The increasingly long lives of old Macs | Hacker News Reader

The increasingly long lives of old Macs

macworld.com

45 pointschris-at78 comments

2009 octo mac pro with only 8 GB of ram ... still using it daily for all rsync.net work related duties (which includes at least 2 vmware fusion VMs running at all times). Works perfectly. Is fast. Runs snow leopard without a hitch.

2008 Macbook air was in (hard) daily use and travel from end of 2008 to beginning of 2015. Would still be using it if not for 2 GB of RAM becoming insufficient for a browser with many open tabs.

I've owned a lot of computers of many different form factors and it's hard to think of anything that comes close in terms of physical design and durability. Maybe SGI workstations from the Octane2/Tezro years ... and current model supermicro rackmount servers.

I'm worried, however ... the new 12" macbook with a single port (which gets used up by the power adaptor) is a fatal flaw. I've wanted a retina MBA for years now and now that there is one, there is no way I can use it. I predict buying a max-spec 11" MBA[1] just before they go out of production and using that for many years.

[1] with two full-sized USB ports in addition to thunderbolt.

EDIT: also, I haven't checked recently, but I think there now exists a bootable PCIe SSD for 2009 Mac Pros ... which means if I max out my ram and switch to PCIe SSD I could very easily run this Mac Pro for another five years. I think there is a 4k capable video card available for it and the lack of fast SATA is obviated by the pcie SSD ... really the only thing missing would be USB3, but I can live without that...

My wife just got the new macbook and freaking loves it. I have not heard a single complaint about the single port. She uses an adapter for the rare case where she needs to plug anything additional in.

Her biggest complaint is she sometimes forgets whether she has it in her bag or not because there is so little weight difference either way.

I have an almost daily use-case of USB modem and AC power simultaneously.

AFAIK there are not any USB modems in the new USB form factor. I haven't looked at what the adaptor chain looks like for "old USB and power at the same time" ... what does that look like ?

I think a single USB port on the new 12" is designed to be flawed. Apple knows these things last 5+ years so the second release of the 12" will have a second USB port on the other side and X% of folks will re-buy that to remove the original flaw. That's one way to combat hardware that lasts "too long".

I have a 12" MacBook and I don't think Apple will ever add a second USB-C port to it. There simply isn't space. From my review[1]:

> Remember, the keyboard abuts the side. The only areas where ports wouldn’t intersect with the keyboard are already taken: USB-C on the left, headphone jack on the right. Adding another USB-C port would require sacrificing the headphone jack. I doubt that will happen any time soon.

Apple's solution is to sell an adapter that lets you charge and use USB[2]. Not pretty, but fewer peripherals need wires these days. Heck, I use the MacBook as my primary dev machine and the only adapter I use is for my Yubikey.

1. http://geoff.greer.fm/2015/04/19/2015-macbook-review/

2. http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MJ1K2AM/A/usb-c-digital-av...

Thanks for your answer, but I don't understand ...

The keyboard appears to abut both sides equally ... so while there may be an internal component in the current iteration that takes up internal space, it's not the external footprint of the keyboard that is determining port or no-port.

Perhaps I am missing something ? Genuinely curious...

The keyboard has depth from mechanical linkages, sensors, and a frame to mount everything on. It's also recessed so it doesn't touch the screen when closed. See a teardown for the exact details. Since the keyboard can't be made any thinner, the only way to add more ports would be to make the laptop wider or thicker. Neither is going to happen.

Then how do they have the port on the left hand side ?

What I am saying is, the laptop (and the keyboard) are symmetrical left to right ... so if they can squeeze the port in on the left side, they should be able to squeeze an identical port in on the right side.

The headphone port is on the right. With the current form factor, there isn't room for both a headphone port and a USB-C port on one side. I said as much originally:

> Adding another USB-C port would require sacrificing the headphone jack.

Have you seen a MacBook in person? As soon as I did, I found this quite apparent.

> I haven't checked recently, but I think there now exists a bootable PCIe SSD for 2009 Mac Pros

OWC has such a thing [1].

It's a bit pricey. If you want better than the built-in SATA II, but without such a high price, they also have a PCIe card that provides a SATA III interface for a 2.5" drive that you supply and attach to the card. This card is only $60 [2]. This can be used for the boot drive.

