Apple + How To + Recommended

What to Do if Your Mac Can’t Run OS X Yosemite

Posted on November 4th, 2014 by

How to install OS X Yosemite on old Macs

NOTE: A version of this article is now available for macOS Sierra. Please refer to this article instead: What to Do if Your Mac Can't Run macOS Sierra

Apple recently released a new version of its Mac operating system, OS X Yosemite (version 10.10).

Like last year with the release of Mavericks, Apple chose to continue supporting all the same Macs as the previous release of the operating system. This means that if your Mac was compatible with Mavericks or even its predecessor Mountain Lion, you'll be able to upgrade to Yosemite.

However, some Macs are still limited to Lion (version 10.7.5), which is evidently no longer getting security patches now that Yosemite has been released; the lack of a Lion version of the recent Security Update 2014-005 is a harbinger of things (not) to come. In recent history, Apple has only patched operating system vulnerabilities for the current and two previous versions of OS X.

Still older Macs can't even be upgraded to Lion, meaning they'll be stuck with Snow Leopard (version 10.6.8) or some earlier version of OS X. That's not a good thing, because not only does it mean there won't be any more security patches from Apple, but many third parties have already stopped releasing updates compatible with these operating systems as well.

For now, the only security-related update Apple is still releasing for Snow Leopard is its XProtect "[un]Safe Downloads List," but there's no way of knowing for sure how much longer Apple will continue to update it.

Meanwhile, the now three-generations-old Lion operating system is currently still getting both XProtect and iTunes updates. However, these will likely be just about the only things Apple continues to update for Lion over the next year. Development of OS patches costs Apple money and developer resources. Although the same could be said for iTunes updates, Apple has a financial incentive to keep iTunes updated: the iTunes Store and the iOS App Store, both of which are accessible via the iTunes Mac app, bring in a lot of revenue for Apple.

Unfortunately, nobody knows for certain how long Apple will continue to release security patches or XProtect updates for any given operating system.

Although Microsoft publicly announces its support timetables for Windows, and the Ubuntu Linux company Canonical does likewise, Apple has never given any official word to the public regarding how long each version of Mac OS X or iOS will continue to receive security updates, and Apple consistently ignores press inquiries about when levels of support will be dropped for its operating systems.

The good news is that most new Macs sold within the past several years can be upgraded to Yosemite.

Following is the list of Macs that can run a supported version of OS X. If your Mac is older than the ones listed, read on for suggestions on what you can do to upgrade to a supported system.

Yosemite Capable Macs

Yosemite, like its predecessors Mavericks and Mountain Lion, requires one of the following Macs with at least 2 GB of RAM and 8 GB of available hard drive space:

  • iMac (Mid 2007 or newer)
  • MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer)
  • MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer)
  • MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer)
  • Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer)
  • Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer)
  • Xserve (Early 2009)

You can do a direct upgrade from Snow Leopard v10.6.8, Lion, Mountain Lion, or Mavericks. If you still have an earlier version of OS X on your compatible Mac, you will need to download Yosemite on another compatible Mac with 10.6.8 or later, create a bootable Yosemite flash drive or external hard drive (using Apple's official instructions or the third-party tool DiskMaker X), and do a clean install overwriting the hard drive on your Mac—so be sure to carefully back up all of your files first.

Lion Capable Macs (no longer supported)

If your Mac isn't new enough to run Yosemite, then unfortunately it's not capable of running an Apple operating system that's still fully supported. However, if your Mac has a Core 2 Duo processor (one of the models listed below), and as long as it has at least 2 GB of RAM and 7 GB of free hard drive space, it should still be able to run Lion (which, although increasingly less safe to use now, is at least better than Snow Leopard or earlier because it had been getting security updates until recently):

  • iMac (Late 2006 or Early 2007)
  • MacBook (Late 2006, Mid or Late 2007, or Early 2008)
  • MacBook Air (original model from Early 2008)
  • MacBook Pro (Late 2006)
  • Mac mini (Mid 2007)
  • Mac Pro (original 2006 model, including any bought in 2007)
  • Xserve (Late 2006 or Early 2008)

If Lion is the newest version of OS X that will run on your Mac, but you never purchased it while it was available in the Mac App Store, you won't be able to find it for sale there anymore. You may, however, still be able to buy it by calling 1-800-MY-APPLE; in the past, Apple would send a special code via e-mail that would enable Lion to be downloaded from the Mac App Store.

