switching to Mac

[pigoo3]

I still managed to find some 2009 models for the same price, 150 bucks.

That's pretty good. And for a similar price…a 2009 Mac-Mini is wayyy better than a 2005 model! How much ram does it have?

With OS 10.7.5 , so in theory I could install an higher version later. What's the newest version I would be able to install, later?

You could install 10.8 for $20 now or later. Or the latest OS El Capitan (10.11) for free now. But…would recommend having at least 4gig of ram.

And how long would I be able to 'last' and be safe enough with OS 10.7.5, if at all? a year or two?

Kind of hard to say. I haven't seen any security updates for 10.7.5 in quite a while. Snow Leopard was unofficially declared no longer supported Feb, 2014 . Thus it's been almost 2 years since then where 10.7.5 (Lion) has sort of been in a gray-area…or on the "chopping block". Hoping for another 1-2 years might be overly optimistic.

- Nick

 

[chas_m]

"Safe" is a relative term.

Discontinued operating systems that don't receive further security updates become less and less "safe" over time, but remember this is starting from a position that is not equal to Windows. Macs are hugely much "safer," even older ones, than contemporary Windows machines due to the fundamental software design differences.

That said, risk increases after an OS version is older than three years. At that point Apple, stops updated it for security issues, and (generally) developers follow suit shortly thereafter (with a few exceptions -- I think Firefox is still supporting 10.6.8 and higher, as is Flash, but it is not clear how much longer that will continue). Thus, my general advice to all Mac owners is "don't fall farther back than three OS versions, and when you get to the point where your hardware is not compatible with the latest OS version, it is time to START looking at getting a new(er) machine."

As Nick says above, if you can get a 2009 Mac mini for that great price, that's a direction you should consider. It won't be supported forever, but it should be good for another round or two of OS updates, and more importantly can run the current OS X version, which will be updated for another three years. As Nick also said, if that model is RAM-upgradeable, do that (preferably to the max that model can handle). If you're feeling adventurous, you could swap out the hard drive for an SSD and really make that machine hum along nicely, but of course that's more money and effort (there's an iFixit guide on how to do either of the two mentioned upgrades).

I originally suggested a 2011 or later Mac mini because those are more "future proofed" -- it's quite possible Apple will drop support for the Intel Core 2 Duo used in the 2009 models at some future point, though I'm not sure the next go-round is going to be that point. As I said earlier, once Apple drops support for the hardware, you have about three years of security updates coming and then you probably need to look for newer hardware for "safety" reasons (and other good reasons). This is not intended to say "don't get the 2009, get the 2011," it's just to let you know what the medium-term future is on these machines. The 2011 and later "unibody" Mac minis are of course more powerful and thus more expensive that that bargain you're looking at, but they are also somewhat less upgradeable.

If you can indeed get a 2009 Mac mini for $150 or so, I'd jump all over that. Spend a little extra to upgrade the RAM, install El Capitan, and check out a slightly-slower but generally modern Mac experience. By the time that 2009 is genuinely obsolete, my guess is you'll have moved on to a better Mac anyway.

 

[throw_windowsou]

thanks guys, all good to know. The 2009 mini I mentioned has only 1 gb ram, so not great. But needing 4 gb or more of RAM ? I never use that much ram, even when I am doing lots of stuff.

Yes it's a well known fact that Mac OS is much safer than the XP piece of trash. God I hate it. It was a mistake to live with it for all these years. The Mac costs more, but I am sure it's worth it.

 

[MacInWin]

YOU don't need or use that much RAM, but the OS needs (and uses) that much to handle what you want it to do.

 

[throw_windowsou]

YOU don't need or use that much RAM, but the OS needs (and uses) that much to handle what you want it to do.

so you are saying that Mac OS needs 4 gb RAM to do little more than basic tasks ? It's like, no matter what you do, it's never really enough. I think I'll let it go again.

 

[MacInWin]

What I am saying is that Apple recommends 4Gb for the OS to run efficiently. In practice I have 16Gb RAM and don't worry about it, but even with 16Gb if I open too many memory hogs (I'm looking at you, Parallels!) then even in 16Gb I see pretty high memory usage. Right now I have open on my machine Safari with two tabs, Messages, Mail, iTunes, Maps, MS Outlook and Activity Manager, plus a card game for when I get bored and Activity Report says I'm using 6.84 GB memory overall. I have a lot also running in the background, mostly utilities I installed to keep an eye on things for me (S.M.A.R.T. monitors, temp sensors, and the like). I also have Carbon Copy Cloner on a schedule in the background as well as 1Password and Dropbox daemons spinning back there, too. It's surprising how many things are going all at once, if I think about it. I have dual monitors and I spread these things out so that I have the data when I want it.