You can also get a nice boost for external drives with a $60 PCIi card that gives you 4 external USB 3.0 ports [3]. They also have similar cards, except that instead of 4 USB 3.0, they give you 2 USB 3.0 ports and 2 eSATA III ports.

I don't think any of the USB 3.0 cards from OWC are bootable. There are bootable USB 3.0 cards available from other places [4]. The key is to get one that uses the same USB 3.0 chipset that Apple uses in later Mac Pros that had USB 3.0. From what I've read, it appears to be the Fresco Logic FL1100.

My main work machine is a 2008 8-core Mac Pro, with 18 GB of RAM and an SSD. I wish it had more RAM, but other than that it should be fine for a few more years unless the hardware break.

My main home machine is a 2009 4-core Mac Pro, with 32 GB of RAM, and SSDs for both main drive and Time Machine, and an external 1 TB mSATA SSD in a cute little case [5] for a weekly offline backup. This machine should be fine for a few more years unless the hardware breaks, especially if I toss in one of those USB 3.0 cards mentioned above, and maybe that SATA III card for the boot drive.

I wish I had more RAM in the work machine, but I messed the window on that. That's one thing to watch out for when using a machine long term. The price for a given RAM technology tends to start off high and then drop and stay low for a while...and then it tends to rise again as production is cut. Due to this, it often makes sense not to max out a machine when it is still fairly new--just get what you reasonably need. Then add RAM when the price drops. Usually at some point the price is low enough that it is cheap to max it out.

With my work Mac Pro I waited too long. I upped the RAM in that and the home Mac Pro at the same time, and it turned out taking the home one from something like 12 GB to 32 GB cost considerably less than taking the work one from around 8 GB to 18 GB!

[1] https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/PCIe/OWC/Mercury_Accelsi...

[2] https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/PCIe/OWC/Mercury-Accelsi...

[3] http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Sonnet%20Technologies/USB34PM...

[4] ...maybe. The web is not entirely consistent as to whether or not this is actually true. Also, check OS compatibility. Some of these are not compatible with Yosemite!

[5] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00LRZPNHM?psc=1&redirect=t...

Adorable! I've got a Dell E1505 laptop that I bought refurbished in mid-2006 for $650 that is currently running Windows 10. The biggest bottleneck was the hard drive, which I'd swap out to an SSD if I really intended to give it any heavy use. The Dell came with XP, I upgraded to the Windows 7 preview and let it sit, upgraded to the Windows 8 preview and let it sit, upgraded to the Windows 10 preview, and now it has full-fledged Windows 10 - so I ended up with a completely free OS upgrade path, too.

You can't run new Mac operating systems on old hardware, and for a few iterations now, you can't upgrade Mac laptop hardware. That's great that the writer thinks functioning computer hardware from 2008 is old, and that Apple hardware is that much better than alternatives. Working for a company where everyone's on Macbook pros (myself included since last August), the reality of Apple hardware reliability is quite different than what articles like this project.

> You can't run new Mac operating systems on old hardware

Uhm.. aside from when OSX began requiring a 64bit CPU, what are you talking about? I have a 2008 Macbook Pro and it's happily running Yosemite with no issues. Sure, it's slower than modern hardware, but not overly so.

I apologize, I should have been more specific - OS X operates on post-PowerPC Apple hardware just fine up until the 64-bit requirement, but Windows 10 runs on hardware dating as far back as 2003 - see http://www.techradar.com/us/news/software/operating-systems/... for specs.

So then, to extend your original comment... "You also can't run new Windows operating systems on old hardware."

There's going to be some point where old hardware will cease to run the latest OS... wherever the OS makers decide to draw the line, the line WILL exist, so it's not a valid argument for or against, it's just... a fact.

I think this article is a little misleading. I'm running a 2010 Macbook Pro that still works great. But the only reason I'm able to do so is because of its upgradability. Over its life, I doubled the ram and swapped in an SSD.

The Macbook Pros sold today do not allow HD upgrades. (I'm not sure about ram.) I doubt they will last as long as my current one has.

You can buy HD upgrade/replacement kits for the newer models from sites like iFixit and OWC. In that respect I think they tend to beat comparable PCs; I was recently looking into this question for an HP laptop I was considering buying and found that it had the drive soldered to the motherboard.

