Why all this resistance to updating/upgrading ?

Yes, RoaringApps was the website I was thinking of.
Thanks.

As to games, the first game we tried was Full Deck Solitaire - either the SD cloning had a problem with this or changing hardware triggered the message that the app cvould not be opened because it was corrupt.

The MS requirement to require re-registration is a pain. Are there other companies that require that as well when changing hardware?

As to the problem reading old floppies - I have a TEAC FD-05PUB that I have always used with previous versions of the OS. It didn’t work with ElCapitan.
Can’t remember exactly what happened and would have to see if I can find another old floppy to try to duplicate the problem.
For the time being I used an iMac with an older macOS I had sitting around, got off the floppies what I wanted and turfed the floppies after that.

I also have an external USB ZIP drive and a few ZIP cartridges that I have to check to see what is on them.

As to keeping the OS up-to-date.
If OS 10.14 is the last macOS to support MS Office 2011, that may just be the OS version I move all the current Macs to - especially since 10.14 may also be as far as I can take my 2012 MacMini.

As to games, the first game we tried was Full Deck Solitaire - either the SD cloning had a problem with this or changing hardware triggered the message that the app cvould not be opened because it was corrupt.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the copy process created a problem somewhere. Good that you got it going again.

The MS requirement to require re-registration is a pain. Are there other companies that require that as well when changing hardware?

Click to expand...

Yep, Adobe does that I know about personally. There may be others. Typically it's the "expensive" software developers who take more aggressive anti-piracy measures.

Again, with Office it's your decision about what to do. I use Office365 because for US$10/month I get six copies, plus each user gets access to One Drive for up to 1T each. That's pretty reasonable to me. I get all the updates (usually about once a month or so) for all the office products (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook, etc). Right now I have three copies installed with three 1T One Drive accounts, all for that $10.

My FD is a USB from Sabrent. And as I said, it works perfectly, if slowly. Takes forever to finally mount the floppy. Sounds like it's reading the entire disk before it mounts. However, once mounted, the files are read from it fairly quickly. There are no special drivers for it, it's just a USB drive. If the TEAC has died, you might look for a Sabrent. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00E9MD700/?tag=macforums0e4-20

I don't have any connection to Amazon or Sabrent, just a happy customer.

Please understand that this is just my personal opinion but it has always seemed to be easier to stay up to date in small increments. Before OSX system upgrades were sometimes accompanied by dramatic changes. OS 8 to OS 9 for example but since OSX the Upgrades have been punctuated by Updates. 10.1.1. followed by 10.1.2 and so on. Each update usually included a security update and a few new features or bug fixes from the previous version. Little changed in the way of function and if it did it was heralded by articles on the topic if one was interested enough to look. I never did an upgrade or major update before performing a quick search for; eg. what's new in OSX 10.1.2. that way I was prepared and if necessary could postpone the process until I found a workaround or replacement for an outdated or incompatible app. Or sometimes understood how to perform an old task in a new way. There was seldom more than one "change" that effected me immediately. If however I waited to update OSX 10.1.1 until OSX 10.2.0 there may be five things I need to learn or accommodate. If I let this put me off updating I could find myself in the position many find themselves in. Suddenly they are running an unsupported macOS, the next version is no longer available and the current version has so many new features altered compatibilities with both software and hardware (iOS devices in particular) that they turn on the developers, blaming them for making life difficult when in reality they (the developers) are just keeping up with technology. Lots of little steps are easier than one or a couple of big steps. The gap gets wider every day.


Sent from my iPhone

Rod Sprague said:

Please understand that this is just my personal opinion but it has always seemed to be easier to stay up to date in small increments. Before OSX system upgrades were sometimes accompanied by dramatic changes. OS 8 to OS 9 for example but since OSX the Upgrades have been punctuated by Updates. 10.1.1. followed by 10.1.2 and so on. Each update usually included a security update and a few new features or bug fixes from the previous version. Little changed in the way of function and if it did it was heralded by articles on the topic if one was interested enough to look. I never did an upgrade or major update before performing a quick search for; eg. what's new in OSX 10.1.2. that way I was prepared and if necessary could postpone the process until I found a workaround or replacement for an outdated or incompatible app. Or sometimes understood how to perform an old task in a new way. There was seldom more than one "change" that effected me immediately. If however I waited to update OSX 10.1.1 until OSX 10.2.0 there may be five things I need to learn or accommodate. If I let this put me off updating I could find myself in the position many find themselves in. Suddenly they are running an unsupported macOS, the next version is no longer available and the current version has so many new features altered compatibilities with both software and hardware (iOS devices in particular) that they turn on the developers, blaming them for making life difficult when in reality they (the developers) are just keeping up with technology. Lots of little steps are easier than one or a couple of big steps. The gap gets wider every day.