Those who are unsure which Mac model they own may find EveryMac and apple-history to be useful sites.

If all you need is a RAM upgrade in order to upgrade your OS, by all means, do it! RAM is cheap, and you can either install it yourself by following guides available online, or simply have an Apple-authorized repair technician do it for you.

Macs That Can't Run Yosemite

If you have an iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro, or Mac mini model that was originally released in Early/Mid 2006, the latest version of Mac OS X your system supports is Snow Leopard.

Remember, even Lion isn't supported anymore, and Snow Leopard hasn't gotten new security updates for quite a while, so it's best to avoid using both of these older operating systems.

Of course, Apple no longer releases security updates for Leopard (Mac OS X version 10.5.8), Tiger (version 10.4.11), or anything older than that, either.

If you still use a Mac with a PowerPC processor, including G4 or G5 Macs, Apple hasn't released any security updates for your Mac's maximum operating system for over three years now. Apple hasn't sold any PowerPC-based Macs since 2006.

Unfortunately, Apple doesn't give users any kind of warning when their operating system or Mac is no longer supported. Worse, when users run Apple's Software Update program, it misleadingly tells them "Your software is up to date."


This means that Mac users often have no idea that they're using unpatched, insecure software that could expose them to drive-by malware installations and other security problems.

Lest you think that nobody would bother releasing malware to attack such old systems, in recent years malware has been found in the wild that was designed to attack multiple platforms, and occasionally this malware has contained PowerPC native code. This didn't just happen once; it has happened again and again.

Universal binary malware can run on old Macs, too. (Image credit: Kaspersky)

While Apple boasts about the extremely high percentage of iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch devices that are rapidly upgraded to each major new version of iOS, such is not necessarily the case with Macs and OS X.

Based on the newly released Net Applications data for October 2014, it appears that Yosemite has been installed on fewer than 20% of Macs that are currently being used for Web browsing. That's not terrible given that it's been out for less than a month. Mavericks, which has been out for a year and is still being supported, has close to 52% of the Mac market share; that's pretty respectable, and roughly comparable to Windows 7's percentage of the overall PC market, but nowhere close to iOS adoption rates. Mountain Lion still holds just over 8%. All other versions of OS X, though, including Lion (nearly 8%) and Snow Leopard (over 10%) on down, comprise roughly 20 to 23 percent* of the Mac market, or over 1/5th of all Macs still being used online.

In other words, over 1/5th of Macs in use today are no longer getting security updates. This makes non-upgraded Macs a potentially significant target for criminals interested in infecting large numbers of computers.

Anyone still using Lion, Snow Leopard, or an earlier version of Mac OS X should strongly consider upgrading to Yosemite if their Mac supports it, or if not, they should buy new hardware if they can afford it. (Let's face it, that's what Apple wants you to do anyway.)

But what can you do if Yosemite is not supported on your Mac and you can't afford to buy a new computer?

If you have an older Intel Mac, you have several options.
Windows 8 Compatible
One solution is to set up Boot Camp and install Windows to use it as your Mac's primary OS. While Apple may not support your Mac anymore, ironically Microsoft does; Windows 8.1 still supports systems with 1 GHz processors, 1 GB of RAM, and 20 GB of available hard drive space. Oddly enough, even Windows 10 Technical Preview's system requirements hint that Windows 10 will probably run on your old Intel Mac. (Microsoft's skipping the name "Windows 9," by the way.)

Alternatively, if you can't afford to buy a copy of Windows, or aren't interested in risking all your data to a pre-beta operating system, or just can't stand the thought of running Windows on your Mac—or if you prefer to support free and open-source software—there are guides online detailing how to install Ubuntu Linux on a Mac.

The latest versions of Ubuntu are even still being made available for PowerPC-based Macs, including those with a G3 processor. (At the time of this writing, 14.04.1 is the current LTS or "long-term support" version, meaning that it will be supported for 5 years from its original April 2014 release.)

Another option is, of course, to buy a cheap PC, tablet, or Chromebook, assuming it will do all the things for which you personally need a computer. (Be forewarned: you get what you pay for, and moving from the cohesive Apple ecosystem to something else may be difficult.)

