed is becoming more and more unusable. I don't see where we disagree.

Originally Posted by mikerally

Again I disagree here. I don't think it's anything to do with how old the machine is, after all the PowerMac G3 Blue and White at 300Mhz is the minimum model required for the PowerMacs, and that dates back to January 1999. But the iBook *also* started out at 300Mhz (let's overlook the 66Mhz bus here) in July 1999 and shipped with a much less powerful graphics card. Also, the Lombard, shipped with up to a 400Mhz G3 processor on a 100Mhz bus (*the same as an iMac DV*), but still a less powerful graphics card, the Rage LT Pro vs. the Rage Pro 128 in the iMac DV and PowerMac G3 Blue and White.

I't definitely got to do with how old the machine is. You answer the question why Apple skims out some of the machines yourself: graphics performance. I wouldn't be surprised if the bottom system (lowest supported config) will be abandoned in the next upgrade. Needless to say that the CPU power is getting increasingly inadequate.

I know you can run Tiger (and Panther) on slow systems, I work on a CRT iMac DV 450, too, from time to time. My primary machine isn't fast eiher (iBook G3 800). Try installing current software -- say iDVD, Garageband or FCPro -- on it.

[alphasubzero949]

10.5 = G4 or G5 only?

Consider that the 600 MHz G3 is the bare minimum for a few functions...

[chris v]

Originally Posted by analogika

Emptied cache, reloaded three times, and it *still* says "Powerbook G3 (Firewire)".

It wasn't there two or three weeks ago. They've added it pretty recently.

Seriously though, they've got official support spanning six years, here. That's not too shabby, and I bet it'll run on some not-officially-supported machines, like 10.3. I wonder if Apple has blurred the line just a little between "recommended" and "required."

I just recently came into a free iMac slot-loader W/O firewise, so I'll be watching this with some interest, though I'll be happy if it continues to chug along with 10.3.8 forever.

[OpenStep]

I think Mike hit it head on exactly with the graphics card issue. The more I think about it the lower graphics cards really did have issues. In the last two months I moved from using a 333 MHz Lombard to a 400 MHz Pismo (using Panther for a comparison) and I really doubt the 67 MHz processor bump and 34 MHz system bus bump have anything to do with the increased performance I noticed. The Lombard had problems playing a 400x300 Flash app in a web browser. Could barely play QuickTime movies without the audio dropping out or loosing sync. GUI very slow, etc. Switching between apps with a couple windows open was painfully slow. He's right that anything below a Rage 128 was barely/poorly supported and very well could be why running OS X on a Lombard/tray iMac was so bad. It's probably as simple as Quartz has been further optimised/revised that the older graphics cards simply can't handle it. I'm betting IF xpostfacto can get Tiger to run on non supported systems they probably have to backport an ATI video driver or other parts of Quartz from 10.3 to get it running.

[mikerally]

OpenStep wrote:
I think Mike hit it head on exactly with the graphics card issue. The more I think about it the lower graphics cards really did have issues. In the last two months I moved from using a 333 MHz Lombard to a 400 MHz Pismo (using Panther for a comparison) and I really doubt the 67 MHz processor bump and 34 MHz system bus bump have anything to do with the increased performance I noticed. The Lombard had problems playing a 400x300 Flash app in a web browser. Could barely play QuickTime movies without the audio dropping out or loosing sync. GUI very slow, etc. Switching between apps with a couple windows open was painfully slow. He's right that anything below a Rage 128 was barely/poorly supported and very well could be why running OS X on a Lombard/tray iMac was so bad. It's probably as simple as Quartz has been further optimised/revised that the older graphics cards simply can't handle it. I'm betting IF xpostfacto can get Tiger to run on non supported systems they probably have to backport an ATI video driver or other parts of Quartz from 10.3 to get it running.

I'm glad somebody is actually backing me up here on my theory.

OreoCookie wrote:
I read your post and your confusion what a system controller (in the pc world those are called north and south bridge) tells me, you didn't completely understand the difference. It's the version of the system controller, i. e. the chips that connect the CPU to the memory and all other interfaces such as PCI.