Click to expand...

^wisdom

Rod Sprague said:

In the last week I have posted to at least 5 threads where OP's have demonstrated an unwillingness to update or upgrade their devices.

Click to expand...

You've opened up a huge kettle of fish, and I only have a small amount of time to address some of your points. I created an entire Web page to address many of them:

Upgrading To The Very Latest Macintosh Operating System
Upgrading To The Very Latest Macintosh Operating System

I don't think that most users cling to OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) because they are necessarily enthusiasts of that version of the Mac OS (though it was an extraordinarily stable version of the Mac OS). I think that many folks had a huge investment in PowerPC software (Snow Leopard being the last version of the Mac OS that included Rosetta, and thus could make use of PowerPC apps) and that they 1) don't want to lose it, and 2)much of it is irreplaceable. For instance, I have an old iMac running Snow Leopard in my office mostly to keep OmniPage Pro available. OPP is a far more advanced OCR program than any OCR program currently available, and OPP never made it past Snow Leopard. I also have a couple more programs like that in Snow Leopard. Snow Leopard runs very nicely, and the old iMac it is running on is plenty fast...I could still use it as my primary computer if I wanted to, and sometimes do.

There are lots of reasons that folks don't want to upgrade to the latest version of the Mac OS. One of the biggest ones is that since Apple did away with the ability to do an "Archive and Install." it has become way too common for an ordinary "install in place" upgrade to result in decreased performance. The problem can be avoided by doing a "clean install" instead, but Apple has made that too much of a chore. (But a clean install usually results in a performance increase, not a performance decrease.) It would be great if Apple brought back the ability to do an Archive and Install; without it many users don't want to take the chance that upgrading will cause problems.

Another problem is that rotating disk hard drives, especially older ones, like to decide to fail when worked really hard. A major upgrade of the Mac OS will work a rotating disk hard drive really hard. Sometimes it's just better to leave things alone.

Doing a major upgrade of one's OS is no longer quick or dead easy. Especially if you do it right and backup first and do a clean install. What are the benefits? For many they are negligible. Since many of us only hold on to a Mac for three to five years, why even bother? After a few years we'll just get a new Mac anyway, and it will COME WITH a system upgrade.

Note too that Mojave converts all internal hard drives to the new APFS, even rotating disk hard drives. My personal opinion is that APFS isn't optimal for RDHD's. If one has a RDHD, it might be best to stop at High Sierra at most.

Why do some people prefer not to use iCloud? You can't figure this out? Have you missed all the news stories about how many security breaches there have been with cloud services? And the cloud as a backup is a huge bottleneck if you want to restore a lot of data. Plus, some folks just don't like the subscription model. A local hard drive to back up to or to offload data to makes a lot of sense to some users.

I think that most of the above points might merit their own discussion threads. They've each been discussed at length on other forums.

@Randy,

In other words, each to their own. Which is a fair and reasonable point.

One aspect you didn't touch on, and which is highly relevant for many users - is if a person decides to stick with Snow Leopard or even a later OS like El Capitan or Mavericks, they will find that their shiny new iPhone/iPad no longer syncs with their Mac (iTunes, Photos etc).

Then the only Backup (BU) options are iCloud or a third party app such as iMazing.

Apple has designed an ecosystem which, like it or hate it, means that all components of that system need to be commensurate with each other.

I much appreciate the time & effort you give to our Forums. I was just adding a codicil, so to speak

Ian

Randy, you said:

Why do some people prefer not to use iCloud? You can't figure this out? Have you missed all the news stories about how many security breaches there have been with cloud services? And the cloud as a backup is a huge bottleneck if you want to restore a lot of data. Plus, some folks just don't like the subscription model. A local hard drive to back up to or to offload data to makes a lot of sense to some users.