The average Mac user probably won't be excited about any of those options. I suspect that most Mac users, geeks and non-geeks alike, would rather buy a newer Mac than switch to another platform altogether.

If you can't afford to buy a brand new Mac but you do have a little bit of money to spend, you can shop around for used Macs, but make sure you buy one that's new enough to support Yosemite so it will hopefully be able to get security updates for a couple more years.

If you know a Mac user who's still running an older version of OS X, do them a favor and check to see whether their Mac is capable of running Yosemite. If so, help them upgrade. If not, let them know it's time to strongly consider getting a newer computer.

The burden of informing users about software and hardware that will no longer receive security updates should really fall on Apple—not on security researchers, security blogs, or blog readers. Let's hope Apple eventually figures this out and starts giving users clearer notifications when they need to upgrade lest they put their digital safety at risk.


*It's unclear whether the computers that Net Applications identifies as "Mac OS X 10.1," which they say accounts for 2.69% of the Mac OS X market share, may in fact be running version 10.10 (with the trailing zero cut off, treating it like a decimal rather than a version number). It's highly unlikely that Mac OS X v10.1 suddenly had a significant resurgence in users, so I'm guessing that the mistaken dropping of the 0 at the end led to a bit of confusion in their October report.

About Joshua Long

Joshua Long (@theJoshMeister) is a renowned security researcher and writer. Josh has a master's degree in IT concentrating in Internet Security and has taken doctorate-level coursework in Business Administration and Computer and Information Security. His research has been featured by many fine publications such as CNET, CBS News, ZDNet UK, Lifehacker, CIO, Macworld, The Register, and MacTech Magazine. Look for more of Josh's security articles at security.thejoshmeister.com and follow him on Twitter and Google+. View all posts by Joshua Long →
  • http://gurueffect.com/ Michael George

    Thanks for the great, informative article Joshua. I’m sure it will be helpful for a lot of people… But of course, I am still flummoxed. I have a Mac Pro 3,1 (A1186) and I can’t upgrade beyond Lion. When I try from the app store, it says that it “cannot be installed” on my machine. Quad-core 3.0 ghz Intel processors; 16 GB RAM, and I’m absolutely positive it’s an “early 2008”, just like your article says I need. (And just like other articles say as well.)

    Do you or any of your good readers know why I can’t upgrade the OS on my Mac Pro? I would greatly appreciate any feedback. I verified my system data (link), so I’m about ready to yank my hair out. http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/specs/mac-pro-eight-core-3.0-2008-specs.html

    Finally: I realize this isn’t a support forum. But since this is the most informed article I’ve found on the topic, and is also highly ranked in Google, I figured this would be a great place to post for the others that will surely be arriving!

    • andrewi

      Your system is no longer supported. It is a Xeon based on the Core 2 Quad lineup. Your processor supports 64 Bit Operating systems but the firmware under it is 32bit. Any Mac that doesnt have a 64bit EFI cannot boot anything after Lion as that’s what they dropped at the end of that release (SL was Classic, Lion was Rosetta, ML was EFI32)

      You can still install Yosemite using rEFIt but it’s not for the faint hearted. Google a guide and start reading. Once it’s done its great though 🙂

    • Kris Parish

      Michael, you can install Yosemite on your machine but it will require some workarounds. I am currently booting my Mac Pro 2,1 into Yosemite using my GTX 970 (pc) video card. Do a search for pikes yosemite installer and you will be fine as long as you can follow the instructions. Good luck!

  • stefenski .

    I am still using snow leopard 10.6.8 on a 2007 macbook.
    Was wondering why there were plenty of spinning beach-balls on safari, and google messages of no longer supporting this browser. Starting to get concerned , but not realising the lack of support. – they still managed itunes , which made we think all was ok , until recently when not even that

    That is pretty shocking, not to mention downright stupid , and thoughtless behaviour from Apple..

    like you say it is very misleading running software updates without any notification

    I’m really put off this company now. there must be plenty of people who still have no idea. shocking.

    maybe I will put linux on it. I use linux on a separate machine already.
    linux mint is a breeze.. imo

    big thank you for the information

    • http://freemusicformormons.com/lds-ward-choir-music roger pack

      You can get newer versions of firefox and chrome for these old versions of OS X. Odd that they would quit supporting old hardware, though, really. Wasn’t that the point of them controlling the hardware, so that they would have only a limited set to support so that they could control it better? Oh well, sticking with 10.6 for the time being

    • hyhybt

      They have to keep iTunes updated going back as far as possible because of its connection to iOS devices; people getting a new phone or tablet or updating *its* OS aren’t happy when they find they can’t sync to their existing computer anymore.