I believe the RAM is soldered onto the motherboard for all newer Mac models.

I'm in the same boat, with a 15" Mid-2010 MBP. I would love to be able to have a Retina screen, but if I do, I'll no longer be able have dual drives. I'm running with a 512GB SSD and a 1.5TB HD. I like being able to have all my photos and all my music with me. I also have the no-glare screen, which is a big win.

I like the thinner profile of the Retina, the much upgraded internals, and 16GB RAM, but it's just not worth the sacrifice in onboard storage. At least until there's a reasonably affordable way to have a cloud-based Lightroom workflow.

I think this is a common path for MBPs of the same age. I've got a 2009 model and upgraded the HD to SSD and memory a couple of times. The processor can feel a little sluggish but it still handles what I need it to. But that's not really special to macs. Hardware just got to the point where it was mostly good enough. Not being able to upgrade the new MBPs does make me think twice. Either I fully load it and pay the premium or risk feeling I need more of XYZ later.

Something I do like about my MBP, even after quite a few years of abuse it still looks in decent shape. The case, screen hinge and keyboard all still feel solid. Which is where lots of other laptops seem to fall apart. Though the battery and trackpad have seen better days. Something nice about macs is they are usually serviceable for quite some time, either via Apple or third parties - I needed a new power adapter recently and could walk into a shop and get a new one there and then. Trying to track down power adapters etc for short lived models from other manufacturers can often be a pain.

All in all I don't think it's anything magic about macs. If you bought a similarly specd and built machine from someone else you'd be in the same position.

My current daily work machine is a Thinkpad X61; according to the corporate property tracking system, it was acquired in October of 2007. It's never been upgraded, but with a dual-core 64-bit processor and 4 GB of RAM I can run most things I need and even start up a VM if necessary. I've been using it for several weeks now because I don't have a proper desk at my new location yet.

There's nothing magical about a Mac, you just have to pick something comparable instead of a $300 Best Buy HP.

I've been building my own computers for years. I upgrade my PC on the super cheap every few years (couple of hundred dollars). After a decade, I spent less money on a constantly upgraded PC than a single macbook.

I now have a quad core i7, 16gb ram, geforce 650ti, and an ssd I salvaged. I think in the decade of this computer existing I spent a total of 2 grand on it.

You can't compare a desktop with a laptop. They are completely different use cases, of course a desktop is fine years later.

Why? What makes a laptop not fine after a few years that a desktop doesn't have to deal with?

Being hauled around everywhere and put through all sorts of physical stress.

I think plenty of people take enough care of their laptops that the impact of physical stress is reduced. As others have stated, build quality probably has a lot to do with it. I think it's less Macs vs others than high build quality vs lower build quality. The fact that macs are just one of many builders (although possibly the one with the highest build quality) can skew this.

Regardless of whether some people can tiptoe around it and mitigate the consequences, a physical durability and portability is the main difference between laptops and desktops.

Sure, it's high-vs-low build quality, but MacBooks really do have something here that nobody else is doing: unibody aluminum frames, a big feature for durability, weight, and portability.

I sort of agree with this, except ... there is something magical about unibody metal construction. By anyone.

I don't understand why nobody else can make this leap ... it's a tremendous step forward in look, feel and function.

I don't have any particular affinity for apple, but there is no way I am ever buying a plastic computer again.

For those saying it's not unique to Mac. The Unibody pricing is one key factor that makes a portable device that doesn't fall apart at the seams and internal connections.

I have a distinct distaste for Mac. That being said, I think there is a little more here: when I started at my current gig we were using Toshibas - not cheap ones either, these were top-of-the-line. 1.5yr down the road they could no longer perform the exact same job that they started out with. The same can't be said of my Dell: it's a work horse more than 2yr later.

With Mac you can't loose. PC (especially laptops) can be hit and miss.

It's not a unique property of Macs. I've got the cheapest laptop I could buy in August 2001, a Toshiba that still runs...and runs fine with Wary Puppy or Win2k despite it's CopperMine 800mhz Celeron for many tasks. I've got a Dell workstation from 2008 that still has more cores than I can light up unless I try...and this Thinkpad, bought used, is 2010 vintage.