Could I eliminate some? Sure, but the memory wasn't that expensive and I like having the features available so I choose to keep them going. But I will tell you that the recent versions of just OS X won't run well in 1GB of RAM, right now one process named kernel_task is using 1.19GB just by itself.

 

[pigoo3]

so you are saying that Mac OS needs 4 gb RAM to do little more than basic tasks ?

Apple recommends 2gig of ram for either OS 10.8 (Mountain Lion) or OS 10.11 (El Capitan). The reason why we are recommending at least 4gig of ram is to have a better experience. If you prefer to go with the minimum amount of ram (2gig) no problem.

- Nick

p.s. FYI. Windows 7 (64-Bit), Windows 8 (64-Bit), and Windows 10 (64-bit) all require a minimum of 2gig of ram.

 

[pm-r]

Gee, I thought it was nice and refreshing to glance through this thread and read Nick's brief summary of sensible safe computing, but once again it got shattered with chas_m's usual computer overkill safety and security dissertation I see and wonder. But I guess it will never change and I hope not all readers take it as Mac gospel use.

PS: I still have several Mac clients still using their old vintage Macs and OS without any problems or security risks, and some are really safe — they aren't even normally connected to the 'net as they don't need or use it.

And some of those are still writing novels and books that are being published. One is still using floppies believe it or not, and I think she's into her early 90's… but I digress… but quit the old Mac "security" overkill generalization is unsafe please chas… but it can be…

 

[MacInWin]

pm-r, while it is possible, and sometimes even practical, to use older computers for specific uses, in these days most people get a machine so that they can get email, surf the web, use social media, basically get online. When someone comes her and asks about "Will this old machine work for me?" we should warn them that while the simple answer is "Yes" the reality is that it is not going to be as safe as a more modern machine. I have a friend who has a 1928 Whippet that he drives to auto shows. Can he do that? Certainly! Is that Whippet as safe as a modern car? Absolutely not! No strengthened doors, seat belts, air bags, save bumpers, lane warnings, blind spot warning, etc, etc, etc. So if my friend now comes to me and asks, "Should I buy this Whippet as a car?" I would have to warn him that while having it as a showpiece will work, he won't be as save in his daily commute. That's what chas_m did.

And for the person using floppies, if she is the one writing novels and books for publishing, she probably ought to update some. I'm abandoning disks altogether an an antique media. I think CD and DVDs are going to be going the way of Betamax and VHS pretty soon. Floppies are now practically impossible to be repaired, so if the drive dies, all those floppies are going to be pretty much useless. I hope she's not the writer. I'd hate for a 90 year old to have to start all over.

 

[pigoo3]

Up until fairly recently I was still using 10.6 & 10.7 on a couple of my older Mac's…and I didn't feel overly unsafe. But who knows…maybe I was rolling the dice (not sure).

I think that the difficultly is…how do we exactly measure the "true" risk of using an older OS. To do this we would need to know what threats are out there…and then figure out what threats we are protected from (Apple Security Updates). The difference being the threats we are not protected from (the risk). But even with unprotected risks…how likely are we to be the unlucky person to get attacked by an unprotected risk?? Who knows.

And of course even if we are using a newer OS version that's still supported by Apple with security updates. This still doesn't mean that we can't get attacked by a new risk/threat that Apple has not developed a "counter-attack" for (the bad guys are almost always at least 1-2 steps ahead of the good guys).

It sure would be nice if we had a super-duper clear idea of how risky it is to use various versions of the Mac OS. Some sort of quantitative comparative risk. A possible hypothetical example:

* Possibility of being attacked by a known risk (based on most recent Apple Security Update each OS has received):

- OS 10.4 = 1:100 (1%)
- OS 10.5 = 1:1000 (0.1%)
- OS 10.6 = 1:10,000 (0.01%)
- OS 10.7 = 1:100,000 (0.001%)
- OS 10.8 = 1:1,000,000 (0.0001%)
- OS 10.9 = 1:1,000,000 (0.0001%)
- OS 10.10 = 1:1,000,000 (0.0001%)
- OS 10.11 = 1:1,000,000 (0.0001%)

These numbers are just for illustration. The values for OS versions 10.8 thru 10.11 are the same…with the assumption being that these OS versions are still supported by Apple with the exact same security updates (at the present time).

As I mentioned. It would be nice to have data like this to help us understand how risky or not risky it is to use various OS versions at the current time (January, 2016).

- Nick

p.s. Remember. This is just a theoretical conjecture on my part. Nothing mentioned is based on any sort of actual data or facts.