      • Gypsy Sojourner

        I think the article is spot on in that they keep itunes updated because they have a financial incentive to do so. And your point further exemplifies that.

  • Vince

    Hi! I have a MBP mid 2009, I recently installed Yosemite but it does not seem to work, it would show a progress bar that does not complete and the mbp does not boot to its desktop. What can I do?

    • http://www.gmtdev.com/ Gav

      Leave it going, first boot it is doing some crazy disk check, yes it looks like the machine has crashed. Try leaving it overnight.

      Also, google “yosemite ssd trim”, if you have an SSD drive you will find Apple in their inf wisdom have nobbled you there too (like me, my Intel 530 SSD is now in an external USB2 and I boot off that). There is a possible fix, see “trim enabler”.

  • BluJelly

    For those in the can’t-upgrade-to-yosemite camp, how about going the way of Windows XP users in leaving our boxes off the internet? My Lion is still useful for running my printer and scanner in my private network.

  • http://freemusicformormons.com/lds-ward-choir-music roger pack

    kind of expecting instructions so “here’s a hack for how to install mountain lion anyway” (I’m told they exist [1]). For me I’ll probably just do what most people are doing–close my eyes and stick my head in the sand and keep using SL until some really big virus or exploit is found…it’s working great why quit? 🙂 (I do update to the latest firefox/chrome though [which still support 10.6] and use them instead of safari, FWIW).

    [1] see comments http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/03/snow-leopard-updates-are-probably-done-here-are-your-os-x-upgrade-options/

  • Rose

    So I have a 2008 iMac. I am having issues with it not wanting to update to Yosemite nor does it want to update my Publisher Plus application. It doesn’t seem to be recognizing anything going on through the App Store. I was recently cleaning off my iMac and I may have accidentally deleted stuff but I am not sure what to do and my apple care has expired so I can’t get any technical help from Apple. I also cannot run apple diagnostics (computer doesn’t recognize the command).

  • Bill Rolfes

    Thanks for the post; it really helped me understand what is happening with support for my laptop, a mid 2007 Macbook. Today I looked for an app to securely hold password/credit card info and was surprised to learn that the positively reviewed apps all required something higher than 10.6. I guess its time to face the future and retire the trusty little black Macbook.

  • Lukas Palmer

    Great article, I’m glad there are still people that see the use in messing around with different operating systems. I am writing this comment on a 2009 MacBook, which OS X broke on a while ago. Ironically, right now it dual boots windows 8.1, but not with OS X but with ubuntu. (I’m not a mac hater, I’m just too lazy and keep forgetting to triple boot.)

    • Gypsy Sojourner

      wait so are you telling me I could do the windows thing without getting rid of os x? see i’m using a long term borrowed macbook, it’s a weird situation. i’ve had it for like 3 years, but the owner still considers it hers and could ask for it back. so if i do something, i’d like it to be reversible or at least not remove the original operating system.

  • beardedman

    I realize there are people on a budget who just can’t afford to buy a new computer every SEVEN years, but the rule of thumb has always been three years for business and about five for home use. If your seven-plus year old Mac is still useful, OK, keep using it. Just make sure you add a newer browser and some strong anti-malware/virus protection and be careful!

    A quick look at the Apple Store shows some nice deals on refurbished Macs/Macbooks under $1K that should appeal to a seven-year-cycle owner on a budget and all will run the latest stuff. It’s really worth trading hardware in a regular cycle and Time Machine makes it all extremely painless to move to a new machine. All docs, apps and settings come over seamlessly. You *do* run Time Machine don’t you?

    • vonMeiklund

      You should not mislead people into thinking their older incompatible applications will move over to new OS platforms and hardware that is not necessarily compatible. Many 3rd party apps will have to be upgrades as will programs like Disk Warrior for the 64 bit environments.

