What Mac apps out this list work on latest Macbook?
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: nospam on 1 Jan 2010 20:17 In article <doraymeRidThis-54ECC7.11373802012010(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > I feared as much - yes it is a Macbook, I like the white and I hate the > black of the pros) macbooks are white or black (although it looks like the black version is no more). macbook pros are neither, they're aluminum and silver in colour. > I still *really don't understand* what would have been so hard in making > it so Leopard could be easily installed on the 2009 Macbook. leopard is done. they're not updating it anymore, other than the occasional security update.
From: David Empson on 1 Jan 2010 20:21 dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <1jbozef.187q6lhln6ulvN%dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz>, > dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote: > > > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > My new Macbook is on its way. It was not easily possible to get an > > > earlier MacBook - which I have had advice here would be easier to load > > > up with earlier versions of Leopard. So I am exploring possibilities of > > > working with upgrades to software. Frankly, I would be happy to keep > > > using my present software and ditching Snow for a while. I asked the Mac > > > Shop commercial experts if I could load up early Leopard and they said > > > they could not see why not. > > > > I can. The latest MacBook (polycarbonate unibody, late 2009 model) has a > > higher model ID than the last model which was supplied with Leopard, so > > there is a high probablity that no version of Leopard has the necessary > > kernel and/or driver support for the current MacBook. > > > > The current MacBook doesn't even work with retail Snow Leopard (10.6.0) > > - the copy of 10.6.1 supplied with the computer is required (or any Snow > > Leopard updated to 10.6.2 or later). [snip] > I still *really don't understand* what would have been so hard in making > it so Leopard could be easily installed on the 2009 Macbook. It is not > exactly ancient history! It is all controlled by one company. Beats me! > Is it sheer crookery? Is it a commercial thing? Is it a very very very > hard technical hurdle. It's a Mac, it is Intel, it uses SATA drives, it > is not something made by an advanced civilization with a very foreign ET > language... <g> Apple knows the exact hardware configuration of each model which it supports in a particular general release of Mac OS X, so it only needs to include drivers and support code for those models. Every time a new hardware model gets released, they need to update the OS to support it. This is usually done by releasing a special build of the OS to support just that model (e.g. a special 10.6.1 in this case), and those changes are incorporated into the next general update (e.g. 10.6.2). After they release a new major version of the operating system (e.g. 10.6), they stop doing major changes to the previous major OS version (e.g. 10.5). This means that the previous major OS version never receives the updates required to support later hardware models. The only subsequent changes to older major OS versions are security updates, fixes for serious bugs, and minor component updates (e.g. QuickTime, Safari). i.e. it is entirely Apple's software development policy which prevents Leopard from working easily on some of the latest models. I personally wish they didn't have such a hard cutoff for purchase of old OS versions or for new computer models not supporting old OS versions - a six month overlap would give people more flexibility in deciding when to switch to a new OS version, or to upgrade to the last supported OS for an older model. The main reason for this policy is it would create a lot more work for Apple to develop and test this extra support code in two major OS versions, especially when only a tiny proportion of the user base would bother downgrading to an older OS. It also goes against their general policy of actively encouraging people to use the latest version of Mac OS X, or to buy a new Mac rather than upgrading an existing old Mac to an out of date OS. The sorts of hardware features which make this a significant issues are: - New CPU revisions which weren't used under the previous OS. They may require kernel-level changes in areas like cache management, or if the CPU has major new features, support code for those features. - Other new or revised major components on the logic board, such as the memory controller, I/O controller or video controller. - New versions of peripheral components (e.g. a revised Airport or Bluetooth chipset). Much of this is identifiable through the "Model ID" which Apple defines for each Mac (e.g. "MacBook6,1" for the latest MacBook). If the model ID changes from the previous model, then there has been some significant hardware component change. In some cases (particularly low-end models) this may just be the model inheriting components which already existed in other models, but in high-end models it usually indicates a new component which won't work on an older OS. -- David Empson dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: dorayme on 1 Jan 2010 20:38 In article <010120101717028894%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-54ECC7.11373802012010(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > I feared as much - yes it is a Macbook, I like the white and I hate the > > black of the pros) > > macbooks are white or black (although it looks like the black version > is no more). macbook pros are neither, they're aluminum and silver in > colour. > Well, yes ... OK? (I did not know about older black Macbooks) > > I still *really don't understand* what would have been so hard in making > > it so Leopard could be easily installed on the 2009 Macbook. > > leopard is done. they're not updating it anymore, other than the > occasional security update. That is not what puzzles me? -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 1 Jan 2010 20:57 In article <1jbp2ey.ze0i1y1jjwgntN%dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz>, dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote: > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > In article <1jbozef.187q6lhln6ulvN%dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz>, > > dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote: > > > > > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > My new Macbook is on its way. It was not easily possible to get an > > > > earlier MacBook - which I have had advice here would be easier to load > > > > up with earlier versions of Leopard. So I am exploring possibilities of > > > > working with upgrades to software. Frankly, I would be happy to keep > > > > using my present software and ditching Snow for a while. I asked the Mac > > > > Shop commercial experts if I could load up early Leopard and they said > > > > they could not see why not. > > > > > > I can. The latest MacBook (polycarbonate unibody, late 2009 model) has a > > > higher model ID than the last model which was supplied with Leopard, so > > > there is a high probablity that no version of Leopard has the necessary > > > kernel and/or driver support for the current MacBook. > > > > > > The current MacBook doesn't even work with retail Snow Leopard (10.6.0) > > > - the copy of 10.6.1 supplied with the computer is required (or any Snow > > > Leopard updated to 10.6.2 or later). > > [snip] > > > I still *really don't understand* what would have been so hard in making > > it so Leopard could be easily installed on the 2009 Macbook. It is not > > exactly ancient history! It is all controlled by one company. Beats me! > > Is it sheer crookery? Is it a commercial thing? Is it a very very very > > hard technical hurdle. It's a Mac, it is Intel, it uses SATA drives, it > > is not something made by an advanced civilization with a very foreign ET > > language... <g> > > Apple knows the exact hardware configuration of each model which it > supports in a particular general release of Mac OS X, so it only needs > to include drivers and support code for those models. > > Every time a new hardware model gets released, they need to update the > OS to support it. This is usually done by releasing a special build of > the OS to support just that model (e.g. a special 10.6.1 in this case), > and those changes are incorporated into the next general update (e.g. > 10.6.2). > > After they release a new major version of the operating system (e.g. > 10.6), they stop doing major changes to the previous major OS version > (e.g. 10.5). This means that the previous major OS version never > receives the updates required to support later hardware models. The only > subsequent changes to older major OS versions are security updates, > fixes for serious bugs, and minor component updates (e.g. QuickTime, > Safari). > > i.e. it is entirely Apple's software development policy which prevents > Leopard from working easily on some of the latest models. > > I personally wish they didn't have such a hard cutoff for purchase of > old OS versions or for new computer models not supporting old OS > versions - a six month overlap would give people more flexibility in > deciding when to switch to a new OS version, or to upgrade to the last > supported OS for an older model. > > The main reason for this policy is it would create a lot more work for > Apple to develop and test this extra support code in two major OS > versions, especially when only a tiny proportion of the user base would > bother downgrading to an older OS. > > It also goes against their general policy of actively encouraging people > to use the latest version of Mac OS X, or to buy a new Mac rather than > upgrading an existing old Mac to an out of date OS. > > The sorts of hardware features which make this a significant issues are: > > - New CPU revisions which weren't used under the previous OS. They may > require kernel-level changes in areas like cache management, or if the > CPU has major new features, support code for those features. > > - Other new or revised major components on the logic board, such as the > memory controller, I/O controller or video controller. > > - New versions of peripheral components (e.g. a revised Airport or > Bluetooth chipset). > > Much of this is identifiable through the "Model ID" which Apple defines > for each Mac (e.g. "MacBook6,1" for the latest MacBook). If the model ID > changes from the previous model, then there has been some significant > hardware component change. In some cases (particularly low-end models) > this may just be the model inheriting components which already existed > in other models, but in high-end models it usually indicates a new > component which won't work on an older OS. Bottom line, would it be *technically very hard* in a five year period at least, to allow users to install whatever legal OS X they liked. I accept that the Powermac/Intel is a bridge too far and Tiger is lost. I find it hard to accept or approve of any greedy commercial decisions that would block even third parties from making some firmware or whatever other software patches to enable a perfectly reasonable thing for Apple customers to avoid, namely expensive software upgrades like Photoshop. I happily shelled out a couple of grand, they should be nice to those like me. I think the "entirely Apple's software development policy which prevents Leopard from working easily on some of the latest models." stinks unless there is *a huge cost* for them in extra work, about which I have no knowledge. -- dorayme
From: Steven Fisher on 1 Jan 2010 21:50
In article <doraymeRidThis-5F2E13.12570402012010(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > I find it hard to accept or approve of any greedy commercial decisions > that would block even third parties from making some firmware or > whatever other software patches to enable a perfectly reasonable thing > for Apple customers to avoid, namely expensive software upgrades like > Photoshop. I happily shelled out a couple of grand, they should be nice > to those like me. I think the "entirely Apple's software development > policy which prevents Leopard from working easily on some of the latest > models." stinks unless there is *a huge cost* for them in extra work, > about which I have no knowledge. Sounds like your complaint is with Adobe, doesn't it? Steve |