Computers tend not to go bad. Instead, jumping on the feature bandwagon that drives the product line model to profitability makes us feel that 800 million cycles per second is useless. In the early aughts, out in my garage I had bootlegged Windows Advanced Server running on a 40mhz 486DX2 with 8 megs of RAM full time to serve up the occasional file off the 340meg disk.

I got 2002 700Mhz HP still kicking. I still use one thinkpad from 2007 with core 2 duo every now and then (not enough ram and too slow hdd for daily work, unfortunately).

heck, I still drag around an old 2005/06 era 8.9" netbook I picked up for $300. It's tiny, gets on the internet ok, can connect to an external monitor/kb/mouse to turn into an impromptu desktop in a pinch, has a 250GB HD and two SD card slot so I use it to offload photos from my sd card at the end of a shooting day while out traveling and the other slot lets me expand the storage if I need.

I can use it to review my photos from the day and do some minor edits with gimp.

Bonus, it's about fast enough to run dosbox or scummvm and play standard def movies in vlc well enough. I can even emulate a Sega Genesis and hook up a controller and use it as a mini console.

It's been around the world with me many times, fits into the space a large paperback book would take. It's not "modern" by any stretch, is pretty beat up, but the large cheap storage device that happens to be a computer is very hard to come by these days. I've seen some newer devices with better specs, but they all insist on tiny SSDs, like 32GB drives, so they're an instant no-go.

32GB with a couple different SD cards for different use cases would probably work well. They've got 256GB SD cards now, so you could even just get one for all your needs.

I miss my netbook, which was terrible by current standards, I made it work as a dev machine for a couple months while in-between workstations at home. It wasn't ideal, but it also wasn't as bad as I would have thought. I'm sure it would still see use if my son hadn't somehow destroyed the screen.

The article talked about current releases supporting old hardware, claiming MacOS support going to 2007 is impressive. I got Windows 10 running on a Pentium 4 from 2006, and Windows 10 hardware requirements are unchanged from Windows 8.1, and 8.1's requirements are little changed from 8 (the advertising says it's unchanged, but very old machines running 64-bit Windows 8 are demoted to 32-bit Windows 8.1), and Windows runs on impressively small and cheap computers like the Intel Compute Stick.

The big difference there is that Apple eliminated support for 32-bit CPUs and Intel GMA. Consequently, there is very little 64-bit software on Windows, but on Mac practically any application can take many GB of RAM.

Computers do go bad, though. I decided I'd ultimately retire that Pentium 4, because the cooler is becoming less effective. (Also, it can't play HD videos from YouTube and it consumes lots of watts for what it does and has always made a lot of noise.) The fan in my Toshiba laptop from 2005 broke and made lots of racket while overheating. The fan in my HP laptop from 2009 kept getting clogged and eventually stopped spinning. My PowerBook from 2005 just one day did not boot anymore.

The 'unique property' that the article is about is the ability to run the latest, greatest OS. The PC equivalent would be running Win10 or a full-bloat latest distro like Suse and still be usable. The article isn't about systems that still work with antiquated functionality.

The Dell Workstation from 2008 [1] could run and probably will get loaded, eventually, with Windows 10. Currently, it's got XP Professional x64, Windows 8.1, Ubuntu Studio 15.04, and CentOS 6 and FreeDOS available at GRUB time...boots to Ubuntu by default. There's a Windows 7 VM, too just for grins. The Thinkpad GRUBs into Ubuntu 15.04 with Windows 7 as an option. It will also almost certainly get a Windows 10 upgrade over the next year, too.

[1]: To clarify, that's when I bought it. The model with Harpertown CPU's, etc. was available in Q4 2007.

Every version of OS X prior to Tiger (2012) dropped support for something (e.g. x86, PowerPC, G4s, G3s, !Firewire etc). Every version of OS X since Tiger has supported Macs as far back as 2009. The only systems supported prior 2009 by post Tiger OS X are the Core 2 Duo units were only in the high-end. If you happened to buy an x86 ( not x64) Mac then you got upgraded once from Leopard to Snow Leopard and that was it. iOS has even spottier support for hardware with older versions dropped at almost every release.