Click to expand...

But that same issue, security, is a greater problem with older, unsupported versions of the OS because those older versions don't get updates to fix security issues and block new threats. There have been some security issues with some cloud services, but I can only think of the one that Apple had when some celebrity accounts were breached in 2014. Since then Apple has instituted 2FA, which for some strange reason, some folks still resist, to prevent that same style breach. Since then, nothing.

I don't know much about "Archive and Install" but my install method is to make a thorough backup, test it, and then do a nuke/pave install every other upgrade. I'll do one "in place" upgrade because it's easier, but nuke/pave the next. You said that:

The problem can be avoided by doing a "clean install" instead, but Apple has made that too much of a chore.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is so much Apple that made it a chore as it is that vendors like Adobe and Microsoft have put such tight restrictions on registration (for anti-piracy reasons) that it is a chore to re-register their products. Cloning with CCC, testing that clone and restoring from it with Migration Assistant is not really much of a "chore," actually. But then having to contact Adobe and MS to re-authorize their software is a pain. Office365 makes it easier, but Adobe is still Adobe.

Had a couple of lingering thoughts about this topic. Randy pointed out that a clean install generally results in a faster machine, which was true in rotating hard drive days, but the difference in an SSD environment is going to be much, much smaller. A clean install is still a good idea every so often, but the "install in place" penalty in performance is much reduced in an SSD machine.

Also, Randy is dead on with his caution about APFS and rotating drives. APFS will drive rotating drives much harder than HFS+. Have a read of what OWC thinks: https://blog.macsales.com/43043-using-apfs-on-hdds-and-why-you-might-not-want-to

I must say, I can relate perfectly to what Randy posted.

SnowLeopard was the last macOS release that was not only extremely stable but also the last release where every feature and option we use worked as expected,
The only reason we updated was because some Webinar software we use several times a week was no longer compatible with SL.

We have about six or so Macs currently in use in the family, desktops and laptops, that are mostly used by people who just want the computer to work. I’m the only one with a bit of technical background, so I would like all the Macs to run on the same OS release to make trouble shooting a bit easier. So upgrading all of them every time a new OS comes out is not really practical since all Macs tend to be of different vintages and run different applications.
I would like to find a new “extremely stable” OS I can migrate all of them to (along the lines of SL) but that doesn’t seem to exist yet.
All Macs except one still use the rotating hard drives, only one uses an SSD. So it seems the best bet right now is to move everyone to High Sierra.

SnowLeopard was the last macOS release that was not only extremely stable but also the last release where every feature and option we use worked as expected,
The only reason we updated was because some Webinar software we use several times a week was no longer compatible with SL.

Click to expand...

And the only thing I needed with Snow Leopard that it didn't include was AppleTalk or any support we needed to run our old reliable HP 4ML Laserjet Mac serial network printer, but I guess that's starting to push things a bit too far into old software, but many still relied on it back in thos days.





- Patrick
======

I guess I don't know why SL was "extremely stable." It worked, yeah, sure, but so did every version after that, at least for me. No kernel panics, no sudden reboots, no strange behavior. Yes, things changed, but that's just part of changing an OS. So, at least for me, SL wasn't all that much more stable than anything else I have used, and I have used all of them from SL to Mojave.

As for hardware, I have one iMac that is 'stuck' at Sierra, and one MBP that is similarly limited to High Sierra. No problem, the Sierra one is my home automation server and Sierra does that task nicely. The MBP that is held to HS is a deep backup, just in case everything else dies, kind of machine. So in that case HS will be fine. Frankly, the MBP is also a backup for the iMac, just in case it dies on me, so it's configured for all the same home automation functions. And both are very stable.

Snow Leopard was "extremely stable" because Apple made it so.
It was pretty much a "clean up" release with a lot of code cleaned up and very few new capabilities.
It also became the jump off point for later releases - for a lot of them one needed to have SL installed to be able to upgrade.
I think it also was the last OS where Apple actually provided a DVD.

