>From: Charles Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>[rant]9.2.x/10.x.x comes down to this: Apple wants people to buy new >machines. We (the determined ones) have decided that that's just not >good enough. We have demonstrated that 9.2.2/X can run on these >machines, but no one really cares. I guess that's the definition of >unsupported.[/rant] I agree that Apple wants to sell more new machines, but there is the cost issue of going through QA on the older machines. Not just for OS X in general, but for each update. There is a time issue too, the updates may not come out as timely if Apple had to QA for older machines. This could mean security updates would come out much longer after a vulnerablity is found if Apple had to QA them on more (older) machines. Apple has done a good thing with the 'open' licensing of Darwin code to allow 'support' to be made by third parties for older machines. I'm not saying that Apple is all halos and honey, but I think they've done more right than wrong with OS X. They could be like MS, and say their OS (NT, XP) works on minimum hardware that is not really capable of doing so. The 9.2.x issue does stink tho. -- Charles Dostale System Administrator Silver Oaks Communications http://www.silveroaks.com 824 17th Street Moline IL USA 61265 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 309-797-9898 -- Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Unsupported OS X list info <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive <http://www.mail-archive.com/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