  • LYNND

    As a longtime Mac user, since long before owning Apple products was “cool”, I find it best to go with the philosophy that if it isn’t “broke” don’t fix it.

    A brand-new OS may receive security updates, yes, but it also represents an unknown that will be subject to exploitation. A very new OS will invariably have security issues Apple hasn’t even discovered yet. So this idea that you are automatically safer with a newer OS isn’t always true. Let it ride a few months and see what “flaws” become apparent after the fact (not just with security but installation on older hardware).

    IMO, as long as there are antivirus programs that run in Snow Leopard, Adobe Flash upgrades and browser upgrades, Snow Leopard is about as secure as anything else. Has Apple published anything to suggest otherwise? When Apple officially urges Snow Leopard users to ditch the OS, that’s when you know it’s time. Until then, use a good antivirus program and stay off shady websites trolling for content you shouldn’t be looking for in the first place (cracked software, adult sites, etc.)

    There was a flurry of speculation some months back about Snow Leopard support and similarly dated hardware being dropped by Apple, but I in digging deeper I found that Apple didn’t release a security update for SL because the flaw for which the security fix was initiated didn’t exist under Snow Leopard. Finally, if Apple no longer intends to release updates for Snow Leopard why are they still selling retail copies?

    My concern with this rush to speculation is that it will essentially push Apple to drop Snow Leopard and similarly-aged hardware that much sooner. Apple needs to issue security updates at least as long as is customary in the Windows world. Apple products come at a premium, for one, and second more and more people are updating smaller format electronics like tablets and smartphones much faster than desktop systems or all-in-ones. Given the trend to hang on to desktops (and even laptops) longer than was once the case, if anything Apple and associated developers should prepare for supporting these systems longer because consumers are less likely to upgrade desktop Macs (and PCs) every two years like they did back in the 1990s and early 2000s. Now that the pace of desktop system upgrades has slowed down, so too should the rush to ditch former operating systems and hardware.

    In closing, I don’t want to see posts like this essentially serve to encourage Apple to believe that their user base is more agreeable to a forced upgrade path than their Windows counterparts. Back in the ’90s and early 2000s upgrading your home computer every two years made sense because there were leaps-and-bounds improvements in the hardware/software functionality. Nowadays improvements are incremental and only the most serious gamer or photo/video editor really needs to pursue them. The rest of us are still plenty fast on 5+ year-old systems. Apple ought to take typical usage and upgrade patterns into account when deciding what OS systems (and hardware) to relegate to legacy status.

    • Coyote

      I understand – and sympathise with – you in that if you have to upgrade hardware to get a new release to work, there is a problem in the design of the software (for an OS when we’re not talking major changes in architecture). Five year old hardware is indeed fast, depending on what you bought originally. Maybe you should try (however futile it might or might not be) to encourage Apple to consider this (as compatibility of older hardware). But as for software maintenance, it all has a life cycle and that is a different topic entirely. That is the choice one makes when using commercial (actually all software but especially commercial) software, as unfortunate as it is (but as a user of only open source I can tell you that it can be annoying, also, to have to update OS releases – I’m a programmer who really understands the life of software and it can be really annoying, especially if there are regressions, but it all comes down to choices).

      Lastly, before I comment on some of the things you write, I want to say: it is very possible I don’t have all the reasons that some systems won’t receive the new(er) OS. From what I’m getting from your message, it is to do with older hardware and – I presume – newer OS releases not supporting said hardware. Five years does seem like a rather short duration if it is indeed about hardware; five years for software life cycle isn’t necessarily short (although it could be longer like Windows XP was, for example, or CentOS is even [10 years before EOL]). I’m not at all criticising so much as looking at this from a programmer’s perspective (and one who agrees with you about five years hardware shouldn’t be having problems).

      “Has Apple published anything to suggest otherwise? When Apple officially urges Snow Leopard users to ditch the OS, that’s when you know it’s time.”

      They don’t even publish when Mac OS X EOL is (as above) and you’re hoping they’ll publish something like this? And do you really think Apple sees everything, that they put serious security flaws in on purpose? If not, then how do you expect them to know when to publish this supposed proof? I would interpret that them saying [you] won’t receive further updates is them urging users to ditch the OS (as you say) but that is maybe me not having to deal with the hassle (so only logical and not out annoyance too).

