That said, yes, the hardware seems to have a shorter shelf-life than would be ideal. Your computer is, what, 2005 vintage? Seven years is too short, but still an old age in the world of technology, and longer than most competitors’ hardware lasts.
Since 10.6 that has definitely not been true.
While that may be true w.r.t. stability, the functionality, graphics, and polish have only gotten better. Security, too: consider FileVault 2. That’s what I like.
[1] Except for the abysmal changes to Exposé. Luckily there was a hack to get the Leopard version back: http://superuser.com/questions/118424/old-leopard-expose-on-...
Huh? I am hoping that my sarcasm radar didn't pick this up. But, most software still runs perfectly fine on Windows XP. In fact, all of our university's Windows computers still run Windows XP (with up to date Creative Suite, Office, SPSS, etc. versions). Since Windows XP was released in 2001 (!), that's eleven years and counting.
What rat race?
There are Macs too old for the latest OS X, yes, but they are pretty old, and were able to keep up-to-date for years.
Of course you were, you were not able to update Safari anymore. And why would you be?
> In my view Apple is charging users for service packs.
Right, 10.0 to 10.8 is exactly the same OS, just 8 service packs, exactly... (you're joking right?)
That's not how it works.
You either go on with the program or you get left behind.
>Eventually I was not able to run safari anymore which I have never forgiven them for.
You could run your old Safari just perfect. You just couldn't run the latest versions. Which you kind of caused on yourself.
Especially since the OS went to some major transitions to more modern technologies and APIs, which you opted out from.
>In my view Apple is charging users for service packs.
Sure, because the progress in any other OS has a much higher rate, and those features come for free...
(Not to mention that OS X versions cost 1/3 of what Windows versions costed, and now cost 1/8 of that, PLUS you can install the same bought version in multiple machines, so, more like 1/16 of Windows).
With windows I always upgraded because I wanted the new OS. I've never felt compelled to get the newest windows in order to get something to work (In fact I've had the opposite experience -- upgrade windows only if you want something to break!).
>You could run your old Safari just perfect. You just couldn't run the latest versions. Which you kind of caused on yourself.
Yes, by refusing to pay the $80.