I'm not talking about kernel panics or sudden reboots, I haven't had those since I was playing with a Hackintosh...and that doesn't really count.
But I do get the odd quirks with El Capitan now and then.
Latest one is that my mouse every once in a while for no reason somehow locks into permanent "right click" mode when I do a left click.
Tried three different mice, a Logitch, a Microsoft and a Staples one.
They all do that occasionally for no apparent reason. I don't remember ever having that problem before.
Easy fix is to unplug the mouse and plug it back in again - then everything is fine for days or even weeks - haven't kept track.

That's not what I meant. I'll try to make it clear.

What is the definition of "extremely stable?" A dead horse lying on the ground is "extremely stable" but not very useful. Same for a computer that won't boot. So, what made SL "stable?" What, exactly, was so stable about it? And don't say that it didn't add features, it just "cleaned up the software" because that process can make things less stable just as much as it can make it more stable. I was in software development for more than 30 years, so I know exactly how that works. BTDT.

As for your mouse glitch, that sounds more like a hardware issue in the USB port to me. And it's probably NOT a function of the OS, as it's not widespread, but restricted to you, or maybe to a handful of others. I have had zero mouse issues with any of the versions since SL. Having an issue with hardware is NOT a symptom that the OS is not "stable."

So, you still haven't said what made SL so "stable."

In my experience, a "stable" system was one that had few defects (you can never say zero) and the ones that it had were well known and had work-arounds to avoid them. No surprises, no daily changes. Dictionary.com says stable is:

• not likely to fall or give way, as a structure, support, foundation, etc.; firm; steady.
• able or likely to continue or last; firmly established; enduring or permanent:
• resistant to sudden change or deterioration:
• steadfast; not wavering or changeable, as in character or purpose; dependable

.

Click to expand...

By calling SL "extremely stable" one implies that subsequent releases somehow were less so. All I'm asking is just how that is observed? Given that the subsequent releases all were "stable" by the definition, what made SL so special?

And if you can't tell, I wasn't that fond of SL. About the only thing it had going for it that subsequent releases didn't and don't have was Rosetta, but it was time to give up on all those old applications and move on. (Yes, I read what Randy said about OmniPage Pro, but does abandoning something old make the new less "stable?" In that case, a brand new car is, by definition, less "stable" than the '48 Plymouth sedan I learned to drive in because new cars don't have floor buttons for headlights.)

I don't think this discussion is getting us anywhere.
If you're looking for more reasons why SL was considered especially stable - called by many the "gold standard", you can read through a few articles about that here (and the user comments):
https://9to5mac.com/2018/01/31/snow-leopard-became-reliability-legend/
https://www.macstories.net/mac/reliving-that-snow-leopard-magic/
https://www.macobserver.com/analysis/going-back-snow-leopard/

As to my mouse problem - I tried different USP ports, the two on the Apple keyboard, one on a Dell monitor with a built in hub and also two directly on the Mini.
Same issue.
I initially thought the problem was the mouse, but three different ones from three manufacturers give me the same problem.
So eliminating USB ports and the mouse, that only leaves the OS especially since I have used that Mini and keyboard and monitor with previous OSs and never had the problem before.

But like most of these "quirks" on El Capitan, there are very simple work-arounds if you know what to do.
When this problem happened initially, I would reboot my Mac to "reset" the mouse; later I found out just unplugging it and plugging it in again solved the problem, at least for a while.

So eliminating USB ports and the mouse, that only leaves the OS

Click to expand...

Maybe try deleting the "Mouse pref pane .plist" file and let the OS create a new one. Just in case it's corrupt or just somehow goofy.





- Patrick
======

MacInWin said:

I don't know much about "Archive and Install" ...
I don't think it is so much Apple that made it a chore

Click to expand...

Yes, they really did compared to how it used to be. A number of years ago if you did an Archive and Install your old OS was deactivated and left on your hard drive in a folder called something like " Old System" and the new OS was automatically a clean install. You kept the Old System folder around until you decided that there was no longer anything in it that you needed anymore, and then you trashed it. That setup was dead simple, and it precluded the modern problem of an "install in place" leaving behind outdated stay-resident system software that causes conflicts and slowdowns.

kris, good reading, particularly this from the first article:

Initial experiences with Snow Leopard weren’t as blissful as more recent commentary remembers. The troubled rollout of MobileMe, iCloud’s precursor, was still an open wound. Soon after release, a major bug was discovered in Snow Leopard that would cause the home directories of guest accounts to be wiped completely. The issue was prevalent enough that Apple publicly responded and later issued an update, 10.6.2, to address the problem.