      “In closing, I don’t want to see posts like this essentially serve to
      encourage Apple to believe that their user base is more agreeable to a
      forced upgrade path than their Windows counterparts.”

      All software has an EOL whether official or not. It is unreasonable to expect programmers to maintain all software they ever supported because it is impractical to do so (as a programmer who cares about quality or even who want to do more than just do programming). This is not necessarily related to profit (though it plays a part in proprietary software, of course, it isn’t necessarily the only reason): FOSS also has EOLs and for good reasons. Yes, that means even software that is free and open source (anyone can change it) has an end of life.

      “Apple ought to take typical usage and upgrade patterns into account when deciding what OS systems (and hardware) to relegate to legacy status.”
      It isn’t about hardware or usage – it is about maintaining the ageing software. Unless you want them to stop releasing new (major) versions of the OS then this is how it is. To not make new releases makes zero sense at all levels, though, unless it is going to be a discontinued line of products.

    • Dave2222

      hear hear..

  • VidJa

    Thanks for the article. I own both a brand new MBP with core i7 and 16 GB and al late 2007 MB (the white plastic one, still working perfectly with 4 GB of ram and a 256 GB SSD). To be honest. I don’t see that much difference in performance between the two and in fact I think that technically the MacBook would have no problem running Yosemite, but Apple won’t even let me try……..rediculous.

  • Antonio Montana

    You are dramatizing and exaggerating my friend. I use Leopard and Snow leopard still a lot without a problem. I don’t care about no recent security updates , what matters to me more is whether the most recent possible browser on that system stilll renders page well and flash still works. Never have I been hacked and should it happen one day, oh well. There are so many worse things in life. Just relax & enjoy life, seise the day and don’t worry about minor things.

    PS Yosemite is ugly, Mavericks is much better.

    • Dakota Paille-Sassa

      i agree Yosemite is VERY ugly.

    • Coyote

      I know I won’t change your view and I’m not trying to –
      I’m making the point for others who might instead think that maybe
      you’re right (you’re careless and you’re wrong) but then see it differently. And if that is no one, that’s fine too – it gives me something to do, and there is the chance it will be of benefit and that is what matters to me.

      “You are dramatizing and exaggerating my friend.”

      You’re doing exactly that about their point. You might not care about security but others do because others understand the (or some of the) implications. It isn’t dramatising or exaggerating anything at all; security is critical and just because you don’t care if your contact information (or passwords, credit cards, bank account, whatever else you might have) is revealed doesn’t mean everyone else is unconcerned.

      As for whether you’ve been breached before (you say it has never happened), I’m going to be completely honest and blunt: those who *don’t care* about security would be the least capable of discovering they have been compromised and there are *many* ways for attackers to *hide* themselves – even from those who *do care* about security (even security researchers that the industry looks up to, have been compromised). And the number of threats *constantly* increases. There are so many worse things in life? Yes, perhaps like identity theft (of you or even someone you care about)? Computer security is relevant to this. But even if it wasn’t, why would anyone want problems of any kind? Why would anyone dismiss a problem because there are worse problems (this isn’t the same thing as perspective because you’re instead neglecting the issue entirely – not caring at all doesn’t involve acknowledgement so perspective is removed from the equation). Ironically you refer to flash, a very badly designed piece of software, which has a horrible security record, including many 0-day vulnerabilities, but yet you don’t care as long as it works. That proves my point exactly – that you are incapable of knowing when you’ve successfully been attacked.

      • Antonio Montana

        Well, you got that off your chest – happy now? Just relax and have a coke and a smile pal. You spend too much of your energy on this issue.

        I’m pretty sure I’ve never been hacked though, and I don’t even have a credit card. And for people are afraid of identity theft..the best protection is having as less online identitiy as possible.

        • Coyote

          Amusing. You completely missed my points. Incidentally, I don’t drink soft drinks (why anyone likes CO2 infused [or more correctly dissolved] in a drink is beyond me but in any case I prefer water), I never could smile (and frankly I don’t care one bit about it). I didn’t spend much energy on it at all – that you think I did amuses me even more because you’re making absurd assumptions about what writing takes out of me – someone you don’t even know (and I assure you it is a good thing for your sake but more so mine). To think that it takes energy to type for anyone, full stop, is amusing to me, too (but maybe I’m wrong; maybe it does take energy for some).