The reason for this period of longevity isn't that Apple dedicated itself to supporting these legacy systems, that's a decidedly unApple thing to do. When Apple adopts a new technology that changes something fundamental about their operating system (e.g. PPC->x86, 32bit->64bit), they dump support for legacy systems in 1 or 2 versions. The reason for this long period of stability is that hardware performance reached a plateau and the focus shifted towards smaller and lighter systems with increasingly longer lasting batteries.

Let's also remember that if you counted up every Apple Mac regardless of OS, they would account for less of the PC market than the number of machines running Windows XP (a 14 year old OS that Microsoft still supports). Or that Microsoft Windows 10 can run on any x86 or x64 CPU 1Ghz with 1GB RAM made in the last 15 years.

Windows 10 on any x86 since 2000? Not true. Windows 10 requires PAE, NX, and SSE2; and 64-bit additionally requires CMPXCHG16b, PrefetchW, and LAHF/SAHF.

In practice, this means Athlon64 (2003) or Prescott Pentium 4 (2004) or VIA C7 (2005) or later, minus some models due to Intel's insane market segmentation policy or driver issues.

Full 64-bit Windows requires a CPU from about 2006. After spending way too much time looking, I'm still not sure which ones.

Good to know, the specifications pages just indicate a 1Ghz processor.

I have and use a 2006 MacBook Pro 17" which Apple treats in a bizarre way. Latest version of Mac OS X works on it fine as do things like Photos (which sucks but that's another story) and iTunes.

But they don't support the hardware. It is considered (their word): obsolete. The battery died long ago (Apple actually replaced it once years ago when it swelled up) and needs replacing (the replacement battery also swelled up) and they won't replace it.

I also have a MacBook Pro 17" with a swollen battery (a bit newer though: early 2009)

Did you try having the battery fixed by a 3rd party? I remember a few years ago I mailed a broken Powerbook battery to some guy who replaced the cells. I think it was a a NiMH battery, but maybe it works with lithium-ion batteries as well?

I have a 2008 MBP 17" that's also gone through two swollen batteries. Most of the time now I use my work-provided Lenovo, but every now and then I need a big screen and Adobe Creative Suite (with a still-kicking Wacom Graphire2 tablet, circa 2003), so out comes the Macbook.

My parents still use an old G4 tower of mine I got in 1999/2000. They mainly use an iPad but they use it from time to time for accounting things and basic tasks an iPad can't handle.

Honestly, the case is still unbelievably cool looking. I want it when they eventually decide to get rid of it.

Good for you, good for me, good for America

In some ways this is good, but in others—a la Peter Thiel in Zero to One[1]—it isn't: if so many computers are "good enough," that indicates that innovation in the sector has slowed and that many people don't find the newer models compelling.

Another reading could be, "No killer apps take advantage of much faster processors and interconnects."

[1] My thoughts: http://jakeseliger.com/2014/09/24/zero-to-one-peter-thiel-an....

>that indicates that innovation in the sector has slowed and that many people don't find the newer models compelling.

It's ok to have it slow at some point. I, for one, don't particularly like "endless progress" (and with hazy goals, mostly for its own sake).

Better we learn to better use the tools we already have, and distribute them more evenly (1/3 of the world still lives in medieval like conditions, and the inefficiency with which the rest 2/3 uses the available technology is mind bogling -- I'm not even talking from an ecological standpoint, more like the useless "social boilerplate" that we use it for).

>"No killer apps take advantage of much faster processors and interconnects."

This is what keeps me from upgrading my phone (a 5s). I don't need a larger screen, and everything else is an increase in hardware performance. Okay, so the OS will be a little bit more zippy, but I've yet to run into an app or game that runs sluggish or won't run at all. There's nothing there that compels me to upgrade. Shy of this phone breaking, I don't see myself upgrading for a few more years. And judging by how many times I've dropped my phone on a hard surface with nothing but a few scratches/dents in the metal backing, I don't see that happening any time soon.

As for computers, were it not for gaming I'd probably still be using a machine I built in 2008. It was a dual core with 8GB RAM and an 8800 Ultra GPU. Then again it was built for the purpose of gaming, so of course it's going to have extra good hardware meant to last years. Nothing else I use my computer for is hardware-intensive enough to justify an upgrade.