Early updates to Snow Leopard were packed with fixes to a long list of bugs. A 2009 article from iLounge on Snow Leopard’s reliability is filled with comments from frustrated users, some considering moving back to Leopard.

Click to expand...

and this from the second article:

And perhaps a few versions later, especially after the irritations of 10.7 Lion, one might have pondered the practicality of just staying with Snow Leopard. But here we are at macOS 10.13 High Sierra, and not only is going back in OS time impractical from a security standpoint, but we’d suddenly be missing features we take for granted today.

Click to expand...

and this from the third article:

Apple adapts. Security challenges continue. New hardware technologies enable a better, more responsive, more intelligent OS. We always move forward into the future, often forgetting that more primitive technologies of the past, while perhaps favored in memory, just wouldn’t cut it today.

Click to expand...

All of which sort of make my point about resisting change being somewhat mystifying.

But you are correct, you have an opinion and seem unlikely to change, so this discussion is going nowhere. So, I'm done.
*******
Randy, that makes sense, except for the last statement, "That setup was dead simple, and it precluded the modern problem of an "install in place" leaving behind outdated stay-resident system software that causes conflicts and slowdowns." I've never had any system software stay-resident and cause any problems at all. Maybe somebody else had issues, but my personal experience is that install in place works as long as you don't "install, install, install, install, install in place" for many generations. As I said, I alternate install in place and nuke/pave installations for upgrades, and I have had zero issues with it.

But this whole discussion is, as krs said, going nowhere. I don't have a fond recollection for SL, it was good, but time moves on. But if others want to reminisce about the "good old days," my experience is that nothing will ever disabuse them of the selective memory of times gone by.

MacInWin said:

Given that the subsequent releases all were "stable" by the definition, what made SL so special?

Click to expand...

I think that recent versions of the Mac OS have been extremely stable.

However, because so few people opt to do a clean install of recent versions of the OS, it's possible to get a highly unstable (extremely slow, buggy, with lots of rotating beachballs) installation that has outdated stay-resident software that has been left behind, causing a software conflict, which is difficult or impossible to isolate.

This doesn't happen a "lot", but it happens often enough that it gives recent versions of the Mac OS a bad rap. On just about every Mac discussion list that I'm on, I hear from one or two folks a week who have just upgraded their OS and their Mac is now either terribly slow or terribly buggy. Doing a clean install always fixes it.

This never happened under Snow Leopard because folks did an Archive and Install upgrade to it and there were no problems.

And, yes, Snow Leopard was extremely stable. It may not have been more stable than a **clean install** of, for instance High Sierra, but it was the first version of OS X for which Disk Warrior was just about never necessary (and only then for the rare case of a severely corrupted directory on a failing hard drive, which wasn't the OS's fault). Snow Leopard, which just a touch of routine maintenance, was extremely trouble free.

Randy, according to this: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2362057 the Archive and Install was not available for SL. Which is why I don't remember it at all. I started with Leopard and my first upgrade was to SL, so I did an install in place then and it worked well. So that mystery is cleared up!

MacInWin said:

...if others want to reminisce about the "good old days," my experience is that nothing will ever disabuse them of the selective memory of times gone by.

Click to expand...

Except that folks such as myself aren't looking backward through rose-colored glasses. I have an office full of Macs, with macOS 10.12, 10.13, and 10.14 running on them. And I have one iMac with OS X 10.6 on it. I have no problem directly comparing them. I do it every day. Nothing is being romanticized.

One other thing...my iMac running Snow Leopard is full of Adobe products. Adobe can drop dead before I'll be spending thousands of dollars to upgrade that software that works perfectly on that old Mac. If that old iMac dies I'll just purchase another old iMac for a couple hundred dollars to keep all of that expensive legacy software running. There's nothing in more recent versions of the Mac OS that I feel that I'm missing when using that old iMac.