From my previous experience, what you are talking about is normally refered to as part of the motherboard chipset, I have never heard it being called a "logic board controller" before (which is what you originally called it in your first and second posts).

And I think you are wrong, I think Tiger's real requirements have nothing to do with the motherboard chipset, north bridge or south bridge.

And here's why:

The PowerMac G3 Blue and White tower (which is supported) is based on an older motherboard/chipset than the original iBook (which is unsupported). It is PCI only, and it doesn't even support AGP or Airport Cards like the iBook does.

Also a note on Open Firmware, the version of Open Firmware on the Blue and White G3 is also very old, it doesn't support Firewire Target Disk mode.

This suggests to me that the Tiger requirements have nothing to do with the motherboard architecture/open firmware and are really based upon GPU requirements.

OreoCookie wrote:
Yes, but all of those cards do not support QE. Obviously, the older, the slower, but even the fastest card you mention is not fast enough to support Apple's latest iCandy(tm).

So in this sense, it's a good thing that older cards are not supported anymore, because the speed is becoming more and more unusable. I don't see where we disagree.

You're missing the point here. Just because none of the cards support Quartz Extreme doesn't mean one cannot perform better than the other, or even have better support. I have given you the facts already.

I'm telling you the minimum GPU needed for Tiger is an ATi Rage Pro 128 (with 8MB VRAM) because of the overhauled graphics subsystem, and that is what is really setting the requirements. You seem to think otherwise - this is where we disagree.

OreoCookie wrote:
I't definitely got to do with how old the machine is. You answer the question why Apple skims out some of the machines yourself: graphics performance. I wouldn't be surprised if the bottom system (lowest supported config) will be abandoned in the next upgrade. Needless to say that the CPU power is getting increasingly inadequate.

Again we disagree here - I think it's nothing to do with the age of the computer - I have clearly presented the facts - there are older Macs with better graphics cards that are supported

How many times do I have to repeat this: PowerMac G3 Blue and White vs Original iBook - check the facts.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mikerally

I'm glad somebody is actually backing me up here on my theory.

From my previous experience, what you are talking about is normally refered to as part of the motherboard chipset, I have never heard it being called a "logic board controller" before (which is what you originally called it in your first and second posts).

And I think you are wrong, I think Tiger's real requirements have nothing to do with the motherboard chipset, north bridge or south bridge.

And here's why:

The PowerMac G3 Blue and White tower (which is supported) is based on an older motherboard/chipset than the original iBook (which is unsupported). It is PCI only, and it doesn't even support AGP or Airport Cards like the iBook does.

Also a note on Open Firmware, the version of Open Firmware on the Blue and White G3 is also very old, it doesn't support Firewire Target Disk mode.

This suggests to me that the Tiger requirements have nothing to do with the motherboard architecture/open firmware and are really based upon GPU requirements.

You're missing the point here. Just because none of the cards support Quartz Extreme doesn't mean one cannot perform better than the other, or even have better support. I have given you the facts already.

I'm telling you the minimum GPU needed for Tiger is an ATi Rage Pro 128 (with 8MB VRAM) because of the overhauled graphics subsystem, and that is what is really setting the requirements. You seem to think otherwise - this is where we disagree.

Again we disagree here - I think it's nothing to do with the age of the computer - I have clearly presented the facts - there are older Macs with better graphics cards that are supported

How many times do I have to repeat this: PowerMac G3 Blue and White vs Original iBook - check the facts.

You seem to misunderstand me. I agree with you that one of the crucial points is the graphics card.

Interpret it as you want, Apple doesn't support certain chipsets anymore, and it does have to do with the CPU horsepower, too. Obviously a 300 MHz G3 is the slowest BW G3 ever built, but there were also 400 MHz and 450 MHz models. You can run Tiger on a 400-450 MHz CPU, but judging how many features you cannot use, you can run it barely. In a G3, you can upgrade the CPU and the graphics card, so the situation is a little bit different compared to computers with components that are soldered on the motherboard (iMacs, mobile Macs). Moore's Law states, the cpu power doubles roughly every 18 to 24 months -- 1999 to 2005, that's roughly six years, ergo 2 to the third or fourth.