And I'd imagine were it not for the tech un-savvy buying super cheap, under-powered machines that they promptly bog down with viruses, not many people would have a need to upgrade their compueters since all they do is use a browser and Office

One of the reasons I think is the magsafe connectors. I have recycled a stack of other laptops where the power port (and PCB underneath) were ground up from the inherit abuse and prybar leverage of a traditional connector.

I hate that they ditched it on the new 12". Seems like a step back. With a personal laptop that lives in the living room and dogs in the house, the MagSafe has saved many a fall from the sofa or side-table onto the ground.

It didn't save my wife's from being yanked on the floor. The newer Airs are so light that the force to pull them off some surfaces is less than what's required to break the magsafe connection.

"If you look at the system requirements for the upcoming OS X El Capitan, for example, you’ll see that it’ll run on computers as old as a mid–2007 iMac. More to the point, you’ll notice that those requirements are unchanged from its predecessor, Yosemite". Wrong. I updated my 2007 iMac to Yosemite and it was unusable. Each clicks takes seconds to respond. That is after I added RAM. I replaced it with Mint which works just fine. While hardware is durable, their system requirements are misleading.

My 2007 iMac runs Yosemite fine. Yosemite has bugs, but I don't think it's the hardware. That's why I'm liking forward to the stability release, El Capitan.

I got a white MacBook in 2006. My school bought it for me because they had to burn some money budgeted for disabled students (I'm deaf) and I was doing a correspondence course that required a computer. I bought it off the school minus depreciation when I graduated and used it for several more years. When I upgraded in 2011, I gave the white MacBook to my brother, who is still using it to this day. I replaced the ram, battery, hard drive and power cord (twice). The trackpad and screen hinge are a bit tired. But as a netflix/email/facebook machine, it's still providing my brother with reliable service after 9 years. I'm awestruck. Neither my brother or I is particularly gentle with our electronics, either.

The 2011 MacBook Pro is also still running fine.

you can get the same life out of a Windows machine if you don't install updates and don't install shady executables.

I have a couple netbooks with the latest Windows 7 patches and they run just as bad as they did when I first got them with Windows XP. I've been debating upgrading them to Windows 10...

try 7 RTM without updates and Opera browser. that was my only config that worked just barely

I've got a free mac from a friend who upgraded to a latest retina model - it was a 2009 Core2Duo 15" MacBook Pro. I've put a 128GB SSD in(cheapest kingston one), bought a new charger, cleaned it throughout and it works perfectly well. It's really impressive.

At our company we are normally not allowed to order Mac laptops. An argument similar to the one in this post while pointing to my 2007 MBP that I was still using convinced my manager to shell out the extra $500 or so compared to the crappy HP laptop last year.

It's not that Macs last longer than PCs or are somehow more robust, most $1000+ machines will last longer than $500 machines.

My Lenovo W510 benchmarks the same or better than the T430s they're handing out now at my office. The only reason I have to upgrade is that I'd like a battery that last longer than the walk from 1 meeting to the next.

That was my point: they do last longer. Our preferred laptop was around $2,200 and the MBP came to around $2,800 (including Apple support) so they were both high end laptops. However, my colleagues who got the HPs two years ago already have had keyboard failures, characters on keys being rubbed off, etc. Not to mention the horrible cheap plastic feeling throughout that I feel after using a MBP for so long.

I think you're pigeon holing all PCs based on a bad experience with 1 brand. That's like saying all gasoline cars are poor quality and you should only buy electric cars based on a poor experience with GM.

As a hobbyist I have always been frustrated with the price of used Macs, even ones that weren't even usable anymore. I just wanted an old G3 or Quadra to goof around on, and guy still wanted $600 for them. C'mon!

Keep hunting around. I was able to get my "dream Mac" of 15 years ago (a PowerBook Pismo G3 with max RAM) for just over $100. Still works fine and was a nice separate screen for chat or distraction free writing with WriteRoom, at least until Dropbox discontinued PPC support this year.

The thing is that this is mostly anecdotal. I had a mid-2010 MacBook Pro and I finally had to replace it at the end of last year after a whole year of trouble with the hard disk - got the cable replaced first (which helped for a while), then tried to put the HDD in the CD drive slot using an enclosure (so I could use the CD drive port) but that failed after a while too. Seems like the logic board is kaputt.