 

[MacInWin]

And I think we also need to keep in mind that the "threat" need not be truly devastating, just something that will cause the user to have to undertake a major repair, or lose some data, not destroy the machine or wipe the drive slick or some other total disaster. So the browser "malware" that hijacks the browser and locks it up is a threat for the naive user who ventures "just that once" into the Internet with an older system for which there is no Ghostery, Adblock, etc. They hit a malware infested advert on an otherwise legitimate site and get locked up. They may lose time, or have to reformat/reinstall or otherwise spend a lot of time to recover from that event. Or the user who tries "just that once" to do online banking or financial work only to find their identity or money stolen because of the lack of security features. One can hope that the bank/investment house, or whatever the website does is going to provide security by refusing that older system, but there is no guarantee that it will. And if the user bought that system for that purpose, then they have wasted their money. I'm not saying that a totally new system is going to be immune to problems, but the bottom line is that developers of protective software aren't going to invest in an old system. And that is the "threat" that older system face that newer ones don't. An educated buyer should at least know that the threat is there, even if we can't neatly qualify it. Then they can make a better-informed decision on how to invest their money.

 

[throw_windowsou]

And I think we also need to keep in mind that the "threat" need not be truly devastating, just something that will cause the user to have to undertake a major repair, or lose some data

Yeah that's nothing. It's just some data and potentially stuff you worked on for months, and probably identity theft too.

As for people who do something 'just this once', they are the same people who will do it more than once, and the same people who will, sooner or later, realize they should have never done it, ever. Then there's the ones who will do it 'just once' and keep doing it, and they LIKE it, well that's how the criminal mind works. That's the only difference: dumb vs. insane.

 

[throw_windowsou]

for now I just ended up getting rid of XP and bought another PC with Windows 7 on it. Hopefully it will work out better. Almost 3 ghz Dual Duo Core, 3 gb RAM and only 80 gb hdd but no biggie as I have 1 tb external drive. Price paid: 55 bucks, a Dell small form factor bought from a business seller, with warranty.

I really want a Mac but it looks like for now I will have to let it go. Nevertheless, thanks to all for the info supplied.

 

[pigoo3]

I really want a Mac but it looks like for now I will have to let it go. Nevertheless, thanks to all for the info supplied.

You should have jumped on that 2009 Mac-Mini for $150 (that was a great deal)…and not much more than the $100 you were going to spend on the 2005 Mini (this would have been seriously regretted later if you had pulled the trigger on it before this thread). But then the 2009 Mini also needed a ram upgrade (probably around $17 for 2gig or $30 for 4gig).

For $180 ($150 for the Mini + $30 for 4gig of ram + free El Capitan upgrade)…you could have had a nice little Apple Mac-Mini. $180 is a pretty low "entry fee" into the world of Apple computers and the Mac OS X. But understandable if now is not quite the time.

- Nick

 

[Aussie]

for now I just ended up getting rid of XP and bought another PC with Windows 7 on it. Hopefully it will work out better. Almost 3 ghz Dual Duo Core, 3 gb RAM and only 80 gb hdd but no biggie as I have 1 tb external drive. Price paid: 55 bucks, a Dell small form factor bought from a business seller, with warranty.

I really want a Mac but it looks like for now I will have to let it go. Nevertheless, thanks to all for the info supplied.

It isn't often i feel i can contribute something. I certainly don't have the knowledge of most of the people who have replied, i have read a number of the responses and you have been given good advice. It can get overloaded. I would like to give my experience. I have a mini in the house in fairly regular use. It's a mid 2007 model, recently upgraded to 10.7 which is as far as it can go but that will be useful for some time yet. I see you as a someone starting out on macs and you don't need to fly too high. I started 10 years ago on very old original , coloured , G3 iMacs that had been abandoned to a recycle shop, they were wonderful and even though everyone else was ahead of me i could still do a lot. All my macs have been 2nd hand or cast offs. I currently use ( in addition to the mini ) a 2006 iMac ( 4,1) can only run 10.6 but i'm attached to it. Sitting beside me is a bigger computer with Yosemite installed but i can't be bothered with it. Granddaughter uses it for Minecraft. I'll use it when i have to. As for safety, i never considered this a problem. Have done all sorts of payments. I have a variety of passwords and don't store them. So far macs are still safer than windows but applying commonsense to operation is the most important factor. The person who told you to avoid the PowerPC chip was spot on ,Apple moved to Intel. My mini is an Intel, the other good advice was the amount of RAM, i would say 2gb minimum in smaller computers, some have a maximum they can accept and still function properly. I was advised by an upgrade company that my iMac couldn't take more than 2gb but they advised a different type of RAM from the ones i had so i changed to that. Maybe you could still consider a mac alongside windows and don't worry too much about what you get other than Intel processor and make yourself aware of the largest system that can be run on anything you buy. You don't need to be up to date by the sound of it for what you want and don't try and upgrade systems without learning what the system requirements are. As for throwing them at all walls or out the door.. A lot of us have felt that way but often it is due to our lack of knowledge.