          As for this: “I’m pretty sure I’ve never been hacked though, and I don’t even have a credit card. And for people are afraid of identity theft..the best protection is having as less online identitiy as possible.”

          Sorry to break it to you, but it isn’t only about being online (that you post here via Disqus is something). But you still missed my points, and I actually pointed out that it wasn’t for you in the first place because I know I couldn’t change your view (and I wasn’t trying to as I actually pointed out in the very first sentence). Perhaps if you read the first part of my message (and retain it before you respond with essentially the same message as before[1]) you’d understand this, but you didn’t and instead seem to think you understood my points (but you didn’t understand any at all – or perhaps you did but you just don’t care, which is the same thing in the end).

          [1]”Never have I been hacked and should it happen one day, oh well. There are so many worse things in life. Just relax & enjoy life, seise [sic] the day and don’t worry about minor things.”

          “oh well”, “relax & enjoy life”, “don’t worry about minor things”. And what is your response? “Just relax and have a coke and a smile pal.” (you also say the same thing about whether you’ve ever been breached).

          • Gypsy Sojourner

            “I never could smile (and frankly I don’t care one bit about it)…”
            oh laugh out loud, for real, i love this!

        • Gypsy Sojourner

          now whose dramatizing? Cute. The point is, just because something is not an issue for you, doesn’t mean it is not for others. Why does it concern you, what another person does with their time. Move on, brother. Have your coke and smile as you happily enjoy the problem free secure computing you assure us you have. We’re happy for you.

  • String_Bean

    There’s no way to hack it?

  • JollyJim

    Informative article, but I already know my PowerPC G5 OS X 10.5.8 can no longer be upgraded. It’s upgraded as far as I can do it. Buying a new (er) computer is out of the question, not so much the cost of the CPU, but $10k+ in software upgrades.

  • dijo

    hi folks, at the end fo the day apple-os is just a BSD operating system … you’ll be able to find your way around BSD or Mint or Ubuntu with no problem at all … just a hint, if you want to save some money, do consider trying BSD or Ubuntu … put your music on some DVDs or an external hard drive, and off you go, you have nothing to lose, I didn’t regret it a minute, and I never looked back, my transition to Linux was some 6 years ago … good luck

    • Coyote

      Yes, some would be fine with it but it still has a learning curve (I’m a long time Unix user though in recent years I’ve restricted myself almost exclusively to different Linux distributions). But the learning curve is a problem to users who don’t really care how something works as long as it works (and that is the real issue here). As a programmer I know this rule very well. But who cares about me? It’s about the users and why it isn’t as simple as it is just BSD (and no it isn’t) so Linux or BSD (both of which have differences) would be a simple, problem-free migration. This isn’t even considering file system differences that makes it even more complicated (backups should be regular but even those who do have regular backups would be better off making a new full backup, when moving to a different system.. and all would have to restore everything they wanted whereas if it was the same FS it would be easier). But Mac OS X isn’t BSD:

      It’s (based on) BSD and NeXTSTEP. And it obviously isn’t BSD licensed (though it does include BSD source code). Meanwhile, Linux is GNU and while much of regular use (commands for example) is compatible, Linux isn’t BSD and there are quite some differences (there are also differences between the BSDs themselves!). I can imagine most who are used to Apple would have a lot more problems with BSD but many would probably also have problems with Linux. Why so many refer to a specific Linux distribution as if it is Linux itself is beyond me, but that is probably immaterial.

