All that’s happened is the old phrase “IBM PC or 100% Compatible” morphed into “PC” and/or “Windows”.

As for the old software point: you’re right, for advanced users who could do just as well in Linux too. But give the average user an old machine and they’re going to struggle. Older Macs hold their own, in large part thanks to the total absence of crapware loaded on them compared to already sluggish elderly “PC’s”!

In contrast, PC users don’t expect to run the latest version of Windows on machines that are more than a year or two old.

Windows XP, upon its release in 2001, would run just as smoothly on my 7 1/2 year old Dell laptop as it does now. Windows XP supports such a great range of hardware, from all of today’s modern machines to some of the turn-of-the-century computers, similar in comparison to Mac OS over the years.

One more thing: Macs are “personal computers” too! Please don’t use that label for Windows-based systems.

While Mac Classics sold in 1992 were “only 4 years old” in 1996, they were really ten years old in terms of design and performance.

A reader also sent me a note that applies the same principle to more recent machines, particularly the G3 and G4:

–
I have some comments on your Leopard-article regarding the Macs left behind due to the upgrade-restrictions:

First of all it is a good thing to leave older systems behind to get better support for the newer, more current configurations. One thing that has been missed is how much the evolution of Apple-systems was held hostage by the stagnating development of the G4 at Motorola and to a far lesser extent the G5 at IBM. People still using the G3 should be happy to get such a long life out of an older architecture. I believe the G3 was used well beyond its
acceptable shelf-life.

It is unfortunate that Apple kept on selling machines with a G3 until well into 2003 with the white iBook. They could not make the switch to the G4 until they could differentiate their iBooks from the 12″-Powerbook. The reason being that Motorola increased the clockrate of the G4 at a very slow pace.

The second thing: Apple sells one unified OS that offers the same feature set on all supported machines. If a feature is not USABLE on an older configuration (e.g. Time Machine) then they don’t dump the feature but they do not support the configuration. In this way Apple is not forced to sell tiered OS-Version suitable for old, newer and the newest hardware but can offer one user-experience for all users and one plattform for all developers.

And lastly: Just because the latest OS does not support certain hardware does not make the hardware obsolete. You can still get things done. To my mind, as long as you can run any version of OS X including Panther, you have a modern machine.

So much for my thoughts on your article. All the best in your endeavor to enlighten the world on all things Apple.

Best regards

Marin Balabanov

I didn’t see the article. Did Ted Hodges make any sort of comparison with Vista running on older PCs. I doubt that the PC hardware that has actually survived 5 or 6 years can run Vista. My former work Dell (I use Parallels now) could barely handle XP with more than two apps running. That machine was new 3 years ago.

If Apple supported older machines, say back to 500 MHz G4, would any of the new features be useful? I doubt it.

Also, it’s often mentioned that System 7.5.5 (Oct. 1996) fully supported the Mac Plus (introduced in 1986). And it’s often mentioned how slow an 8 MHz Mac is under System 7.anything. What’s often overlooked is that the Mac Plus was not discontinued until Oct. 1990, System 7.5 was introduced 4 years later, and 7.5.5 was just an incremental upgrade to that OS. It’s the equivalent of saying that Mac OS X 10.4.10 supports Macs going back 8 years, while 10.4.0 only supported Macs going back 6 years.

BTW, we agree 100% that it would be pure folly for Apple to drop support for PowerPC Macs in 18-24 months, when 10.6 is likely to appear. But 3-4 years down the road is another story entirely.

Still living with Classic – Dan Knight, LowEndMac.com

As for the LEM story: I wasn’t entirely surprised to see reservations with Leopard over there but the outrage in some posts did seem a little over the top. “It’s all just eye candy” and dodgy Vista comparison myths were stirred by a few writers. I understand their perspective as out and out Low End fans, but I’m more with the site’s editor on this one: namely that Leopard is what it should be and that Tiger is a sterling end point for a host older Macs. I’ve a 1999 iMac serving as my last Tiger and Classic box, a task it’s well suited to.

Some LEM readers also pointed out that OS 8.1 (if I recall) set the record for high minimum hardware requirements historically speaking … not so long but far less remembered than the opposite case with 7.5.5 and the prehistoric Mac Plus. Leopard sits safely in between.