PCWorld Forums: Half Of All Macs Will Lack Access To Security Updates By Summer - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for Half of All Macs Will Lack Access to Security Updates by Summer here

Two of the principal reasons I don't upgrade to every new version of Windows is cost and the inevitable upgrade hassle.

Compare that to Apple, where ONE purchase of the new OS, roughly US$30.00, will update ALL your supported Macs, legally.

I've been through several OS upgrades in both Windows and OSX. There is NO comparison.

Whereas a Windows update involves a clean install, upgrade over a previous version at your own risk, and blowing the better part of a weekend, none of my OSX updates took more than twenty minutes from start to finish, with all my applications, data and settings untouched.

There is very little reason for anyone to be three versions behind.

This post has been edited by 42n81: 07 May 2012 - 06:41 PM

But doesn't the author of this article know that according to Mac users "they are imune to viruses". Mac users swear they cannot get a virus or malware. If any of them read this gregg could be responsible for medical issues created by this article when a mac users sees they can get a nasty. Lion and tigers and bears oh my!

42n81, on 07 May 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Schools, non-profits, and just average folks don't have cash lying around like iDiots (or just not as willing to hand over cash hand over fist). To defend forcible upgrades that cost a bundle every time, no, I'd rather stick with the current version of Windows.

The fact that Microsoft still updates Windows XP until 2014 is a perfect example of why Apple will never make it in the IT arena. Who wants to have to upgrade hardware every 5 years because Apple stops supporting it? I can tell you as a Mac user that Apple is pushing its users into upgrades and hardware upgrades to satisfy profits. Their is no real reason a person using Snow leopard should have to buy Lion or a new Mac just to get updates and new services like iCloud.
Other then Apple wants more of your money. Yes, Microsoft Windows has a higher initial costs, which is usually absorbed by a PC purchase. After that Softpack upgrades are free until end of life. Which is way longer then Apple. Do I think Apple is alienating its customers? Yes.

So with all these versions of OSX out there, some secure, some not, is OSX, gasp, fragmented?

42n81, on 07 May 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Except for the fact that 5 Mac OS X versions have lost support since Windows XP came out ($150 worth of OS X updates), and XP still gets updates straight from Microsoft and by the time that XP has lost support, you will have gone through 9 updates or in your terms $270. Oh and by the way, right now Windows 7 is selling for $120 straight from Microsoft.

This post has been edited by MikeYostjodt: 08 May 2012 - 05:24 AM

MikeYostjodt, on 08 May 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

$119.99 at Microsoft gets you ONE upgrade license for ONE computer for a reduced feature set version, not the top version of WIndows 7.

ONE $30.00 payment to Apple and you can update ALL your Macs, to the COMPLETE version of OSX, legally.

Factor in the actual time needed for a Windows "upgrade" (you don't really want to install a Windows "upgrade" over an existing prior version, do you?) and we're no longer playing in the same ballpark.

MikeYostjodt, on 08 May 2012 - 05:23 AM, said:

I drive a 2004 Apple PowerBook G4 and am not able to upgrade beyond OSX 10.5.8 Leopard. I have not suffered at all because of this other than missing out on new features that 8 year old technology can't support. That's the cost of technological growth. Now I use Sophos (free version) on the PowerBook and keep it upgraded. My security issues are minimized and the venerable PB keeps doing that that I bought it to do- and more. My other Macs run Lion (also with Sophos) and will upgrade to Mountain Lion. Our office machines run XP and will be upgraded by attrition. I'll have Win 7 when the XP machine is replaced but for now the XP machine does everything I need it to do and much more.

I don't understand the fixation with upgrading with each new version. I know that Cupertino and Redmond want you to do so for pure economic reasons but if a technology is getting the job done, why replace it?

This post has been edited by nonseq: 08 May 2012 - 06:28 AM

Gnostradamus, on 07 May 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

I was referring to OSX. $30.00 is hardly a bundle of cash for "average" folks.

Windows, on the other hand is a different story. I agree with you entirely and I usually skip every second version which has saved me considerable grief by avoiding ME, Vista. The upcoming Windows 8 sounds like it's going to be another one of Microsoft's RTM Beta, whereby users pay full price to help Microsoft figure out what's wrong with it.

jscott418, on 08 May 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

Do you honestly think Microsoft is doing this for free? Just ask any of the large commercial, government and institutional users who refuse to upgrade to later Windows versions how much they pay in annual service fees for the pleasure of watching Microsoft continue to try making Win XP work like it was supposed to when it was originally released.

Quote

There is no real reason for anyone to do anything other than to hopefully improve upon their situation. Why should I have to upgrade to Win 7 just so I can use some of the new functionality it offers? SUrely, Microsoft could have found a way of integrating all the new stuff into Win XP, if the REALLY wanted to.

Those who are concerned with exposure to unpatched vulnerabilities can simply run antivirus free software on OSX, just like the rest of the world needs to do despite Microsoft's continued support for XP.

Quote

Judging by Apple's ever increasing market share in the personal computer market, Apple appears to be doing the exact opposite of alienating its customer and potential customers.

Make upgrades affordable, desirable and easy to implement and you won't need to support old versions for 15 years.

ClaudeD, on 07 May 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

I have yet to hear a Mac user make that claim. So far all the claims I have heard are second hand, made by people who think they know what Mac users think.

Now, whether Macs are immune to WINPC viruses is a totally different issue.

Quote

So far, the only "nasties" I've read about would barely get the attention of anyone writing about Microsoft's products since, there, they are a daily occurrence and on the "tame" end of the scale compared to the really nasty stuff Windows users are exposed to.

The articles I have seen and the reactions they elicited read more like a celebration of the fact that malware writers are no longer neglecting OSX.

They are informative nonetheless.

This post has been edited by 42n81: 08 May 2012 - 06:34 AM

Gnostradamus, on 07 May 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

How is $30 a 'bundle' for an individual?

The "everything" version update for OSX is $30. The "everything" version update for Windows 7 is Ultimate and costs $190 (NewEgg). The cost difference is 6.3 times greater for Windows. It's like the difference between filling up the tank on a small economy car and replacing all four of it's tires. Additionally, as many other posters have stated the Apple update applies to multiple computers.

Add to that the fact that version upgrades of MacOS tend to be more backward compatible for their hardware. That is to say, pretty much any Intel Mac can handle any OSX version released since those Macs were introduced.

For the most part, the cost of upgrading OSX version has about the same cost of a purchased anti-virus package.

butlerwm, on 10 May 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

...and depending on the number of Macs one updates with that single purchase, approaches the cost of FREE anti-virus software.