      But I don’t think any of that matters to many who are running Mac OS X (though they should know it isn’t as simple as 1-2-3): they have a working system and they don’t want to have to change to a new environment and relearn things (and there is a learning curve, especially for those who aren’t used to the command line). For instance: you don’t install things the same way (and you can have a complete working system with no GUI – maybe you can have this with Mac OS but this point implies differences that matter in any case). The shell tends to scare many people – understandable seeing as it is quite powerful and it is incredibly easy to mess up a system with the shell (deliberately but also accidentally – the latter especially if you aren’t experienced or you’re distracted – even for a moment – or you’re exhausted / unable to make a good judgement call). I don’t know if any of the BSDs (nowadays) have any GUI software install/updaters but last I knew they didn’t (perhaps it is also because X was in its less stable days – and it still has issues – and I didn’t need a GUI anyway). I’ve used many Linux distributions over the years (but I refuse to use Ubuntu) and they typically do have GUI installation (I never use it though – I’m a command line power user) but it isn’t the same thing as Mac OS X. It isn’t BSD and it isn’t NeXTSTEP – it is based on them and while many would be fine with the migration many would not be. Those that aren’t fine with the migration are those who actually care (and/or have many more concerns – which is wise of them).

  • Heathen Samm

    I’m one of the people who hasn’t upgraded to yosimite (from Maverick), by choice. Why would Apple release a flawed mandatory upgrade? WiFi problems? I don’t need to shlepp my laptop into another room every time I want to use it reliably. Google has a page full of Yosimite problems. there are some offered solutions, then more solutions for when the first don’t work. The best solution would be for Apple to fix their new OS themselves instead of having the users doing unpaid work for Apple. I’ll just keep Firefox updated and run virus scans.

  • Deqwanne Jackson

    My computer is no longer supported, and I’m not dishing out $3,000 for a new Mac when all I do is web browse.

  • More Bits

    I agree this is exaggerated. I still enjoy trouble free stable operation on multiple machines running leopard and snow leopard.

    Common sense goes a long way when using any computer.

  • Iain W R Dean

    i have an early 2008 imac A1224 wich wont allow yosemite to install

  • missfit

    Thanks so much, I’ve been ripping my hair out trying to figure out if this older Mac can support applications, like e.g. accessing the crapload of music I have purchased and need access to via iTunes. It’s a twisted road for Mac users who can’t afford a new Mac. Not cool, Apple. Not cool.

  • vonMeiklund

    I agree with the advice in your post the most. Tim Cook is an evil troll who doesn’t understand that the brand was only improved by respecting and supporting the hardcore of mac coders and users. He has thrown his lot into the trash of apps and quarterly returns. This will work a while longer.

    Meanwhile the hardware on the new mbps and mps has not improved in durability or life as the company is cutting costs and making the classic GM mistake.

    The 17″ MBPs from 2011 are lovely machines and hard to find these days. You can find them and upgrade to Yosemite – but I recommend partitioning or running off an external for internet and ios support purposes.

    Anyone in design and graphics running large format big scanners or hi end printers is going to find the new O.S. systems a pain. And bottom line this is a huge IP theft by Apple and Adobe- they’re concerned about being ripped off? Excuse me baby, I don’t want to be forced to buy the same music in different versions for the rest of my life.

    Much of what is going on right now is theft by lawyers, restraint of trade, and consumer rip off. If Apple won’t support their older products, then they are waiving the right to prevent some enterprising people from stepping in and providing that support rather than doom all that equipment to the junk heap.

    For a company that likes to make mewling little noises about caring about the planet etc. Not! There is a continent of lost toys out here that should be refurbed, supported and in schools and young kids hands for cheap which Apple is endeavoring to obsolete. Evil.

  • po

    Puma? Haha. I’m using Jaguar on my G3.

  • Richard Chudy

    Joshua, I have a MacPro3,1 running 10.6.8, it is a quad core Intel Xeon processor. Can I upgrade to Mavericks/Yosemite and will my programs continue to function? Adobe CS4 programs including PS, AI, Dreamweaver, etc…. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

  • http://www.andresbelalcazar.com Vinci Andrés Belalcázar Yabur

    Great article. Thank you so much. But i think some people can run Yosemite in 2006 mac pro…

  • Gypsy Sojourner

    oh sigh, it sure gets me despondent. planned obsolescence is a real bummer. I may have to consider your suggestions at the end because I surely can’t afford a new device and even if I could I can definitely not afford to get all the adobe programs that I need. whatever, first world problems, I guess. Thank you so much for writing a technical article that I can wrap my head around. This was very clear and informative. Or maybe just getting savvier than I used to be. Or maybe both. Thanks!

Sign up For Our Newsletter

Get the latest Mac security news direct to your inbox.

{"url":"\/marketo\/json\/add-to-newsletter","data":"list_name=Blog Roadblock"}