Apple's intention is clear: exclude the machines that wouldn't run well. And you point out some the weaknesses. But you somehow try to make it look like it's artificial, because `some faster machines aren't supported anymore'.

[tooki]

My hunch is that some reasons the original iBooks aren't listed is because:
-the "official" maximum RAM is not enough to run Mac OS X effectively (Apple lists 160MB, the real-world number is 288MB -- either one sucks on Mac OS X)
-they did not come with DVD readers

tooki

[tigas]

Yeah, I noticed they had forgotten the Pismo the first time. The black sheep of the family, not quite color-coordinated with the rest of the grays and whites.

The PowerMac G3 Blue and White tower (which is supported) is based on an older motherboard/chipset than the original iBook (which is unsupported). It is PCI only, and it doesn't even support AGP or Airport Cards like the iBook does.

Also a note on Open Firmware, the version of Open Firmware on the Blue and White G3 is also very old, it doesn't support Firewire Target Disk mode.

I suspected as much. I am also unable to make mine boot from an external Firewire disk, be it from the Startup Disk panel, or from the Option shortcut at powerup - that doesn't work at all.

[pud]

I'm a mechanic and I dont write code for fun, but I have spent many hours getting 10.3 to run on older machines (9500 and Beige G3 using XpostFacto). From my understanding all machines that came with firewire had a flashable boot rom, as where the older prefirewire machines didnt, that is where the less then 8GB IDE limit came from. Correct me if I'm wrong on that please. I just thought that might have something to do with it also. (the flashable boot rom)

[starman]

Would it be worth it to try to install it on a Blueberry iBook. Would anyone care?

EDIT: Duh...I have the DVD version...

Mike

[Eriamjh]

All this mumbo-jumbo is great in theory, but basically, Apple tends to drop machines around the 5-year mark. The key word is "supported". It may install, and it may run fine, but it is not supported or guaranteed to work on certain machines.

5-years baby. That's the key.

[Rod Hagen]

Very interesting thread.

Does anyone know for sure yet whether, for example, an iMac 350 MHz Summer 2000 slot loader WITHOUT firewire will actually run Tiger yet, though?

Cheers

Rod

[Superchicken]

If anyone can get Tiger running on a 333Mhz iMac make sure to post... I want to know if I might be able to run it on my iMac.... not that Panther isn't good enough for it mind you...

[deboerjo]

Originally Posted by Rod Hagen

Very interesting thread.

Does anyone know for sure yet whether, for example, an iMac 350 MHz Summer 2000 slot loader WITHOUT firewire will actually run Tiger yet, though?

Cheers

Rod

I found this thread while looking for the answer to the exact same question. Can anybody confirm or deny that OS X Tiger will install on an iMac 350 without the help of XPostFacto?

mikerally, I think you are 100% right on. Obviously firewire has nothing whatever to do with it, and the fact that the cutoff for support coincides with the jump from the Rage II/Pro family to the Rage 128 is no coincidence in my opinion.

While I think the GPU is the main factor, there may be one other factor at work here that also encouraged Apple to drop support for the tray-loading iMacs (doesn't affect the Lombard though): the "first 8GB" partition limit for installing OSX.

-Jon

[Graymalkin]

While it's obvious there was a lot of work done on Quartz between Panther and Tiger I wouldn't say that it was changed so much that certain video cards are unable to run Tiger. I think the key issue is what does Apple want to advertise as the minimum, the bare bottom of the barrel minimum or the not great but passable minimum? A Rage 128 with 8MB of video memory is going to simply perform much better than a Rage Pro LT with the same amount of video memory. Partly due to the drivers but also due to the raw capabilities of the chips themselves. Panther runs on my Beige G3 but it doesn't look all that pretty nor is it very fast.