I did drop it a few times over the course of its life - that could've had an impact (pun intended!) but that's difficult to say.

I've been planning to replace my 2010 MacBook 13" for a few years. Each year it keeps doing everything I need it too, and the new systems don't seem like enough of a jump. I upgraded to 16gb of RAM and a 750gb hybrid drive. It hates doing anything computationally intensive, my IDEs take another few milliseconds to respond, but if I am patient it does everything I need.

I have no idea how long it will last at this point, I think it could be good enough for a few more years. If I put in an SSD it would give it another life.

Same here. My 2011 15" MBP is actually my fastest Mac by many regards. 2.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 + pretty nice GPU. I think I put it at 16GB ram, and installed an SSD. I still use it for all of my music stuff, and it doesn't feel slower at all than my 2014 MBP 13" Retina. For what I do with it, I don't see needing to change it at all.

My daughter is using my old 2008 aluminum MacBook daily. I've replaced the battery, swapped out the HDD for an SDD and bumped up the RAM from 2 Gb to 4 Gb. It's running Yosemite and everything is working great. Keeping my fingers crossed we can get another 2-3 years out of this machine.

I had a 2006 MacBook that finally gave up the ghost a few months ago after nine years of daily use.

Finally, I have an iPad 3 that's still going strong and running the latest version of iOS.

I replace my iPhones every couple of years so I can't speak to their longevity.

Although the original spec limited the 2008 alu Macbooks to 4Gb RAM one of the post-release firmware updates upped that limit to 8Gb. Mine’s been running fine with that, at least. Also, it’s on the support schedule for El Capitan.

Half of the appeal of using a Mac for me is being able to sell and buy used and keep up to what was up to date a year ago for >100$ annually.

Recently retired my early 2008 mac pro; replaced by... a hackintosh! I used to use that machine as a linux workstation, but I've replaced /that/ by a bigger one still.

And yeah, if there was a pro machine that wasn't ridiculous like the ashtray, I'd buy one... Instead, it's the first time I don't own an apple machine since the SE/30 days...

Hah, I still use my 2003 PowerMac G5 Dual 2.5GHz every now and then.

The 30" Cinema Display I got with it is STILL my daily monitor, although I generally hook it up to my MacBook Pro instead.

I can't believe how long they lasted, and the money I spent on them has been absolutely worth it. A lot cheaper than spending $600 every 2 years on a new system.

I gave my kids an ipad 2 and it's been through 3 years of hell, but it still works like a champ.

I still use my 1999 Powermac every week to drive my drum scanner, which requires a proprietary card and OS9 drivers. Works flawlessly, with original keyboard and mouse!

My other machines are a BTO 2010 Macbook Air and a 2011 Mac Mini with 16GB of RAM and two SSDs.

Using same 2008 macbook as article mentions with same upgrades, going great. Same can't be said for all macbooks though, 2011 range springs to mind as particularly prone to failure and the newer ones just don't feel as sturdy to me.

I still have a 2007 (or 08?) iMac in my office that I use to watch Netflix. I just replaced the HDD with a SSD some years ago. The machine still runs great on OS X 10.10.

The only thing that's a little off-putting is the screen's CFL backlight.

Was the backlight always off-putting or did it become off-putting gradually over the years?

If the former, can you describe what about the light is off-putting?

I ask because I'm interested in the aesthetics of lighting technologies.

I had an auto mechanic circa 5 years ago that ran his whole business from a System 7 mac, I think it was a Quadra series. The thing was caked in garage soot but seemed to be cranking along quite comfortably churning out estimates etc.

I have a Mac SE/30 FDHD (dual floppy) with external LaCie hard drive that still works.

Not that it's useful but kind of fun to boot up every now and then.

I have an original Apple Macintosh and 512Ke still in working order. Can't say the same for most of the floppy disks.

Proud mid-2010 MacBook Pro here. Replaced the HD for a 700 Tb ( or Gb can't recall ) for 30 USD. Replaced the top panel for FREE ( love Youth Apple in Taiwan, they used glue on a dislodged key then owned the mistake when the whole keyboard broke and replaced the whole top panel for FREE ). Everything else awesome. Only thing missing is HandOff with my iPhone 5s ( damn old bluetooth ).

I'm using my Quadra 950 right now, just updating the OS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com