While Tiger won't run on your original iMac, Panther might run excellently on it and won't cease to do so just because Tiger is available. It is also a machine that is fairly old anymore like the rest of the excluded systems. There's no incentive to support such old machines with the new OS. For every old machine you support that's one more feature to have to make sure works on a 233MHz G3 with a 2MB video card. While the OS can scale things down (Quartz for instance) there's some things that just don't want to scale (Dashboard, Spotlight) because they're memory or processor intensive.

[eddiecatflap]

my 2 year old imac g4 800 feels like it's not built for tiger either , i get the beachball all the time , maybe 768 ram isn't enough ??

on panther it rocked , now i have a system crash every few days , it's totally ruined my faith in the mac ideal , tiger is a pile of total garbage , bloated and with stuff that looks nice but is pointless , dashboard being the most obvious , i mean does ANYBODY use it ?

[eddiecatflap]

i can't even use the search feature as the mac grinds to a halt after typing the first letter

it's really really pathetic imo

[deboerjo]

Originally Posted by eddiecatflap

my 2 year old imac g4 800 feels like it's not built for tiger either , i get the beachball all the time , maybe 768 ram isn't enough ??

on panther it rocked , now i have a system crash every few days , it's totally ruined my faith in the mac ideal , tiger is a pile of total garbage , bloated and with stuff that looks nice but is pointless , dashboard being the most obvious , i mean does ANYBODY use it ?

I haven't had a single crash, but I do get the beachball noticably more often. I'm running a 450MHz G4 with a GeForce2 card and 768MB RAM. It seems that Tiger is the first version of MacOS X that's slower than previous versions, a sad end to the trend of faster and faster OSes.

I do have to vouch for Dashboard, though, I didn't think Dashboard was really necessary at first; none of the widgets I are anything that couldn't be done with a web browser or small applet. But it just makes some of them so convenient, now I use them all the time.

I digress. Hasn't anybody tried installing Tiger on a 350 iMac?

[Link]

Wow, so you guys are saying Apple should force their customers to buy new machines every X years in order to get the newest version of the OS?

That's stupid.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Link

Wow, so you guys are saying Apple should force their customers to buy new machines every X years in order to get the newest version of the OS?

That's stupid.

Which universe do you live in, Link?

Out here in the real world, corporate decisions are driven by money.

And frankly, cutting off support for the newest software at 5 years (for the low end) is quite generous, IMO.

And Apple has pretty much *always* cut off support for hardware by the newest OS version after about five or six years.

[eddiecatflap]

but most of apple's sales are to small business and homes

not corporates at all

we can't justify changing our macs just to keep up with a new os

[Graymalkin]

Originally Posted by eddiecatflap

we can't justify changing our macs just to keep up with a new os

So keep the old OS, no one at the Apple Store twisted your arm to buy Tiger. Panther didn't self destruct the day Tiger was released. I don't think it is reasonable to expect any software developer to add features without raising the requirements bar. If performance on Rage Pro chips is going to be sub-par and people will sue because of it, there's no reason to waste resources supporting those computers.

[Eriamjh]

The only problem with Panther is that Apple eventually stops releasing security updates for it and other old OSesusually within a few months, putting you at risk if you continue to use the internet and such. Thank goodness we are not windows users!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

The only problem with Panther is that Apple eventually stops releasing security updates for it and other old OSesusually within a few months, putting you at risk if you continue to use the internet and such. Thank goodness we are not windows users!

Most of the security updates involve patches of modular services (e.g. Apache, LDAP, etc.) that are not enabled by default, and do not need to be enabled.

[deboerjo]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

The only problem with Panther is that Apple eventually stops releasing security updates for it and other old OSesusually within a few months, putting you at risk if you continue to use the internet and such. Thank goodness we are not windows users!

A few months? That's not the case, I know they're still releasing critical security updates for Jaguar. They stop making functionality improvements (there won't likely be a 10.3.10), but security updates are supported for a good long time. I would like to know exactly how long though; I wonder if they'll match Microsoft's 10+ year product life? I don't think Apple's made any official commitments in terms of product life cycles.